Re: OT - What's in your CD player / on your iPOD?

Rastus writ:

> The USSR went so far as to forbid private practice of religion. Nobody
> is proposing that here in the US.

>Of course not. That would be WAY too big of a change. These things
>have to happen slowly. The first steps are going along pretty well
>right now.

Speculation and hyperbole.

> Taking a snapshot of US government in time and
> trying to apply that to a broad prediction is simply impossible.

>The US existed for about 220 years and there were no problems.

Right. Tell me another one. US history is fraught top to bottom with
conflict and war, violence and progress/regression. This nation was,
is and continues to be borne of dissent and problems and possibly even
more violence.

>In the last 10, many MANY things have become under attack. It's not a
>snapshot, it's a very profound increase in anti-Christian activities,
>and VICTORIES by those folks. Another 10 years with the same amount of
>change is pretty scary.

Such as? As a Christian, I do not feel oppressed in the least - but
then, I don't try to go foisting my beliefs on others through force and
legislation...if I did, I'd deserve to smacked back.

> >The US is not becoming more tolerant. But Christianity is under attack. You may know of a few countries where Judaism is under attack. It's not working out well for the Jews, and hasn't in the past. <

> Baloney. Christianity is more popular in terms of sheer numbers than
> ever before in US history. It is swelling to the point where this
> nation is coming under the threat of having lots of laws passed based
> on that religion.

>Name one.

Abortion issue decisions by judges (which *is* legislation by the way)
.. For starters. It would be a smaller issue by far if not for
Christian pressure to overturn Roe V. Wade. Don't get me wrong - I
think abortion stinks, on ethical as opposed to religious grounds, and
I'd much rather see it not happen - but the changes about to happen are
strongly related to the Christian Right and its increased influence on
the Supreme Court.

> The obstacles to this happening are now at just
> about the lowest point of any time in living memory...if there is
> opposition to Christianity, it is because moderate people of all faiths
> are afraid of this happening. I know I am, despite my faith. If
> anything, the opposite is true - I am in the local land use planning
> business, and most people object to churches in their neighborhoods -
> but objection to non-Christian churches is invariably stronger. As a
> land use guy, I generally ignore those comments, because I must and
> because it is right. I leave the public perception matters to the
> politicos.

>Who wants a mosque built in their neighborhood?

What kind of a biased statement is that? Who wants any church built in
its neighborhood? The people who worship there! It is the CHRISTIANS
who do not want one because it doesn't reflect their values. They are
afraid of change, just like anyone else.

>I don't think there are any Catholic or Christian churches funding Al Queda. Not all
mosques do either, but some absolutely do, and once it's built, and you

find out some radical Mullah preaches there, it's too late. Ask the
French on that one. I'd fight tooth and nail to keep a mosque out of
my neighborhood. I'd have no problem with a Synagogue or or Hindu or
Buddhist place of worship. <

Would you fight against random legal immigration by Muslims into your
neighborhood? How would you deal with that? What if they formed a
neighborhood Muslim league that met every Wednesday night for tea and
crumpets? Would you set a spyring to infiltrate them?

Fine. Your choice. But remember, innocent until proven guilty is one
of the basic stated tenets of the law of the US (something else the
Right seems to have forgotten in some cases these days, but I digress).
And, unless there is a specific land use or environmental problem, the
Muslim worshippers have a right to be there as much as anyone. If
there's a criminal activity by specific parishioners, then it should be
dealt with in an appropriate fashion. Like I said, freedom of religion
is not the same as freedom to infringe on the rights or beliefs of
others...but is a full freedom of people living within US borders.

> The matter of Jews in other nations is in OTHER NATIONS. It will never
> go away. However, as far as I am concerned, the US is a safe haven for
> the Jews whenever they decide they've had enough fighting against the
> tide.

>Do you think the Nation of Islam is shrinking? Farrakhan continues to
>be treated like a legitimate leader, instead of the absolute racist he
>is. I never see KKK leaders given respect like Farrakan gets. Both
>groups hate Jews, but one is for black people, which is apparently OK
>with the liberals.

Question 1 - no. And, the proportion of terrorists is not shrinking
either, thanks both to the inflammation of testosterone by radical
leaders overseas AND our own actions that are construed as being
anti-Islam (which I agree, they aren't really - they are actually
pro-American with little regard for what *anybody* else thinks - we're
equal opportunity offenders ;-).

Assertion No. 2 - I think Farrakhan is a fraud and a demagogue, and
deserves ostracization. How's that for a liberal viewpoint?

> Yes, intolerance is growing, and it has always been a problem where
> more than one creed or religion cooexist. As long as we have a
> Constitution that guarantees no bounds to religion as long as it does
> not infringe on the rights of other private citizens, we will have to
> deal with it. Get used to it. Either that, or change the Constitution
> to take away some freedom.

>How is letting the majority of people decide what holidays are
celebrated teh most, giving up freedom? For those first 220 years,
majority ruled. It always did. The Constitution says it should.<

Where does it say this, perchance?

The majority still gets to decide what is celebrated the most - just by
celebrating. It requires NO governmental decree to sustain it. The
minority gets to celebrate to the extent its numbers allow. Further,
The Constitution says that government shall pass no law respecting
religion. Period. People, whether a majority or a minority, may
celebrate any holiday whatever way they wish short of harming others.
The government is obliged to stay out of the way. Just because we've
gotten used to a situation that is unconstitutional for two centuries,
and have gotten comfy with it, doesn't mean that we are obligated to
maintain that situation forever when it becomes unworkable.

How would you feel if the Congress decreed National Koran Awareness Day
and encouraged people to read it (or Ramadan or whatever) and celebrate
by putting up Islamic decorations strung on wires across Main Street?
You'd probably be livid. You might even be upset by similar Jewish or
Hindu celebrations (What is this country coming to? Mercy!) but you'd
probably object to an Islam holiday more because of the recent
political associations the term carries. Well, maybe *just* maybe
they've felt that way for quite a while...

Back to Earth, I surely agree - people in the minorities are hugely
hypersensitive when it comes to Christmas trees and creches on public
lawns and so forth - and by the same token, for a matter as private as
religion, those in the majority are equally hypersensitive when someone
else wants them to tone down the public aspect of it. There is plenty
of sensitivity and intolerance on both sides.

As I said before, Christmas is not legislated. It is a matter of faith
ALONE. The external stuff is superfluous. God and Jesus know this.

> Ever since the Political Correction era began under Clinton, we go further
and further out of our way to let MINorities rule. There are other
places where minorities rule(d): Russia, 1940s Germany, China, Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, Afghanastan. All wonderful places, aren't they? The
Democrats now want to rule from the minority when it comes to Supreme
Court nominations. That is what is destroying America. Majority
rules, period! <

Yeah, you'll say that until the majority swings back liberal, and then
you'll complain that your rights are being trampled and America is
being destroyed. Like I said, the majority swings either side of a
center, and sometimes it hangs around once side or another for awhile.
This Democratic/Repubolican thing - it's a ruse. The same thing would
happen if the tables were turned.

And by the way, America is not being destroyed, it is changing, like
everything has since the beginning of time.

Majority rules in elections, mostly (some votes require a
supermajority, like Constitutional amendments), but not absolutely, and
not when they are in conflict with the Constitution (which is what the
judicial branch is for). What if the Federal Government decides to
pass a law that individal states have no rights at all, and the
majority of Congress votes for it? Does that mean it happens and is
right because the *majority* says so, or is it put to a Constitutional
test by the courts? I think you know the answer. The Constitution is
there at least in part to protect minorities from the majority as well.
Thus the Bill of Rights and the sections defining the allocation of
rights between the federal government and the states. You know that
already, don't be disingenuous.

Christmas is in your heart; otherwise it is nowhere; and no amount of
legislation, or lack thereof, will change that.

Bruce Jensen

.

Relevant Pages

  • The "Founding Fathers" purposely left God out of the Constitution
    ... The Constitution permits no such thing: It has nothing to say about God, ... respecting an establishment of religion, ... citizens were not only Christian but Protestant, ... instead chose to create the first secular government in the world. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Any Christian Electronic Designers Here?
    ... We Recognize No Sovereign but God, ... passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious ... therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Any Christian Electronic Designers Here?
    ... We Recognize No Sovereign but God, ... passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious ... therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: DS Alert (9-11)
    ... Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God and guide this day ... no Christian. ... because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than ... Gouverneur Morris, signor of the Constitution: ...
    (rec.arts.comics.strips)
  • Re: OT - Whats in your CD player / on your iPOD?
    ... >> The USSR went so far as to forbid private practice of religion. ... explain how abortion is a Christian law. ... The country is failry split on this issue, ... People, whether a majority or a minority, may ...
    (rec.roller-coaster)