• French banning "religious" clothing in schools. February 13 - 7:10 pm

• The Westboro Baptist Church March 09 - 11:24 am

• A(nother) New Bible November 28 - 9:30 pm

• Excommunication! June 03 - 8:12 pm

• Polygamy, HBO and the Mormon Church August 29 - 6:20 pm

Is there a religious news or religion in the news section somewhere? I was not able to find it which is why I dropped these thigns into the pot luck area.

Yes, viRginia, there is an "In the News" section.

No "In the News"?Thank God it lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, viRginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, it will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

Ok TomM thats not exactly what I was looking for as I wasnt wanting to create a new thread for ech news article but maybe creating one particular thread to dump the various news articles in it and branching off depending on how much discussion they generate. As this is your area and you are the moderator I will leave that up to you for consideration.

Dustin. First off I want to say that people, including christians, make prejudicial comments all the time. On this board there have been such comments made by persons towards myself as well. This is not to say that just because everyone else is doing it it makes it that much better but it does make it rather weak to use the terms libel and slander against one without condeming all.

Now as for the minister on that subject I am being objective in the rules of jury objectivity. The evidence as I see it and reported in the news leads me to believe that he was abusing her and she got tired of it and killed him. Listen to the words of her defense attorney. And dont talk about biases as the christian ttaliban have some of the worst biases on the planet.

I never said it was right or intelligent to use those verses as an excuse or justification of abuse just that it has been done. Like many of the verses in the bible that are used to excuse some of the worst and rotton and evil behavior on the planet. Those who do take the words of the bible and use them in that way are not good christians by anyone's definition I will agree. Nor are they ,more importantly, good humans. But then that sort of ignorance and hatred is not exclusive to the christian taliban.

Now as for myself. I am sorry for having a personal life that happens to be expereincing some difficulties right now. I am still attempting to be as objective as I can and in the initial reports I did not indulge in hate mongering christian bashing or let my biases get carried away with. I said the evidence raised certain supositions. Then I was told not to speak out of turn about this. I feel there is sufficient evidence to make the declarations that I did and I stand by those declarations.
He was a minister at a christian fundamentalist church that was described as a by the book minister. He was shot by his wife of 10 years. The police and prosecuters will not say why other than to rule out infidelity. Her lawyer has stated that she had a lot of reason and motives and that she is a bit emotionally overwhelmed right now. A lot of little things that added up over the years. Now this does not support or destroy the supposition that she was abused. But I made those original statements and I stand by them until sufficient evidence comes out to show them to be in error.

And trying to educate and spread the word about thigns that are going on is one way of relaxing as I did not get aggravated until AFTER I was uncalled for told not to make the comments I did. There was nothing "wrong" or incorrect in what I said. People are just all pissy and sensitive since it was a christian involved. Had I made those comments about a muslim or aethiest then not a word would have been said against me saying that. But since he was a minister he of course could not have done anything wrong and it is a great tragedy. Well sorry but ministers are human too. Nothing more and nothing less and are just as capable of doing the worst harms and evils. The only thing is they are in a position of power and authority that gives them tools they can use to carry out their actions.

Further bad news now. Georgia lawmakers have voted to use public funds to create bible study classes in public schools.

They are just bound and determined to undermine the vital seperation of church and state. Even though they say :The elective courses, according to the bill, are to "be taught in an objective and nondevotional manner with no attempt made to indoctrinate students," and should "not disparage or encourage a commitment to a set of religious beliefs."

Which is plain BS. Unless they also teach the books of mormon, the quoran and a comparative religion study it is indoctrination and the preaching of only one POV. Which is a support of relgion and unconstitutional as outlined by the first amendment as public funds are being spent to support this. It is most unfortunate that Georgia wishes to continue their slide backwards in time and not use that money to imporve the education of their students.

Actually a "Bible as literature" course does not require a "Quran as literature" course etc. any more than a course on Shakespeare requires a balancing course on Tolstoy.

However, I do have concerns over some of the specifics of the bill, such as the statewide mandate that all schools offer the course, and the specific mention that it "should not disparage ... a commitment to a set of religious beliefs (It would be more constitutionally sound if the bill mandated that the course content be religiously neutral, but then, of course, the lawmakers could not use it to pander to the religious right.)

"Are we to say that the world's best seller, a book that has influenced Western culture more than any other, is off limits to kids?" Georgia Sen. Tommie Williams, the measure's chief sponsor, told Reuters, adding that he was concerned about biblical illiteracy among students. "If you asked a kid what the Good Samaritan Law means, there's a history behind that that they probably don't know."

.......

"The broader issue is there are many U.S. conservative Christians who feel that public schools have become hostile to their faith," said Charles Haynes, a senior scholar with the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Virginia, which educates the public about free-speech issues.

Haynes said he believed the Georgia bill marks the first time a state has set guidance on how elective Bible classes should be conducted. A similar bill is being considered in neighboring Alabama, he added.

Haynes said the Georgia measure should have included safeguards to make sure the courses would pass constitutional muster, such as standards to ensure teachers will be properly prepared to teach them.

"This is not a Sunday school course," Haynes said. "I think the legislature didn't do its homework, didn't think about the ramifications of this."

Ok TomM thats not exactly what I was looking for as I wasnt wanting to create a new thread for ech news article but maybe creating one particular thread to dump the various news articles in it and branching off depending on how much discussion they generate. As this is your area and you are the moderator I will leave that up to you for consideration.


Never let it be said that I'm not open to suggestions.

BTW the Create a new conversation button is still active at the top of this page for those news stories that are certain to generate opinionated responses.

True a bible as literature course doesnt require the Qoran or anything else. However this doesnt smack of a bible as lit course but more of a state sponsored bible study class as in religion class as in support of just the christian religion class.

But I see what you mean. And I agree study the bible as a literary work and ascribe no special meaning to it (spiritual or divine) can be done in one specific class. And as long as its elective there wouldnt be a probelm as those who arnt interested woulndt have to go.

But this is what made me a bit concerned about this class: "The broader issue is there are many U.S. conservative Christians who feel that public schools have become hostile to their faith," said Charles Haynes, a senior scholar with the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Virginia, which educates the public about free-speech issues.

Thank you TomM. Hopefully this will be cool.

Knowing the Bible as a literary work is essential for a true understanding of jurisprudence, history, and English, in my opinion. We wouldn't have a problem studying the Koran in a Middle East Studies class or a class on Eastern Religions. Why not the Bible (again, provided it is done in a nonsectarian manner)?

That quote was by a first amendment expert concerned about the bill like we are.

The scary thing is what the author of the bill says:

Despite criticism, Williams said he was confident that the bill would be signed into law by Perdue, a Republican.

"We're obviously going to have folks that challenge the issue, but if we do nothing because of fear of a lawsuit, then school boards and superintendents can live in that fear and kids never learn what they might need to know," Williams said.
(emphasis mine)

MIkeC I am not concerned about studying the bible as lit. The use of public monies to do so is what I am concerned about.

Because this is the bible we are talking about do you honestly think that it can be taught in a secular manner in this climate? And there are many more texts that can give a better and more appropriate understanding of those things than the bible. At least as far as I am concerned.

Because this is the bible we are talking about do you honestly think that it can be taught in a secular manner in this climate?

To teach it "in a secular manner" would be to explicitly deny the possibility of its spiritual dimension. That would be just as unconstitutional as to preach from it.

I assume you really meant was to teach it within a religiously neutral curriculum. Yes, I believe it can be so taught. (It is possible.)

Given the agenda that the lawmakers have admitted, however, and the concerns of the First amendment experts who have examined the wording, I doubt very much that it will be taught that way.

Knowing the Bible as a literary work is essential for a true understanding of jurisprudence, history, and English, in my opinion

And there are many more texts that can give a better and more appropriate understanding of those things than the bible.

The Bible does not teach American jurisprudence, which is based on Rome's legal system, not Ancient Israel's, but an understanding of Biblical morality -- as interpreted the last 2000 years by the Church -- does help to explain the content of many of the laws.

Because of the influence of the Church during the "Dark Age," throgh the Medieval period, and into the Renaissance and the Reformation, an understanding of Christianity does greatly inform an understanding of those periods of European history. But again, it is Christianity as interpreted by the Church which is key.

And it is true that many feel that the English of the 16th century, especially as found in the works of Shakespeare and the King James translation of the Bible, is English at its most poetic, I would expect a Bible as literature class to use a modern translation. The point is to examine the author's message, not admire the word choices of the translator. A translation that feels more "natural, and is therefore more transparent is necessary for that.

Actually, if you're teaching "the Bible as literature," then I would suggest that the KJV is *precisely* the version to use. If you approach the text from a literary perspective, then why wouldn't you want the most flowery story possible? It's if you're teaching, for example, the historical-critical method (also a valid religiously-neutral way of running the course) that you'd want a more modern, more accurate translation.

I was thinking about how we use "translations" of the Canterbury Tales so we can see Chaucer's ideas more clearly. Also, because Hebrew poetic forms are different from English ones you would want a more "literal" modern translation to capture the nuances.

(MSTing as an hyper-stereotypical fundamentalist) What do you mean the historical-critical method is religiously-neutral? It not only denies the God Who dictated the Bible, but also Moses and the prophets who took that dictation!

TomM, you're speaking to a person who had to suffer through Chaucer in Middle English without the benefit of footnotes or a facing page translation, so I'm almost tempted to say that "the Bible as literature" should be taught in Hebrew and Greek.

Seriously, though, speaking from a literary perspective, the KJV is what's embedded in the language and the culture. If you want to understand the Bible's influence on these things, that's the approach you need to take, at least to start with. The NRSV just does not resonate throughout English writing the way the old version does.

Secular manner as in a public school neutral curiculum is what I was trying to say but missed. I sincerely doubt it would be possible or at the very least problematic to be truely neutral about this. Because if you go too neutral then you risk being told you are denying the spirituality of the bible and if you go too heavy into the religion then you risk breeching the seperation of church and state wall.

I'll go with the old english version of the KJV for the bible as lit class. Of course I'm partial to the flow and rhytm of old english.

The national Geographic Society is going to air an episode about the Gospel of Judas that they unveiled today.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Judas Iscariot, vilified as Christ's betrayer, acted at Jesus' request in turning him over to the authorities who crucified him, according to a 1,700-year-old copy of the "Gospel of Judas" unveiled on Thursday

This Gospel has been undergoing restoration and translation since 2001. It had been discovered back in the seventies and was sold to an egyptian antiquities dealer. When he was unable to sell it he locked it in a safe deposit box for the last 16 years. The National Geographic Society had it radio carbon dated and authenticated to the time period and region.

In this Gospel Judas is not present as a traitor but as the ONLY one of the apostles who was trusted and understood Jesus and was ordered by Jesus to turn him into the romans.

So this is rather interesting.

News item: People in America concerned about upcoming 06-06-06 day in June.

666 (for those who don't know) is the number of a name given to the Antichrist...the devil incarnate.

The reference comes from the Book of Revelation.

This observation seems strange coming from the same nation who wish to ban the Bible, remove the 10 Commandments from public view, ban prayer in public places, discredit God / Jesus at every opportunity they can get.

Does this make sense?

Just goes to show that no matter what superstitions don't go away.

And now for somethign compleately different:
WASHINGTON — In the political lexicon of the past few decades, when someone says "religion" the words "right wing" are almost sure to follow.

Now, a diverse group of self-avowed "left-wing" religious and spiritual leaders is building a potentially potent political movement - both to provide a counterbalance to the influence of conservative Christian groups and to reframe the debate over values to include health care, poverty and the environment.

The religious Left somehow that sounds like an oxymoron. In many ways these folks are just as bad as the religious right due to their pushing that religion is the only way to solve all the worlds problems and the usual stuff about their religion being the only right one. The saving grace is that they do have some good ideas on dealing with poverty, social inequity (the whole the rich should help the poor more) and the good caretakers of the earth ideas. So this kinda bears watching to see how this goes down.

John A. Lang: This observation seems strange coming from the same nation who wish to ban the Bible, remove the 10 Commandments from public view, ban prayer in public places, discredit God / Jesus at every opportunity they can get.
Luigi Novi: This nation does not wish to "ban the Bible", remove the 10 Commandments from public view, ban prayer in public places, or discredit God or Jesus.

Really? Could've fooled me. Seems everytime I turn around there's some new gripe about God / Jesus /Bible/ prayer etc. in the news.

I heard some months ago that in Britain couples were queuing up to book their weddings on the 6th of June this year just so that they could have 06-06-06 on their marriage certificates! Either us Brits are a lot less scared of the date than the Americans, or we've got really silly senses of humour ... or we're all eeeeeeeeevil!

My main concern is that some wacko(s) is/are going to use that date as a self-fulfilling "prophecy".

John A Lang. What is wanted in this country by many is a clear and definate seperation between church and government. A way of life that says you are free to have your religion but do not try to force it on me either through the front door or the back.

Callie: Probably the first two of your ideas the last is the corporate america.

Influx: Yeah that is definately something to think about. From what I've heard the police havent had any special warnings or alerts about it but are still goign to be paying attention that day.

John A. Lang: Really? Could've fooled me. Seems everytime I turn around there's some new gripe about God / Jesus /Bible/ prayer etc. in the news.
Luigi Novi: But what does "some new gripe" have to do with "banning the Bible"? The fact is that no one has tried to ban prayer or the 10 Commandments in public places. Ruling that prayer organized by public school administrators in public schools and displays of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms is unconstitutional is not the same thing removing them or banning them from public "view" or public "places". But if you can point to instances of these gripes that illustrate this, or an attempt to "discredit" God or Jesus, please do so.

The Ten Commandments have been removed from schools--does that count as a "public place?"

Callie: ... or we're all eeeeeeeeevil!

Well, of course! ;)

MikeC: The Ten Commandments have been removed from schools--does that count as a "public place?"

Yeah, but the same could be said for a court house.

Mike, John said that the nation wishes to "remove the 10 Commandments from public view" and "ban prayer in public places". He didn't specify schools, he said "public places", without a qualifier, a wording that implies all public places.

Yes, John was exaggerating, but both a courthouse and a school are public places, so part of his statement was correct.

John A. Lang: I suggest you do a Google search for "Jay Sekulow Live" (radio program) and for "American Center for Law and Justice".
R: Stalinist Russia Had No Religious Right.
Luigi: The Nation, AS A WHOLE, does NOT wish to ban the Bible, etc., etc.; however, some people and some groups IN the nation undoubtedly wish they could.
R: "A way of life that says you are free to have your religion but do not try to force it on me either through the front door or the back." Right now in California, somebody's trying to have a cross removed from a war memorial that's been there for years. Also, some kids in some schools have been told that they aren't allowed to (visibly) wear crosses, Jesus T-shirts, etc.
Luigi: Prayer INITIATED BY STUDENTS has been opposed as well.

Furthermore, and in conclusion, The Number Of The Beast is "SIX HUNDRED THREESCORE AND TEN", NOT calendar dates, bar codes, or anything else that everyone can think of that has three "6"es scattered through it.

MikeC hit the nail on the head as to what I meant. I apologize for not being more specific.

The 10 Commandments have been removed from in front of Courthouses & schools in several states.

I must add, there's even TALK about removing "In God We Trust" from our currency.

As it should be. Or should atheists not be able to use our currency?

MikeB: And in a theocracy there is no rights other than that by, of, and for the church.

MikeB: And yes that is bad behavior by the other side and I condemn that as well. TO each their own peace and place. Fair and equal treatment for all regardless of their race, religion, orientation or gender. To do otherwise is to be dishonorable and less than human. And as for schools. They all need to go over to uniforms anyhow to solve that sort of problem.

MikeB: The only student initiated prayer I have heard of being opposed is that of group prayer during school hours or otherwise during school controlled time. I have never heard anythign about individual prayers being oppressed.

MikeB: So the actual number is 670? Lovely that means I have to get the tattoo redone....;-) (That is a joke I hav enot had ink done as I have yet to find a picture that I think will still look good when I'm 70.)

John A. Lang: The 10 Commandments have been removed from in front of Courthouses & schools in several states.

Which are government or government-funded institutions. As long as this nation believes in and practices separation of church and state, that's how it should be.

I understand this line of argument, Josh, but I think there's an element of context that should be established--WHY are the Commandments being posted in school? They have undeniable historical, cultural, and to a limited extent, legal, existence. If a teacher wishes to post them in a history classroom, for example, I have no problem with it provided it is taught in a secular manner. My problem with the establishment clause is that it is frequently used or perceived as "no religion at all" when it was never intended for that purpose.

I don't see the currency thing as a violation of the establishment clause. Is it establishing a specific religion? As of now, atheists can use the currency on an equal level as theists. There is no significance to the phrase (so, in my book, I see no problem with removing it, but it should be removed through proper legislative channels and not as a violation of the establishment clause, IMHO).

Displaying the commandments as the commandments is an endorsement. Especially if they are in large ornate frames and the only relgious or legal codes displayed, or even if they are the only religious codes displayed with the constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

By showing them as a historical context of how humans have ruled themselves through history that would be considered by the religious folks as an insult and demeaning to the religious significance of them. So sometimes it is safer and better to just have no religioin than to have some sort of conflict start in over the meaning of the display.

Think about how the american flag is displayed. It has to be the highest flag on the pole or the leftmost and highest one in the row under US Code. This is because according to us the flag is the best and most important one.

If you put the 10C on the wall and have it lower or less promonent than another document folks will say that you are dismissing them or devaluing them.

Anyway I look at it having the 10C displayed , or not, is goign to peeve somebody.

The 10 Commandments have been removed from in front of Courthouses & schools in several states.

Well how would you feel if someone wanted to post a bunch of Islamic laws, or Buddist beliefs infront of courthouses and public schools?

The simple fact that so many want them posted in govbernment buildings in this day and age makes people making such a big deal about that day perfectly logical.

Me? I wouldn't care, provided it had no impact on how the law and school actually ran.

MikeC: Yes, John was exaggerating, but both a courthouse and a school are public places, so part of his statement was correct.
Luigi Novi: His statement was that the nation wants to ban the Bible, remove the Commandments from public view, ban prayer in public places, and discredit God/Jesus. He did not say that people want to remove the Commandments from “some” public places. He said “public view”. He did not say that people wanted to preclude the organization of prayer by public school officials, he said “ban prayer in public places.” His statement, therefore, is not true.

MikeB: The Nation, AS A WHOLE, does NOT wish to ban the Bible, etc., etc.; however, some people and some groups IN the nation undoubtedly wish they could.
Luigi Novi: Yes, but do these people or groups constitute any considerable number? Somehow I doubt it. Yeah, I could just as easily say that there are some people who’d like to make women barefoot in the kitchen again or make it legal to kill homosexuals, but then you would argue (correctly) that those people do not constitute any significant number of Christians.

MikeB: Prayer INITIATED BY STUDENTS has been opposed as well.
Luigi Novi: By who? Can you document this?

John A. Lang: The 10 Commandments have been removed from in front of Courthouses & schools in several states.
Luigi Novi: And rightfully so, since those are examples of taxpayer-supported property, the display of such things on which gives the appearance of state support of religion.

John A. Lang: I must add, there's even TALK about removing "In God We Trust" from our currency.
Luigi Novi: Yes, and I support that, since, IMO, it’s wrong.

MikeC: I understand this line of argument, Josh, but I think there's an element of context that should be established--WHY are the Commandments being posted in school? They have undeniable historical, cultural, and to a limited extent, legal, existence. If a teacher wishes to post them in a history classroom, for example, I have no problem with it provided it is taught in a secular manner.
Luigi Novi: Agreed.

MikeC: I don't see the currency thing as a violation of the establishment clause. Is it establishing a specific religion?
Luigi Novi: The establishment clause doesn’t say “specific.” The state should be entirely neutral on matters of religion of any sort, and leave such things up to the individual.

You know that the state has never done this. It has always had some connection to religion. The establishment clause was meant to avoid excessive entanglement, not the largely symbolic actions of words on currency.

"Public view" and "public place." You're splitting hairs--a courtroom and a school are public places, thus they are in the public view, thus to a certain extent, the statement is correct.

MikeC: You know that the state has never done this.
Luigi Novi: I know that it's supposed to, and should.

MikeC: It has always had some connection to religion.
Luigi Novi: And if by this you mean to things like requiring a belief in God in order to hold public office, then I would respond by saying that those things are wrong to. If you were referring to something else, then what?

MikeC: "Public view" and "public place." You're splitting hairs--a courtroom and a school are public places, thus they are in the public view, thus to a certain extent, the statement is correct.
Luigi Novi: The statement is not correct, because John did not say that the nation is trying to remove the Ten Commandments from public places. He said it is trying to remove it from public view. Removing it from courtrooms does not remove it from public view because you are still free to see it anywhere else, provided that taxpayers do not pay for it. And again, no one has sought to ban prayer in courtrooms or schools.

Hence, his statement is false.

Okay, they are being removed from view in public places, how about that?

*No, I don't know that it's SUPPOSED to because it never has. From day one, there has been entanglement between the state and religion. I was referring to the fact that the President was sworn in on a Bible, that the Constitution and Declaration make references (sometimes vague references) to a god, that we have a chaplain in Congress. Apparently the Founders did not consider these actions to be a violation of the Establishment Clause, and this suggests to me, that in order to remove these things, the Constitution must be revised with an amendment or the normal legislative process must be used.

Oops! I MEANT to say, "The number of The Beast is SIX HUNDRED THREESCORE AND SIX, not calendar dates, bar codes, or anything else that everyone can think of that has three "6"es scattered through it.". My apologies to all; don't know how I did that.
R: In the former Soviet Union, nobody had any voice in government unless he was a member of the only political party allowed, and one could only become a member of that political party if, among other things, he claimed to be an atheist. Therefore, professing Christians had no voice in government. I mention Joseph Stalin because he sent at least 20 million people to death camps, helped Nazi Germany conquer Poland, and said he wanted to kill every Jew in the Soviet Union, and probably would have done so if not for the brain hemorrhage that killed him. And, IMO, when Christians have no voice in government, that is the sort of thing that your society is headed for. Keep in mind that I do NOT propose that any other group have no voice in government. Now: as for a Theocracy, the only theocracy that the world has ever seen began when the Israelites left Egypt, and ended when Saul became king of Israel. There is a huge difference between (a) a theocracy, and (b) a dictatorship or oligarchy run by a religious order.
Luigi: "Women barefoot in the kitchen", as far as I know, has absolute zero to do with Christianity; I'm not sure where that idea came from. As for killing homosexuals, that idea MIGHT be somewhere in Leviticus or other OLD Testament books, but Christians believe that we are under the New Covenant, by which potentially anyone is redeemable, that ALL of us have sinned and need to be redeemed, and that homosexual behavior is just one more in a long list of things that are considered to be types of sins. And no, I cannot at this time document opposition to student-initiated prayer.

And, IMO, when Christians have no voice in government, that is the sort of thing that your society is headed for.

Well when every president this nation has ever had has been a self proclaimed Christian and nearly every member of the Senate and Congress has a membership in some church I would hardly say that Christians have no voice simply because we don’t use the bible as the basis for our laws and give special treatment ot Christians that we don’t give to any other religion either.

Nit: Jefferson was not a Christian.

MikeC: Okay, they are being removed from view in public places, how about that?
Luigi Novi: That's not what John said.

Yeah it is. It is what he meant by what he said.I understood what he meant, MIkeC understood what he meant by what he said why can't you?

And thank you MIkeC, the founding fathers where deists not christians, subtle but important difference.

Ok Stalin's SOCIALIST govt was not a very good one due to the person in charge and his cult of personality. I will agree that the way the Soviet socialist union worked was not very good to those who did not agree with the party line but that can be said of most governments including our own. It is just a matter of degrees of behavior against those who disagree. And it was not just christians who where repressed by Stalin as you yourself pointed out. And if we're gonna have leaders religion being described as part of how good or bad they are Hitler professed to be a good christian doing the lord's work.

As for theocracies that is a very subtle differece you make there as a theocracy in name and theocracy in fact are one and the same. A skunk by any other name would still smell as bad.... Right now there are several countries that can fall under the theocracy label. On the good side of the book Vatican City on the other side Iran.

MikeC: Okay, they are being removed from view in public places, how about that?
Luigi Novi: That's not what John said.

R: Yeah it is. It is what he meant by what he said.I understood what he meant, MIkeC understood what he meant by what he said why can't you?

John specifically said courthouses and schools.

R: And thank you MIkeC, the founding fathers where deists not christians, subtle but important difference.

The Founding Fathers were a number of faiths. Besides, they were talking about the presidents, not the Founding Fathers.

John said "remove the 10 Commandments from public view." I said this was exaggerating. John later said he admitted he wasn't specific and suggested he meant "courthouses and schools." Which is true.

Actually what started the whole semantics argument was up on 6/1 with this

This observation seems strange coming from the same nation who wish to ban the Bible, remove the 10 Commandments from public view, ban prayer in public places, discredit God / Jesus at every opportunity they can get.

Which is what Set Luigi off about the word choice.

And on that I had a few thoughts. This is supposed to be a site with friendly, respectful and polite debate (yeah I know supposed to be and is) between people. We are not hashing out treaties, deciding the fate of the free world or otherwise involved in anything that requires overly precise or anal syntax as long as the idea behind the words is gotton across.

I mean lets look at an example,and since this is religious musings, lets use the bible. The word choice, syntax and grammer have all been changed several times since the book was written. The precise definition of each word has changed over the eyars themselves even. BUt the ideas are supposed to still be the same no matter how the sentence is written and what words are actually used.

In polite and friendly conversation there is no difference between a loosely worded sentence and one that is overly wordy yet correctly precise from a grammatical and english major view.

True enough though I said that about the founding fathers since many of them later went on to become presidents.

And sorry about that MikeC but I just wanted to make sure what exactly was the whole quote so that the grammer police wouldn't get bent or accuse anyone of misquoting anything.

But basically what I was trying to get across was which is more important the words or the idea behind the words? If you can get the same idea across with two different sentences one of them 20 words long and with all kinds of fancy and high falutin talk or a more common and shorter one which is more appropriate and accepatble in common forms and forums like this.

R: Which is what Set Luigi off about the word choice.
I wouldn't say it "set Luigi off". He was merely responding to John's statement, which wasn't completely true.

R: True enough though I said that about the founding fathers since many of them later went on to become presidents.
This is where I'd disagree. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration and over 50 who were in the Continental Congress, I believe only four went on to be president.

And no, these discussions are not monumental events. They're friendly debates, but they are debates. If you want to prove a point, if you want to prove that your side is the correct side, you should probably be clear about it. And if someone corrects you or finds a flaw in your wording, they can do so without being rude. You can be friendly and precise at the same time. The fact that we only have the text between each other to go on in these discussions almost requires clear dialogue.

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison. Yup, four. Monroe fought in the Revolutionary War, but wasn't a Founding Father, and Adams fils was a son of a Founding Father.

Very well I retract my comments.

Pakistan is smarter than America!

Read this:

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=224650&GT1=7701

...and in Pakistan, Christianity is a MINORITY RELIGION!

So I take it you don't think much of the 1st Amendment?

I do believe in the 1st Amendment.

It's just if America claims to be a "Christian nation", they should've banned "The DaVinci Code" as well.

On the same note, why hasn't Pope Benedict XVI banned the movie?

John A. Lang: It's just if America claims to be a "Christian nation", they should've banned "The DaVinci Code" as well.

When has America claimed to be a Christian nation? I don't think we've ever had a nationwide vote on the matter. Nowhere in the Constitution nor Declaration does it say that we're a Christian nation. Who says that the United States is a Christian nation?

John A. Lang: On the same note, why hasn't Pope Benedict XVI banned the movie?

Perhaps he feels that as its just a movie, there's not reason to do so. Perhaps because the movie doesn't actually prove any of the character's claims, it only brings forth the possibilities.

John A. Lang: It's just if America claims to be a "Christian nation", they should've banned "The DaVinci Code" as well.
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that America is a diverse nation wherein no one person or group speaks for the entire country, how can you ban the movie if you believe in the 1st Ammendment? Isn't the 1st Ammendment all about protecting material that some wish to view, but which others find offensive? If someone makes a book or movie, and I wish to read or watch it, then on what basis do you argue that you have the right to tell me I can't? I'm not a Christian anymore, so don't people like me count to you, John? Some people may sincerely believe that the apocryphal Gospels that place Mary Magdalene in a different position than the canonical Gospels may have some merit to that. Don't such people have the right to express and explore such opinions? If you enact such a law, then aren't you telling anyone with any idea that other Christians consider offensive that they cannot explore these ideas, and that those who wish to listen to them are not allowed to listen to them? Do you think this is right?

I seem to recall more than one person here attacking you occassion because they didn't like your posts, and I for one, as well as others, have defended your right to do this, even if I disagree with the content of your posts. Should I not have done this? Should lobby my congressman to ban your posts if I don't like them?

John A. Lang: On the same note, why hasn't Pope Benedict XVI banned the movie?
Luigi Novi: Well, somehow I doubt that there are any prints of it in Vatican City, right? Aside from that, he has no power to ban it anywhere else, since that's the only place on the planet that he has government authority.

Free speech is good for everyone; a lot of people got mad at "The Passion of the Christ" too.

Luigi...forget I said anything.

Everyone else...ditto.

I will not debate this anymore.

"The DaVinci Code" is blasphemous & sacriligeous...that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.
(No disrespect intended)

That's a fine opinion (and I agree), but what does that have to do with it being banned as a nation? Wouldn't Jews, for instance, find The Passion blasphemous? Should we ban that to please them?

I happen to believe that eating ham is sacreligious. Should we ban eating ham as well?

To each his own, John.

I don't like ham.

Luigi...forget I said anything.

Everyone else...ditto.

I will not debate this anymore.

Out of curiosity, why did you post on a BB site for debating things if you don't wish to debate them?

What's BB?

Bulliten Board. Duh.

I happen to love ham. Especially with thick slabs of american or cheddar cheese (or both) on toasted bread with mayo and lettace.

I do not like green eggs and ham.

Would you eat them on a boat?
Would you eat them with a goat?

MikeC and R: MOST of the Founding Fathers were professing Christians, including Thomas Jefferson. More on that later.

R: Hitler said that he wanted to destroy Christianity, root and branch. Hitler said at one point that he was a pagan. OOps, I'm out of time.

It was a different blend of Christianity; while many professed to be Christian, they would be on the liberal end of Christianity today.

Dr. James Kennedy, Christian Scholar at WorldNet, says, and I quote:

"Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian...he was outwardly religious, but never experienced the new birth."

I call Godwin!

Oh, and this is *NOT* a Christian nation. The First Amendment reads:

"Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

If this was a Christian nation, it would read:

"Congress may pass laws respecting Christianity....".

I will not post on anymore of my opinions on this discussion.

I will not debate with anyone regarding my faith or beliefs anymore.

OOOOkkkkaaaaay.

Hitler also claimed that he was doing the christian god's work in destroying the jewish threat. He was raised a roman catholic but was never confirmed. As for what his personal religious beliefs was, he publically stated he was a christian. Including making this comment too the rechstag during a speech:"We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of the German people." He also made the following statement :"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

As for Hitler being a pagen or believing in it that is false. There are statements from others in the high command about Hitler ridiculing the pagen beliefs and to be pagen was as sure a ticket to the death camps as it was to be Jew.

Any criticism Hitler leveled against the church was due to it not being strong enough in its actions against the enemies of humanity and god.

Sources: Mein Kampf, and Wikipedia article. (I own a copy of Mein Kampf a very scary book that if it had been taken seriously at the time would have shown the world what was going to happen.)

That's your right, but I don't want you to think that we were trying to dump on you; we were engaging in a friendly debate and meant no harm.

R: And if we're gonna have leaders religion being described as part of how good or bad they are Hitler professed to be a good christian doing the lord's work.

No one ever views themselves as evil.

It's true, everyone justifies what they do to make it seem right. Hitler didn't just wake up one morning and ask how he could •••• the world off. I am sure that somewhere in his demented mind he believed that what he was doing was for the greater good.

Also, Hitler wasn't an idiot. There is no way that he would have had the support to execute his 'final solution to the jewish problem' if he alienated himself from all christians as well. Politicians often set themselves up to be more religious than they are, think Bill Clinton. This does not in any way, shape, or from mean that Hitler was in fact a christian. Also, even if he was a Catholic, he could have viewed the destruction of the protastant church as a Holy Crusade.

As for the Davinci code, I see no problem with the movie. I havent gone out and seen it yet, but then again, I havent seen many movies in the theaters for a while. I like Dan Brown as an author. I think that if people took the movie for what it is. As for the church trying to Ban it. Why should they? Does the Church need protecting, will this movie cause the whole framework of the church to come crashing down!?!? No. (actually, i think my church had a copy of it in our library, The Davinci Code, long before it was made into the movie)

Josh that is true. Hitler thought he was saving the world. But he is also an example of how far a society can go when it is led down an idelogical path based on hatred and bigotry with the religious zealotry and rightness of a "holy" cause. Just because the christian taliban haven't devloped someone able to cohese them the way Hitler did doesnt mean that it isnt impossible for them to do so in the future.

Also like Derrick said Hitler was a politician and a prime example of the most crass and base powerseeking kind willing to say and do anythign to get in and stay in power. Working both sides against the middle if need be.

As for the Code well I don't see what the big deal is either. Its just a book and a movie. If the church is so afraid of it that they feel they need to ban it to protect their members (An excuse I have seen on a website calling for a ban)then why are they afraid for their members to see it would be a much better question. If they can't stand a bit of questioning then their faith must not be strong enough in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned, 'The DaVinci Code' is NOT a big deal. I'm just not interested in it.

MikeC: According to Dr. D. James Kennedy, of Coral Ridge Ministries, the Truths that Transform radio program and the Coral Ridge Sunday-morning TV show, the Danbury Baptists wrote to President Thomas Jefferson because they were concerned that somebody else's church might become the new State Church; Jefferson wrote back, saying, "In order to prevent the government from interfering with religion, we will have a wall of separation between church and state; nevertheless, we will run our government according to Christian principles". (Not implemented very well, all told, IMO). In recent years, some people have taken the phrase "separation of church and state" out of that sentence, ignored the rest of it, and tried to use the judiciary against Christians. (And no, I can't prove it right now, except to refer you to the American Center for Law and Justice.) The very day after writing this letter, President Jefferson supposedly attended church service - held in the Capitol Building. At about this same time, Jefferson was also supposedly superintendent of the Washington, D.C. schools, and he insisted on two books being in every classroom - one of which was the Bible.

ScottN: Harry S. Truman supposedly said in 1947, "This is a Christian nation." Keep in mind also that the Founding Fathers did not want anything like the Anglican (English) Church; supposedly, King Henry the 8th couldn't get the Catholic Church's permission to ge divorced and re-married as much as he wanted to, so he threw out the Catholic Church and started the Anglican Church, so that you essentially had a church which was a puppet of the king. And that is part of why the Founding Fathers did not want a church CONTROLLED BY the government.

John A. Lang: Please DO Speak Your Mind regarding all things; that is one of your fundamental rights! And if by chance you disagree with ME regarding this or that, I will be one of the first to say that YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY SO!

R: During Jesus' time, a lot of the religious leaders hated Jesus and his followers; other than that, there is no 'Jewish threat'. According to the Four Gospels, both Mary the mother of Jesus, AND Joseph the carpenter who married her, were as Jewish as a person could be. Jesus was born in a Jewish town and grew up in Jewish territory; in fact, Jesus himself was so Jewish that a lot of the people he met called him 'Rabbi'. Oops, I'm out of time.

Mike B: Jefferson wrote back, saying, "In order to prevent the government from interfering with religion, we will have a wall of separation between church and state; nevertheless, we will run our government according to Christian principles".

Care to cite that?

Mike B: At about this same time, Jefferson was also supposedly superintendent of the Washington, D.C. schools, and he insisted on two books being in every classroom - one of which was the Bible.

And that?

Jefferson was definitely interested in Christianity and the Bible and those statements could doubtless be true (I'm too lazy to check right now). However, based on everything I've read on him, I cannot conclude he was a Christian based on how we would define Christians.

MikeB: I am sorry I should have said perceived threat. I was speaking from the POV of Hitler not my own or others.

As for Jefferson's quote: Here is the compleate quote where he used the phrase seperation of church and state:Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808). Source: The Thomas Jefferson papers. Hosted at the Thomas Jefferson Historical Site

Which to my mind reads that he definately wanted relgion to stick with religious stuff and government to stick with government stuff and neither the two meet. As for your quote I ran it through the search engine and it produced no hits. None.

As for your claim about the bible being in the schools. I have not found any evidence backing that up but then again I have not done a major search on that. However I will point this out about the time period. Books where expensive, not everyone could afford one. Given that the bible could be used as an english primer teaching grammer and spelling and such as well as teaching the theology it was not uncommon for many schools and educated people as well as commoners to have the bible to be one of the few if not only book in their possession. Not to mention the bible serving as a place for recording family history as well as that was one possesion that most people would not leave behind.

And no I would say Jefferson would not be considered a christian by modern standards and actually the christian taliban would probably consider him an enemy of their cause (and he would probably reciprocate as well)

As for Harry S truman. He was a very religious and deeply faithful person who apparently also believed in the seperation of church and state. Looking at the quotations page I cannot find your direct quote. He made several quotes involving individuals and their right to have faith and believe and even being made in the image of god. Sometimes it almost sounds like Bush raided Harry's speechs for his own:
Our religious faith gives us the answer to the false beliefs of Communism... I have the feeling that God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose.
President Harry Truman, Public Papers of the President of the United States: Harry S. Truman - 1951 U.S. Gov. 1966 pp548-549
Democracy is, first and foremost, a spiritual force, it is built upon a spiritual basis - and on a belief in God and an observance of moral principle. And in the long run only the church can provide that basis. Our founder knew this truth - and we will neglect it at our peril.
President Harry Truman, Public Papers of the President of the United States: Harry S. Truman - 1951 U.S. Gov. 1966 p1063
We believe that all men are created equal because they are created in the image of God.
Harry S. Truman

Those three quotes are as close as I could find to what you claimed and none of them are your direct quote.

As for JAL: I'm sorry if I in anyway sounded or conveyed to you or contributed to the feeling that your opnion or feelings where not important or worthy of discussion and inclusion on this.

R: Would you kindly refrain from using the term, Christian Taliban, from here on out. I'm not going to go into all the ways that term is both offensive and innaccurate (unless you wish to make it an issue, then I will be more than happy to supply a follow up post).

Mike B: I'm with you whole heartedly. It would take someone with great ignorance to cite any actions taken against Jesus as an excuse to dislike or carry out any hatred against jews.

If i stretch my mind however, I can see how a jewish community would react harshly to anything that could be used as an excuse for anti-sementism. There has been a long history of unjust violence and hatred, i just assume that they would like to avoid anything that could lead to that.

Regardless of original intent of the seperation of the church and state, that does not change the fact of where our country has taken it today. It is now backed up by court decisions and other policies made by our legislatures. We can argue on its origin, but just like an adopted baby, it's upbringing has just as much (if not more) to do with where it is today then how it arrived in this world.

Heck, even Jesus supposedly recognized the difference... "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto G-d that which is G-d's."

Kinda. Thats a quote about paying taxes. The bible clearly supports God having a leading place in the decisions of government. I would encourage you to look to the old testiment. Specifically where King David was annointed as king over the then acting King. Good try none the less.

OK, now back to Hitler and the Nazis. Remember that he made a peace treaty with Russia, that he and Stalin divided Poland between the two of them, THEN he invaded Russia. Seems to indicate that he was not being true to anyone but himself. I also heard somewhere that Hitler used to eat narcotics by the handful. And that, toward the end of the war, he was issuing orders to Panzer (tank) divisions that had already been reported as having been wiped out. Can you say "insanity", boys and girls?
Also: I have heard that Hitler once said that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier. One does NOT have to be cut from the same cloth as Hitler to hold such an opinion, but it's NOT something that a Christian would say. And I heard somewhere that, while Hitler's supposedly-abusive father claimed to be a Catholic, Hitler once said that he wanted the last Christian clergyman to be forced at gunpoint to dig his own grave.

Now: I was born in March 1961, and I graduated from high school in June 1979. All through the Sixties and all through the Seventies, I never heard anyone say that Hitler and the Nazis were all about Christianity. I don't think I heard it in the Eighties, and I heard very little such stuff in the Nineties. Check those 1970s TV shows where Wonder Woman or whoever were fighting Nazis; no mention of the Nazis being about Christianity. In the 10-hour miniseries "Galactica 1980", the renegade Xaviar went back in time and tried to advance Earth technologically by helping the Nazis with their V-2 rockets, and Capt. Troy, Lt. Dillon and Jamie Hamilton went back in time to stop him; again, no mention of the Nazis being all about Christianity. If you can find copies of any of the Captain America comics that were written during World War 2, no mention (that I know of) of Hitler and the Nazis being all about Christianity. All of which causes me to believe/suspect that, while the Nazis might have said anything before they had complete control, somebody in the 1990s decided to intentionally deceive people with outright lies about how Christianity results in Nazism.

BTW, while the Nazis were killing 6 1/2 million Jews in their death camps, they were also killing 7 1/2 million other people in the death camps, so NOBODY was 'safe'. And many of those 7 1/2 million other people were Christians.

Now back to the "theocracy" thing. What I meant was, the only 'theocracy' the world has ever seen was when God was telling Moses (and his successors) "this is what the law's going to be", and the only theocracy the world has ever seen ended when God said (basically), "OK, you want to have a king so much, I choose Saul to be the King of Israel". If there is no God and the priests made the whole thing up, then it was actually a religious oligarchy, not a theocracy. The 'THEO' in 'THEOcracy' is the same as the 'THEO' in 'THEOlogy' and similar to the 'THE' in 'aTHEism'. In other words, UNLESS GOD HIMSELF is saying 'this is what the law's going to be', then there is no theocracy. And someone's going to have to do some tall persuading before I believe that ANYONE living today has such a 'direct line FROM God'.

Derrick: Sorry but I've been through this with others about the Christian Taliban designation. The far Christian Right shares many of the same excesses and offensive behavior that the afganistani taliban have/had. I know the direct translation of taliban and how it does not apply to the actual christian right but I use the term taliban more as an identifier of their hateful and disgusting behavior and to denigrate and put them down where they belong, like the mad dogs who wish to destroy freedom and democracy they are. The only other things I could call them are nutjobs, disgusting hacks, or church nazis. At best I could shorten it to CT that way you could predtend it means somethign else. So unless the moderator himself asks me to do so CT will be the best and most polite comment I will make about them.

And as for the seperation of church and state.I think it has not gone far enough. There is still too much religion entangled with our government and too many christian morality based laws are on the books. (Mainly the drug and sex ones).. Look at the recent attempt by King Dubya to try and distract and rally the troops around the disgusting constitutional amendment to narrowly define marriage to see what I mean.

As for using the bible for a basis for governmental decision making that is part of what caused the revolution as King George had used religious persecution and oppression to send the rabble and undesireables to america. We are a country made up of rejects and rebels.

MikeB:As for Hitler. Yes he was out for one thing and that was the comletion of his vision. Not so much for his own personal gain but he saw a greater germany and wanted to create a perfect place on this world with the perfect race. That is why anyone who did not meet his definition of perfect was thrown to the camps. Gypsies, jews, homosexuals and other undesireables all got one way tickets to the camps in greater numbers than christians. Most of the christians who got sent to the camps where also resistence members who got caught, not as a major pogram against christians. If a christian swalloed the propaganda and/or support hitler and the nazis they could find themselves given great positions of power. (Ask the current Pope about that one.)

You definition of a theocracy is an interesting one. But not practical and realistic in the way that it works in the real world. The line between a theocracy and a religious oligarchy in the real world is such a thin one that it is more practical and useful in common reference to say theocracy. And either wya you look at it a skunk by any other name still stinks.

Now about the Nazi's They where first and formost a cult of personality based on Hitler's views that the Jews where the basis for most of Germany's problems. The other groups where collaboraters and dead weight dragging germany down and should all be dealt with. Any one who did not resist was safe as long as they met with the Nazi definition of purity. And most of the numbers I've seen show Christian's to be down if not dead last on the counts at least not in significant numbers to be on parity with the other targeted groups.

Derrick: Oh and I am begining to add the evangelical left into the CT umbrella as the more I research them they less I like them. The only problem is that they do seem to care a lot about not poverty and environmental issues they still wish to solve those problems by the enforcement of their religious views and the ignorance that their views are the ONLY views that anyone should ahve when it come to religion.

That basically is what defines the chrsitian taliban. That their views and beliefs are the one true and only religion that the world needs and should have. That if you do not believe the way they do you are wrong and have no right to feel that way. That they have the right to force another person to feel and believe the way they do by changing and perverting the laws and freedoms of the country to oppress or repress anythign and anyone they disagree with. Not exactly christian behavior to me.

A good christian may feel they are right and that they want to help you by testifying about their religion to you but in the end the choice to take their hand is yours and yours alone. They will not force you to believe in their way against your will. They will not force you to live your life according to their religious and moral code against your will. They will help you and talk politely with you andnot do you dirty. That is to me the difference between christian taliban and a true christian.

You are talking about a dying breed of christianity my friend. I'm not saying that what you are describing does not exist in any way, shape, or form. Are there christians who protest outside of abortion clinics? Yes, they do exist. There is also a laughable organization near my hometown called the 'American Decency Assosiation' which i chuckle at their quest to inform churches across america about anything that doesnt meet their moral standards.

However, in my experiance, this is such a minority of the entire christian population that it is almost not worth meantioning. It would be similar to saying that all high schoolers make a habit of bringing guns to class and shooting up the peers simply because a few have done so. I've been a christian my entire life, I've belonged to many different churches and religious groups. I have never personally known ANYONE who literally forces their belief on others. I belive the church gave up their 'convert or die' philosophy sometime around the Spanish inqusition.

It seems to me conviction is admired and encouraged unless the issue is pressed to religion. Throughout the world, you are encouraged and praised for sticking by your beliefs unless you enter into the realm of religion. There, we are told that it is wrong to hold to a specific viewpoint in which no others can be right. There can only be one truth. If I honestly believe that christianity is right, then there can be no other way to get into heaven. Furthermore, if I believe the bible, I believe that there is no other way to enter heaven. If I believe that there are two places that one can spend eternity (heaven or hell), and i casually sit by and do nothing to impede your path, if I do not at least reach out with the 'salavation message', or in some way show christs love to you, then i have failed.

If your entire experiance with christians have been from that of this so called 'christian taliban', then i pity and feel sorry for you.

Your other issues, (Drugs, homosexual union) would probably better be served on boards dedicated to those issues, and I will not say more about them here.

R - The proposed Constitutional amendment is NOT an attempt to distract people; it's something that a whole bunch of people have been asking for, for several years. I'm not sure whether it's really needed or not. Someday we may have women saying they are married to their dogs, men saying they are married to their cars, alcoholics saying they are married to the local distillery and pyromaniacs saying they're married to their incendiary devices.

Someday we may have women saying they are married to their dogs, men saying they are married to their cars, alcoholics saying they are married to the local distillery and pyromaniacs saying they're married to their incendiary devices.

These are all straw man arguments. In all of these cases, the other party is not a person under the law.

MikeB: Those are all BS. Only consenting adult humans are able to enter into valid legally binding contracts and thats all marriage is in the grand scheme of things.

If anyone actually tried to make those claims that you presented they would be laughed out of the county.

Derrick: Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier but I missed your posting.

Sorry but most of the christians I've encountered have ben of the hypocritical or taliban variety. It almost seems like the good cristians are the dying breed. And there is a difference between speaking and testafying and interfering in another's life. I am a conseting human adult and rational and resonable if I want to live a life that is different than what you think I should then thats all fine and dandy but you have no right to try and interefere or impose your POV on me unless I pose a direct and immediate threat to you, which most of the things the CT complain and protest about do not pose an actual threat to them. Its just their evil attitude of wanting to meddle and impose upon others.

For a more in depth view of mine on this look in the loosing my religion boards for my posts. Either that or anything when me and Zarm hashed this out already. But suffice to say I've got a brain and if i want to live my life in a way that disagrees with your morals and you get in the way or try to change the rules to interfere in my life then you are the one committing an evil and morally repugnant act. Speak to me about it, testafy about your religion all you want just when i say leave me alone I've had enough adn I'm happy with what i've got please be polite and respectful enough of me to go away and do so. (Disclaimer: The you and I used previously do not imply or directly refer to myself R or Derrick Vargo but are meant as generic references to hypothetical individuals.)

I know I'm going to hell (or so I've been told by several CT folk) I'm bringing marshmellows.

I come to contest a point to you....perhaps, you are only aware of the small facet of people who do try this. There is a recurring problem with many christians that feel wrongly that unless they are in your face or providing a voice against your 'immoral' actions, then they are not doing their job. As a christian, It is my point of view that I am not trying to keep the world from sinning, that is unavoidable. However I have all the right in the world politically to try to enact laws that i feel would better society. Pornography filters in public library's for instance, are more than acceptable, to protect those who do not wish their children to stumble upon porn.

I agree those are straw arguments, Scott--how would you handle the issue of multiple wives/husbands?

What, precisely is "wrong" with polygamy or polyandry, assuming all parties are consenting adult humans?

Derrick Vargo: "Are there Christians who protest outside of abortion clinics? Yes, they do exist."

At the risk of going off on a tangent, why should I NOT (peacefully) protest the willful, deliberate, intentional killing of innocent human beings? Of course, I do NOT defend those who do such things as shooting the abortionist, but the day that professing Christians in this country stop objecting to (most) abortions, could very well be the day that God runs out of patience with this country.

R - In any case, the proposed Constitutional amendment is STILL something that a whole bunch of people have been asking for, for several years, and NOT an attempt by the President to distract people. And again, I SAID I'm not sure whether it's really needed or not, OK? As for your going to Hell, I hope you don't, I hope to see you in Heaven someday, and IMO the only way for this to happen (remember I said IMO) is for you to change your mind and become a Christian. (If/as long as) you're not convinced, you're not convinced; and if some people have tried to beat you over the head with the Bible, I'm sorry. I also believe that you're assuming - wrongly - that a bunch of people in your area are typical of ALL Christians who are concerned about things (they aren't), and that, in addition, you've been sold the same 'Brooklyn Bridge' that a lot of other people have bought.

ScottN - For one thing, some of us guys would not take too kindly to some guy like you hogging all the women!

Because of "incidental" aspects concerning the most visible "plural marriage" advocates -- the break-away Mormon sect under Warren Jeffs -- the idea leaves a bad taste in my mouth. My knee-jerk reaction is that it is a bad thing. Especially when it seems to require dumping over 1/2 of its teen-age boys onto the streets of nearby big cities where the become the "gentiles' " problem.

In the abstract, however, I know of no sociological reasons why plural marriage would be detrimental to society. There may be some, but I don't see any.

Whether or not there is, however, the issue is different from same-sex marriage, because the fundamental right to marry is not involved. There is no reason now why ScottN, MikeB or MikeC cant marry a second wife, provided he divorces his current wife first. Since the civil marriage laws are often about priveleges granted to married couples, there is constitutional reason not to limit those benefits to "one bite of the apple at a time" or no double-dipping.

Vargo: Some restrictions on truely criminal behavior is understandable and acceptable. What consenting adults do is another thing. And as for morality "crimes" for the most part that should be left up to the individual and their interpretation of their belief system. As long as they do not interefere in another's life then there is no harm done.

As for the christian's I only talk about the things I know about. Maybe I've been involved in the battle against evil for far too long and need to take a break but thats just the way things have been in my experience.

MikeC/ScottN: Personally as one who has been in a multiple relationship. As long as everyone is a CONSENTING ADULT (and Human as ScottN said but as anything else is just plain wrong on so many levels that should go without saying)(Sorry for shouting but those are very important words to remember in a situation like this), respects each other and plays by the "rules" of the relationship then thigns work out and are not much different than a normal mongamous relationship. And besides which there is biblical precedent for it so why not?

MikeB: From the other POV Abortion is a legal and safe medical procedure that is not killing a person or ending a life but merely removing some cells which have the potential to become another person when done in the first trimester. After that things start to get grayer and grayer until after a certain point that is hard to tell until you cross it you get into the area you are talkign about.

But to answer your question. There is no reason why a person should not peacefully and respectfully disagree with and protest against abortions or the clinics. Violence against the clinics and their staff is wrong as these people are trying to do what they feel is right same as the protesters. And interfereing in the operation of clinics is wrong as that means the protesters are breaking tresspassing, forcible detention and assault laws depending on how forceful they interefere.

As for the Constitutional amendment there have been quite a few people asking for quite a few different things. Just because a bunch of people ask for it doesn't mean it is right or should be done. The constitution is not somethign that one should just go messing with over minor issues.

That last about goign to hell is a joke that I saw in another person's sig on a gaming board that I liked. Personally I don't think anything is going to happen when I die other than it will be like going to sleep without dreaming or wakign up. Lights out game over.

But then again I could be wrong as there have been a few times in my life where I've encountered somethign that could be considered paranormal/supernatural. I'm leaving the decision of my immortal soul ,if it exists, up to whatever power there might be to decide. I live my life by what I consider to be a good and decent and moral pattern and if I am wrong then so be it.

My personal beliefs have changed and matured as I grew up and since I'm not dead yet there is still time for things to change. The jury is not in yet on this case to me.

Oh and about the multiples, didnt a census report once say there where more women than men in this country? I'm just doing my part to help make sure those extra women don't go lonely. ;-)

I just noticed something today. This entire discussion has taken place on the In the News thread. Not meanign anythign by it just pointing out an observation.

And speaking of in the news. My old church ,the Episcopal church, is getting some pressure from the British Anglican, (Mother church) , about the homosexual bishops. The Anglican church wants the Episcopalians to ban and stop electing homosexual bishops becaus they fear that there might be a schism forming over this subject.

Judging by the local church my mother still attended I don't doubt that. According to her the folks up there where pretty much firmly divided into three factions the last time she was able to go. The ones who want to get rid of homosexuals in the church and those who don't care/mind as long as they are good christians otherwise and not practicing homosexuals, and the ones who just don't care about a person's sexuality as long as they are good christian's and otherwise behave themselves. Whatever any of that means.

But considering how the sister church in Dayton actually had such a dust up over this that they voted on whether or not to disolve the church from the episcopal union. I can believe that a schism may form about this.

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Top British Anglican leaders are bringing new pressure on the Episcopal General Convention to enact a ban on electing gay bishops before the assembly ends next week.

If the legislative body fails to endorse a moratorium, the overseas bishops fear the divide in the global Anglican Communion over homosexuality will escalate to a full-blown schism

I think that protests outside an abortion clinic, while well-intentioned, generally fail to accomplish anything and that efforts can better be made elsewhere in championing other efforts besides abortion and assisting women with child services, etc., so that they will not choose abortion.

Scott, it was more of a theoretical question, rather than an accusatory. I was curious if your logic would allow for polygamy and polandry.

I agree with MikeC, I wasnt talking about christians not having a problem with abortion, but rather, that 'in your face' brand of christianity does nothing but turn people off to the whole idea of following christ. Christianity is founded first and foremost in love, any time any christian acts out without first thinking 'is this showing love' then i think they are acting wrongly.

I've decided that my political philsophy can be described as "Leave Me Alone!". Don't like what someone else is doing? Does it hurt (not offend) you? No? Leave Me Alone!

I've decided that my political philsophy can be described as "Leave Me Alone!". Don't like what someone else is doing? Does it hurt (not offend) you? No? Leave Me Alone! - ScottN

That's not correct ScottN, your political philosophy is "I don't exist, so stop talking in my direction and because I don't exist, don't tax me either.

What if it doesn't hurt me, but it hurts someone else?

Speaking of news, here's a big item: The Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori has just been elected the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA. This makes her the first woman ever to hold that post, and the first woman in the world to head any church in the Anglican Communion. (Now that I think about it, she may in fact be the highest ranking female religious official in the world, after the Queen. Quite possibly the highest ranking elected one, at any rate.) Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060618/ap_on_re_us/episcopalians . More conservative Anglican churches will probably like this about as much as they liked the Americans electing an openly gay bishop three years ago.

Harm is harm. I would say if it actually does harm then it would be bad, unless that person is the cause of the action that harms themselves.

Take helmet laws for example. If a person rides a motorcycle without a helmet they are taking thier life in their hands and risking harming themselves in the event of an accident. But it is their life and their choice to make as long as they are a legal adult so I can tell them its not smart to go helmetless but to try and force them to do so would be wrong and my bad as I am interfereing in their life.

And yeah the in your face you're going to hell "christians" are one of the biggest turn offs to organized religion for me.

As for Abortions, I feel that folks are gonna have sex so education as to contraceptives, availability of contraceptives and teachign of responsibility by parents and families would all help to reduce them. But you will not be able to remove them compleately without going draconic on society.

Actually, helmetless riders do affect me and you--it's called insurance.

I'm glad we are in agreement on something then R.

However, no contraceptives work as well as advertised. Condoms for example, do not have a 100% rate of blocking sperm. STDs are much smaller than sperm and thus could slip by easier than sperm. Therefore, abstinence should at least be taught as the only 100% way of not getting an STD

Some statistical fun: Since the repeal of Florida's motorcycle helmet law, the number of total motorcycle deaths in the state has risen 67%. This raises a public health argument, if nothing else. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/19/health/main1726820.shtml)

More statistical fun: The CDC has a fact sheet on condoms; the money quote I like is "Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens." While it is true that condoms have varying levels of effectiveness for various diseases, this is more a function of the way each individual disease spreads and correct use of the condom rather than the size of any particular pathogen. For example, if you've got a herpes sore outside the area covered by the condom, it's not going to do you very much good, is it? (http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm)

About insurance, Those companies will use any excuse they can to raise a person's rates. But you know my opinion of the corporations.

I don't mean to sound harsh but those folks who went helmetless chose to do so knowing the risks and if they died from it then thats their choice and not my problem but theirs. When I ride I wear leathers and helmet but some of the brotherhood/ Iron horsemen/aeolus I used to work with didn't wear helmets. The laws of averages do eventually catch up and some of the guys had laid bikes before but lived some didn't. As long it was just themselves then sorry about their luck but that's not a public issue just their own.

And yes condoms are not perfect, some diseasees are protected against bny them and some are not. But we where talking about pregnancy and for that contraceptives are a lot better than other methods such as pill, rhythm, pulling out or spermacides. About the only other contraceptive that would be as effective would be the morning after contraceptive pill.

Education about sex and taking responsibility for their own bodies, about the dangers of wild sex and unprotected sex including diseases, pregnancy and who knows what else has to beign at home with the parents. Should be a common and accepted part of social structure and entertainment. And should not be something people and especially teens are made to feel embaressed about. So yeah I see contraceptives as one part of a greater "battle" if you will against unplanned/unwanted pregnancies that has to include education of all methods of protection and available alternatives (including alternatives to sex like abstinance or orals and such), as well as communication between peers and parents and partners of factual information and not just urban legends without embaressment and ostracization for being human.

What about when the person not wearing the helmet dies? Who has to pay to clean his (or her) corpse off the highway? That's right.. Taxes...

Even if the person lives for a brief time... The public has to pay for his hospital bills. A hospital has to treat someone if they come in and their bleeding and so forth... That initial visit still costs taxpayers.

Yes but those taxes are paid the same whether there are 2 people who get scraped off the road (for whatever reason its the same folks) or a thousand.

And as for living this is different than the mass of poor people who cannot afford to go to a regular doctor who have to use the emergency room and the public services just so they can have basic medical care how? And a hospital has to pick up the pieces if you cannot provide for yourself. And like they give all their abilities and powers for a person who is indigent.

The costs obviously go up if more people are getting injured and requiring the state to pay. Yes, a hospital has to assist everyone; that's not the point.

Besides the financial cost, there's also a safety issue. The state regulates numerous things for people's safety. For example, why must I wear a lifejacket while boating? A seatbelt while driving?

Besides the financial cost, there's also a safety issue. The state regulates numerous things for people's safety. For example, why must I wear a lifejacket while boating? A seatbelt while driving?- MikeC

I don't mean to bring up this topic, but what about smoking? If it were truly about safety, they wouldn't allow the product to be sold. It's about collecting taxes. They make a lot of money off of the taxes for certain products. Additionally, they make a lot of money off fines people pay.

It's about the "All Mighty Dollar." (or Euro depending on the exchange rates) ...speaking of religion.

===

Yes, I know this isn't how all states operate, but generally speaking, it is for those capitalisitc societies like the United States of America. Safety is a secondary issue of the state, the first is regulation of commerce.

If the hospitals treat every one equally then yes things do cost a smidge more. But also the reason for all the regulations is like PV said taxes on the permits to do stuff, fines if you don't have the permits or break the laws. They don't wanna save your life they wanna save your wallet.

I am not disputing bureaucracy and greed. I do fail to see how not wearing a helmet while driving a motorcycle is a logical constitutional freedom.

You have it backwards, Mike. The question is where does the Constitution give government the right to set such regulations.

Follow up: Remember, the Constitution doesn't say what we can do, it's there to explicitly lay out what government may, and more importantly, may NOT do.

And if you can point out where the Constitution says state governments may not require people to wear helmets while driving a motorcycle, I'd lke to see it.

Well I'll agree with you that while there is nothing in the constitution saying that a state may not impede, interfere or otherwise control a person's personal life beyond criminal activities (and actually those are rather slim in the actual constitution for the federales to control) there is also nothing in there to say that they can do so either. So it comes down to what society is or is not able to contrive to live with.

The thing is though looking at the founding father's papers and such it seems like their intent was for the government to take as little hand in the personal rules of a person's life as possible. For the most part letting each choose their own moral and ethical path for themselves and as long as they didn't get into someone else's life then it wasn't a situation for government to deal with. Of course the size of the country between then and now is a big deal on that as there wasn't as many chances for people to wreck their lives or as many differeing and diverse viewpoints (though there where still quite a few back then.)

But basically relying on a person to be intelligent and reational enough to realize something that is potentially self destructive or reckless would not be beneficial to themselves or the society as a whole and refrain from doing so.

Well I'm sure there where people back then who did a lot of reckless things as well and there will be people doing stupid stuff in the future and people being grumpy about those decisions in all three time frames.

And I wasn't trying to argue that you have a constitutional right (as it is written at least) to go helmetless on a motorcycle. AFAIK there is no right saying you have the right to be stupid because that is assumed to be one of those other inalienable rights the government cannot take away. Besides if you tried to legislate against stupidity then who would be our legislators?

What I was trying to do was make a comment about how people can and do choose to do stupid things and as long as they are the only ones they hurt with their actions then thats more their problem than someone else's and while you can and should point out to them they are about to do somethign stupid if they are really set and aware of it and an adult then thats all you can and should do.

There is a church in Harvey, Illinois that is offering $25.00 to the first 75 newcomers.

I didn't know God was "for sale".

How can anyone put a price on salvation?

How can anyone put a price on Christ's Blood?

How can anyone put a price on the Holy Spirit?

My opinion? It's despicable!

Using blackmail & extortion to get newcomers?

HORRENDOUS!

As despicable as it may, it's not blackmail and extortion--maybe bribery? Blackmail would be if the church said you had to come or they would do something to you.

OK...bribery then. Forgive my exaggeration.
I'm just so ANGRY!

Whatever the case may be, it's still WRONG!

Here's the link:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0606230247jun23,1,7964291.story?page=1&ctrack=1&cset=true

Hey least whise they're giving you money instead of passing the plate around 4 or 5 times in the same sermon as my mother's old (Episcopal) church used to do before they reassigned preachers again, now thats extortion (Give til it hurts so your soul can get into heaven).

Blackmail would be if God said believe in me or burn in hell. Now that would be WRONG!

I dont know why it would make you angry, it's like having a door prize for church. You may not agree with it, but it is simply a tool to try to get people who do not attend church on a consistant basis to attend more often.

Yeah actually thats a point. Think of it this way you just won 25 bucks in the great and grand cosmic lotto on top of an all expense paid trip to heaven.

Come on down to go on up!

BINGO!!!

Simply going into a church does not get you into heaven. I would assume that the church in question knows and believes this. However, they were looking for a creative way to get them into the door, so they could possibly hear a message for salvation. I dont see why this church should get blasted for trying to be creative

So this church apparently feels they have nothing special to offer people that they can't get just somewhere else? A $25 giveaway is their big selling point as a church? That's really sad, yet, at the same time, very, very amusing.

I didnt say it was good, just what they were trying to do

not that theres anything wrong with that.

Since the Republicans can't win with superior moral behavior... Does that cause them to do a complete 180 and join the Democrats in taxing anything that breathes?
You know... One of the big issues I have with taxing cigarettes is that it kind of validates the legality of such a product... So... doesn't taxing this have the same effect as taxing cigarettes?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2c2933%2c201231%2c00.html

Sorry, can this be moved to the PM board somewhere... I got the threads mixed up...

Saw "in the news"...

To be perfectly honest though what exactly is one "christian" church supposed to have over any other "christian" church? Arn't they all supposed to be the way and the path into heaven? Or does god/jesus play favorites and say that presbyterians get the window seat, catholics get the VIP lounge and baptists get the table by the kitchen? Isnt church supposed to be about the communion with your god, the fellowship with you fellows, and the service to your community?

I'd say thats the $25 question.

It's all a matter of personal preferance. They aren't trying to take from one church and attract those people, they are trying to get people who dont go to any church into their building.

Different Churches have minor differences in theology, worship styles, and focuses of ministry. For Example, I grew up in a baptist church, which is associated with the calvinist movement. The Calvinists believe in something called predestination. In it's most basic terms, predestination is a belief that God already has plans/knows exactly what you will do with your life, and what decisions you will make. I currently go to a Wesleyan College, which holds to an armenian view which does not hold to this predestination. They believe in 'free will', and contest that the predistianation view makes everyone to much like a robot. This is a fundamental difference in many churches. Do I believe that both Calvanists AND Armineians are getting to heaven? Yes I do.

So to answer your $25 question, no. God does not play favorites between the churches. The divisions in the church (while many of them i believe are quite a shame) do not represent God playinig favorites, just a matter of preferance. Such as a choice between Coke or Pepsi, both are cola's, but given the choice, i'll take pepsi every time.

R - It's not about which denomination; any individual church can be better - or worse - than another. Do they preach the Bible? Do they preach the whole Bible? Do they have sound doctrine? And how good are they about applying to their own lives, those things that they say they believe? Do they include or exclude nitwit theology which is not supported by the Bible? And which of the 5 churches described in the first few chapters of Revelation is most like the church that you are considering?

As for attending church, going into a church building does not automatically make you a Christian, any more than going into a garage automatically makes you an automobile. However, for those who seek - or profess - to be Christians, there is a verse somewhere in the New Testament which says 'forsake not the gathering together of believers.'.

Monday will be the fifth anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center. (And of the attack on the Pentagon and the heroic actions taken by the passengers of Flight 93.)

The new film "Saint of 9/11," which chronicles the life and death of Fr. Mychal Judge, firefighter and chaplain will be shown in thirteen cities on Monday in memorial: Boston; Denver; Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; Kansas City, Mo.; Milwaukee; Minneapolis; Nashville; Patchogue, N.Y.; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Salt Lake City; San Francisco; and Seattle. (New York also had a screening. Unfortunately for those in the area, it was today, so it's too late to plan to go.)

There has been a movement to nominate Fr Judge to sainthood, which the Vatican has been resisting. In addition, members of regular orders normally are not elevated to sainthood without the support of the order. Father Judge's order, the Franciscans, does not approve of elevating him.

The main objection? Fr. Judge identified himself as gay and was active in AIDS support.

Story 1

For Judge's superiors, of course, the only truly relevant question was and is whether he honored his vows; technically, it's not being homosexual that's the offense, but having homosexual sex. The issue of Judge's chastity, however, is one "Saint of 9/11" prefers not to address.

Partly that's because it functions as an uncritical eulogy; partly that's because it's funded by a gay-rights group that would prefer a simple, positive hero. To say that Judge was in any kind of sexual relationship would tarnish his image as a priest; to say he eschewed sexuality would make him less useful as a proud gay icon.

A grass-roots movement soon was launched for Fr. Mychal's canonization, despite the Vatican's antipathy to gays.

The Franciscan order is against him being canonized; without backing from a priest's order, the Vatican will not accept nominations for sainthood.

After a little more time surfing around, I discovered that Netflix was involved in the producing of the movie "Saint of 9/11." Because of this, the DVD was produced early. Netflix subscribers can add it to their queues now, and it will be shipped out starting Tuesday.

This is apparently a Netflix exclusive, at least for now. Neither Blockbuster Online nor Amazon.com are even taking pre-orders.