Re: Exageration?


p53a wrote:
> Jack Butler wrote:
> > p53a wrote:
> > > Jack Butler wrote:
> > > > p53a wrote:
> > > > > Detective John Kimble wrote:
> > > > > > Upon further Googling, apparently I ws thinking of someone else with
> > > > > > regards to the "Reverend" part of his title. I do, however, stand by
> > > > > > my assertion that Lynn is as Kooky as the Christian fundamentalist
> > > > > > extremists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The First Amendment reads...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > > > > > prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lynn is fine on the first half of that, not to the second portion.
> > > > > > "Government-established religion" was common in the colonies. Several
> > > > > > of them established the Church of England as the "official state
> > > > > > church", and those not subscribing to the beliefs of that church were
> > > > > > banished from that colony. The 1st Amendment was intended to prevent
> > > > > > this. It was not intended to provide a "seperation of church and
> > > > > > state". This term is found nowhere in the founding documents
> > > > > > (Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc.)
> > > > >
> > > > > You are correct that there is no explicit statement "separation of
> > > > > church and state" but it is implied by the verbage of the 1st Amendment
> > > > > and also by the lack of any and all reference to God in the
> > > > > Constitution.
> > > >
> > > > there is certainly mention of god in other founding documents, though.
> > > > i think it will be tough to make an argument that even partially relies
> > > > on the founders' intentions. there are seemingly endless quotes from
> > > > many founders that contradict themselves over and again.
> > >
> > > I don't really see them as contradicting themselves as much as making
> > > it clear that they debated the issue both professionaly and personaly.
> > > Regardless, they ultimately came to the conclusion that it was in the
> > > best interest of the fledgeling democracy to keep religion and politics
> > > separate. I understand that many, if not most where Christian and that
> > > some of them did in fact want a "Christian" government but that is not
> > > what happened and it was intentional.
> >
> > i suppose i wasn't clear. i was referring to the many public
> > statements made by the founders before and after the drafting and
> > ratification of the constitution commenting on the "necessity" or the
> > dangers of incorporating christianity into public life.
> >
> > > > > > It is not unconstitutional for a city to display a Christmas Tree,
> > > > > > Channakuh Menorah or a Ramadan Crescent. These are the sorts of cases
> > > > > > it seems that these dopes continue to fight.
> > > > >
> > > > > That depends on how it is displayed. A Christmas Tree is a secular
> > > > > symbol which is fine. I don't think the city/state should be allowed to
> > > > > display ANY RELIGIOUS symbols unless they include ALL religiuos
> > > > > symbols. Allowing the display of symbols from the three monotheistic
> > > > > religions and saying it is the same as displaying all religious symbols
> > > > > is false. All three religions pray to the same God.
> > > >
> > > > tell that to a christian or a muslim and i doubt you'll find
> > > > overwhelming agreement. they view their religions as separate, but
> > > > that's really sort of irrelevant.
> > >
> > > I see your point but they do pray to the same God.
> >
> > i'm really, really not trying to be condescending here, but that
> > statement betrays a real naivete about the nature of religion.
> > certainly both islam and christianity are derived from judaism, so by
> > that logic one could argue that they all acknowledge the same god, but
> > the gods prayed to and supposedly heard from in all these religions
> > differ drastically from one another. the nature of god is understood
> > profoundly differently in each of these traditions. i would argue that
> > most religions acknowledge the same god in that most religions find
> > truth unique to that particular religion, but this is not at all what
> > is practically meant when members of a religion speak of their "god".
>
> Jack you are coming from the point of view of a practicing Christian,
> and a very enlightened one I might add. Of course you would see my
> statement as being naive.

it really is determined by what paradigm we want to operate within in
the argument. if we're concerned with history, then yes, obviously the
god is one that has spawned three distict religions that try to claim
him for their own. if we're concerned with popular perception and
opinion, then no, they're distinctly separate traditions and therefore
separate gods. since we're discussing how politicians and judges are
affecting public perception of the separation of church and state, it
would seem that the public opinion model would best suit our purpose
here.

and i would hope that my being a practicing catholic wouldn't lead you
to believe i'm unable to approach any of this with as little bias as
you have as a result of your views. of course we're seeing through our
own lenses, but acknowledging that goes a long way in overcoming it.

> I understand the differences and the
> subtleties in the interpretation of God between the various religions
> but the God of the Old Testament, the God of the New Testament and the
> God of the Koran are the same. Both Christians and Muslims claim the
> God of Abraham as their God you know that.

VERY true, but the various religions claim abraham as the father of
their religion for the very purpose of precluding others from making
that claim, thereby differentiating their tradition - and therefore
their god - from the others', not to build some ecumenical bridge.

> And don't forget I am a
> lumper not a splitter.
>
> >
> > > > > > Going by there logic, if Christmas falls on a weekday, the government
> > > > > > must not allow its employees the day off.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the Government is going to shut down on Christmas day they should
> > > > > shut down on every religious holiday for every religion represented by
> > > > > a citizen of this country or they shouldn't shut down at all. If the
> > > > > Christians want off on Christmas they can take the day off. If a Muslim
> > > > > want's off on Ramadan they should take off.
> > > >
> > > > if it's permissable to display a christmas tree as a secular expression
> > > > of the holiday, can't one deduce that it is possible to observe the
> > > > actual holiday without the observance explicitly denoting a religious
> > > > context?
> > >
> > > Sure it is possible but that is precicely why the religious symbology
> > > associated with the holiday should be left to the individual citizen to
> > > display in his or her home or business. Keep the Governemnt out of the
> > > business of choosing what religious symbols it should display. It
> > > shouldn't display any.
> >
> > here i'm sort of confused because you said above that a christmas tree
> > is secular, so it's fine to be displayed. regardless of the
> > present-day connotations of the christmas tree, it is still a cultural
> > reference to the christian holiday. my question was why it's okay to
> > display a christmas tree, but not to have christmas holidays from work.
> > there's no need to explicitly acknowledge the christian holiday in
> > governmental affairs. these are just two ways of observing the
> > holiday. you say that one is okay because it is secular, but my
> > confusion is why is the day off of work, in and of itself, explicitly
> > religious?
>
> Why are you confused about the tree? The tree in no way equates with
> Christianity, a nativity scene does and that is why they aren't
> displayed (or shouldn't be) in isolation at Christmas on federal land.
> I didn't make myself clear. I am not saying that the day off is
> explicitly religious. It is for most, but not all. What I was trying to
> say is that if the Government is going to recognize a religious holiday
> as such, any religious holiday, then the Government should recognize
> ALL religious holidays as such and close shop. I have no problem with
> Christmas Holiday/ Winter Holiday whatever you want to call it. I have
> a problem with the idea that it should be OK for the Government to
> display religious symbology just because it is the majority religion.
> It is a form of coercion. Just keep the Government out of the whole
> business.

okay, we can clear this up easily. are you for a christmas tree being
displayed? are you for christmas being a federal/state/local holiday
(without observance of other religions' holidays)? if neither, then
fine, but you've said you have no problem with the tree because it is
secular. you say it is in no way equated with christianity.
historically, of course it has nothing to do with christianity - it's a
relic of paganism, but culturally it has everything to do with
christianity unless we are to believe that christmas as a holiday has
been stripped of all it's religious meaning, in which case the argument
against christmas holidays (without observance of other religions'
holidays) is cut off at the knees.

> > > > > > It seems that whenever a debate about religion comes up, the whackos
> > > > > > from both sides get their say in the media, but normal people who apply
> > > > > > common sense to these issues are ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > The people that apply common sense to these issues generaly ignore the
> > > > > implications of allowing religion to creep it's way back into politics.
> > > > > Do you think many people have any clue what the agenda of the American
> > > > > Center for Law and Justice is really all about? Do you think the
> > > > > general public knows what the Houses of Worship Political Speech
> > > > > Protection Act, The Hostettler Bill and the Constitution Restoration
> > > > > Act are about? I agree that the common, resonable person in the US has
> > > > > a live and let live attitude but they aren't the ones seizing power and
> > > > > pushing their Theocratic agenda on the rest of us.
> > > >
> > > > i have a lot of sympathy for your positions, honestly, but i just don't
> > > > see the crisis here. i certainly don't think it rises to the level of
> > > > needing to be characterized as a "theocratic agenda".
> > >
> > > Do you doubt that Fundamentalists such as Robertson, Fallwell and their
> > > supporters (millions of them I might add) don't have a Theocratic
> > > agenda? I don't know about where you live but down here in the So Cal
> > > Bible Belt there are a lot of pick-up trucks and SUV's with these
> > > "American flag in the Cross" window stickers. Scary ***. I know we
> > > aren't in the throws of a Theocracy but I have to do my little part to
> > > ensure that it doesn't happen because it could.
> >
> > i absolutely do not doubt the intentions of the whackos and their
> > supposed followers (though i doubt those followers' adherence in both
> > their personal lives and their opinions as expressed by their votes and
> > answers to opinion polls). what i doubt is the power of said whackos,
> > which would be necessary to establish the need for the crisis referred
> > to here. i don't know the sticker you're referring to, but from the
> > description i can't say i am a fan of it either, but if that is what
> > qualifies as "scary ***" where you live, i'd like to rent a room at
> > your place.
>
> I have (dare I say it) "faith" in the general public that when the
> intention of the whackos becomes clear there will be the usual voter
> backlash to reestablish a more centrist governemnt. Up till now,
> however, I have seen more and more people siding with the
> fundamentalists and those that don't agree seem to turn a def ear to
> the problem. Is it a "crisis"? No, but it could be with the right mix
> of people in the legislature and the supreme court. The upcoming
> elections will either calm my fears or make them more acute.

you and me both. i'm pretty anxious to see what will go down in the
next election. i have a feeling that most folks are moving toward my
views (doesn't everyone!), becoming more socially conservative and
religious and more economically liberal, in the form of governmental
regulation of business and massive redistribution of wealth to retiring
baby-boomers (which will become explicitly necessary in the next decade
or two).

> > > > and anyway, richard mcbrien hasn't got you jonesing for some
> > > > catholicism yet? ;)
> > >
> > > Still trying to make sense of the clearly pantheistic concept of the
> > > Trinity and why the Church considers it heresy when expressed as such.
> >
> > regarding pantheism, creation must be differentiated from god because
> > god is not all-powerful in the sense that most seem to believe.
> > therefore, he must work in concert with humanity to achieve his
> > ultimate goals (namely, amending the constitution to allow for third
> > terms and inspiring someone to whack clinton to ensure that pastor
> > george can run things dirently into the end times).
>
> lol. Good luck convincing those people that their God isn't
> all-powerful. God has to be separate from creation because if God IS
> creation then evil, sin, redemption and salvation makes no sense.

exactly. but i would see that as a good and proper view ;) as to the
"all-powerful" conundrum, it's just a linguistical problem, really -
you know, the classic "rock" argument. that's all it means. god is
limited by his nature. if god were all-powerful, he would be pointless.

.

Loading