• Part 2 February 25 - 8:41 am

With so much now parading as "christian" these
days I think it is about time that we returned
to a sense of the rational and logical.This is
especially true when it comes to interpreting
the Bible.
These past several weeks I have been watching and rather enjoying Science of the Bible on the NAtional Geographic channel.
This is a really great series that takes a serious attempt to bring the Bible alive(in this case the Gospels)but seriously using science and
historical accounts to try to piece together what
really may have happened.
This is the kind of logical and rational approach
that Christians need to consider when reading the
Bible.
Unfortunately too many these days are more willing to take the more sensational approach.

I too would love to see this. It would mean an end to the christian taliban and maybe peace at last.

Scott,

you
don't
have to hit
return
at the
end of each line.

Just type in and the word wrapping will take care of itself automatically. Otherwise it makes your posts rather hard to read. Thanks.

I don't.I hit preview/post message when I'm
done.

As far as it goes while National Geographic's
Science of the Bible did a good job with the
GENERAL information when it came down to
SPECIFICS concerning the life of Christ it
was alas wanting.
It appears in the final analysis that the entire
series was tilted toward the radical reinterpretation of the Gospels that is part of the agenda of the Jesus Seminar.
The fact that it was tilted toward this one view
without any balancing out from those who support a more orthodox interpretation of the Gospels
makes what would have been an excellent series
into a so/so one.
I'm not saying I'm going back on what I said
before,rather I am simply saying that a rational
and reasonable approach to the study of the Bible
must also be balanced.
On the one hand we must be careful of not falling into the sensationalism of certain Evangelicals and Fundemantlists and on the other we have to
be equally alert to the danger of those who
would make the Gospels into some sort of political tract which they are not.
Sorry about the rant.

There is no 'Christian Taliban'. Some people want to replace 'freedom OF religion' with 'freedom to OPPRESS religion', or 'freedom from being reminded that some people have a religion', or 'freedom from being reminded that some people have one religion in particular'. And some Christians here in America are sick and tired of it. Joseph Stalin ran a national government that only allowed one political party; Stalin ran a system where you weren't allowed to join the only political party unless you claimed to be an atheist; and Stalin ran a system that was left-wing. Therefore, Stalinist Russia is a perfect example of government by left-wing atheists. Keep in mind that Stalin sent at least 20 million people to special camps to be exterminated, and that he said that he wanted to kill every Jew in the Soviet Union.
Also, war is not a Christian invention.

No, I want "Freedom *FROM YOUR* Religion"

Thank you ScottN for succintly sayign what i ahve been trying to get across.

I want freedom from not only "YOUR relgion but any religion as I am an aethiest I do not think, feel or belief the same way as you. SO do not try to pray for me, impose your views on me, or use your religion as a weapon to get the government to change laws to support your religion.

I do not go into your house or get in your face on the street and say you cannot have relgion. I do not say you cannot pray in public or pray in your house or even pray in school. Just not as agovernment sponsored or endorsed prayer moment. I do not call into the local christianr adio station and tell them they •••• or they need to hav etheir permits yabnked like some members of the christian taliban do the local rock station. I do not try to impose my moral views over someone else's personal life.

And there is too a christian taliban. Like I have defined before: The christian taliban is those "christians" who think that their religion and their personal belief system and their morals are so superior and better than anything anyone else can conceive of that they have to try and get into people's faces and get the government to change the laws to support them and endorse their moral and religious codes. They are not happy that someone else can life a quiet happy and comfortable life by a set of morals and rules that may not be harmful to anyone else but not their limited, "christian" values.

I have personally seen and experienced and fought with too many sick twisted individuals who have said that just ecause I am an aethiest or I do not have "christian" values that I have no values and am not a good person. My exgirlfriend has told me to my face that since she became a "christian" she realized that a person like me has no restraint against raping someone. Like since I do not recognize the divinity of one person who may or may not have lived over 2000 years ago and get my morals and ethics from the same book she does I am an untrustworthy sociopath. And for your information I do have restraints against rape or assault as they are both harmful to another person in the extreme, there are secular laws against that, i respect people and try to treat them as i would like to be treated, and my wife has a 9mm and would blow my nads into the next dimension where i to be stupid enough to do something like that beyond all reason.

There are quite a few people who are sick and tired of having :"christian" values rammed down our throats and being told that this is a christian country when it is a polytheistic peopled nation with a SECULAR government. And only a secular government can continue to permit the freedom to worship whomever or however you please be is budda, allah, Gaia, jehovah or jesus or the great noodle monster. If you allow one particular religious interpretation to become the dominant one in government you open the door to opression and disinfranchisment for any others.

Yes Stalin was a very bad person and took things too far with his socialist government. I do not want to see people's personal beliefs trampled on any more than you do. i just do not want them to be the only deciding reason when making laws that will affect the entire country and general populace. This country is not just pure christian. And even if it was which christian are you? there are so many different denominations all with their own little twists and quirk and interpretations of things that to place one above any other is going to cause problems. Hitler was also a christian who sent millions of jews to the gas chamber. The popes who oversaw the crusades gave blessings to the knights for murdering and rampaging. The children's crusade. The preists in the new world blessing the massacre of the native americans. Giving them smallpox infested blankets knowingly and willingly. All to carry out God's will. No war is not the invention of religion, but it took religion to make it an art form.

Leave religion in your own personal life and those who wish to be with you. Voluntarily of their own free will. Leave those who do not believe the same as you or do not wish to be with you in regards to your religion do so in peace. As long as they are not harming anyone and they are the only one going to hell by your standards so what? By my standards you interfereing and testafying to me without me asking you to do so is rude, crass and aggrssive behavior that is borderline evil depending on how pushy you get about your religion.

I am sorry for this being so long and such a rant but I needed to get this off my chest and the previous two comments kinda yanked the plug holdign that in.

Mike: Some people want to replace 'freedom OF religion' with 'freedom to OPPRESS religion', or 'freedom from being reminded that some people have a religion', or 'freedom from being reminded that some people have one religion in particular'.
Luigi Novi: Can you cite an example?

Mike: Joseph Stalin ran a national government that only allowed one political party; Stalin ran a system where you weren't allowed to join the only political party unless you claimed to be an atheist; and Stalin ran a system that was left-wing. Therefore, Stalinist Russia is a perfect example of government by left-wing atheists.
Luigi Novi: And this has to do with Freedom of Religion how exactly? Regimes like Stalin's are as an important arugment for freedom of religion and Separation of Church and State as much as the theistic dictatorships in the Middle East are.

ScottN: You want 'freedom FROM MY religion'? OK, you're not convinced, so be it. Jesus never told anyone to abuse anyone, let alone those they did not agree with. I wish you well. Have a nice day.

Note that my freedom from your religion also implies that you don't have laws passed to enforce your religious beliefs.

People that need the government to enforce their religion must not have much faith in the power of its messgage.

If thats true Mike then stop trying to get laws passed that support your religion, religious codes or morals or force your POV on someone else.

R, I strongly urge that you remember to whom you're speaking there; this is not Rick Santorum, this is MikeC from Nitcentral, who may be more conservative than you are, but does not in fact represent a vast right-wing conspiracy. This doesn't venture on personal insult, but it's getting close; accusing people of doing various things that they themselves would find abhorrent, I feel, is toeing the line a bit.

Sorry without the C at the end I was not certain it was the same person. Especially given that it didnt feel like the same language, if you will, that MikeC usually uses.

If that is the case then I do deeply apologize about this and feel very abashed about jumping on someone who did not deserve it. If that is not the case then I let my comments stand.

But to rephrase it so that it is a bit more non-specific and more of a question than a statement.

If you (non-specific person) truely and deeply believe that Jesus did not wish to force the christian religion upon anyone who did not, or does not wish to be, involved in your religion then why do you continue to fight to have laws passed that enforce, inflate or otherwise promote your religious views, ethics, morals or codes even when it has been made clear that they are not welcomed?

Again I do apologize as MikeC has been a reasonably clear headed individual that while I may disagree with some of his POV I have no personal problems with him and do not wish to personally insult him.

Matt, I'm not sure "Mike" is the same person as "MikeC". Seems to me they're two different people. But I could be wrong...

Ditto. Mike's posts do not sound anything like MikeC's, and if it was MikeC, why would he consistently leave the "C" off his username on only this board?

Oops. Duh. That one post sounded enough like the usual MikeC that I didn't read too closely and didn't think much of it.

However, the point still stands; R, you need to not assume that you know anything about the political activities of the posters on this site. Our Mike has not said "I worked for the passage of X bill or Y ordinance," and it is therefore disingenuous at best to jump on him for doing so.

Yeah, the Mike on this board is different than myself. I haven't really checked this board out too much so I will refrain from commenting on any content at this time. But, yeah, unless I'm lazy, I usually type "MikeC" when I post.

Well I am glad that I am not the only person who thought/thinks that this Mike is not the MikeC. Mike's phrasing, word choice and attitude all felt different to me than MikeC's.

Matthew, I usually do try to determine where someone stands before going off on them like that. By looking at Mike's first post and involving the second I got the impression that he might not be as far rightwing as perhaps Zarm but not as far towards the middle as maybe ScottN or TomM and certainly much closer to the Zarm position than the Luigi or even mine. Which I do believe on this and a few other positions I am towards the left but not the extreme left.

Also I do admit looking back on my posting that got you started it was a poor phrasing and choice of words as Mike himself had not said anything about the laws. However he did say there was no "christian Taliban", that Stalin's government was an example of what would happen if left-wing aethiests ran things and that caused me to lump him into the Zarm category. Which is to say that of a person who supports changing the laws to support his religious beliefs. Especially given his comments concerning "oppresion of religion" and how some christians in America are sick of things.

Well, SOME of us are. And in that posting, I referred to what "some people", NOT ALL members of this or that group, want to do. We should all be careful of sweeping generalizations. I want to say more, but my time on-line is limited. And that is why I did not identify myself more specifically than just 'Mike'.

But your religious rights end where mine begin.

What if I got a movement started to ban the sale of pork and shellfish, because it isn't kosher?

ScottN - I don't know of anyone who is trying to do anything like that.
R - Referring to your Dec. 1 post, you say that Hitler was a Christian. Hitler said that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier. Hitler said that he wanted, among other things, "to destroy Christianity, root and branch". Hitler said that he wanted, among other things, for the last Christian clergyman to be forced at gunpoint to dig his own grave. And, at the beginning of his reign of terror, he spoke in front of a group of Christian clergymen. When one of them asked him, "But what about the soul of Germany?", Hitler replied, "As for the soul of Germany, you can leave that to me". Can anyone prove that that is not exactly what happened? Or that we should do the same today?

Also, this is a country where over 1000 religions are practiced, with 86% of the population belonging to ONE of them. Furthermore, this country was founded primarily by Christians, since in the 1700s the "Colonials" were over 90% Protestant Christians, some smaller percentage Catholic Christians, less than 1% Jewish and everything else was so few as to be statistically insignificant. (Note: according to his own autobiography, Ben Franklin said that he started out as a Christian, became a Deist for a while, then returned to Christianity; some people distort this by saying, "Oh, the founding fathers were all deists".) The founders of this country did not want anything like the Anglican church, which taught whatever the king wanted it to teach; this is why the Constitution forbids Congress from establishing any state religion, or from prohibiting the free expression of religion. If ANY Congressman introduced a bill establishing ANYTHING as a State Religion, first he'd have his work cut out getting it to pass, ANY President would probably veto it, (well, I would, and I'm a Christian), and THEN, IF it passed everything else, the Supreme Court would have a Constitutional obligation to strike it down as un-Constitutional. Which is exactly what they would do, if every Supreme Court Justice was a strict constructionalist.

Luigi - You aske for examples. I may not be able to prove it to everyone's satisfaction, but I wouldn't say it was happening if a whole bunch of us didn't believe it was happening. OK, in the past several years: An elementary teacher asked each of her students, "What does Christmas mean to you?". Of course, most of the kids said 'presents' or 'days off from school', etc., but one little girl said, "Christmas to me means The Manger". The teacher replied, "You're not allowed to say that here". A 4th-grader, in Missouri I think, was praying, silently, with head bowed, over his lunch; he was taken out of the school cafeteria and to the principal's office, where he was berated for it. A teenage girl got a 1-inch gold cross on a gold neck chain, and when she wore it to school, she was told that she wasn't allowed to wear it. Several times, even earlier today, I've heard about students being told that they're not allowed to wear T-shirts that say anything about Jesus. Some students have been told that they're not allowed to read their Bible in study hall. Some school libraries have books about some religion dealing with witchcraft, but no Bible allowed; if this isn't favoring one religion over another, then what is it?

Mike Brill: I would have to answer you that I have seen quotes and passages about hitler and by hitler where he has stated he was a christian and was carrying out christian work in relation to the holocaust. At best I would say he was a politician who said what the listener wanted to hear or at worst a very confused and evil person. Also there is the possibility that the various historian's who have quoted or transcribed his works have filtered things. One of the reasons I hunted down and read mein kampf. A very scary book that basically outlines his entire plans for what he would do if he was in charge. And I'm not sure what exactly you are asking when you say is that what we should do today? If you are asking should we keep religion out of government then yes totally and absolutely by whatever means necessary keep religion far far away from government and base all laws off of secular reasons. Use the Lemon test to make sure that a law does not promote or infringe upon religion but do not allow religion to be the one sole deciding purpose for a law.

As for the founding fathers most of the writings and decisions and letters they wrote that i have read indicate that they where Deists and not christians, especially not "christian" in the modern sense of the word. Jefferson rewrote the bible to remove the divinity of Jesus and turn him into a normal mortal human being and not the son of a god.

As for religion in school. If it is a publically funded school then of course religion has no place there. I would not want my children being indoctrinated with any religion. I will agree that the cases you cite are a slight bit of an overreaction on the side of caution, but it is better to be cautious than to be zealous.

But on the other hand the various "christian" movements and the Christian Taliban are trying to opress anyone who has a different POV or does not belive and bow down and kowtow to the "christian" POV. I have seen manny examples of this:
The Local Citizen's for COmunity values has made it clear they wish to make cincinnati an uncomfortable place for non-christians (CCV website during the battles over same-gender-marriage), several cincy churches have groups who spend their entire day recording and calling local rock radio stations to berate them and report them to the FCC over the slightest little thing, the whole same-geender-marriage issue, The creationism vs evolution problem like in Kansas and the "Creationism Museum" in Kentucky.

So its not just the left trying to opress the right, the right is trying to opress the left as well and so far the dark side of the right is wining. When you realize that this country was founded on the principles of freedom, equality and justice for all, not just christians, and that your rights end at the end of your arm or your personal space then this will be a better ocuntry and the fighting will end. That just because you have one relgion or another does not give you the right to try and force that religion on someone who does not want it or to live under those rules.

Let me try and rephrase that last paragraph it didnt come out quite the way i was wanting it to.

There is no left wing conspiracy to remove people's personal private religion or religious beliefs or anything of that nature. What you do in your home is your business, what you do with you private life is your business. What is happening is that the "left" as it is called is trying to defend themselves, and the government and the public spaces from opression and invasion by those person's who feel that their religion gives them the right to interedfere and invade and supress and opress other people's lives who do not agree with them and bow down and kow tow to what they call the one true path or the only way to think and feel.

It is more of a defensive war by most of the left against the forces of the dark side on the right.

Mike Brill: Furthermore, this country was founded primarily by Christians, since in the 1700s the "Colonials" were over 90% Protestant Christians, some smaller percentage Catholic Christians, less than 1% Jewish and everything else was so few as to be statistically insignificant. (Note: according to his own autobiography, Ben Franklin said that he started out as a Christian, became a Deist for a while, then returned to Christianity; some people distort this by saying, "Oh, the founding fathers were all deists".)
Luigi Novi: The Founding Fathers were not primarily Christians, nor where they "all deists." George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were Deists. James Madison and James Monroe almost certainly were as well. And yes, so was Benjamin Franklin. (Source: Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country by Peter McWilliams.)

Mike Brill: ScottN - I don't know of anyone who is trying to do anything like that.
Luigi Novi: He wasn't saying that anyone was. He was asking you a hypothetical question about how you'd feel if Jews tried to make Jewish practices and beliefs into law, as a way of arguing the legitimacy of Christians doing so.

Mike Brill: Luigi - You aske for examples. I may not be able to prove it to everyone's satisfaction, but I wouldn't say it was happening if a whole bunch of us didn't believe it was happening.
Luigi Novi: Belief is not evidence of anything. The fact of the matter is that people can be (and often are) wrong about the things that they allege, even though they actually believe them to be true.

Mike Brill: OK, in the past several years: An elementary teacher asked each of her students, "What does Christmas mean to you?". Of course, most of the kids said 'presents' or 'days off from school', etc., but one little girl said, "Christmas to me means The Manger". The teacher replied, "You're not allowed to say that here". A 4th-grader, in Missouri I think, was praying, silently, with head bowed, over his lunch; he was taken out of the school cafeteria and to the principal's office, where he was berated for it. A teenage girl got a 1-inch gold cross on a gold neck chain, and when she wore it to school, she was told that she wasn't allowed to wear it. Several times, even earlier today, I've heard about students being told that they're not allowed to wear T-shirts that say anything about Jesus. Some students have been told that they're not allowed to read their Bible in study hall. Some school libraries have books about some religion dealing with witchcraft, but no Bible allowed.
Luigi Novi: Citations and sources, please.

(And even if any of these incidents actually happened, and your description of them is accurate---many schools and organizations, for example, have dress codes that bar any kind of jewelery or T-shirts with slogans, message, ads, etc., and not just Christian/Jewish ones---they do not represent the mainstream.)

". A 4th-grader, in Missouri I think, was praying, silently, with head bowed, over his lunch; he was taken out of the school cafeteria and to the principal's office, where he was berated for it. A teenage girl got a 1-inch gold cross on a gold neck chain, and when she wore it to school, she was told that she wasn't allowed to wear it. Several times, even earlier today, I've heard about students being told that they're not allowed to wear T-shirts that say anything about Jesus. Some students have been told that they're not allowed to read their Bible in study hall. Some school libraries have books about some religion dealing with witchcraft, but no Bible allowed; if this isn't favoring one religion over another, then what is it?

Like Luigi I'd like to see a cite, since they sound more like the kinds of Urban Legends that one would hear on Talk Radio. Even if they are true than in most cases (bible in study hall, no bible in school library, no wearing crosses) than the school is clearly wrong and the parents should call the ACLU and fight it.

Last night during A Charlie Brown Christmas (could a show like that even get made today for network TV?) there was a commercial for a car company, Ford I think, where they sang "We Wish You A Happy Holidays, We Wish You A Happy Holidays" to the tune of "We Wish You A Merry Christmas". WHY change the lyrics to make it oh, so PC? I mean come on, if you are going to be that chicken, pick a different song!

No, Influx, the lyrics are:

"We Wish you a Happy Honda-Days"

It's a Honda commercial.

BTW, "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" are the only "holiday" specials that I can stomach.

Yes it is happy honda days. The speed and way they sing it as well as honda/holidays made me stop and think about it too until I saw it was acar commercial and listened closer the next 34,000 times i heard that commercial. (They play it like every other commercial during the local news due to the mega Hondastore in Cincy)

And yeah Charlie Brown is the all time greatest classic. Although I love the Alistar Sims Christmas Carol, but its never played on broadcast anymore.

Luigi Novi: The Founding Fathers were not primarily Christians, nor where they "all deists." George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were Deists. James Madison and James Monroe almost certainly were as well. And yes, so was Benjamin Franklin.
He's right. There were more than fifty delegates at the Continental Congress, after all.

Luigi Novi: Citations and sources, please.
Not to do his work for him, but:
http://www.edailynews.info/articles/2003/11/13/news/opinion/op01.txt

I admit, I have no idea how legit that site is, and I couldn't find the story on any news sites. All I could find were pretty much pro-religion websites. This article seems to refute it, but again I don't know how legitimate it is either:

http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/gingrich.htm

No, Influx, the lyrics are: "We Wish you a Happy Honda-Days" It's a Honda commercial.

Uh-oh, better get my ears checked. Still -- it's too close to "Happy Holidays" for my taste. In my defense, I rarely pay attention to commercials, and I was making dinner at the time...

Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas whats the big deal. if you believe in christmas say merry christmas even if you might insult the person who you sya it too. If they are reasonable they'll just consider the source and move on. If you don't say happy holidays. That way the only people you'll insult are the ones who get insulted about minor little BS like that anyhow.

I swear too many people are WAAAAAYYYY too sensitive over little carp like this. Not everyone believes the same as you. (and I mean you in general). I mean just look at this board you have a proud and confirmed and committed aethiest (me), A hebrew(or is it jewish, or would the informal jew be ok?) (ScottN), several christians of various flavors (TomM, MikeC and Zarm to name three), and a few others. America is a very multicultural and diverse country with hannukah, christmas, kwanzaa, and beltane all sharing the same space on the calender.

I mean I was just listening to the national news a bit ago and there was some christian leadership guy griping about the white house christmas card saying "a happy holiday season" instead of merry christmas. The reporter asked him if we had elected a jewish president should we force him to say merry christmas and the christian guy said yes. I am sorry I do not have names for you but I was trying to do three thigns at once and had my back to the tv but it was ABC news. But that is being overly insensitive to a person's personal wishes by saying he expected a jewish president to say merry christmas and overly sensitive to having someone say happy holidays.

Big deal so what. Happy holidays to all. Or you could be like me and just grunt and wish for spring to get back here. I am very much hating winter right now.

I don't have a problem with a person saying "Happy holidays." I have a problem with a person being forced to say "Happy holidays."

I personally have a problem with a person being forced to say either one. Let a person say what they feel like sayign about the season and lewave it at that. There is no need to make a federal case out of anything this minor/nonissue issue.

you say what you wanna, I'll say what I wanna and we'll all get along a lot better in other words.

BrianF: "Like Luigi I'd like to see a cite...Even if they are true...then the school is clearly wrong and the parents should call the ACLU and fight it."
The American Center for Law and Justice, for one, deals with such cases, and I heard about a lot of these from listening to Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the ACLJ, on radio and TV.

For those of you who still believe that the Christians are the aggressors and that those opposing the Christians are the defenders, then please explain this article, this site, and this site.

Those sites and others like it are misguided attempts to paint themselves out as peaceful defenders of a left wing attack pogrom. They are taking and spining their own BS around so that it sounds like they are reacting to things that have some substance insterad of jumping at shadows.

There is no moral disintegration of america. There is no watering down of values. What there is is a growing diversity of cultural and moral values, all equal to each others as long as they do not directly harm others the way much of the christian taliban's pograms do, that the christian taliban cannot seem to accept. The christian taliban wants to see a country that all bends to their will and their beliefs and only one set of moral codes and ethics, theirs.

MikeB: The American Center for Law and Justice, for one, deals with such cases, and I heard about a lot of these from listening to Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the ACLJ, on radio and TV.
Luigi Novi: The link merely takes you to that organization's main page. It does not refer to any of the incidents you mentioned above. Nor does saying, "I heard it from this guy." So the same problem remains: No sources or citations.

MikeB: For those of you who still believe that the Christians are the aggressors and that those opposing the Christians are the defenders...
Luigi Novi: Um, what are you talking about? Who said anything about "the" Christians being the aggressors or "those opposing them" being the defenders? Which Christians? Which opponents? Who are you talking about here? What legal case are you referring to? What situation? You never specified what issue you're referring to. What does this comment have to do with the alleged cases you mentioned above?

MikeB: ... then please explain this article, this site, and this site.
Luigi Novi: Okay. The first two are not articles. They're the websites of two organizations. Why you think the mere existence of these two organizations has any bearing on the comment about "agressors" or "defenders" (which itself made no sense), I don't know. Nor do I know why you refer to those pages as "articles."

The third link results in a File Not Found page.

What did the Fascist regimes in Italy, Germany, and Spain have in common?
They consisted of a highly militarized state, backed by corporation and a wealthy elite,
that rose to power through a false populism that exploited the public’s fear of foreigners
and "moral degenerates".

This precisely defines the formula that Karl Rove designed to consolidate
the Bush administration’s power in the recent election.
--Sean Donahue, Nov. 2004

The people on those sites you posted are a bunch of mean spirited folks. I for one wouldn't exactly be calling them nice guys in white hats.

"When the Christian majority takes over this country,
there will be no satanic churches,
no more free distribution of pornography,
no more talk of rights for homosexuals.
After the Christian majority takes control,
pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil
and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil."
Gary Potter (Catholics for Christian Political Action)


Hmmm sounds like a rally cry for an attack to me. From a leader of a religious organization.

it's fun
to
post
quotes
from
wackos
and
nuts
but
too much
of this
feels like
we're
stuck in
a ruts

I know what you mean. It does feel like there is no movement here. The christian right and their supporters say they are the only one true way and that they cannot and will not compromise and the left tries to hold out the olive branch only to get it knocked away by the aforementioned uptight narrow mindedness of the right.

If the christian taliban would just acknowledge that they do not have all the answers, that there are people who live good lives without "christian" uptightness and do not want to be "christian" then a lot of the stress and issues and battles would go away. Let them live their life and we live our life and they would be upholding the true values of christ and the "christian" values. AND upholding the values and principles our non-christian founding fathers wanted this country to have, Equality, Justice and Liberty for all.

And Gary Potter is a wacko? Very interesting because according to his bio he is a well respected and upstanding member of his community.
And you are agreeing that PAt Robertson, Fred Phelps, Dobson, all these people spewing hatred, intolerance and "Christian" only values attacking diversity are all wackos? I would not quite declare them wackos. Evil yes. But not wackos.

R, you are a pot that calls kettles black. The only person spewing hatred that I can think of, right now, is YOU. 'Bigotry' is YOUR middle name.

Luigi: I only called ONE item an article, and it is, unless you deny that anything in 'Frontpagemag' is an article. The others I called sites, and they are. As for the 'File Not Found', I must have made a typo.

Here is the other site.

R: "...and the left tries to hold out the olive branch..."

As far as I can remember, YOU have done NOTHING that I would call "holding out the olive branch".

As for those people who call up the local rock radio stations in order to berate the deejays, to me that sounds less like a Taliban than like a bunch of local yokel dunderheads who think the devil doesn't tempt Country & Western singers. Or who think that rock stars do anything bad that nobody else does.

JUST A SUGGESTION - If you or anyone you know works at one of these radio stations, try to record some of these calls, and CONSIDER broadcasting some of these calls. (It would be interesting to see what the general public in that area thinks about these callers.) Also, try to find out what church the callers go to. Also, try to find out what kind of "Christian books" (other than the Bible), written by which people living today, these callers have been reading. Go to the local ministerial association (if there is one), or visit some of the local churches, WITH the recordings of some of these calls; ask them if they support such activities by people in their congregation. (Most pastors would probably consider such people to be an embarrassment.)

Mike B. Thank you for the personal insults.(moderator anybody?) If you would look at some of my other posts around here you would see that I am very far from being bigotted. And the only problem I have been having with religion or "religious" people is those who feel that their religion is thoe ONLY religion anyone should have and that their religion's codes and morals are the ONLY morals and ethics that people have and will go to whatever lengths they can to get the laws changed to support them and their religion.

And as for knowing what the enemies of peace and freedom do I pay attention. WEBN the local hard rock station already takes and plays these people's calls over the air. (you call the station they have on their automated switchboard a menu option that if you leave a message you give them permission to play it on the air)

The church many of these so called christians go to are The Vineyard or The Church of Christ. One of which is a non-denominational hate factory that has passed out flyers against many topics. They have also had people illegally protesting and trying to drum up support for one blue law or another at the Milford Krogers.

The Citizens for Community Values (originally called Christian Values but they didnt get enough support under that name so they changed it to community to try and hide the fact that they where wanting to shove and I am quoting from their website:Citizens for Community Values
Mission and Vision: Who is CCV?

Mission: Citizens for Community Values (CCV) exists to promote Judeo-Christian moral values, and to reduce destructive behaviors contrary to those values, through education, active community partnership, and individual empowerment at the local, state and national levels.
Sounds nice doesnt it. But when you start looking around their website or listen to them talk you get to see that they do not want a debate, they feel and act like they are the ONLY side that is right or has any right to be right, that they promote the same old lies and sterotypes.

And as for some of the local ministers uspporting action who do you think is at the head of many of these so called community values organizations. Many of the local ministers are the ones calling for the hatred the loudest (i should know my wife's brother is a nondenom minister and wants to see homosexuality itself outlawed as well as hating to have to tend to the diversity programs in the state prision he also works for)

So all in all thank you for the personal insults and attacks. I was not referring to you yourself personally in anythign I have said. I have not done anything other than call the christian taliban on their foul and nasty actions and I have admitted that there are people much further left than myself who would like to see ALL religion stamped out. I personally don't care what religion a PERSON has by this GOVERNMENT is, was and should ever always be a SECULAR one. A PERSON should be free to worship whomever and whatever they wish to worship be it the christian god, allah, buddha, brahma, the goddess, or the great noodle monster or NOT worship ANYTHING if they so choose to do so.

I am going to end this before i do make a personal comment about you. However I will remind you that not everyone who is against religious based laws, initiatives or is left of center is an ignorant jerk or someone who lives in the country is a dumb redneck yokel.

Mike, let me first aplogize for my error in vocabulary. I'm ususally more careful than that in composing my posts. Mea culpa.

Now, in answer to the questions you actually asked....

-The issue is not whether anything "in" Frontpage is an article. The issue is the content of that article--specifically, whether it supports your initial assertions about those incidents you described. Again, in what way does the mere announcement of a formation of Jews against Christian defamation lend credence to the assertion of an teacher telling a student she's not allowed to mention the manger, or a student taken to the principal's office's for praying during lunch? These are extremely outrageous-sounding situations, and so far, you have not backed them up with a single source. Where you get the idea that an article on the formation of an organizationm, or a site for the ADF serves this purpose, I don't know.

-Thank you for providing that last site. I read it, and it does not support your prior assertions either.

My position, therefore, remains the same: Please cite a source for those incidents you described.

Ok now that I have calmed down and recentered myself let me try and address a few things.

As I said I do pay attention to what I refer to as the christian taliban are doing. I watch their websites, I do occasionally listen to their radio programs, I do read their flyers when they hand them out. Intelligence gathering is one of the key facets in any war. And yes this is a war for the freedom and diversity of this country are at stake. The various organizations of the christian taliban are quite similar to the islamic taliban in that there is no real one head of the snake but many different ones each with their own goals and motives but a common thread of thinking and feeling that this ocuntry would be better off if their own interpretation of the bible and the "christian" religion was the only one allowed and that their morals and ethics where the backbone of all laws in this country and no one but them and those who think and feel the way they do should have a voice or rights.

The founding fathers of this country wanted a firm seperation between church and state, and they themselves declared that this government was to be a secular government with a "christian" people. Remember this is over 200 years ago so the definition of christian has changed a slight bit. Also this country and the entire world have changed a lot in 200 years.

Science has progressed and we now know a lot more about the natural world and the way things operate and function. Unfortunately the christian taliban want to prohibit science from being taught in the science class, and they are winning in Kansas. Students in Kansas will be set back by about a hundred years in science now.

As for books I do not know what every member of every church reads. I can tell you that my CT brother and sister in law will not read anythign that deals with satanism, witchcraft, glorifying violence or sex. This means no harry potter, no star wars, no star trek, no heinlien, asimov, clarke, tolkein, shakespeare or anything like that. And don't even get me started about their selection of movies if it isnt G or at the very absolute worst PG they feel it should be burned. As for anyone else I do not talk to most of them at such a personal level as to know what they read. And if I do it usually turns into an argument as they decide that i should not be reading such filth. And they do not like to hear me point out that if I wanted to read a book with sex, drugs, and violence glorified in it I'd read the bible. (look up the Dark Bible to see what I am talking about)

As for the local ministers, they support much of the activities of these people. They have been known to call in and say they will pray for the souls of the DJ and the listeners. Of course the DJ makes fun of these people and the listeners call in to berate the CT callers right back.

I will admit there are people further left than I who would like to see all religion stamped out whatsoever and where ever it exists. I am not nor ever have been calling for that. I just want a solid steel wall between the government and laws and the religion. I want science in the science class. I want people to be able to live their life by their own morals so long as those morals do not involve hurting others. By the christian taliban leaders such as phelps and robertson saying and doing what they do they definately qualify as evil satanic bstrds because they meddle and interefere in others lives. They preach and promote a message and culture of intolerance and hatred against any who do not follow them and ignorance of what a diverse culture we have in this country. I say that anyone who does not condemn phelps and his kind are either secretly or openly on their side.

I have visited the local churches,and found many of them to be supportive of the christian taliban and their much of their goals. To give an example the church my mother goes to (episcopal) almost voted to break away from the national ministry because of the homosexual bishop. Fortunately they voted to replace the minister instead and got rid of the narrow minded uptight biddy and got someone in there more accepting and open minded. Someone who understands that homosexuals are people just like you and I. (The preacher when I was goign there actually had a homosexual son that he was proud of and was not ashamed to be seen in church with, somethign that I sincerely doubt robertson or phelps would do.)

Since I agreed to try and back off on the epic mega posts I will end this here but I want you to know that I am not a bigot. I am a very inclusive person as this country was founded on equality, freedom and justice for ALL people, not just christians. I do not make my friends and the people I associate with pass a religion test to be my friend or associate. Unfortuantely many people do, both left and right. I will admit that. The people at the extreme ends of the spectrum need to have their heads examined and somehow brought closer to the middle. But until there is a great collective compromise and the christian taliban goes back under their rock there will still contineu to be conflict. Caused by relgious zealots wanting to impose their will and their religion upon anyone and everyone regardless of the person's feeligns on it.

You keep citing your brother and sister-in-law as examples of Christians, when your posts seem to indicate that they are very extremist forms of Christians. I don't know any Christians who are not allowed to read Shakespeare or Tolkien.

R, I am continually disturbed by your constant use of the phrase "christian taliban". There is no such thing. There are other, more common terms for the type of people you are describing.

Well I call them christians as that is how they self-identify. They also calim that they are following the true examples of how the bible says all christians should live, of course I have heard that same comment from every other "christian" that I have encountered. I do know several other christians who are not as anal as they are. Usually I try to identify them by their alignment with the Christian taliban.

Influx I am sorry you are disturbed by the phrase christian taliban but it is the most effective way i can quickly and easily identify which sect of christians I am referring to. If I just say christian's or even christian funamentals that does not hit the target i am aiming at as preceicely. For I do realize there are many christians who are good and even fundamentalists who do not wish to force their religion and their morals upon others and change the laws to support and endorse their one single relgious interpretation of the world.

The christian taliban is those "christians" such as fred phelps, pat robertson, phil buress of the CCV, and their supporters and allies who feel that their interpretation of the "christian" religion is the ONLY religion that this country and its citizens should be allowed to believe and live by. They try to change the laws, pollute the schools with their lies and promote, preach, endorse or otherwise encourage hatred and ignorance of diversity and science. Look at what has happened to the science program in the Kansas school, a disgusting shame. Look at all the legalally enshrined discrimination in the various states thanks to the Christian taliban making a fuss over a non-issue namely homosexual-marriage. Also look at the recent flap goign on over the white house christmas card and the "alleged", flase, downright BS lies about an attack on christmas. All organized and initiated from the christian taliban and their followers.

There is NO attack on christmas, society would not self-destruct with homosexual-marriage permitted, and if people listened to rap or saw nudity there would NOT be an upswing in violence or rape. The problem is that the christian taliban want to sieze power and impose their narrow minded, uptight, anal retentive, killjoy attitude and interpretation of "christian" religion on everyone in this country. And any good and decent person should be condemning them and fighting them. TO protect your right to believe in in your religion as well as the right to not believe. The enemies of freedom are ignorance and apathy.

And yes Influx there are other more common terms for the christian taliban unfortunately many of them are blocked by the censorsoftware n this site, but evil, deluded, swaggering tin plated dictators with delusions of godhood, scum sucking trash, filth, neonazi like bstrds, ummm are just a few that come to mind when i hear robertson or phelps or burris speak. I mean Phelps protests and pickets at people's funerals. Right now he is claiming on his website godhatesfags that god is killing us soldiers in iraq because someone tried to blow up his church with and IED (Improvised Explosive Device) and has picketed at some of his local soldier's funerals. Fortunately a biker club in the area has formed a group who will form a human shield between the funeral and the picketers to keep phelp's minions away.

DO you really think that Phelps is a christian? If he isnt then why are not all the rest of christian's telling him to go bugger off and shut up? Is it because maybe secretly he is saying and doing things that some (some mind you not all) christians would like to do but don't have the guts to do? When Robertson condemns an entire city for rejecting intelligent design as the false pseudoscience it is why doesnt good christian's tell him he is an idiot instead of sending him money to help support his pogrom of hate and ignorance?

This is a battle between the forces of evil represented by the christian taliban and the forces of good represented by those who would prevent them from gaining power and destroying this countries freedom, equality, justice and those who value diversity in culture.

"Do you really think that Phelps is a christian? If he isnt then why are not all the rest of christian's telling him to go bugger off and shut up? Is it because maybe secretly he is saying and doing things that some (some mind you not all) christians would like to do but don't have the guts to do? When Robertson condemns an entire city for rejecting intelligent design as the false pseudoscience it is why doesnt good christian's tell him he is an idiot instead of sending him money to help support his pogrom of hate and ignorance?"

I think Fred Phelps is a moron.
I have never sent Pat Robertson money and I think he is a moron.

See, I can do this too. I can associate liberals with Ward Churchill and Michael Moore and use them as generalizations for all people who are against the war. That would be wrong. It is similarly wrong to look at Fred Phelps and think that he represents Christian values and what most Christians want.

Well Mike I am glad to see we do agree on that. I do NOT think Phelps represent each and every christian. That is one reason I seperate him and his kind of ilk with the identifier "christian Taliban".

Unfortunately he and his ilk claim to be christians, they claim to represent christianity as a whole and claim that those who do not follow their beliefs are not true christians. And while you do not support robertson or send him money there are quite a few who do.

And my biggest problem is if they do not represent the majority of christians why are christians allowing him and his kind to continue claiming to be christians and not condmening his kind. I mena if I have a person claiming to represent me and they dont I let them know about it and try to either distance myself from them publically as well as getting them to shut up or at least be aware they dont represent me.

I'm not a fan of either churchill or moore either. I jump on someone who is extreme left as much as i do someone who is extreme right. Extreme views on things of either side are not a good thing. Sad thing is common sense just isnt very common. You live your life I live my life and as long as we dont hurt or interefere in one another things would be cool and great.

See, I can do this too. I can associate liberals with Ward Churchill and Michael Moore and use them as generalizations for all people who are against the war.

R has repeatedly stated that he dislikes only the Christian Taliban, so he's not generalising, but pointing to a specific segment that causes problems.

"And my biggest problem is if they do not represent the majority of christians why are christians allowing him and his kind to continue claiming to be christians and not condmening his kind. I mena if I have a person claiming to represent me and they dont I let them know about it and try to either distance myself from them publically as well as getting them to shut up or at least be aware they dont represent me."

I can't physically put a gun to Fred Phelps' head and tell him to stop claiming to be a Christian. That's his right. It's between him and God. I personally denounce him when I get a chance, which to be frank, is not much, because to talk about the man at all is giving him more attention than he deserves.

I just don't find your reasoning in this way compelling. Should all liberals have to make Ward Churchill "shut up?" Should African-Americans force Louis Farrakhan to "shut up?" For that matter, what about the actual Taliban? Why didn't other Islamic nations make them "shut up?" Because reasonable people can look at any extremists and realize that they do not represent the true ideology. Phelps, Churchill, Farrakhan, and Osama are all extremists. I don't see Christians as having some special obligation to curb their extremists more than any others.

R, I like Star Trek, Star Wars, Clarke and the late, great Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein. I recognize one of the "other terms" you mentioned as something that a villain-of-the-week called Captain Kirk.
Now: I do NOT support anyone who says, "God hates fags,", etc. Anyone who is Christian enough to actually read their Bible will tell you that "God is willing that none should perish"; it's various types of BEHAVIOR that the Christian God disapproves of. When I saw a picture, over a year ago, of that guy carrying the picket sign saying, "God hates fags", I thought he was an irritating, annoying jerk, NOT someone doing the work of God.
As for Pat Robertson, I sometimes think that he has seen better days and should retire.
Now: Can you name ONE CONGRESSMAN who has introduced a bill to make ANYTHING into a state religion? If not, then nobody (of any significance) is trying to do that.
The books that I was referring to are anything written by Texe Marrs, Phil Phillips, John Weldon or John Ankerberg, to name a few. Some 'Christians' are under the mistaken impression that every word that comes out of their mouth is equal to, or even better than, the Bible.

True MikeC you cannot physically force someone to behave. And yes it is between him and his deity of choice, and if he would leave it at that I would be happy and not bothered by him. I am at a loss for what to do about Phelps and his kind. True giving them any attention is bad but letting them get away unchallenged is bad too. And yes I looked up churchill. Not exactly speaking for me either. And i sent him an email saying so. Not that ti will do much good I am sure but oh well at least I am making my views known. And I am sorry mike but anymore it has seemed to me like the "true" ideology of christianity is being swallowed by the personal ideology of many of the christian taliban.

I guess one of the problems I have is that I don't see much of a christian counter movement to promote a healthy christian attitude, to say that no these people do not speak for us. In some ways it does almost seem like the robertson's and the dobson's and all of them have the silent support of the people. Although Phelps does seem to be finally dropping too far off the deep end recently with some of his actions so he may finally shoot himself in the foot and go away.

MikeB: To my knowledge no representative is trying to get a state religion. But the seperation between church and state is more than just the establishment of a state religion. The founding fathers where not christians and did not want this country to have any religion meddling in government or government meddling in religion. They even went so far as to openly declare this country a secular governed country (Treaty of Triploi).

So by getting such things as the "Defense" of marriage laws and marriage bans against homosexuals passed among other stupidity such as forcing intelligent design to be taught in science classrooms and then when challenge by the truth that intelligent design is not science they changed the definition of science. The Kansas state school board is a laughign stock and should all resign in disgrace for bowing to the pressure of the christian taliban in insulting science as badly as they have. they are doing a disservice to their students and teachers and future of their state.

As for those authors (Marrs, Phillips, Weldon etal.) I am not aware of the personal reading habits of members of the CCV or my exfriends or even my brother and sister in law to that degree. I am only aware of what they have publically claimed on their website, pamphlets and brochures as well as in public speaking.

Speaking of the other authors I am glad you do like Clarke,Asimov and Heinlein the holy trinity of classic sci-fi authors IMO. Believe it or not that does increase my opinion of you after that last post where you called me a bigot. I will agree that i would be a bigot if i declared each and every christian person or even religious person to be evil or scum or bad. I DO NOT say that nor do I think or feel that. I will admit that most of my friends are aethiest or agnostic at best but i do have a few friends who are christian (probably classified as lapsed), one who is wiccan (and homosexual, not to say that the two automatically go together but he falls under two categories right there the christian taliban hate), one who is jewish (he worked for me at the dealership), and a couple of epals who are islamic. (though I havent been able to talk to them as much as things are getting busy for them in their personal life). The only way to raise my ire about religion is to try and pass laws to get your religious point of view enshrined in law and supported by law. the rest of the time it is a totally non-issue with me.


Thank you constanze I do seem to find myself having to defend that identifier quite repeatedly. I will state again: I am not calling every christian a member of the taliban or evil or have a problem with every christian. The ones I have a problem with are those who feel that their religion gives them a right to promote endorse or otherwise impose their morals, values or beliefs on others regardless of how those others feel.

I am an aethiest. I am proud of that fact and do not feel bad about it. I do not however go up to people wearing a cross or religious paraphenalia and tell them they are offending me or anything. For the most part it is a non-issue. Sometimes if it is somethign nice and I know the person I may compliment them on it. (I do like a bit of the artwork of religion) I have the flu right now so am sneezing a bit (enough to probably launch a shuttle flight sometimes) and when a person says bless you I say thank you as it is meant not as a religious intonation but as simple etiqutte.

However there are those who go around carrying a bible with them every where they go. Who will sermonize about how evil and sinful the world is at the drop of a hat. I belong to a car club. I have across the top of my windshield "devil boy" and a skull and crossbones. I have had some of the bible thumpers come up to my car when i am at the mall or mcdonalds and start telling me i am going to hell for having that on my car or the music i am listening to.I find that behavior offensive but still not quite to the level of the christian taliban, borderline yes, but still no to that point. Going to the local city council or government agency and complaining and trying to get the laws changed because their moral code says that this behavior or that word is bad according to them and their interpretation of a book that was written 2000 years ago is christian taliban because it is in violation of seperation of church and sate it is imposing their religious views on people who do not agree with it.

I used the example of if the jews got a law passed to force every guy to get circumsized. Not that that is likely to happen as there doesnt seem to be as manny jewish extremists in america, but it would be a religious based law that would affect many people beyond that religion. Somethign that is in my beliefs wrong and is according to the founding father's writings they left behind wrong as well.

Religion belongs in the hearts and homes and lives of those who follow that religion, who wish to be a part of that religion and who voluntarily of their own free will join that religion. It should not be a part of the government, it should not be the part of public schools and it should not be in place of science. And most definately it should not be forced upon people who do not agree with that religion. There are many things I do not agree with from many of the relgions, many thigns I do agree with. I do pick and choose but I have that luxury as I have chosen to walk away from religion. And I feel no regrets for it. But I am not trying to force anyone else to take that walk unless they wish to. That is a difference between me and probably you and the christian taliban. You would not try to force me to go to church or live a "christian" life (not that ther eis anythign inherently wrong with the way i live my life now). But the Christian Taliban would want to pass laws prohibiting speech, behaviors, science anythign that does not agree with their narrow religious interpretation.

I am sorry that I did another epic mega post but I felt that all this needed to be said.

So basically what I am calling rational is: If you dont like the tv show, movie or music on the radio turn it off! Change the channel, put a disc in the player of somethign you do want to watch. Dont go running to the government to enforce your morals. I mean Janet Jackson's teat was on tv maybe 2 microseconds and unless you used frame by frame you saw nothing. But the way the christian talibans freaks where making it sound she had them out on display for most of the game. Big deal so what? Society wouldnt explode if she did.

The way the christian taliban lies and cheats and does whatever they can to paint homosexual marriage as a threat to "traditional" marriage is very sick and disgusting to me. In my personal belief the legal definition of marriage should be: A civil and social contract between two consenting adults. Thats it. A marriage is only as special and as sacred as the people involved in it make it.

A return of the ratinal to christianity is the title of this thread. I would like to see a return of the rational to the entire society and planet. I mean this copuntry is a diverse melting pot of many different cultures, beliefs and attitudes. Why does it have to be only one particular set of beliefs that must be dominant?

In my eyes all religions are the exact same equal level of validity. I do not place any one religion above any others when we are talking about religion in general. yes this means I place wicca and islam and hebrew and christianity and whatever else comes along on the same line and level. As long as the person involved in that religion is happy, comfortable and doing it of their own free will its not my right or place to say anything about it.

There where just a few other thigns I needed to get off my chest before I went to bed. So good night, good morning and good afternoon in case I don't see you.

In my eyes all religions are the exact same equal level of validity.

Really? Scientology? The Heaven's Gate group? The Koresh followers?? The Moonies?

Unless, by "exact same equal level of validity", you meant, none whatsoever.

As belief systems go they are all the same to me. To me none of the religions hold all the answers to the questions of life the universe and everything. They are all like a child's nightlight giving a sense of safety and comfort to their followers and chasing the shadows away.

In a way you are right influx I don't see any real difference in islam or christianity or scientology or whatever cult of the week you can ocme up with. Whats the difference if a person wants to worship allah or jehovah (and Koresh and the Branch davidian's where christians anyhow, at least by their own identificators) or gaia or the great noodle monster. As long as it brings them that warm fuzzy feeling, they are happy and doing so only of their own free will and not huritng or interefereing in anyone else's lives then thats cool with me. Only if they try to force their beliefs on another person or change the laws to support and endorse their religious views of the world do i care or get upset. So by saying I see no value or validty in religion, purely speaking for myself and my life, I don't. I choose to walk away from it and have never looked back and feel no regrets for doing so. If someone doesnt walk away then thats their life and their decision and as long as they are happy and keep it (religion) to themselves and those who feel the way they do then fine. Great. Enjoy it all you want. Just leave those who do not agree with you alone and don't be so bigotted to think that your religion is the only one people should have, or at the least if you do think that don't try and get the laws changed to reflect that.

I mean lets stop and think for a moment. Every religion tells its followers that they are the chosen people of their god. That they alone are special and are going to be worthy to enter into heaven. But what proof of this is there? Each and every religion makes the same claims. This is like all soaps can get you clean so why buy one that says you can get cleaner with them than the other soap? Is it because its a brand you are used to and comfortable with or you like the color os what?

You'll say my god sent his son for me, or my holy book says so. Ok thats nice but those sources are a bit biased dont you think? I have read the king james, niv and a few other christian bibles, i have read the quoran. All of those books make the claim that their god be he jehovah or allah is the total creator of the universe and the supreme all powerful being. But they are also written by the followers of those religions which is like asking Paramount to write the reviews of their movies. Of course they are going to try and make theirs out to be the best thing since legs.

To me religion should be such a non-issue that people shouldnt care what religion another person is, or isnt. I mean I have told you about my exgirlfriend saying that since i am an aethiest and dont share her beliefs in the one true god she wont be alone with me because i dont have any morals or anythign stopping me from being a rapist. Like I needed the fear of some mythological being to make me beahve myself. I have spoken with people who say oh he goes to that church or he's a part of that church like the person is some kind of looser because he doesn't go to the same church as the speaker. People are willing to kill over which symbol you pray in front of a cross or a crescent moon or a star. It shouldnt really matter since everyone is human, we all share one planet and have to live together. You live your life the way you feel happy and comfortable and let everyone else go about their life and as long as they are not directly affecting you get over it.

But you'll say christians are not directly affecting you or the people you care about. I beg to differ, yes they are, or at least the christian taliban is.

I listen to rap and urban but i cannot stand the censored versions being played on the radio due to the CT not being able to understand how to turn a radio knob and wanting to meddle in what other people listen to because their morals say that certain words are bad or sinful or disgusting. I don't mind a little T&A on late night tv or heck even during the day. But since sex and anythign to do with it is sinful and evil to the uptight repressive christian taliban that has to go and be outlawed too, especially in magazines and tv and anywhere else children might get a hold of it. Well heres a tip watch what your kids are watching on tv, look at what they are reading. Use your remote control. Be ready and willing to talk and explain thigns to and with your kids, and more importantly listen to them! Actually be a parent for christs sake!

I have spoken of my homosexual friend before. he has been in a committed, stable, loving, and caring relationship with the same man for the past five years. They live together and share everythign and for all intents and purposes are married. But thanks to the christian taliban scaring people into thinknig that homosexual marriage equals armageddon and the collapse of human civilization they do not have the same legal rights and benefits and protections that my wife and i have. All because they share the same physical equipment. I find the attitude of hatred, ignorance and discrimination to be downright disgusting and morally reprehensible. What harm does it do to you if two men or two women get married? ABOSLUTELY NONE WHATSOEVER!

So thats all i have to say for now.

This Christian Taliban you describe seems really frightening. I have yet to encounter it.

A lot of the things you are describing have nothing to do with Christianity. Rap music? I mean, Tipper Gore led the charge against that some years ago and she's not a Christian Taliban member, is she? If you're having trouble finding T&A on television, that's your fault, sir, not the "Christian Taliban," as there's quite a bit of it on the airwaves right now. If there was a CT, don't you think shows like "Desperate Housewives" or "Nip/Tuck" or whatever would be off the air? If there was a Christian Taliban, wouldn't you think there would be a program that presented a positive depiction of Christians? I can't think of ANY aside from "Seventh Heaven."

A lot of people, not just Christian Taliban people, don't want their children listening to offensive music/watching television shows. I agree that there is some parental responsibility element here, but I also think that people have a right to voice their opinions--it is a free market and by not watching or listening, that takes away viewers/listeners. Thus, the stations/networks do something about it.

Well congratulations to you MikeC. I am glad yet concerned at the same time that you have not encountered any of these bigoted nutjob scumbags.

I am well aware of tiper gore's attempts and actions. that is not recent news. What I am referring to is attempts by christian groups such as CCV, AFA and the moral majority and focus on the family to impose their moral codes on the music, television and entertainment industries. I am all for a free market where if you dont want to listen or watch or play somethign then you dont buy it or watch it or listen to it. Unfortunately these people are not content to just keep themselves from watching it because it offends their morals but to try and keep ANYONE and EVERYONE else form being able to watch or listen or play it if even if they enjoy it and are not offeneded by it.

Yes there is a Christian Taliban and theya re trying their hardest to get those kinds of shows off the air. Fortunately there are people who do understand common sense and a resisting and fighting them. The side of good is still winnning at least in that front.

But in closing I agree the final responsibility lies with the individual listener to choose what they or their children watch and listen to and play, but that does not give them any right to try and take away from anyone else the movies or music or video games they enjoy. Especially if the only reason they can come up with is because it offends them and their religious beliefs. Havaing religion does not give you the right to railroad everyone else in the country into obeying your beliefs and converting to your religion.

Okay... I know most of the major Christian groups, and I would wager that I am familiar with more of the minor ones than is strictly healthy. But I am absolutely at a loss as to what "CCV" stands for.

Also, R, I finally put my finger on what bothers me about the phrase "Christian Taliban." If absolutely nothing else -- and I assure you, there are very many other things gone wrong with that comparison -- I am quite hesitant to declare that people who desire to keep Janet Jackson's breasts covered on TV are morally equivalent to people who destroyed priceless ancient statues of the Buddha simply because it represented the wrong religion. In other words, there's a *threshold* here, and the fact that an avowed homosexual such as myself is able to sit here and type and thumb my nose at one of the worst of what you'd call the "Christian Taliban" (once again, hi, Mr. Ashcroft) tells me that we've not yet crossed it.

Sorry about that MP. CCV stands for Citizens for "Community" Values. A cincinnati based organization with the goals of promoting and enforcing judei-christian values, morals and behavior. They use the methods of calling local radio stations that play music and thigns they disagree with and harassing them, picketing, getting pettition drive to try and force local councils to enact ordinances to support and enforce judeo-christian morals on everyone, they show up at school board meetings to try and convince the school boards to change the curiculum to include more religion, including dropping evolution and replacing it with the nonscience of intelligent design.

The christian taliban is a phrase that I did not originate, I picked it up from some others but I feel it describes the far right, uptight, narrow minded, prudish, anti diversity, anti-science, hypocritical "christians" who feel that their beliefs are the only ones that people should have in this country and are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that. Its not just the sex aspects of things that get them identified as such. It is the willingness to destroy freeom and equality by getting the laws changed to support their religion at the expense of anyone else's beliefs.

And actually it is the same attitude between the christian taliban and the islamic taliban that have earned the CT their identifier. The statues of the buddha where destroyed not only because they where not of the islamic faith but because the islamic taliban interprets the Quoran to prohibit graven images and images of human representation of allah. It is an example of what sort of extreme evil extreme narrow interpretation of a religion can cause. And don't think that some of these christian taliban wouldn't do somethign equivalent if they could.

Maybe I ahve such a strong reaction to things due to having been so closely involved in the fight against these people for the last 4 years. From having lost 2 very close, dear and special people to them. From having had these people vandalize my car people claiming to be good christians spray painting you are going to hell and fag lover just for trying to keep them from enshrining discrimination in our laws.

So maybe we havent compleately crossed that threshold yet. But we are teetering as a society right on the edge of it. And in many places such as kansas they fell across as the christian taliban won and got science destroyed in that state.Remember the KKK at one time was so popular and powerful they had governors and senators as members and got many racial based restrictions on the law books as well. They used "christian" values as a cover for many of their actions as well. Maybe the modern christian taliban should be called the christian Klan but the christian taliban identifier is more evocative and descriptive of what their goals and attitudes are.

R - "he is claiming on his website ...that God is killing us soldiers in Iraq because someone tried to blow up his church..."
Are you a soldier in Iraq? If so, then regardless of everything else I've said, I DO hope you make it back home OK, and I thank you for your service to our country. That guy is nuts; I am not going to believe that God would punish the entire United States, either militarily or otherwise, just because of one person's behavior.

"...I have admitted that there are people...who would like to see ALL religion stamped out."
OK, so you realize that there ARE people who DO try to cause problems for Christians. And when we refuse to be their doormat, they call us every evil name they can think of. You may not BE one of these people, but sometimes you do come across as one of them. If I've criticized you unfairly, I apologize.

"...I will remind you that not everyone...who lives in the country is a dumb redneck yokel." Um, maybe I could have said it better, but that's not what I meant. There are people who say that all rock music is satanic (including The Byrds' "Turn Turn Turn", the lyrics of which come right out of the Bible), but they never criticize the Country & Western MUSIC song, "Now I Lay Me Down To Cheat". Or "Take This Job And Shove It". Or all of the other Country & Western MUSIC songs that glorify adultery, glorify fornication and glorify drinking alcohol. They talk about evil messages backward-masked into some rock songs, but they refuse to admit even the possibility that there could also be evil messages backward-masked in Country & Western MUSIC songs. I'm not sure why this double standard exists, but there must be a reason for it. And the CCV and the two churches that you mentioned seem to be run by such people.

R - I still think that what you've observed in the Cincinnati area is a local phenomenon. And it seems that you HAVE encountered a lot of sick, twisted people, and that you've lumped them into the same category with a lot of OTHER people - who really aren't malevolent and are truly being defensive in nature.

Can any other Nitcentralites give us any info as to whether anything like CCV or those two churches are trying to cause problems for local rock radio stations elsewhere in the U.S.?

I think R meant "U.S. soldiers" not "us soldiers," as nothing in his posts have indicated he had/has a military background.

Mike B: No Unfortunately I am not in military service due to a rather unpleasant incident in high school sports that had my toes pointing the wrong way relative to the rest of my body. But I do have a lot of family and friends in the service and a few are in-country right now. One cousin in iraq itself, a friend who is a combat medic in iraq (some of the stories he has talked about have not been great), a cousin in afganistan (who is a bit peeved the country seems to have forgotten we still ahve troops there.) and a cousin somewhere in the south pacific. Im sure you'll understand if I dont give details as to their locations.

I see what I did wrong in your quote now. I should have capitolized that and said "US soldiers" and not made it sound like I was claiming to be a soldier. Just my poor typing skills when on a tear. Sorry for the confusion.

And speakign of that. I do have a rather bit of a temper so sometimes i do come off like a bit of a jerk or somethign but I am not trying to paint all chrsitians or religious people as nutjobs or evil. While I personally do not see a need or use for religion in my life it is neither my place nor my right to try and stop someone else from having it if it makes them happy.

Right now too many people are getting way too upset over stuff that shouldn't be a big deal. Like the happy holidays vs merry christmas thing. I'll agree that both sides have a lot of people jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle more than should be done. I will admit you did briefly get lumped with zarm and the others into the negative category and i got rather peeved with you for callign me a bigot, but I'm willing to let it go and accept that you're not a bad person and all that. And I am sorry again if I made it sound like ALL christians where part of this dark force or soemthing evil, when i say christian taliban it is those nutjobs who wanna force their beliefs on everyone else i am talkign about not the people who want to belief and be happy and let others live their lives and be happy.

As for country music I'm not real sure. Growing up with it I'll agree there are quite a few cheating, drinking, whoring, fighting songs but there are also quite a few songs about christian values and god and jesus and fighting evil and temptation and such stuff(Long Dark Train is a recent one by a singer I cannot recall comes to mind) which may balance things out. But yeah rap and rock do seem to get more attention but then again i'll be one of the first to admit the difference between hank sr and megadeth or alabama and slayer.

Maybe it is a local thing. I dont know for sure. I mean I do pay a lot closer attention to things going on in my hometown and area. Not to say that I dont pay any attention to national and world events its just thigns that are closer to home take a greater importance to most people as they are closer to home. And this area and region seem to be a prety hot battleground for some reason. Cincinnati hasnt exactly had the greatest record when it comes to civil rights, sexuality and change in general thanks to sheriff leis, other politicos, and many of the church groups in cincinnati for one reason or another backing and in fighting. But I do look at some of the national organizations and watch what they are doing too. Sometimes I do get a bit concerned that things may spiral out of hand it all get ugly. Personally I'm just trying to make the world as good as i can so my kids can grow up and be the people they choose to be and not forced into one particular role or belief system.

And yes it definately does feel like I've encountered more sick people when it comes to religion than I have nice people IRL. Not to say that I havent met a few but the nasty ones usually stand out more. Especially when they call you all kinds of names then a few breathes later say they arnt being judgemental and that they are just being good christians and a role model for what people should be like.

Fortunately i would say i haveb met more good people around here when it comes to religion than I have bad. And aside from a bit of a misunderstanding (perhaps on both our parts) and bad start I think I could classify you on the good side as well.

the name of the song is "Long Black Train" not dark train and its by Josh Turner. If I was at home I could have looked in my music files as I actually like this song even though it is rather blatently about religion (which some people dont understand how i can be aethiest and yet still ike religious art and some music, I just do)

The chorus for anyone who hasn't heard it is:
'Cause there's victory in the Lord, I say.
Victory in the Lord.
Cling to the Father and his Holy name,
And don't go ridin' on that long black train.

The song is basically about lost souls being carried to hell by a long black train engineered by the devil and riding rails of sin. The video for it is really very emotional and Turner's deep voice can get some notes stirring in your head.

Yes MikeC you are correct. I was not intentionally claiming to be a United States Serviceman. just forgetting to capitolize the U.S. before soldier.

And I didn't see your post when i was on the computer at work. According to the time stamp I should have. I wonder what the reason for that is.

Well peace all.

Luigi: 'What does this...have to do with the alleged cases...?'
Well, the sites and article show that (1) I am not the only person who thinks that Christians are sometimes treated unfairly here in the U.S.; and (2) Christians are not the only people who think that Christians are sometimes treated unfairly here in the U.S. (And yes, we know that it's a lot worse in some other countries; we just don't want it to get that way here.)
R: I'm glad we can be at peace with each other. Some religious art and music is excellent because some people want to dedicate their very best work to the Lord; as for your not believing that there is a God, well, if you're not convinced, then you're not convinced. Which is why establishing a state religion would not do anyone any good - IF there is a God, then He KNOWS what you really believe, and if there isn't, we would be doing a lot of work for nothing. And I guess that Ohio would have a lot of internal conflict because it is neither completely rural nor completely urban, but has several fairly large cities surrounded by farmland. New York has (I think) about 90% of its population in the southeast 1/9th of the state; in Oklahoma, there are still a lot of places where anyone who does not have a revolver hanging from his belt is asking to become some animal's lunch. As for the 'Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas' thing, back in the '60's the two were interchangeable. I think that it was a short way of wishing someone BOTH a merry Christmas AND a happy new year. But with the coming of Politically Correct Bovine Sewage, some retailers and other employers have been telling people that they have to say 'Happy Holidays' and are not allowed (in the workplace) to say 'Merry Christmas'. Because the employer is afraid of offending those people who celebrate something else. It doesn't bother ME when I hear someone say 'Happy Hannukah' or 'Happy Ramadan' or 'Happy Kwanzaa' or 'Good Fill-in-the-blank Day'. But apparently it does bother some people, so there you are.

MikeB: Well, the sites and article show that (1) I am not the only person who thinks that Christians are sometimes treated unfairly here in the U.S.; and (2) Christians are not the only people who think that Christians are sometimes treated unfairly here in the U.S.
Luigi Novi: Again, what does this have to do with the alleged cases you mentioned up above abut the girl mentioning the manger or the kid praying during lunch? You were asked to cite sources for those assertions. You have not done so. Instead you cited things that have nothing to do with them.

It doesn't bother ME when I hear someone say 'Happy Hannukah' or 'Happy Ramadan' or 'Happy Kwanzaa' or 'Good Fill-in-the-blank Day'.

But, does it bother you if someone says "Happy Holidays?" as if it is some intent to slight Christmas?

No, because I realize that SOME people DON'T mean it as a slight against Christmas; some people mean 'Happy Holidays' as it was originally intended. But I will probably reply with 'Merry Christmas' until further notice, primarily because HE Is My 'reason for the season'.
Best Wishes To All!

Yeha Ohio has a rather mixed population, which causes a bit of conflict. Not only between the urban/rural but various other ethnicities and attitudes and everything. And there are parts of south eastern ohio that are much closer to west virginia or kentucky in alignemnt as in dont go wandering in the woods without a guide and a gun.

Religious art and music are cool somewhat. I like some opf the bluegrass gospel and some high church hymns but christian rock and especially christian metal kinda freaks me out. (I was channel surfing on the radio stopped on this station playing a great guitar riff worthy of megadeth or metallice when all of a suddenly this deepo gravelly voice started screaming "christ is my lord".......Needless ot say that channel got flipped) And I doubt we look at winged women the same way... Although crucifixes are just kinda I dunno different, strange. To hang one on your wall a person gotta be a bit mental or into s&M to me it seems.

Personally I wonder if by overusing merry christmas it wont secularize it for the CT. And in the past 10 years I've been in the workforce I have never been given directives as to what to say at this time of year. The only thing related to that was back when i worked as a security officer and I had to get this one guard to remove a christmas tree from her uniform and tell her not to wear a santa hat on duty. But that was more of a company regulations issue as we where not permitted to alter the company uniform for professional reasons.

I'll probably say whatever comes to mind or grunt and nod which seems to be my usual response as I am not exactl a great crowd person.

Now about the artwork of religion. I definately appreciate the sensuality that a lot of the old masters put into their representation of female angels. Which is rather interesting considering I do not recall the bible ,aside from a few named angels, having a gender.

Also I appreciate the woodwork and marble and such as is usually found in the older churches. It makes a lot of the newer churches seem quite sterile by comparison, and as some of them are built out of the same materials and plans as a pole barn it just doesnt look right to me. But for example the episcopal church (built 1898) i went to as a kid has some excellent stonework on the outside, woodwork on the inside, including marble inlays around the alter and stained glass windows. Including a giant chi-rho (basically think of a tall letter P with an X overlaid on the tail, it is from the anceint greek letters for jesus christ, or so i was told) inlaid into the arched vault of the alter in gold plated tile.

Now the chi-rho brings me to a related subject for christmas/xmas. One of the churches i drive past on the way to work (milford church of christ, another CT member) has there is no x in xmas on their billboard. I have heard others say that it is sacraliege to put the x there. But from what i can recall from my studies and from the days in episcopal church bible studies the X in the chi-rho represent christ in the ancient greek alphabet of the early church. And was used in many countries and times where the christ name would be rather hazardous to use.(similar to how the swastika was an early christian symbol before the nazis appropriated it and rotated it 45 degrees)

Which is why in many ways it seems to me like there is a lot being said over very little. I mean the phrase happy holidays includes all the holidays going on right now. Merry christmas is a bit specific although it does seem to be getting used in about the same way as happy holidays anymore.

The X does represent Christ, yes.

A friend of mine sells Christmas trees (he is a devout Christian) and his sign says "X-mas trees for sale." He received an angry letter from someone saying that this was blasphemy. My friend wrote back basically your point about the x representing Jesus (I would have told him to mind his own beeswax).

But from what i can recall from my studies and from the days in episcopal church bible studies the X in the chi-rho represent christ in the ancient greek alphabet of the early church.

Yes, the greek "Christos", meaning "Savior, Messias"* is written with the letter "Chi" (which looks like latin X) and the letter "Rho" (which looks like latin P), so overlaying them was an easy shorthand.

* it was translated from Hebrew because Greek was the common language of educated people at that time. That's also why the NT was written in Greek instead of Hebrew like the OT or in Latin, which became the Lingua Franca some centuries later.

.. x in xmas on their billboard. I have heard others say that it is sacraliege to put the x there...

That's the first time I've heard this ridiculous claim. The Chi-Rho abbreviation was used for centuries in the early church. And how could it be sacrilegous to use Jesus name? The Christians don't obey the reverence toward the Tetragram of God's name, either (as the Jews do), so where does this notion come from??

(similar to how the swastika was an early christian symbol before the nazis appropriated it and rotated it 45 degrees)

Um, I think you got that a bit mixed up. The swastika is an old symbol in many cultures - Indian, Native American, Egyptian - symbolising many things, but it wasn't turned around. You can read the Straight dope about it here.

Constanze-

You are right about the use of Greek in the West of the Empire being the reason for the New Testament being written in that language, and the subsequent use of the Greek CristoV for the Hebrew Messaiah, but the words mean "anointed," not "savior," and refer to the kingly, or priestly role given unto one who has been anointed of God.

Many kings and priests of old Israel were referred to as the messaiah. David refused to kill Saul, because he would not harm the "LORD's anointed" (1Sam 24-26). Some schools of Jewish scholarship do look forward to the coming of a particular Messaiah who will usher in a great golden age, but even with this Messaiah the focus is on his function as a priest-king rather than as a savior.

Well I guess the anti-xmas group isnt as big or as vocal as the anti-happy holidays crowd, yet. Give them time though. Very interesting about your friend and the xmas trees. I also realized I mistyped how their sign was worded. It said there is no X in Christmas. With the christ in red letters and everythign else in black.

About the swastika. I am workign off memories of teen bible study which was a quarter century ago. In there we discussed old symbols of the church and saints. It was said and shown in one of the church history books that the ancient christians choose the swastika as a hidden cross to keep it from the romans. Growing up and branching out on my learning I did discover the other cultural usages and importances of the swastika. I was using it in regards to ancient symbols that have been reinterpreted or reused in another means.

Carl Sagan's book Comet touches on how and why so many cultures may have come to regard the signifigance of the swastika by linking it to a pinwheel style comet that was sen over much of the world. I don't know but that does sound reasonable to me.

BTW, even the Chief says "Happy Holidays" in his opening greeting here.

And we can use it for the rest of the week, at least.

Hey, check this out! And likewise this, this, and this. Now is that messed up, or what? And is that enough proof, Luigi?

BTW - Regarding the swastika, it's been around since at least 3000 B.C.. (That's 3000 years Before Christ, or, for those who prefer it, Before Christianity. Sometimes CORRUPTED as 'B.C.E.' for 'Before Common Era'.) The Nazis claimed to be 'Aryans', and the real Aryans were a group of people who lived in, of all places, INDIA, in the 'Thousands B.C.. Also, I have heard that the name of the country 'Iran' is derived from 'Aryan'.

Well about the navy chaplain. In my opinion he violated and insulted the sailor at his funeral by performing an evangelical service when the sailor was catholic. Not exactly courtsmartial level offence but definately deserved a reprimand. I support non-denominational services only for mixed company situations. Thats the regulations and I am sorry but that chaplain has no right to try and protest that any more than a soldier has a right to protest having his hair cut when going into boot. Since he is on leave let him loose someweight but when his leave is up he better get back into shape and condition to serve his country or he should be courtsmartialed for deriliction of duty.

As for the news article from the religious site you quoted. That first article read to me like there is a christian taliban trying to suppress and scare people into accepting and choosing only the christian view and not the scientific view.

I'm not sure which of the news articles you where trying to reference in the fourth site but most of them are either BS taken a bit too far I guess or not worth getting frothy at the mouth over.

About the swastik I did some research and it has been found at least 5000 years BCE. (which I do not see as a corruption of anything as it is more accurate considering how the gregorian calender is not set from the alleged birth of the alleged jesus but a few years afterward) It is a religious and geometric decorative symbol in many cultures worldwide ranging from hindu to celtic to navaho.

Actually the real aryans lived in the persian/iranian region in the 2nd millenium BCE. They predated the actual persians and did eventually after many centuries from into the modern iran.

Mike B--

All four of your links focus on the same story. A paid chaplin was asked by his employer (who happened to be the military) to be more inclusive when addressing, in uniform, a mixed faith audience at official gatherings.

In this case, there is a conflict between the chaplin's First Amendment free speech and free exercise of religion rights and the First Amendment's no establishment of religion resrtictions on the government, and the government sought a reasonable compromise.

Any employer, including the government, can place minor restrictions on an employee's conduct in the workplace if it affects production, policy, or the workplace enviroment, as long as the government does not restrict his individual rights in the public forum.

The government did not forbid him from praying or preaching however he wants on his own time, but only when he is acting as an agent of the government -- in uniform as an official chaplin.

Another way (easier to justify and cheaper to impliment) to avoid the conflict is for the military not to hire chaplins. They can acknowledge the spiritual needs of military personell and provide transportation and minor support to any private chaplin exactly the same way they do the same for any private news reporter, but not pay them or give them any more direct support.

Given the two choices, I'd say the current system is friendlier to the chaplin's interests than the alternative, and so this is in no way "proof" of your claim.

Notice also that the only "punishment" that Rev. Klingenschmitt faces is the "threat" that his contract will not be renewed when it expires. Was he guaranteed lifetime employment by an organization which he disrespects?

Really. What seems to be forgotten is that when you join the military you are essentially agreeing to play by their rules for the term of your tour. While the military does try to acknowledge and protect a person's civil rights, in the line of duty many of those civil rights are, if not ignored, at least not as strong compared to the need for conformity and duty. For services a standard nondescript and nondenominational generic christian prayer would fit the bill just as easily and effectively and as well as an evangelical one or catholic or baptist.

Like TomM pointed out the chaplain was not courtsmartialed or even threatened with it. Just that the Navy would not agree to let him reup when his tour is over. Now if through his hunger strike he gets himself into a condition where he is unfit for duty he could be considered derilict in his duty just the same as if someone reported for duty drunk or high, then he could be punished for that.

But so far the only person doing anything wrong is the chaplain. He performed an evangelical service (in 2004, so why has he waited this long to make a fuss?) for some reason at a catholic sailor's funeral. He was apparently not even officially reprimanded but told that he should stick to the voluntary denominational services and that by doing what he did in a public service he was acting in bad faith (as it hwere). I wonder if he is now making a fuss to try and become a poster boy for the CT.

I just noticed that throughout my post I mis-spelled "chaplain" as "chaplin." I think I just invented a new religion: all the ministers are short, slight men with little mustaches, ill-fitting waistcoats and canes.

MikeB: And is that enough proof, Luigi?
Luigi Novi: No.

It does not substantiate your earlier claim about a little girl told she cannot mention the manger, about a Missouri 4th grader taken to the principal’s office for praying during lunch, or students not allowed to read Bibles in study hall.

I don’t know why you keep attempting the change the central point by bringing up sites about instances other than these three. Sure, I think it’s unreasonable for a Navy chaplain to not be allowed to pray in public. So what? That wasn’t the original claim. The original claim was about three school kids not allowed to pray in their free time or answer questions about what holidays mean to them when asked. The original claim was not about whether there are isolated instances in which Chrisitians’ rights are violated. If you want to bring up that point, fine, but it’s a separate point from the one you brought up, and not one that I ever disputed. Do not attempt to dishonestly leap frog from one bold statement that you cannot back up onto a completely different one, and then attempt to pretend that the two arguments are the same. They’re not, and proving the latter does not therefore, prove the former.

So, one more time:

Can you provide sources for those three instances you originally mentioned on December 6th?

Before Christ, or, for those who prefer it, Before Christianity. Sometimes CORRUPTED as 'B.C.E.' for 'Before Common Era'.)

B.C isn't corrupted into B.C.E., "Before Common Era". Do you convert dates into the Jewish calendar or the Muslim one when talking about events important to Jews or Muslims, or talking to persons of Jewish or muslim faith? B.C.E is simply a way for historians and related people to recognize that the calendar most commonly used in the western civilisation is based on a religious event that not everybody believes in; that other cultures and religions have different, but equally valid calendars; that converting all the dates evertime would be a lot of effort; therefore, it's easiest to stick to the most common calendar while acknowledging that not everybody feels a connection to Christ.

As for the chaplain ... I agree with TomM and R (though the background story wasn't mentioned on the links you provided). The chaplain still seems to have the right to pray to Jesus silently, but the Right to Free Speech doesn't allow him to badger people who don't want to listen, so if he's adressing a group of mixed faith, I can understand people not wanting an evangelical prayer. I wouldn't want a radical Muslim prayer at a general assembly, but I wouldn't mind a general watch-out-for-us kind of prayer.

Basically, the chaplin Chaplain seems to want the right to preach his religion exclusivly, and I don't see where the First Amendment says anything like that.

The fourth link is just selected quotes from a more balanced story about Klingenschmitt's hunger strike. Significantly, the version Mike B chose to link to left out the following paragraphs:

The Navy allows chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus Christ, Allah or any other deity during chapel services, spokeswoman Lt. Erin Bailey said.

At other public events, "Navy chaplains are encouraged to be sensitive to the needs of all those present," she said, "and may decline an invitation to pray if not able to do so for conscience reasons." (emphasis mine)

Lt. Klingenschmitt has not been formally punished, she added, and there are no plans to take him off active duty.

"B.C.E is simply a way for historians and related people to recognize that the calendar most commonly used in the western civilisation is based on a religious event that not everybody believes in; that other cultures and religions have different, but equally valid calendars; that converting all the dates evertime would be a lot of effort; therefore, it's easiest to stick to the most common calendar while acknowledging that not everybody feels a connection to Christ."

This is a perfectly reasonable argument, although I have always found the "Common Era" to be an incredibly mealy-mouthed term.

Yes, but consider. A.D. stands for Anno Domini -- "In the year of Our Lord".

Hate to tell you this, but Jesus is not my Lord. Hence the term C.E. or Common Era, which just happens to match the dates of the Gregorian calendar, giving all peoples, Christian or not, a common reference point.

Again, a very good argument. A very fine argument. Good reasoning.

It just bugs.

I have to agree; common to whom exactly? I mean, yes, it's a good idea to replace a term loaded with religious significance with a term that doesn't mean anything. But... then we have a term that doesn't mean anything.

Common to the Western World. The European Countries and Northern America, plus South America, uses it because they started with the Christian calendar.

Before that, the Romans e.g. measured time "ab urbe condita" - from the founding of the city (= Rome, which was the center of the world to them. more here).

Formerly Muslim countries/areas used the Muslim calendar, formerly Jewish areas used the Jewish calendar in their historic documents. In China and Japan, they used the lunar calendar, the years were named after the 12 animals of the star signs (different from the western ones), and the emperor declard certain eras.

Even in the western civlisations, there are enough differences in calendars to keep busy with converting: the French introduced a new, logical, non-christian system during their revolution, but chucked it out when Napoleon became Emperor again. So for 13 years, there are new names for the months, new lengths for the months etc. more here

When Pope Gregor reformed the Julian calendar because the shift days had not been calculated exactly enough, and it was getting out of sync with the real solar year, every country adopted it at a different time - the British with their own church weren't going to accept anything coming from the continent, and from a Pope on top of that, immeidately, after all! (And the Orthodox Church of Russia didn't implement the change, period. It needed the godless atheistic communists to get Russia in sync with the rest of the western world.)

I have also heard the C referenced as Current but it doesnt seem to be as common as common.

About the Navy/Chaplain (Although sometimes chaplin might be appropriate)/ and regulations. I called my friend in the Navy to see if he knew anything. Aboard the destroyer he served on Sunday services where conducted as follows: General Christian or Muslim in two different areas, then anyone who was not on duty where permitted to use the ward room to have prayer groups or meetings. Also according to the regulations he is aware of (and what I could find on the Navy websites)they make no mention of denying Jesus (or other deity) in general except when a mixed group is together then a generic christian service is to be performed.

The metric calendar? A forerunner of Stardates maybe. At least it wasn't yahrens and centons.

TomM - I "chose to link to" all of the relevant sites that I could - including at least 3 that did not 'stick' when I previewed that posting.

Luigi - My 'original claim', AND my 'central point', is that "some people want to replace 'freedom OF religion' with 'freedom to OPPRESS religion', or 'freedom from being reminded that some people have a religion', or 'freedom from being reminded that some people have one religion in particular.'".

Various Folks - The issue, as I understood it, was about 'praying in Jesus' name'. Both Catholics and Evangelicals claim to follow the Bible, which DOES support 'praying in Jesus' name'.

R - Being, among other things, a fan of 'Battlestar Galactica' (The Original Series), I LIKE yahrens and centons - provided that they can be CONSISTENT with how long a Centon is!

And as for 'the return of the rational to Christianity', I suggest (and request) that you refer to the debate topic that I started, regarding Christianity and UFOlogy, as ONE EXAMPLE of the rational - or the lack thereof - in Christianity.

MikeB: Luigi - My 'original claim', AND my 'central point', is that "some people want to replace 'freedom OF religion' with 'freedom to OPPRESS religion', or 'freedom from being reminded that some people have a religion', or 'freedom from being reminded that some people have one religion in particular.'".
Luigi Novi: And on Dec. 2, I asked you to cite an example. The three that you subsequently provided on Dec. 6 alleged that:

1. A girl was told she could not mention a manger when the teacher asked the class what Christmas meant to them.

2. A fourth grader was removed from a school cafeteria and sent to the principal's office where he/she was berated for praying.

3. Students were told they could not read the Bible in study hall.

But you did not cite one source to support a single one of these accounts, each of which sounds quite beyond the pale, and which if true, would easily have resulted in civil liability on the part of the schools. So I and others asked you to provide sources for those three. You did not, and you continued to refuse to do so time and time again (Dec. 6, Dec. 10, Dec. 16, and Dec. 20), constantly attempting to change the subject by shifting to focus on other things that had nothing to do with those three examples. You have now done so again, for the fifth time, attempting to go back to the "original claim" (as if I have somehow forgotten it), while deliberately ignoring the exchange that took place after it regarding the examples you gave that supported that claim.

This is not the way a discussion works. The way it works is, if you make a strong claim, particularly one that constitutes a serious accusation, then you illustrate it with evidence. If you fail to cite sources for those examples, others will ask you to do. If you continue to fail to do so, then that initial claim is called into question, and if you fail to acknowledge this directly, then your intellectual honesty and credibility is also called into question.

Rather than present evidence that documented the assertion about those three school incidents, you instead did three things: First, you asserted that you would not make that assertion if you and others did not believe it were true, which is not only fallacious, since questions of fact cannot be established on the basis of “belief,” but is also completely irrelevant to the question of whether the three specific examples you gave as the basis for that belief actually occurred.

Second, you pointed to sources that described not one of those three instances, but merely organizations of people who “believe” the same thing you do, and to a fourth example about a military chaplain. Not only did this fourth incident have nothing to do with those first three, but you neglected to mention that the act on that chaplain’s part was during a public ceremony for someone who wasn't of his faith, a point that others here had to point out to you.

Now you’re attempting to evade the point entirely by going back to the original statement that preceded those three school incidents (what you refer to as your “original claim” and “central point”), when the whole point of our exchange thus far has been my request that you document the three examples you provided after that initial “claim.” By now your jumping back to your original Dec 1 post, I am reminded of Rachel Weisz’s line to Keanu Reeves in Chain Reaction.

“Oh, so that’s how you do it. Backwards.”


So, one more time:

Can you please cite a source that documents children being told they can't mention the manger, removed from the cafeteria and berated by the principal for praying, and forbidden to read the Bible in study hall?

If you can’t, then can you at least concede that you shouldn’t make such serious allegations without documenting them, and that merely “believing” in them does count as such?

Thats what I meant about them. Almost like the fizbinn rules of timekeeping where used.I liked the original BSG too. I also like the current (from what I have seen of it) edition.

And the issue actually is more of what Navy/military regs say. Like I pointed out my friend in the navy confirmed that seperate services for the major religions where held each sunday and appropriate hoiliday. Individual services for other faiths where held as space and time was available. For common interfaith services such as funerals and weddings and stuff a generic interfaith prayer was to be used naming no specific deity. The preacher in question violated the interfaith rules by preaching an evangelical prayer at a catholic funeral. The problem is the news articles are not giving compleate details about the background of why he did it, why it took him so long to start griping about it and why he is griping about it when all he got when he did it was just an informal reprimand which is the military equivalent of the teacher in school saying bad boy dont do it again.

As for your points there are also people who want to get rid of that whole freedom from religion or multicultural melting pot seperation of church and state thing and want a christian run theocracy in this country.

One of the problems I always have had with praying in jesus' name is that it somehow seems like it demeans and demotes the main deity God (yahweh, whatever you wanna call him) to me.

MikeB I would like to invite you to the please convert me thread as I would like your opinion on some of the questions I've asked and TomM and MikeC have made some ratehr enlightening comments. Like I said there I doubt anyone would change their beliefs and I am not going to try and proove anyone wrong as in religion there is no real wrong or right just each other's POV. And so far the discussion has been mature, calm and respectful. (for which I am eternally grateful) It seems to me like between you TomM and MikeC we have three points along the spread of christianity. (Please don't take an insult as I am not trying to) TomM seems more moderate than MikeC and MikeC seems slightly more moderate than you and you seem a lot more moderate than Zarm. At least in general. And to me and me alone. Maybe it is some residual from our first meeting but who knows.

Oh and I do not think there is much rational in UFOlogy regardless of what they wanna dress it in. I am sure there is probably EBEs somewhere out there. But if they do have interstellar travel they probably are watching our news and movies and tv shows and staying very far away from the land of insanity. (basically the entire world)

"One of the problems I always have had with praying in jesus' name is that it somehow seems like it demeans and demotes the main deity God (yahweh, whatever you wanna call him) to me."

Most Christians believe that Jesus is God, vis-a-vis the Trinity, so it doesn't demean Him.

Also, I don't know if moderate is the right word. I would describe Tom as more of a liberal Christian (not using that term offensively, BTW) than me. Not knowing enough about Zarm's and Mike's theology, I cannot compare ourselves. In real life, I am more liberal than my "church friends" and more conservative than my "work friends."

If Jesus is G-d, then how do all the pictures/statues/etc... of Jesus not violate the ban on graven images?

Ok MikeC so it doesnt demean him but it still, to me, seems like it diminishes his position to pray to him above or in his name only.

Sorry about the positioning I was coming at it from this side of centrist ;-)

But yeah in general is how I was speaking liberl, moderate or conservative. On many thigns I am liberal, some things conservative and the rest mainly moderate. So in general I would say I am left of center but not really that far. As for everyone's theology I am just going by the way they have posted and stances they have taken on this board as this is all i know about them as well.

ScottN, that is an interesting point. I always thoughth the christians interpreted graven images to be more of the animals and such the pagens and egyptians worshiped (except for the egyptians who worshiped aten) I know the islamic faith bans image of humans as you annot image the divine in mundane forms. Another one involving all the images of jesus is they show him as a very caucasion hippie. Wouldnt he look a bit more ummm arabian from the region?

Yeah, he would not be Caucasian.

I don't see pictures as violating graven images because Jesus was god and a man; there is nothing wrong with portraying Jesus in his human form. I do believe it is wrong to portray Jesus in any form and worship it, as I sometimes think happens with icons.

That's all I know of everyone's theology too, R, but I haven't talked enough with Zarm or Mike to get a handle on it.

Luigi - Oh, so that's how you're looking at this. I thought you were just being obtuse. Sorry about that. OK, I cannot, AT THIS TIME, cite sources regarding the way that children have been treated in school. So, my original assertion remains unproven. However, it also has not yet been disproven.
R - As a professing Christian, I, for one, would not want a religious dictatorship or religious oligarchy. I want as many people as possible to have genuine conversion to Christianity. This cannot happen if you're telling the 'Church Police' whatever you think they want to hear, in order to keep them from cutting your head off, while inwardly you resent both me and my Lord. (I do not use the term 'theocracy', since IMO the only theocracy that Earth has ever seen was the theocracy that ended when Saul became the first king of Israel.) As for UFOlogy, one has to separate wheat from chaff, but these things have been showing up on photographic film since at least 1948, these things have been showing up on radar since at least 1952, these things have been showing up on videotape since at least 1991, and these things sometimes leave impressions in the ground, with traces of radioactivity. All of which indicate, IMO, that some of these things are machines - even if some of them were built in Baltimore. But some writers in 'Christian' circles are claiming, "Oh, you saw it, but not because there was anything there to see; you saw it because demons have been projecting illusions into the image-processing part of your brain." Which, IMO, is the single most ridiculous explanation of the entire phenomena.
ScottN - The main thing about graven images is that God does not want us to practice idolatry. I may be totally wrong, but I don't think that God would mind pictures or statues of Jesus, AS LONG AS WE AREN'T PRAYING TO THE PAINTING OR THE STATUE.
R - Most of the images of Jesus were based on earlier images of Jesus, some of which were based on the Shroud of Turin. Which indicates nothing about skin color, hair color, or eye color. But the Old Testament says that Esau had red hair, and we ALL are supposedly descended from Noah, since Noah, his wife, his 3 sons, and their wives were the only survivors of the Great Flood, so Jesus MIGHT have had almost any human-male appearance. The 'hippie' look was common in those days, since the 'doughboy' or 'jarhead' look didn't really catch on until more recently.

Well I will agree that there have been something going on in the skies, most likely either more secret UAV/UCAV tests or somethign military for a lot of it. But while it would be nice for it to be EBE's most likely they look at our tv news and stay very far away from us until we calm down or grow up a bit and stop having so much fun killing each other...Also UFO means unidentified flying object so there are a lot of thigns that people mis-identify flying up there. I have heard the demon explanation before too. I didnt think it was a serious interpretation by many of the mainline churches or even much of the fringe churches more of a vocal fringe.

Yeah that is what I thought the christian deal was about images Mike&Mike. Or at least the modern interpretation. (modern being the last 500 or so years) Images of the lord as the human jesus are cool just so long as they are not used as the focus of the prayer, sort of like the mary statue charlie has on lost we discussed earlier.

MikeB I called him a hippie look as the aramaic/palaestinianarabian clothing style/hair style was slightly different than the european of the period. Maybe jedi would be a better description. But never the less given the region and the general look of the people in the area I would expect jesus to have looked a bit more arabic or semetic. More like sayid on Lost or somethign. But most of the popular and common images came about from the european region and the orginal catholic church backing.

I'll agree that a conversion at the point of the sword or gun is no conversion. Personally I would rather die than convert for any reason. But the world has many examples of theocracies (one less with afghanistan's fall of the taliban) and has had many since the biblical times. Iran has a secular government that is basically a rubber stamp for the religious leaders, the aforementioned taliban, the papal states of the crusades period, the "holy" roman empire.....

Oh and about the Shroud. Personally I dont believe it was or used for the burial of the alleged jesus. There have been several radiocarbon datings done of the cloth and the paint among a few other problems make it seem more likely that it was a midevil period creation. Probably done about the same time as chicken bones would be passed off as bones from this saint or that and the false relics trade flourished.

MikeB: Luigi - Oh, so that's how you're looking at this. I thought you were just being obtuse. Sorry about that. OK, I cannot, AT THIS TIME, cite sources regarding the way that children have been treated in school. So, my original assertion remains unproven. However, it also has not yet been disproven.
Luigi Novi: It doesn't have to be disproven. It has to be proven. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. This isn't obtuse, it's just the naturalistic follow-up on my part to that assertion.

R - From the programs on the History Channel and other documentaries that deal with the subject, at one time, the Shroud of Turin was almost destroyed because the building that it was stored in caught on fire. Smoke from the fire supposedly put additional carbon-14 into the Shroud, thereby making this type of dating impossible for this artifact. Also, the image is not painted on, it's seared into the fibers. And yes, a lot of 'holy' relics are frauds; at one time, enough so-called pieces of the Cross of Christ were floating around Europe to build Noah's Ark. But even if the Shroud were proven to be false, it would only mean that it's the wrong shroud.

But even if the Shroud were proven to be false, it would only mean that it's the wrong shroud.

I really wish we had a :rolleyes: smiley...

It's precisely the same problem that occurs when trying to debunk psychics. You can argue and debate to infinitesimal points, and when it is finally agreed that there is no evidence at all to their abilities (or they are proven as outright frauds), the believers will always say, "OK... well, that psychic may be a fraud, but this one over here -- s/he's the real thing!!" and the cycle starts all over again.

R - Most of the images of Jesus were based on earlier images of Jesus, some of which were based on the Shroud of Turin. Which indicates nothing about skin color, hair color, or eye color. But the Old Testament says that Esau had red hair, and we ALL are supposedly descended from Noah, since Noah, his wife, his 3 sons, and their wives were the only survivors of the Great Flood, so Jesus MIGHT have had almost any human-male appearance. ...

Ummm, the reason that most painters in the Middle Ages in Europe painted a European Jesus wasn't based on the Shroud. They also painted the Biblical scenes occuring in european settings, with European peasants etc. in their typical clothing as extras, because they wanted the normal people who watched the pictures as religious instructions to feel close to Jesus who became Man, like one of them.

Unfortunatly, that good intention led to the belief that Jesus was WASP, and other-skinned humans not real humans.

Today, modern artists show black and Oriental Jesus' to relate again the normal people to the person who became Man like them, not like a white Massa.

About the Shroud read here

Thanks influx constanze. Yes the European images of jesus came because most of the images of jesus where done from europe.

I know what you mean influx. Just because there isnt unicorns in the sock drawer doesnt mean there arnt any in the underwear drawer to a true believer. Not meaning to be insulting MikeB but that is the way it definately seems with a lot of people.

R - I didn't mean that the 'demon hypothesis' regarding UFOs was accepted by any of the mainline denominations. Rather, John Weldon and others have been making this claim in books since 1975, and now the so-called 'Christian Research Institute' adheres to it. I say 'so-called' because they have taken a position on the subject of UFOs and aliens WITHOUT doing ANY library research or ANY internet research. Unfortunately, many people listen to them, because the head of CRI is Hank Haanegraaf, the so-called 'Bible Answer Man'.
Influx - I could answer by saying that some true skeptics will not only say that the Shroud of Turin is a fake, some would also say that even if it IS Jesus' shroud it doesn't prove that He rose from the dead. In any case, there is little doubt among true historians that Jesus did exist, at least as a man. And I've heard that people have forged George Washington's signature, but such forgeries being exposed as forgeries do NOT prove much about what Washington did or didn't do.
Constanze - I don't think that the belief that other-skinned humans weren't really human came from Christianity; it certainly didn't come from the Bible. I have heard it said that some believers in evolution claimed that some humans were more highly evolved, and others less highly evolved, than others.

I don't think that the belief that other-skinned humans weren't really human came from Christianity; it certainly didn't come from the Bible. I have heard it said that some believers in evolution claimed that some humans were more highly evolved, and others less highly evolved, than others.

I was referring to the belief that was then supported with a twisted Bible orientation, that blacks were destined to be slaves, and that's why they were black. Likewise the Indians.

You can read the full story here and here.

Also, there are no "believers" in evolution. People who really understand evolution don't promote racist nonsense. People who spurt stupid racist nonsense don't understand current science, but use a mixture of long ago disproven wacky theories from the late 1800s till middle of the 1900s to justify their beliefs (like the arrogant whites used twisted, misunderstood Bible passages earlier). Darwin didn't advocate social-darwinism. The french scientist who measured scull sizes to "proove" that Negroes had the smallest heads and were therefore stupider then whites has been proven wrong.
But that doesn't matter to people who want to believe something.

In any case, there is little doubt among true historians that Jesus did exist, at least as a man.

That's news to me. Where did you hear this? Over 90% of the people from that period of history can't be proven to be exist, only kings and the like left enough records to be sure. For the rest, even for somebody like Jesus, there's no evidence, period. That doesn't mean he didn't exist, and that people talked about him later means it's likely that he existed, but it's far from proven beyond doubt.

Ok I see your point about the UFO thing. Now I have to agree with COnstanze as to where you have the data about Jesus existing.

As for most of the historians I am familiar with they will say that it is possible for him to ahve existed as a human or a person with that name existed in that area and was a preacher. But the jury is still out and it is far from a reasonable doubt level of certainty that he did exist.

some true skeptics will not only say that the Shroud of Turin is a fake, some would also say that even if it IS Jesus' shroud it doesn't prove that He rose from the dead.

Which is precisely the correct conclusion. It would only be proof that he was wrapped in it at some time.

Scott Mc Clenny: The full version of the New Jerusalem Bible has the best footnotes and annotation of any modern English bible translation. It's better than a documentry. Plus JRR Tolkien aided in it's translation.

The real problem is in American Culture, not American Christianity. Astrology is illogical and irrational as well, but it seems to be getting more popular, even though aether has been proven not to exist.

Constanze - "Also, there are no "believers" in evolution." OK, so if nobody believes in it, then why call it 'science'?
And, OK, if you prefer, some jerks CLAIMED that evolution supported their racist nonsense.

It's called science because it doesn't need belief. Does physics need belief so that gravity works? Usually no - the ground doesn't need a particular faith to pull you, and if you don't believe in gravity, you will still fall. (I'm leaving Douglas Adams' ideas out of this, since it's meant as comedy.)
Faith is coupled to belief because Faith means to believe in something when you don't have proof. (That doesn't mean that there isn't proof, but that the concept you're believing in is outside the scope of evidence.)

Does your spouse/your friends love/like you? How do you know? Because you believe. Yes, there are past actions, but if you're paranoid (or unable to feel certain emotions) that doesn't convince you. Displays of affection could be simply signs to manipulate you, or cultural mores of politeness. But because you have faith, it doesn't matter.
There will also never be a proof for or against it in the scientific sense. Even if you catch your spouse cheating/ your friends betray you, maybe they had good reasons. Maybe they failed because they're human beings. Maybe it wasn't them but a duplicate from another dimension...

Maths and physics are sciences, so you can have proof. Your feelings don't matter.

And, OK, if you prefer, some jerks CLAIMED that evolution supported their racist nonsense.

So there have never been jerks who twisted the Bible to support their racist nonsense? This doesn't make you angry because this clearly isn't what the Bible said? Same issue here: things were taken out of context to support a previously held viewpoint on humanity because it suited the people.

But that's not the scientific method, let's be very clear about that! Science answers a specific question - to apply the answer to a very different area is false.

If I twist statistics out of context and ignore science (and commit logical fallacies), I can "proove" that the stork delivers babies. Doesn't mean it's true, it means I would've used bad science methodology.

Also most of the "Science" that they claimed supported the racist nonsense didn't rely on the scientific method and had long since been debunked. That's why KKK guys use a "scientific" study from like 3 years after the civil war to "prove" that black people aren't as smart as whites.

I remember long ago wishing that I could fly over a KKK rally in an ultralight, spray-paint-bombing them some way. So that after it was over and they all went back to their 'day jobs', they would all have the skin around their eyes & hands painted some weird color. So everybody and his brother would know that Joe Blockhead had been at the KKK rally.

Like I've said before I would love to do like in the old mork and mindy episode where mork turns them all different minorities. That would be so much fun if magic was real.

But yeah I used to work with a klansman and the stupidity and BS he tried to claim was "scientifically accurate" made Jack chick look like hawkings.

Mike B: You are assuming they have jobs. The Klan is old and dwindling. It's real danger is not the klan, but the radicals who meetup at the Klan, get tired of the bedsheets and kregeles and decide to form their own extermist group. It's mostly a terrorist front now, like PETA, or Greenpeace. A place for radicals to meet and recruit.

I think you two are having the wrong conversation. The General Theory of Natural Selection has never been seriously challenged in the Life Sciences. That's not the debate, the debate is that of Materialism, the application of Darwin's theories to the Humanities. Darwin's work provided the foundation for those trying to posulate a Universe without Divine cause. Without Darwin, all Materialist philosophy is without foundation, including Nietsche, Freud, and Marx. This includes Social Darwinism, which seeks to apply GTNS to Human Society. It has since passed from the Idea du jour, but is an logical application of Darwin's Ideas, as numerous human species have wiped weaker human species out. Darwin's theories were taken out of context, and it wouldn't be the last time. Science is very good at telling us how stuff works, and what we can do. But it is very bad at telling us what we should do, which is the domain of Religion and Philosophy. Not that that hasn't stopped anyone from trying.

OK, but why should we prefer 'a Universe without Divine cause' to 'the Universe that actually is, which may or may not have Divine cause'?

Mike B: You'll have to ask a materialist. From my understanding, the aformentioned thinkers, Freud, Marx and Nietzsche, all percieved that the institutions of religion and traditional authority were unnessicary supersitions that were holding humanity back from a Golden Age of Humanism, a new progressive society, founded on the twin pillars of Science and Reason.

Needless to say, it didn't work out that way, and modernity instead of leading to a golden age, lead to a dark age of death and chaos.
But I'm off topic.

It seems to me that it's essential to get Christians into as many fields of study as possible.

I'm not sure I'd call our world a dark age of death and chaos quite yet.

Actually religious extremisim winning leads more to the dark ages than does rational thinking, scientific processes and just thinking in general.

And I have to agree as bad as things are right now there are still facets of hope from the free thinkers of the world and science in general. Now if only we could get the christian taliban and other extremists to go away it might improve things.

OK, but why should we prefer 'a Universe without Divine cause' to 'the Universe that actually is, which may or may not have Divine cause'?

Because if there is a Divine being, then there is an absolute set of rules, and the current interpretation (ignoring that interpretations have been all over the map in the past) will pass itself off as the only true moral to live by.

If, on the other hand, you start with secular humanism as to how we should treat people, and then apply logic to derive our laws and morals, there is also the possibility to screw up, but the process can be repeated once we see we made a mistake, because we know it's only human-made. With claims to the Divine, changing course is almost impossible (see the history of the Catholic Church on its dogmas).

Note that "Logic is the beginning, not an end in itself". Logic is simply a tool. If you start with an inhuman or crazy idea - (All of life is a fight, but only the strong survive) - and apply logic, you end up with an inhumane or crazy philosophy (It's bad to help anybody else, because only the strong and good should survive.)

Like with computers the GIGO principle (Garbage in, garbage out).

R: Actually religious extremisim winning leads more to the dark ages than does rational thinking, scientific processes and just thinking in general.
We'll have to make sure it doesn't win, then.

What I meant was, having Christians in every field of study would be better than having the Church abandon so much of academia to the non-Christians. Also, back in 1979-80, I was attending a meeting of the only Christian youth group at that particular college, and was told (words to the effect of) that I wasn't really a Christian because I was a pre-engineering student interested in spacecraft.

MikeB: of course, to get more Christians into Science fields, the fundie Churchs would need to get rid of their anti-science attitude, but since that's part of the Fundamentilist worldview, I don't think that's likely. As long as young people have to decide between Evolution and Creationism as either-or, and the Bible has to be taken literally and as sacred, making every scientific study of it impossible, most christians will disregard science, and vice versa.

As Constanze has gotton to the point before me I'll just add that I'm not surprised that a person said that to you. Most of the fundies I've dealt with definately have either a compleate and total nongrasp of science, history or even rational thought in some extreme instance (being told that this book was the only book that person needed to know the world. OF course they where holding a bible.)motivations and

Definately Josh. Extremeism no matter what is not a good thing. Moderation is the way.

costanze: most christians will disregard science, and vice versa.
Most Christians? Does that mean most Christians are fundamentalists? That's a fact?

Well, okay, nitpicker Josh, what I meant was "most Christians in America", since polls show that two-thirds of Americans believe in Creationism or ID. That's why I said "as long as young people are told it's an either-or question....", because currently it looks - according to polls - as if the majority of adult Americans believs in some God, but has problems with understanding or knowing basic science, and thinking that science might be harmful to their faith and religion.

Of course I don't think most Christians worldwide are fundies, or think like that.

And Josh, if the fundie Christians are actually only a small but vocal part of all the (non-Catholic) Christians in America - then why do none of them speak out vocally against the fundies? Why don't normal Christians stand up and demand that their children get taught Evolution? Why does the oppoition to the fundies come from free-thinkers, secular humanists, atheists and agnostics?

Tacit, clamat. If they don't say they're against the fundies, I count them as at least agreeing to them.

So I can count on liberals to denounce all extremist liberals like Ward Churchill and Cindy Sheehan? If not, I assume they're for them.

And mainline Christians speak out all the time against fundamentalist Christians.

MikeC, how exactly are you going to lump Cindy Sheehan (who was pissed that her son was killed in combat in a war that Bush lied to us about) and Ward Churchill (who said the people in the World Trade Centers had it comming)?

That's like me saying right wing extreamists from Tim McViegh to George Bush.

costanze: I wasn't nitpicking. I was genuinely curious. I really didn't know how many of the Christians in the U.S. are considered "fundamentalist".

costanze: Why don't normal Christians stand up and demand that their children get taught Evolution? Why does the oppoition to the fundies come from free-thinkers, secular humanists, atheists and agnostics?
I'm pretty sure they do.

JoshM,

as I said, I was going by the polls. Since there is no "Fundamentalist Church, USA", but countless small ones, each with their own interpretation, it's obviusly difficult to get any reliable number. But if a large percentage of Americans agree to creationsim and against evolution, that's a (shocking) indication to me. If a large majority of Bush voters seem to be influenced by his promises to prevent anti-gay-marriage, I take that as an indication. Not that these churches or people necessarily call themselves Fundies or think they are. It just seems, going by both American mainstream media, and German reports, that Fundamantilist principles (together with the old Puritan dogmas) are widespread among most (non-Catholic) American Christians.
Starting with the assumptions when people read the Bible, what they get told on how to interpret things, and what they don't get told.

That said, if you have any in-depth polls specific to religion, I would be very interested to hear about them. E.g. I don't know how many Christians really have a problem with evolution; how many Christians believe that the Bible has to be taken literally and was dictated word by word; etc. These figures would be more helpful in figuring out people's attitudes.

I'm pretty sure they do.

In that case, the Media never shows them. Unless all normal Christians are quiet about it, and only the Fundies do the "I'm a Christian and because of that I want..." thing, while the normal Christians stand up and say "I want my children to be taught Evolution" without disclosing whether they're Christians or not. If that's the case, it makes things harder to differentiate.

Also, in my above comment in response to Mike asking for more Christians in Science, I was thinking of those Christians who proclaim their faith out loud right at the start, so everybody knows about it, and these tend to have certain attitudes together with that behaviour that makes them act that way. Normal Christians may not see the reason for public announcments, and so their presence may be overlooked.

I have no tiff with Sheehan's war opposition per se; I just think making comments like the biggest terrorist in the world is George Bush and that Iraqi foreign insurgents are freedom fighters is no different in terms of vitriol than the kinds of trash that right-wingers are denounced for as well.

The media rarely shows moderates of any particular ideology or persuasion.

Josh M: I'm not sure I'd call our world a dark age of death and chaos quite yet.
The average unnatural death toll for the 20th century was about 200 million. source All brought and paid for by secular states using weapons made by modern science. In fact, I will argue that without American intervention the world would be dominated by Nazi Europe, Soviet Russia, Imperial Japan, or Maoist China. The moral of the story is that science is not always equal to progress, that evil cannot be eliminated from human existance, and what violence that was attributed to religion, was actually what religion could not curb.

R: Actually religious extremisim winning leads more to the dark ages than does rational thinking, scientific processes and just thinking in general.

And I have to agree as bad as things are right now there are still facets of hope from the free thinkers of the world and science in general. Now if only we could get the christian taliban and other extremists to go away it might improve things.
Religion doesn't cause Dark ages, highly skilled horsemen from Central Asia do. (See the Byzantines, the Scholastics, the Kiev Rus, and the Arabs for great ages of learning and faith.) I would argue the last 100 years of middle eastern history have been a dark age, caused by secular governments and ideologies.

Sheehan: She's mostly marketing.

Yeah right and all those dead thinkers and poets and artists who where killed or oppressed by the church didnt have somethign to do with bringing about a Dark Age? Gallileo getting hate mail from the pope for daring to tell the truth about how the sky looked? Scopes getting arrested for telling the gorram truth about evolution and putting the go-se BS creationism in its rightful place? Those arnt part of a method of bringing about a dark ages.

And all those religious nutjobs and extremists like Robertson and Falwell and Phelps and Bin Laden who want to destroy freedom and secular thought and replace it with total blind obedience to religion are heroes? Gorram go-se is what I call religion and your entire post is filled with it. Religion has called for more books and knowledege and scientific truth to be oppressed repressed and destroyed in the world than it has brought out.

The moral of the story is that religion will always try to warp people's minds, throw blinders on people to how the world works and narrow peoples view of what is good and evil, right and wrong.

Religion is a prime example of the rutting selfish pigs who want to have power over and control people. the rutting sumbits in charge take advantage of people's inability to form independent and rational thoughts to brainwash them into thinking and doing and believing any load of tipe they are fed and laugh all the way to the bank.

Religion doesn't cause Dark ages, highly skilled horsemen from Central Asia do.

Where do you get this? While an actual attack/war is of course disruptive to normal life, this was only a short timespan compared to the long stranglehold on the development of human rights and intellectual thinking because of the Church in the Middle Ages.

The average unnatural death toll for the 20th century was about 200 million. source All brought and paid for by secular states using weapons made by modern science.

But that's not because of anything inherent in secularism. Modern science invented and developed better weapons, but mass killings and genocide did happen before, and weapons to kill people who were different from you were around before and invented and developed in the Middle Ages. What changed was the efficiency, the scale and the attitude towards it, because today, we look at human rights and say "It's not okay to kill masses of other human peoples", while in 11th or 13th century nobody got upset in Europe when the Crusaders slaughtered every inhabitant including women and children in Jersualem when they invaded the city, because at that time, people of other nations/belief/status... were not real people.

The moral of the story is that religion will always try to warp people's minds, throw blinders on people to how the world works and narrow peoples view of what is good and evil, right and wrong.

No. Religion will not automatically cause Dark Ages. Science and secularism will not automatically cause mass killings. Both can and have been used as tools by bad people and madmen, twisting beyond their original intent and statement, to support selfish and crazy goals. The blame in these cases is not religion or science or secularism, but the people who twisted them for their own ends.

But, even as tools, religion has the potential to be more harmful when abused, because of its claim to absolute truth. Science knows (at least in theory) that theories can and have been overthrown with new evidence and how the scientific methode of using your own brain to think for yourself instead of listening blindly to authority works, and that it's wrong to take theories and results out of context.

In fact, I will argue that without American intervention the world would be dominated by Nazi Europe, Soviet Russia, Imperial Japan, or Maoist China.

Yeah, the US saved the world. Here's your medal, now go and read an objective history book.

Read the book "Summer for the Gods" for the truth about Scopes. That trial was a publicity gimmick cooked up by the town of Dayton and the ACLU; Scopes was an athletic coach/sub physics teacher who really didn't know that much about evolution. When interviewed, few of his students could accurately describe evolution and those that could said they didn't believe it. The men of Dayton decided on a trial to test the anti-evolution law of Tennessee as a way of getting attention for their town; in a meeting at a drugstore, they picked Scopes to be the teacher and other men to be the defense attorneys/prosecutors. Things started snowballing when William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow got involved.

costanze: And Josh, if the fundie Christians are actually only a small but vocal part of all the (non-Catholic) Christians in America - then why do none of them speak out vocally against the fundies? Why don't normal Christians stand up and demand that their children get taught Evolution? Why does the oppoition to the fundies come from free-thinkers, secular humanists, atheists and agnostics?
Just because opponents of fundamentalists don't tout their religion like the fundies do, doesn't mean that they dont' have one.

costanze; That said, if you have any in-depth polls specific to religion, I would be very interested to hear about them.
yeah, I'll have to see if I can find something.

Religion doesn't cause Dark ages, highly skilled horsemen from Central Asia do. (See the Byzantines, the Scholastics, the Kiev Rus, and the Arabs for great ages of learning and faith.) I would argue the last 100 years of middle eastern history have been a dark age, caused by secular governments and ideologies.

You mean secular governments like the west supporting dictators like the Shaw of Iran and the Saudi royal family who are more interested in oppressing their own people so the west can exploit their oil and make the leaders rich. Or secular governments like the fundies who were able to convince their people that turning their back on Alah was why they were being exploited by their own leaders enough that many nations had religious revolutions in support of leaders promising a return to Alah's law.

Sheehan: She's mostly marketing.

So's almost everything that the Bush administration has done since 9/11.

Anonthinkingperson: Gallileo lived long after the Dark Ages, like 500 years latter.

Inherit the Wind isn't a historical documentry.

Of course, Byzantium, Islam, and Russia.

Constanze: Right, by insisting people learn how to read, and by punishing Lords for immoral behavior retarded the development of human rights and intellectual ideas? Because murderous, uneducated Germanic warlords were the better alternative? You want to malign the Crusades? How do you think Europe got classical knowlege? The Rennisance could not have happened without the learning of the High Middle Ages.

My argument isn't that secularism brings war, it's that those who belived that a new secular order would bring peace and prosperity were wrong, nor did they immunize soceity from falling under the thrall of dictator.

Science should be those things, but as I said, Sciencism (the belief that Science uber allies and Scientific ends always justifies the means) and Materialism are two very different animals from science.

I'm a history major, I could write one. The United States played a pivotal role in Allied Victory of both world wars, was the only opposition to the Soviets, and continues to protect Southeast Asia from Chinese Influence.

Brian F: Yes, like Saddam, and Assad, and Arafat as well. The reason why Islamic parties have such success in the middle east is because secularism is a corrupt failure.

Sheehan: I was refering to the media image of a greiving mother who just wants to talk to the President, and was going to wait outside in the Texas Summer until she does. In reality, she is a angry, paranoid, unreasonable anti-war activist.

The only reason europe got any learning from the arabian countries they invaded was throuhg theft and destruction.

That there even was an anti-evolution law on the books is a prime example of why there is a need for an ACLU to fight against the forces of evil in the form of the religious nutjob fundies. By having such laws based on religious values it stifles thought and intelligence and learning of scientific truth of how the world works and replaces it with ignorance and superstition. And IRC the rearly church actually didnt want the general public to read that is why the texts for the bible where kept in latin so the common people would not beable to read it for themselves. Also when did the church punish ANY lords for anythign they did?

No Pesti the reason why islamic religious groups are such a success in the region is because that is the form of government that has been there for the past thousands of years. Secularist governmetns are the exception and not the rule in the middle east. And you want to talk about corruption look to the church.

As for SEA you are discounting australia, japan and a few other countries in dealing with china. But china isnt really that bad of a country. They are the major economic growth in SEA as well as a major trading partner and home ot many formerly american jobs. Britain and Europe did quite a bit to oppose the soviet union during the cold war. America isnt the lone superhero of the world you seem to be making it out to be.

And during both world wars america may have been the superhero rushing to the rescue but then again america didnt ahve enemy soldiers encamped in our cities or bombs falling nightly to kinda disrupt our production or cramp our lifestyle much.

I had a major in history as well PEsti and would probably be able to write a bit more unbias a view as well.

R: The Crusaders brought back exotic goods and a number of works of literature from the classical age, namely Aristotle.

Do you what the first copy of the Bible produced by the Church of Rome was called? The Vulgate. As in Vulgar, or Common. As in, written in the common toung. This was in the fifth century.

Second, the whole church hiding the bible thing was a myth. First, the ability to read and write was sorrily lacking in the middle ages. They just weren't in demand. Second, prior to the invention of the printing press, all books would have been heavy, expensive and rare. And if that was true, why did the Jesuits go out and open numerous schools in the counter reformation? Clearly, if they thought learning was dangerous, going out and teaching people the liberal arts was an odd way of showing it.

Pope's actions agaist Lords:
-Pope Gregory VII made the Holy Roman Emperor crawl three days in the Snow.

-Henry II was beaten for his role in the death of Thomas a Becket.

-The Catholic Church banned the Crossbow in 1079 for battle with other Christians.

-The Crusades you so hate were an attempt to stop the Lords from fighting each other in vain and uniting them for a Holy Purpose. (If you say it's because Muslims weren't people, I will ask for documentation concerning International Law of the 11th century.)

Arabs: The form of government in the middle east has usally been a monarchy, with a religious judicial branch. Most Islamic rulers were hardly religious, most were addicts of some kind, and most Islamic States of the past were highly tolerant of other faiths, and most were advanced and promoters of the arts and sciences.

Yes and No, Arab history works in cycles. The first was the Monarchy period, who were proven corrupt and ineffective by the Israeli War for Independence. The second period were the militarists and secularists. Plenty of Arabs tried to bring secular governments to their region. The Nasserites, the Ba'ath, the Young Turks, the Kemalites. While the latter suceeded, the former two degenerated into corruption and despotism, and namely a inability to destroy Israel. The Religious Parties are seen as another alternative to a failed leadership. Arabs are fully willing to try different forms of governments, they just admire strenght and loath weakness in a government. Their logic is that "we tried the western form, let's go back to our roots."

Most institutions have corruption in them (Even American Atheists). Most don't use oil revenues to build thousands of palaces for minor family members. Most don't put the government and military in the hands of the ruling minority sect.

None of those countries had the power to contain their respective antagonist on their own. They needed American help. Without it, defeat.

You have a closed mind on the role of the church in European history and you would claim to be unbiased?

And you have a closed mind in favor of the church in all things in that it can do no wrong and is always right and you call yourself unbiased.

Okay aside from whose more biased than the other lets move on shall we?

Yes the crusaders brought back many items and goods and literatures. But they stole them from their owners instead of attempting to make peace and learn from them.

Yes I was aware of the vulgar bible. But it was a move towards the more common trade latin or scholarly latin and was not in the vernacular of the period or region and there fore the "common" person would not be able to understand or confirm for themselves what they where being told by their priest.

I will give you that the skills of reading and writting are hard to possess when you have to work all day trying to survive and serve your lord and master (not too much different than in the modern word under lord bush and our corporate masters)

I will also give you that the jesuits appear to be better christians than the mainline church in that they recognize and accept that there is a world other than the church and people should learn it and live in it. Of course the mainline church also has accused them of being too liberal and openminded, especially when they where founded to eb the main propaganda arm of the early church. But generally the jesuits do not operate under the same opression orders the rest of the church does.

Of the three actions you say the popes did I can only find evidence for one. the banning of the crossbow against other christian (but okay against anyone who wasnt christian) because of the evil of these weapons. What made them evil? They challenged the balance of power because any idiot peasant could take down a knight or lord at a distance. This was done by Urban the 2nd.

Lets see the invasion of and siezure of lands is a holy purpose. Must be nice to know that the church, dubya and the alqueda all agree that murder and war are all holy things.

Also not all the crusades where against the muslims. Some where against the european peoples as well. The 4th crusade against constantinople. The Albigensian crusade against the cathars. And the northern crusades against the blatic heathens. What happened there someone hold the map upside down?

Now as for oppression by the church:
Spanish inquisition 1478-1834

roman inquisition 1616 declared earth to be the center of the universe and heresy to disagree.
1870 pope is declared infallible in his morals or ethics. heresy to disagree.

The antisemetic actions of the early church.

Leveticus 20:27 and exodus 22:18 which is used as the basis for condeming and opressing wiccans, pagans and others who practice witchcraft.

Leviticus 20:13 which is used to condemn and opress an hate and judge (goign against the whole thou shalt not judge thing) against homosexuals.
(and before you say you arnt judging god is youre just carrying it out the one who carries out the judgement is just as guyilty as the one ho gives the judgement)

During the holy roman empire the punishment to being anythign but christian was death.

Saint Cyril is considered a worthy and honorable defender of the church who used murder and torture to defend the orthodoxy of the church against any who would speak out against it.

During the crusades the various massacres and genocidal hunts against muslims and jews can definately be considered a form of opression (death is very opressing)

The variosu statements over the years especially by the christian taliban that the bible is all the truth a person needs and that no one should question or be allowed to question the bible. even though archaeologists and historians ahve found and translated other portions of the scrolls and biblical texts that either contradict or otherwise throw questions on the bible.

the attempted suppression of birth control methods, evolution, scientific research in general on genetics by the church is an ongoing struggle that all good and decent people must fight against.

Yeah America is superman we are the chosen of god and have to help each and every other person adn country on this planet because they are incapbable of doing anything for themselves. (sarcasm off)

And in closing yes I say I am less biased for the church than many are due to my studying of the evils of the church and not being blinded that religion is the sweet smelling ambrosia many people think it is.

And for your perusal an interesting text i found online while preparing my previous article:

Dear Believer:

I do not accept the Bible as God’s word because it contains thousand of errancies and contradictions that can not be solved, only rationalized. I refuse to accept Jesus as my personal savior, for his behavior and teachings often expose one who should be escaped and not worshipped. I ask that you read this pamphlet in light of the bible’s teachings; Christians should be “open to reason” (James 3:17 RSV), that we should “reason together” (Isaiah 1:18) and “he who hates correction will die” (Proverbs 15:10) to understand my perspective that the bible has MANY shortcomings.

1. According to your Bible I am to believe that human kind is sinful for Adam and Eve ate the fruit of knowledge. Why are we being punished for the original sin? After all, they ate the forbidden fruit, we didn’t. Reason would lead one to say it’s their problem, not ours. Even the bible contradicts itself by claiming in Deuteronomy 24:16, “children shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers.”

2. We are told that the Bible has no scientific errors and is utterly perfect/protected, yet it says the bat is a bird (Leviticus 11:13 & 19), hares chew the cud (Leviticus 11:5-6), and some fowl (Leviticus 11:20-21) and insects (Leviticus 11:22-23) have four legs.

3. Heaven is supposed to be a perfect place. It is of course, the place you strive for and name “salvation”. Yet, it experienced a war (Revelation 12:7). How can there be a war in a perfect place and if it happened before why couldn’t it happen again? Why would I want to go to a place in which war can occur? That’s exactly what I’m trying to escape, aren’t you?

4. We are told salvation is obtained by faith alone (John 3:18 & 36) and then the Bible claims that it is repentance that shall save us (2 Peter 3:9) yet Jesus told a man to follow the Commandments-Matthew 19:16-1 8 (saving by works)-if he wanted eternal life. So which way is it and how do you know your belief is the correct one?

5. According to the text there are 29 cities listed in Joshua 15:21-32. One need only count them to see that biblical math is not to be trusted. The total is 36.

6. Surely you don’t believe Ecclesiastes 1:9 RSV (“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun”)? How many cities had an atomic bomb dropped on them prior to 1945, and how many people walked on the moon before 1969?

7. If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: “...they may eat their own dung and drink their own •••• with you” (2 Kings 18:27)? Also consult Numbers 31 where a whole tribe of people, including the elderly and children are slaughtered. The only survivors were the virginal women, who were later raped by the “just and perfect” Moses and his men. Is that what you want your children reading on Sunday?

8. If God created everything, (Colossians 1:16, Ephesians 3:9, Revelation 4:11 & John 1:3), then he did create the world’s evil (Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38). Thus, he is responsible. Any being who could create situations such as rape, death, malnutrition, disease, molestation and murder is certainly not fit for worship.

9. For justice to exist, punishment must fit the crime. No matter how many bad deeds one commits in this world, there is a limit. Yet, hell’s punishment is infinitely greater. It’s eternal. Shouldn’t a sinner suffer until remorse is felt and the crime is atoned for? What “justice” is there in infinite damnation?

10. Jesus said, “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22). Yet, he himself did so repeatedly, as Matthew 27:19, Luke 11:40 & 12:20 show. Shouldn’t he be in danger of hell too? Jesus also told us to “Love your enemies; bless them that curse you," but ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition. Matthew 12:34 (“0 generation of vipers”), and Matthew 23 :27 (“... hypocrites... ye are like unto whited sepulchres.“) are excellent examples of hypocrisy. If Jesus himself is a sinner by his own admission then surely he can not be the “perfect lamb of god”.

11. Except those of biased Christian writers, there isn’t one writing outside the Bible in all of ancient history that clearly refers to Jesus of Nazareth. The decision to dedicate my life to a deity requires at least one shred of conclusive evidence. Your lord knows non believers exist as a result of this, yet he makes no attempt to supply proof. How can the bible claim god wants all in heaven if he doesn’t make efforts to ensure that we all believe in him?

12. Paul says Christianity lives or dies on the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:14-17). Yet Jesus made many promises concerning his return during the lifetime of his then followers. (Matthew 16:28: “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”. Matthew 23:36, 24:34, Mark.9:1, 13:30, Luke 9:27, 21:32 & John 21:22) None of these prophecies have come true. Does this not make Jesus a false prophet? If so wouldn’t that make Christianity invalid?

13. I find the idea that a man had to die for my sons revolting. If God was truly omnipotent he could have simply forgiven us. What kind of deity, would execute one child in order to forgive it’s others? Modern society would call an individual like this sadistic, insane and cruel. Surely, you would not worship a child killer, why do you expect me to? Would you find a judge worthy of the title who would allow my child to be executed in lieu of my sins?

14. John 14:12 states a follower in Jesus can perform any of his works and do it even greater. If you continue to insist I believe in Jesus, it is only fair I may ask of you to show just how strong your faith is. After all, you would be my “mentor” in Christ. I’m not a believer as of yet, but surely you are. Would you mind perhaps resurrecting a dead relative or walking on water?

15. Okay, obviously you didn’t do number 14 and backed out with the “this is metaphorical” excuse. Surely you can try Mark 16:17-1 8 which says believers can drink “any deadly thing” and “it shall not hurt” them. But I don’t think you would be naive enough to drink any arsenic offered. Perhaps I’m wrong and you would be willing to test the Book’s veracity-”lay it on the line” so to speak?

16. All right, so now you have backed out of two of my questions. I’m starting to think you don’t really care about my salvation as much as you claim. Well, unlike your Jehovah, I shall be kind and offer a third chance at redemption. Consider Jesus’ teaching in Luke 6:30 “Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.” Perhaps, if you emptied your wallet and “give of thee” I may seriously ponder accepting Jesus as my savior. A far greater number of Biblical discrepancies can be found on the web at the following addresses:

http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/main.htm

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

http://www.cygnus-study.com

Matt Pesti,

Inherit the Wind isn't a historical documentry.

Um? Please explain - I can't find where anonblindman mentioned it; I don't know what it's about, or why you refer to it.

Right, by insisting people learn how to read, and by punishing Lords for immoral behavior retarded the development of human rights and intellectual ideas?

The church didn't want people to read, they wanted people to listen to what the preachers told them, and obey. And punishing the local lords moral transgression does nothing to help human rights.

Do you know what the problems of the Middle Ages were, and how the Church contributed to it?

Because murderous, uneducated Germanic warlords were the better alternative?

Better alternative then what? "Christian" Lords weren't peaceful - there was lots of conquest in the Middle Ages, as well as murder. As for uneducated - most of the Lords didn't think reading and writing were as important as fighting.

You want to malign the Crusades? How do you think Europe got classical knowlege? The Rennisance could not have happened without the learning of the High Middle Ages.

So its alright to wage war to get back Jerusalem, although the real goal was to get the upper hand in the innerpolitical struggle at home, duping ordinary people that they are doing a good work slaughtering the infidels, because an unintended side effect is the aquisition of knowledge? Yes, I can see why a Bushie might find that method acceptable...

For the record, classical knowledge wasn't preserved by the Crusades, but by monks copying classic books. The renaissance, however, put the ideas of the heathen Greeks and Romans into practice, which the church wasn't interested in before.

I'm a history major, I could write one.

Wow, that floored me. From what you wrote above, I would never have suspected you to have an in-depth knowledge of Middle Ages.

The United States played a pivotal role in Allied Victory of both world wars, was the only opposition to the Soviets, and continues to protect Southeast Asia from Chinese Influence.

You mean maybe that the US was the biggest military power and because of that, decisive in WWI and II? As for "only opposition to the Soviets" - maybe you should read some more objective books. We will never know how much shorter the cold war could have been if the US hadn't been so dead-bent on playing cowboy to the Soviets.
As for China: yeah, China is so bad the US is trading with it as much as it can.

The reason why Islamic parties have such success in the middle east is because secularism is a corrupt failure.

And of course, that corruption has *nothing at all* do to with the way the CIA and other interested parties corrupted the Middle Eastern nations to better manipulate the western control of oil. No, it must be the fault of secularism.

Do you what the first copy of the Bible produced by the Church of Rome was called? The Vulgate. As in Vulgar, or Common. As in, written in the common toung. This was in the fifth century.

The common tongue was Latin, and it wasn't a copy, it was a translation from the Greek NT and Hebrew OT. Before the 5th century, Greek was the language of scholars, but with classical Rome falling to corruption and then the invaders, greek disappeared, and Latin was the common language of scholars.
But if 5% of the population could read and write Latin, that doesn't make it a common tongue for the ordinar person.

Second, the whole church hiding the bible thing was a myth. First, the ability to read and write was sorrily lacking in the middle ages. They just weren't in demand. Second, prior to the invention of the printing press, all books would have been heavy, expensive and rare. And if that was true, why did the Jesuits go out and open numerous schools in the counter reformation? Clearly, if they thought learning was dangerous, going out and teaching people the liberal arts was an odd way of showing it.

I don't know why you think it's a myth, considering that the Catholic Church specifially made an edict that forbid layperson to read the Bible without supervision.
Second, the question wasn't whether reading and writing weren't in demand in the Middle Ages. Neither the Church nor the nobility wanted too many people who could read and write, because that might lead to thinking, and that to revolt. It's no coincidence that in every backwards nation even today, education is one of the most important tools to change people's lifes permanently for the better.
Thirdly, the Jesuits weren't the whole Catholic Church, only a small branch, and they had special ideas about learning.
Lastly, the counter-reformation isn'T the Middle Ages anymore. Also, since the Protestants were already putting Bibles in the national language in people's hands, it was logical that the Catholic church would try to fight this on several levels.
And let's not forget that famous Jesuit motto "Give me a child till the age of seven, and he is mine for the rest of his life", as regarding to their brainwashing.

-Pope Gregory VII made the Holy Roman Emperor crawl three days in the Snow.

If you're referring to Canossa, you should mention what the squabble was about: not a moral sin of the Emperor, or a human rights violation, but purely a power struggle between Emperor and Pope.

-The Catholic Church banned the Crossbow in 1079 for battle with other Christians.

And allowed it for use against infidels, heathens and unbelievers = people of the wrong Christian faith.

-The Crusades you so hate were an attempt to stop the Lords from fighting each other in vain and uniting them for a Holy Purpose. (If you say it's because Muslims weren't people, I will ask for documentation concerning International Law of the 11th century.)

So because International Law hadn't been described in the 11th century, Jesus telling people to love their neighbor didn't apply to Muslims. Wonderful logic. And of course, the best and only and truly christian way to stop infighting and unite the lords isn't to enlist their help in a common project, like building roads and bridges, or starting schools; or telling them that as christians, their infighting is despicable; no, it's to gang up on somebody else.
Your morals are wonderful human there.

None of those countries had the power to contain their respective antagonist on their own. They needed American help. Without it, defeat.

Oh right. Next thing, you'll probably say the sun doesn't rise without American help? I guess you mean: if America or Britain or other western powers aid one nation by selling weapons to it, then the neighboring nation can't defend itself without also getting weapons from the west. Because that's the only way your claim would make sense.

Most institutions have corruption in them (Even American Atheists). Most don't use oil revenues to build thousands of palaces for minor family members. Most don't put the government and military in the hands of the ruling minority sect.

Okay, let's see, how many oil revenues do American Atheists and similar instituions have? As for putting the military in the hand of a small sect ... does the Bush family clan count?

You have a closed mind on the role of the church in European history and you would claim to be unbiased?

Wow, that's a wonderful claim from somebody who twists historic events to support his view of the Church in the Middle Ages. Bravo.

Hey, R, I'd like to respond to that document, but it might work better on another board.

Sorry you are right this probably isnt the right board for that. Moderator if you can figure out where it belongs (probably please convert me as it has several questions issues of faith that i agree with the document about)please move it there.

Oh and the source for that document is www.evilbible.com the person who did that site is a wee bit more of an antagonistic aethiest than i personally am but found some documents on the site interesting reading.

anonbighead: Well, if you say so. Who said the Church can do no wrong? I'm Lutheran. The Church is the mystical body of Christ, and as such can do no wrong, but the people of God, are well, people, and are imperfect and capable of sin. Do I have to make it any more clearer that I am a firm beliver in the dark side of humanity?

R: Re: Crusades: By that logic, you should be upset with the Moslems for having settled the Holy Lands by force, and having acquired classical wisdom by force, and the Germanic tribes for having settled the Roman Empire by force. Wars of conquest are hardly unique to Christians, in fact it's part of that dark side of humanity I've been talking about for the past few months.

Re: Vulgate Again, we are not in an age of universal literacy. Reading books to people was a common way as I understand it to spread knowlege. I acknowlege it's not a perfect system, and it's better that people are taught how to read the bible themselves. However, that it was part of a evil scheme of social control? Hardly.

Re:X-Bow: It wasn't so much the Crossbow was banned, it was the idea that some weapons and tactics are unacceptable to be used on other Christians. Latter, this became other Humans. It should be self evident, but Progress takes time.

Re: Holy Land: Either let soldier kill other Europeans, or let send Christians to defend the faithful from Muslim encroachment. How about the concept of "less evil." Think of it as a "peacekeeping" mission.

Re: Nothern Crusades: No, the same logic applied. Second, from my understanding, Christians considered Moslems (or Mohamaddians, I belive was the term they used) to be either heretics or pagans for quite some time, and the Muslims had the same impression about the Europeans.

Re: Oppression: The Spainish inquestion has to be understood in terms of the times' political theory, where heresy was equivlent to treason, crypto-Moslems and Jews whose only ties of allegiance to the Crown were on religious grounds, and most other countries had one. It would be like in our society denying the legitmacy of popularly elected government on principle. Also, most of what we know of the Inquestion is colored by the Black Legends of the Dutch and English. Recent Scholarship by both the Vatican and Scholars have found that 99% of the Spainish Inquestion's victims were found innocent.

Heliocentric Theory was not widely accepted by other scientists, untestable, and appeared to contradict scripture. Second, the index only applied to the common people, it did not apply to scholars or churchmen. Again, not perfect by today's standreds, but hardly evil.

Anti-Semticism has been a dark blot on Christianity, but it is hardly a matter of doctrine, or standred practice, or even undisputed. I no longer have my source, but I remember that a Bishop did give sanctuary to the Jews who were pesecuted during the People's Crusade (which is a good example of why ignorant pleasants should not be the ones calling the shots.) Second, Anti-Semitism is alive in secular and non-Christian societies to this day (see the Dyefus affair, Islamic Media)

First of all, no Wiccans have ever faced organized persecution by Christians, namely because Wicca is a modern movement. Second, the verses in question refer to practicioners of Cannanite religious practices which Moses was trying to surpess amoung the Israelites. Third, the Witch craze is far more complictated, but it took place during the Scientic Revolution, was mostly about settlling internal grudges, was credited to social breakdown of the 17th century and was a result of the breakdown of organized Inquistion in Northern Europe, who knew how to figure out if a person was guilty of witchcraft.

Non-Christian, Pre-Christian and Anti-Christian societies have persecuted homosexuals, and the idea of such a thing has only existed for the last two centuries.

The Holy Roman Empire was founded on the basis that it was God's Kingdom on Earth, the Emperor was God's Temporal authority and the Pope was God's Spiritual authority. Not being Christian somewhat denied the Empire had any right to exist. That's the problem with rule by divine right.

Saint Cyril lived in the middle of a civil war in Christianity. This is where I go with the Good and Perfect are two different things speech.

First of all, the Christian Taliban is largely a creation of your own mind, so trying to argue a straw man has doctrines, is somewhat illogical. While wrong, I fail to see how these doctrines are oppressive.

Suppression? Do not Christians have a right to participate in the bio-ethics debate or not? Disagree does not equal evil.

Constanze: Inherit the Wind is the dramatization of the Scoops Monkey Trial. The two often get confused.

The Church expected a common level of decency from Lords, and could and would expel wicked lords from the Church. The idea that you should only kill under certian circumstances stands out as a new idea, whereas before, killing women and children was the norm. Again, not perfect, but better.

The problems of the Middle Ages: I'm not sure what you mean by the "problems" of the middle ages. The term is heavily loaded, after all, as the Romantics knew well as they called it the Age of Faith. It suggests that both the Classical age and the Rennisance were these great periods of human achievment and that the years 410-1453 AD just happened to be this period of darkness between them. In reality, the Middle Ages was not a stagant period, the Rennisance was the result of cultural trends that started in the High Middle Ages. Learning and human acheivment still continued (Cathederals, religious art, scholascism), it's just the lion's share of energy of society was devoted to religious matters, to the neglect of the humanities and sciences. The Church was the dominant institution institution of the middle ages, so that anything bad about the period can be traced back to it is not surprising.

Christian Lords: No one said a Christian Monarch is a Philosopher King. A baptised barbarian is still a barbarian. I'm looking at better, not perfect. The difference is the baptised barbarian cares about the state of his soul.

Bloody Orgins of the Renisance: I belive my claim was that the Crusades, the epitome of Christian Evil in the modern mind, are themselves responable for the Rennisance. History is complicated. Deal with it.

Both the Iberian and Levant Crusaders brought classical information back from the crusades with them, as well as refugees from Byzantium. And research of classical ideas did not begin in the rennisance, it began in the High Middle Ages, with the scholastics.

Re: World War II: No, what I mean is that without US involement, the natural ideological evolution of Europe ends in serfdom to either Nazi or Soviet masters. Which as the Republic said, when uncertianity rules, truth is determined by power, namely the power of the dictator, and the people will follow him to escape chaos. The US was simply an x factor.

I also belive my point on the Middle east is that secularism does not equal an ultimate, just or perfect system, but is just one alternative amoung many that sometimes happens to work under the right circumstances.

I covered the Vulgate. The problem was the common people could not read, not the Church. 10 centuries latter the church's inability to produce a new common version may have some validity, but I assume most educated people knew latin.

Education: The lack of education conspiracy is speculation.
Oppressive governments make people read too, especially communist ones.
If reading and writting were so forbidden by the Church, why did the Jesuits, who were the key movers of both the Catholic Reformation and counter-reformation support it so much? If they were truely reactionaries, would they have burnt schools instead of building them? But since we are talking about Christianity in general, let's bring up Luther. Education was one of his primary causes, and he just didn't a put a bible in the hands of the common people and tell them to start reading. He wrote hundreds of commentaries, learing aids, lectures and educational material, much of which is still used to this day.

x-Bows: Christian rights became human rights latter on. Before it was permitted to use them on everyone.

Re: International Law: It's really no different from the claim that war is okay as long as the UN approves it. Pre Christian era, you could go to war for any reason you wished. The new rule was you could go to war, as only the pope permitted you. Progress is relative. So would be an expanding definition of "neighbor." Second, the Pope did not take the initive on the Crusades, the Byzantines asked for help.

You reveal your ignorance by claiming the Bushes are like the Assads. If the entire officer corp was controled by Bush Cousins, and President Bush had served fourty years, and his son was immediately elected after that, then yes. However that is not the case.

I think the death of Madelyn Murry O'Hair counts as corruption.

Please document and elaborate on which interpitation of historical events is twisted. Revisionist history may defy coventional wisdom, but it is only wrong if it violates the historical method.

R's Second Post:
1. Orginal sin and Actual sin are two different things, and to a large part, theological contructs. But, then again, the fall of man is somewhat of a given.

2. The Bible is not a book of science. And the ancients also classified Whales as fish. Perhaps they had differnt criteria than molecular biology.

3. Revelation is a description of a vision, not of historical events.

4. The general concensus is that justification is by faith, and works nurture faith.

5. Joshua was probably written by composite sources, or certian records didn't consider certian places cities. It has no effect on the prophethic nature of the book.

6. That line has a very specific context within the book of the preacher, namely that material existance is futile, because everything ends in death. It was not meant as a prophetcy of future events or technology.

7. Those are historical records are they not? They should describe actual events the way they happened, but they were far from Christian morality.

8. Free will creates evil, and evil is used by God in his plan for salvation.

9. Well, who think you are with an answer to what is Justice? Socrates? That theory of justice did not exist in the ancient world, don't impose it on it. Hell, in the ancient world was death and the grave.

10. Truth is the ultimate justifaction for one's statements.

11. The Scriptures proclaim the works of Christ. If they don't convince you, I doubt other musty documents by ancient writters would have a effect either.

12. Knowlege of the End of days was limited. But we all die someday, so the day of judgement comes sooner or latter.

13. God doesn't do things the easy way, but the reason for the crufixion was a mystery. I claim God's sense of justice had to be satisfied.

14. Billions of people follow Christ without miracles. What makes you so special, human.

15. That would be tempting God. Why should he allow me to perform magic tricks for your amusment?

16. Frankly, I don't care about your salvation. Well, I do, but I've resigned myself to the fact some people aren't willing to accept salvation. You have the bible right? You have at least 14 places of worship within driving distance, right? If you refuse to forge a relationship with God because Bats aren't birds, that's your own fault. I'm not your •••• search engine.

Well Pesti it seems like we come to another point where our interpretation of thigns differ. I'm not gonna try and debate everything again here.

I happen to believe in the light side of humanity. Sure we have problems and can be really jerks but the human mind also has the capacity for great and powerful good. ""What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! " Hamlet quote (Act II, Sc. II)."

Second of all the Christian Taliban is NOT just a creation of my own. I have heard the term for at least the past 2 or 3 years. Probably came about after the islamic taliban came to prominence and people started noticing the similarities between the two groups. Both wish to suppress civil and human rights and have a very narrow, intolerant egotistical view of their religion. And both are EVIL and harmful to humanity as a whole.

As for the second post:
#2: You may say the christian bible is not a book of science but unfortunately too many ignorant jerkwads in the christian taliban think it is and want to replace the truth and real science with the lies and bs in the bible. Just look at the creationism(aka intelligent design) movement in schools. Oh and yes teh relgious has a right to participate in the discussion of bioethics, not outright try to destroy ban or otherwise condemn it without even listening or considering thigns.

#5: the whole fraggin book was written by multiple authors over several hundred years.

#8:Free will creates the capacity to do good or evil. God is evil because he can give free will without evil but does not. Therefore either god is fallible flawed and a failure, does not exist or is a sad sick twisted fruk who gets off on watching human suffering. I go with the he doesnt exist thing.

#11 well since other writers ahve been confirmed to have existed and have other difinitive works to back up their existence they would definately have an affect on me. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates they all existed definately, absolutely as much as you or I exist. Jesus probably didnt exist and if he did exist he was just another human who was not worth major inclusion into the histories of the period. Most likely he was just an invention of the writers of the period.

#14: And if billions of people jumped off the golden gate bridge thinking they would survive the plunge with no proof would you do the same? To not questionit and require proof of something that major is irresponsible and ignorant.

#15: so the works of god and jesus are mere magic tricks? Thanks for confirming it.

I am not ignorant thank you very much. Just because the forms of our lord and master herr bush do not follow the blatent format of the saudi's does not mean that he is not just as corrupt and evil. Since 2001 he has placed as many christian taliban followers as he could in positions of power throuhgt the federal government. Anyone who is even at best moderate has found themselves either forced out of position and power or outright replaced.

I will answer the "Dear Believer" letter on "Convert Me, Please" board...eventually. Again, not dodging, just have term papers and my job.

No problem. I can fully understand that. Being unemployed has in some ways been rather liberating, if it wasnt for the lack of fundage to actually enjoy the extra spare time.

We have faith in you MikeC ;-)

R:
#5: Well, each book of the Bible was written in a different Manner. The Book of Joshua was mostly belived to have been based on an earlier source, think combining "Things Joshua said" with "Things Joshua did." The Famous Sun in the sky for three days incident even cites it's source as the "Book of Jashir", a lost work of poetry. So one source said one thing, and another said another thing, and out of respect, the scribe in question included both.

#8: I belive I wrote on another discussion recently, What is freedom but the freedom to sin, that is, to choose to disobey God. God could have put in a fail safe device, but he decided in his wisdom not to.

#11: While I would question if Socrates actually left writtings, and I would question how old the oldest remaining copies of ancient writters are, and I would question that's besides the point. The point is, is that no piece of supporting documentry evidence would change the mind of one atheist, or more to the point, could prove the central truth of the Gospels, the Resurection. So if the entirety of scripture doesn't convice you (heck, it doesn't even convince the Jews) a couple of scrolls written in Greek wouldn't make a difference.

#14: Well, no what I meant was, is that millions of people have come to know and love Christ through the Gospels. They don't need a magic show. Why does one man deserve one?

#15: Illusions R, a trick is something a whore does for money. Or cocaine. No, seriously, Miracles performed in such a manner would be showboating. Miracles aren't done to impress people, they were done to help them, in an hour of utmost need. Back to the Superhero Analogy, most miracles are like sending Superman and Green Lantern to deal with an rouge white elephant. And Miracle working is a calling, you are given such abilties.

#5 which in my mind is more evidence that the bible is a work of huamns,nothing divine.

#8: True but dont get peeved if you give someone freedom to choose to ignore you and then watch them do so. Its you're own fault.

#11: Which is why I wanna see a miricle. Why I wanna have him come up and heal a blind man or raise someone from the dead or let me kill him and have him come back before I believe in him.

#14: And millions of people have bought ••••• enlaragement pills, quack medicines, or fallen for all kinds of other lies scams and BS in history. Heck lots of people vote republican....What religion is a popularity contest now? Maybe their motto should be "Come join our club we're not the other guy".

#15: And you don't think the world could use a miricle or two right now? I mena the time is ripe if god wanted to have people believe in him let him show himself. There's plenty of opportunity for him to come into the picture. Maybe send his son Superchrist!

Uh, in case nobody's noticed, this board is up to 316K!!!!!

I'm on dialup ScottN Believe me I've noticed. Maybe we could go to page to and be saved again?

Sorry. There is a new page available now.