Woman to Woman

By norman

December 3, 2004 04:55 PM | Link to this

While separation of church and state is the rule, in the South they have never been separated. In practice the government and the Baptist churches have been united and all the trappings of Baptist and other evangelical religion has benefited from official approval.

By Akeya

December 3, 2004 04:56 PM | Link to this

I don’t think that they should be prohibited. I think that they should be all-inclusive.

Educate children on all of the religious holidays, their origins, and how they are celebrated.

Instead of trying to eradicate them, why not embrace them all. Learning about something does not mean that you have to change your religion. It just means that you acknowledge the presence of other religions and forms of worship.

Can’t we all just get along?

By norman

December 3, 2004 04:59 PM | Link to this

Someone needs to be honest and stop trying to be nice: religion is BS.

By Denise Noe

December 6, 2004 07:14 AM | Link to this

I’m an atheist and am glad I live in a country that permits non-belief as well as belief. However, there is no reason to scrub Christianity from the public sphere. Christian symbols are part of our common Western heritage just as are those of the Jewish religion and Greco-Roman myths. One does not have to believe in the reality of the Christian story to appreciate its beauty and historical importance. Why pretend that there’s no “Christ” in “Christmas”? A nativity scene in a public school or other public facility at this time of the year is completely appropriate as are scenes of Santa, the elves and reindeer. Symbols of other holidays that fall in December, like Channukah, Kwanzaa and the Winter Solstice, are also appropriate.
Christmas is a beautiful holiday and the Grinch shouldn’t be allowed to steal it!

By AllaboutME

December 6, 2004 07:38 AM | Link to this

…BTW liberty council is part of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University…in case any of you use the link on Shaunti’s opinion…and it also asks for donations…

…the people this hurts are kids…kids stuck at public school…where administrators are being so PC is BS…. Its a religious holiday and ought to be treated AS a religious holiday…

HOWEVER participants in this extravaganza ought to take their holiday back from RETAIL organizations if they actually respect Christmas at all. How do people of other religious denominations see your faith holiday? A mega-shopping fest with sporadic bell ringers antiques from days gone by when people carried cash not credit cards. The Asian markets see this as a major retail period, as does Wall Street and the US treasury. Holiday for Christ—no and indeed so many industries rely on projections of spending during this season for their annual business calculations of profit. …So while you scream persecution take a good look at your TV programs chocked with ads that give the meaning of Christmas in terms of dollars spent…Who controls Christimas—Christians or Retailers…?

leave the kids alone…they have so little fun in this lifetime…why use them as targets for PC…teach them in your churches about this holiday…but take control of your holiday Christian Americans….

By Mara

December 6, 2004 07:50 AM | Link to this

Why are the Christians all whining about this? After all, they stole their biggest holidays (Easter, Christmas) from the pagans in the first place. If we want to be PC, we should actually be celebrating the winter solstice and Mithras killing the bull instead of arbitrarily saying “Happy Birthday to Christ”. They just want to lord it over non-Christians with their “My-god-is-better-than-your-god” exceptionalism.

By Boscoe Roads

December 6, 2004 08:14 AM | Link to this

Mara, could you provide some evidence that supports your theory of how the Christians stole Christmas and Easter. My first impression is that you don’t have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about. Norman, states that religion is BS. That’s interesting coming from someone who claims to be an IVY LEAGUE professor, but whose name cannot be found associated with ANY Ivy League school. The only BS around here Norman is yours!

By Van

December 6, 2004 08:15 AM | Link to this

I an amazed at all the hatred aimed at not a religion, but a set of beliefs. Christianity is not a single faith.

People seem to forget the First and 10th amendment to our Constitution.

If a school puts a Christmas tree in its common area, how does this violate “Congress shall make not law…”, how does it violate the establishment clause?

How does it interfer with the separation of Church and State (State here refers to a Nation State, not a state as part of a Union)?

The Bill of Rights limits the power of the Federal Government, and the 10th Amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the 1st amendment forbids the federal governments involvement in religion, it belongs to the people - that is US, we the people - we decide.

By norman

December 6, 2004 08:38 AM | Link to this

Boscoe is back! He was busy burning heretics but has come back to give us the benefit of his medieval wisdom.

By Terry

December 6, 2004 08:44 AM | Link to this

Has anyone heard of petitions to have Christmas removed from the list of federal holidays? The federal government recognizes Christmas as an official government holiday and as such - pays federal employees (tax dollars) to observe the holiday which celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ.

It would only seem logical to me, that if there are groups of folks who are so concerned about the mythical “Separation of Church and State” - they would set their sites on the Federal Government’s recognition of Christmas as an official holdiay, rather than being concerned about Nativity Scenes in the public square, or Christmas carols in public schools. Both being nothing but celebrations of the birth of Jesus - for which the government has declared an official holiday.

By Boscoe Roads

December 6, 2004 08:57 AM | Link to this

Well Norman, are you an Ivy league profeesor or not? BS to be sure.

By norman

December 6, 2004 09:06 AM | Link to this

I remember a bigoted Christian teacher in grade school who said that XMAS was a way taking Christ out of Christmas. We then did not know that the X stood for Xristos, the Greek word for Christ and was not meant to take Christ away. She also implied that those responsible were probably Jews — another example of the Christian tendency to find somebody to blame for their own sins. She was the prototype of Boscoe.

By Boscoe Roads

December 6, 2004 09:12 AM | Link to this

Norman answer the question. Are you, or at least were you, an Ivy League Professor?

By norman

December 6, 2004 09:20 AM | Link to this

Boscoe: I got my degrees from the Ivy League and taught at a major but not Ivy university. You prefer to concentrate on side issues rather than on the main point, that you believers are superstitious children and deserving of nothing but contempt and laughter.

Your mind has been weakened by bible reading and theology concerns, an emphasis on being saved (saved from what?) There is nothing to be saved from or for. You live, you die. All the rest is nonsense.

The Churches teach superstition and obedience, Pray, Pay, and Obey. Good training for fascism.

By Tim

December 6, 2004 09:25 AM | Link to this

First, I would just like to say that if a teacher wanted to put up say a nativity scene in the his/her classroom in celebration of Christmas that should be permitted… but there should also be decorations for other holidays in December… and teach the children about these different holidays and what they mean to the people that celebrate them… how great it would be for children to be able to better understand people that are different from them… my World Religions professor put it best when describing what our goals should be in our World Religions class ‘the objective is not to agree necessarily but to understand’

Second, I just wanted to point out that in last weeks forum people (mainly conservatives) were complaining about how last weeks question seemed to lean to the left (which I agree with to an extent)… well this weeks question sure does seem to be leaning more towards the conservative side (which is fine… just should be remembered the next time someone wants to complain about liberal bias)

By Mara

December 6, 2004 09:27 AM | Link to this

Hey Boscoe. So I don’t know what I’m talking about huh? Well let’s see. Easter, named for the Saxon goddess Eastre. She is the goddess of offspring and birth symbolized by the egg (Birth) and the rabbit (fecundity). The Eastre festival occured at the same time as the Christian observance of the Resurrection and so the christians began to insinuate their own imagery within that celebration, eventually co-opting it completely. As for Christmas…. In Babylon there was the feast of the Son of Isis, the Romans had Saturnalia, and the Northern pagans had Yule, that is, the celebration of the birth of the Sun God, Mithras on the day of the Winter Solstice. As Mithras matured, the days grew longer etc. Candles were lit to encourage the sun to reappear for the comming year. Yule itself actually means “wheel” which is the pagan symbol for the sun. Mistletoe is sacred to pagans and kissing beneath it a fertility ritual. Hollyberries were food of the gods. Live evergreens were often brought into homes during the harsh winters as a reminder that spring would soon come and crops would once again grow. In 350 Pope Julius I declared that Christs birth would be celebrated on Dec. 25, undoubtedly to make it as painless as possible for pagan romans to convert.
Everybody know this, or at least anyone with any honest intellectual curiosity.

By norman

December 6, 2004 09:31 AM | Link to this

I’d like to say something about so-called liberal bias. When it comes to the war in Iraq all the networks and all the cable stations, including talk radio, give us only Bush Administration propaganda. We don’t get the real picture in Iraq, of how the civil war there has already begun, how our troops are outmanned and in a hopeless situation, how the elections can do nothing. Read the current issue of the NY Review of Books for a revealing expose of the US media embedded (that mean in bed with) with the troops and the government line. There is no liberal bias in the media, only pro-war bias. Al Jazeera may be a more reliable source than US television.

By norman

December 6, 2004 09:38 AM | Link to this

If so many people today, with all the modern advances in communication, etc., can be misled, just think back two thousand years ago when people wispered about some Jew who was crucified and rose from the dead. Wake up and smell the coffee. Do you Christians really want to base your lives on the delusions of primitives who believed almost anything they heard?

Leave stupidity to Boscoe and his ilk.

By Steve

December 6, 2004 09:56 AM | Link to this

Diane often tells conservatives, particularly Christians, to get our heads out of the sand. Sometimes, she is right that we are in denial about certain issues. I think Diane should get her head out of the sand on this issue. If she truly believes there are no “religion-hostile groups”, she cannot recognize the hostility because she has so much of it herself. “People for the American Way” is a group that is blatently hostile to conservative Christians. We all read the extreme hostile remarks from Norman on this board. Well, Norman is representative of many others that will show respect to only those who have the same beliefs as they do. And there are many organizations filled with “Normans”.

Now, as a Christian, I actually fear government involvement in religion. I do not want my government corrupting relgious teaching. However, we have gone to another extreme in our society today. The constititution guarantees us all freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion.

By Van

December 6, 2004 10:01 AM | Link to this

Norman,

Your right, why should we believe in a Myth. After all He did not last more than 33 years and had no influence on the world then or now.

Why should we listen when 3 groups of people who acknowledge the existance of this Myth. Whether He was a prophet(Islam), a teacher(Jewish) or a savior(Christian) does not matter does it. He never existed - in your mind.

But the Mulims, the Jews and the many different flavors of christianity say different. Big decision, who do I believe, Norman ,all the Myth followers or the other folks that hold the Myth in high esteem.

By Mara

December 6, 2004 10:18 AM | Link to this

Van, Steve, Boscoe…all y’all. Nobody likes the person that tells them they aren’t good people and that is exactly what christians do to non-christians. Obviously non-christians aren’t as good as christians elsewise they wouldn’t be going to hell. And the propensity of your side for trying to back your religious beliefs with the force of law and the strength of the US government is anathema for those of us who truly believe that freedom of religeon should apply to everyone. To have the state endorse, even passively, any religious observance is to say to the non-religious that their belief is unwelcome and un-American. Shouldn’t y’all put at least as much effort into doing the works of the Bible as you do in making sure that I can’t sin without breaking a law?

By Archie

December 6, 2004 10:18 AM | Link to this

I agree with Dianne but I don’t agree with this Norman person. I don’t think that mankind knows everything when it comes to the existence of God. I do agree with Norman that we are being misled about the war in Iraq but then the people don’t care about the truth. We didn’t find any WMD’s and many administration people quit over this “war on terror” such as R. Clarke. As a christian I get to hear plenty of christian songs mixed in with popular music, in fact I have already have B Winans sing “Jingle Bells” this morning and a song by Ashanti. I hope everyone sticks to the topic.

By Lacy

December 6, 2004 10:41 AM | Link to this

Despite all of the debate over the merits of religion, the question still stands at should schools ban all religious-themed decor in the season. Personally, I don’t think it really matters, but it seems like the easiest way around it is to tell all of the children to make/bring in their own style of decorations and put them out. That way, no child/parent can complain that they are not being represented. Throw up some colored lights, and don’t worry about the “reason for the season.”

As someone who is not religious, I don’t get offended when people send me the sappy Jesus-based Christmas cards, though I always send “Happy Holidays” cards to others, and people with nativity scenes on their lawn doesn’t upset me—though it does get a hefty dose of eye-rolling. I get really into the Christmas season—decorating, spending time with family. I figure if the Christians can co-opt their holiday from others, I can co-op their festive attitude and days off of work for my own, secular holiday.

By Van

December 6, 2004 10:56 AM | Link to this

Mara, please explain where in any of my posts I said anything you mentioned?

Based on the 1st, 14th and 10th Amendments, the Federal Government, and the individual states have no say in whether a person, teacher, school board, city governemt or anyone else can or cannot have a Christmas tree, Menorah or any other religious or secular display.

The only folks crying about these displays are cretins who think their personal opinion is the best and everyone else is stupid.

We have a secular holiday called Christmas and we have a religious holiday called the same name. One has a gaily decorated tree and the other celebrates the birth of a Saviour. Evidently, some folks cannot tell the difference.

Noone is forced to celebrate this season in anyway against their personal beliefs, except there are some that cannot allow others to celebrate it in their way.

It would make just as much sense to ban Santa Clause from the Malls because he is based on a religious figure.

By the way, where is all this tolerance from the left they so proudly believe in.

By Zack

December 6, 2004 11:02 AM | Link to this

Archie—I’m glad you don’t agree with “…this Norman person.” That speaks highly of you. Actually, you two make a good team: Archie and Jughead.

By norman

December 6, 2004 11:17 AM | Link to this

Van: you seem to glory in your myth. It all started in the 8th and 7th centuries BC when the Kings of Judah wanted justification for their political and social goals. They had scribes invent much of the Torah, combining some history, a lot of myth, and a lot of superstition and self justification. Then when the Jews lost their political power they invented the idea of God intervening to save them, the messianic Idea, which the early Christians (who were Jews) extended to Jesus of Nazareth. All this faith is based on myth. Almost 400 hundred years of biblical scholarship in a scientific vein (not the crap taught in fundamentalist seminaries) have shown that there is not much in either Old or New Testament that is historical. The Gospels are a pastiche of myth and romance — a sort of novel — to reveal a person, Jesus, about whom the authors actually knew little at all. What you believe you have a right to, but it is no better than believing in the Man in the Moon or the Wizard of Oz

By norman

December 6, 2004 11:20 AM | Link to this

Zack is back, But off the track. He wants to be saved, But he’s too depraved. Jesus will save him, Just out of a whim. Let’s pray for him.

by the Norman person! (How loving are these Christians!)

By moveon

December 6, 2004 11:20 AM | Link to this

Norman, you’re the only person I’ve ever seen who says “ivy league” instead of the school. Either you went to Penn and are embarassed, or you mean the “kudzu league.”

By Zack

December 6, 2004 11:24 AM | Link to this

I’m glad to see this forum question asked. I attended my cousin’s “Christmas” party back in 1988, and there were a lot of Jewish kids at his school. The only “Christmas” songs were “Jingle Bells” and about Santa Claus. The Jewish students, on the other hand, were allowed to have their religious songs sung. Oh, this is so wrong.

Diane Glass continues to misinterpret separation of church and state. This country was founded upon the Bible, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with making reference to God.

Someone asked how I can say the liberal agenda violates the rights of all. I use abortion for an example a lot because it’s a fine example: The killing of another human being, not to mention an innocent, helpless human being, is as wrong as it gets. That goes against the Bible, the Constitution (which is no surprise since the Constitution was based on the Bible), and yet liberals want us to accept it as though there’s nothing wrong with it. On the other hand, they go crazy about the idea of a Christmas play where people make reference to Christ, who is the sole reason for the season. Sure, liberals have their positive points on some economic issues, but on moral issues they’re way off base. This is a prime example.

By Boscoe Roads

December 6, 2004 11:26 AM | Link to this

Mara….The English term, relates to Estre, a Teutonic goddess of the rising light of day and spring. Anglo-Saxon, eâster, eâstron; Old High German, ôstra, ôstrara, ôstrarûn; German, Ostern. April was called easter-monadh. The plural eâstron is used. Thus it has more to do with the name of the month of April rather than the Latin Festa Paschalia, the entire octave of Easter, i.e. the Crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. The respective terms used by the Latins are Pascha resurrectionis and Pascha crucifixionis. The egg is the emblem of the germinating life of early spring. The Easter Rabbit lays the eggs, for which reason they are hidden in a nest or in the garden. The custom have its origin in paganism, for a great many pagan customs, celebrating the return of spring, gravitated to Easter. The use of eggs was forbidden during Lent. The word for Christmas in late Old English is Cristes Maesse, the Mass of Christ, first found in 1038, In Dutch it is Kerst-misse, in Latin Dies Natalis, whence comes the French Noël, The term Yule is of disputed origin. It is unconnected with any word meaning “wheel”. Correspondence between Cyril of Jerusalem (348-386) and Pope Julius I (337-352), Cyril declares that his clergy cannot, on the single feast of Birth and Baptism, make a double procession to Bethlehem and Jordan. (This later practice is here an anachronism.) He asks Julius to assign the true date of the nativity “from census documents brought by Titus to Rome”; Julius assigns 25 December. The reckoning, moreover, is wholly in keeping with the arguments based on number and astronomy. Grain is exposed on Christmas night to gain fertility from the dew which falls in response to “Rorate Cæli”; the tradition that trees and flowers blossomed on this night is first quoted from an Arab geographer of the tenth century. From this belief of the practice of greenery decorations (forbidden by Archbishop Martin of Braga,) developed the Christmas tree, first definitely mentioned in 1605 at Strasburg, and introduced into France and England in 1840 only, by Princess Helena of Mecklenburg and the Prince Consort respectively. Perhaps you should hone your intellectual curiosity.

By Mara

December 6, 2004 11:27 AM | Link to this

Well Van, the gist of your comments seem to support the christian viewpoint so I assumed, erroneously I guess, that you subscribed to the same repressive viewpoint….my sincere apologies.

By steve

December 6, 2004 11:34 AM | Link to this

Mara -

You said, “Obviously non-christians aren’t as good as christians elsewise they wouldn’t be going to hell.”

Actually, the bible says that “none are good, no not one…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” In other words, we all deserve hell. If I said anything in my post that gives the impression that I am better than others, please forgive me. The Christian message is one of forgiveness through Jesus Christ. The Christian message is never one that says that one person is better than another. Hope that clarifies a little bit.

You also said, “Shouldn’t y’all put at least as much effort into doing the works of the Bible as you do in making sure that I can’t sin without breaking a law?”.

What are “the works of the Bible” and since you do not know me, how do you know that I am not doing them? Also, how is it that I am trying to make it that you cannot sin without breaking a law?

By Zack

December 6, 2004 11:45 AM | Link to this

Norman—I’m glad you’re the loving sort. Your e-mailing me and cussing me in a vile way was especially loving. Of course, nothing irritates a liberal more than a common sense response, of which your type has no response.

I referred to Archie and you as Archie and Jughead. I apologize.

By norman

December 6, 2004 11:54 AM | Link to this

Mara: you ased for it! Now Boscoe will drop the whole load of medieval Catholic theological/historical crap on your head. Don’t believe a word of it. He knows only what inqusitors and pedaphile priests have told him. Believe in reason and study history in a scientific mode to learn what Christianity really is, where it really comes from, and how pernicious it truly is and will continue to be. Our government uses Christian apocalyptic delusion (half believed, half exploited) to justify this disastrous war in Iraq.

If we persist in making imperialist war, I suggest we take only evangelical Christians in the army. Then whether Christians or Muslims die they will think they are going to Paradise and the rest of us can rest assured they are damned.

By Zack

December 6, 2004 11:55 AM | Link to this

I repeat: I attended a Christmas play once, and there were no Christmas songs sung. However, many Hanukkah songs were sung. This is very wrong.

A Jewish store owner in Marietta Square once complained of the annual Nativity Scene, and it hasn’t been displayed since. This also is very wrong.

People have the right to worship as they choose on their own, but they do not have the right to demand this country to move from its Christian roots.

By Zack

December 6, 2004 12:00 PM | Link to this

Norman—Boscoe knows what he’s talking about a lot more than you do!! You’re a product of the liberal universities and all the spin they put on truth. It’s totally obvious by your posts.

Amidst your many misspelled words, it sounded like you were pretty upset. If you want to complain about war, complain about the war the liberal agenda is leading on the truth and upon our free country.

By john

December 6, 2004 12:06 PM | Link to this

Interesting- Religion as a topic of discussion brings out the “hate” in human beings. Futhermore, it is not the Secularists or the “moderates” of any religion who generally display this hate and malice towards anyone who dares to propose a differing opinion. Almost universally, it is the coservative right wing Bible quoting religious groups thriving in our Region who ignore love and tolerance in favor of of hate and gross intolerance.This is ,of course, not novel historically and will remain so until Religion is viewed as a personal relatiomship with God and expressed through acts of love and good works, without predjudice and hate !

By norman

December 6, 2004 12:06 PM | Link to this

This isn’t a free country. It is made up of sheep led by their dishonest pastors and crooked politicians. Our

You cannot be free unless you are free to think. And to act.

By Lyrazel

December 6, 2004 12:07 PM | Link to this

When did Christmas become a secular holiday?

Decoration of trees was a Victorian addition to the holiday along with going to church service/mass. (Thanks to Prince Albert and the tannenbaum German tradition) Puritans did not celebrate or sing carols & have christmas as we know it. Their faith forbid such excesses and when Protestant Reformists came to power in England, Christmas was…indeed, outlawed. This was the period of history (1600-early 1700s) when Baptists were considered radical…

You can find quite detailed historical views of Christmas at your local libraries….quite a fun study at this time of year for all students in public schools…to see how the festival evolved from pagen winter solstice celebrations, to Michaelmass to Christmas…There are other holidays at this time that teachers have taught kids about that involve different faiths and even Christian faiths celebrated differently…Hispanics celebrate 3 Kings Day on Jan. 6. This holiday is the most festive of the Nativity Season in Puerto Rico, the Caribbean and Latin America…Unlike Roman Catholics and most Protestants who use the Gregorian Calendar, the members of the Greek Orthodox Church rely on the Julian Calendar, and for them the holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus falls during the first or second week of January….Kwanzaa despite some misconceptions, is not a substitute for Christmas. It is a time of reaffirming African-American people, their ancestors and culture. Kwanzaa, which means “first fruits of the harvest” in the African language Kiswahili. People of the Islamic religion celebrate Ramadan November 17 through December 14. During Ramadan all people are required to fast. Ramadan is the ninth month of the Muslim calendar. It is a special time of worship, a time to read the Qur’an, doing charitable acts, and individual reflection. Every year between the end of November and the end of December, Jewish people around the world celebrate the holiday of Chanukah, the Festival of Lights. Chanukah begins on the 25th day of the Hebrew month of Kislev, but the starting date on the western calendar varies from year to year.

See? There is so much to teach kids…who are not afraid to learn new customs, languages or traditions and learn to respect not ridicule differences…their authority figures might be…the real stooges.

I too agree with AllaboutMe who said Christmas in America has evolved into a retail extravaganza and ought to be taken back by the Church if they want to keep the celebration holy. Its hard to feel holy with JC Penny’s making Joy To The World a commercial theme…

By Mara

December 6, 2004 12:23 PM | Link to this

Boscoe - Source: Dictionary of Word Origins - “the english word for Easter is from the Anglo-Saxon word Eastre, a pagan goddess whose festivals (called Eastron) were in the spring season. The festival represented the rising of the sun, new life and new beginning….When christianity came to northern Europe, the resurrection of the Lord fit into the tradition of new life and a rising hence called ‘Eastre of Easter’ by the people. The German word for Easter, “Osteren” is also similar in origin, Ost being East. In most other European languages the word for the Easter festival is taken from the name of the Jewish Passover - Pesach in Hebrew, then Pascha in Greek and Latin, Pasqua in Italian, Pacques in French…From this the English Paschal derived. Source: Online Etymology Dictionary (so you can check it yourself) yule - A heathen feast, later taken over by Christianity. The Anglian cognate guili was the Anglo-Saxons name for a two month midwinter season corresponding to Roman December and January….after conversion to Christianity it narrowed to mean “the 12 day feast of the Nativity”

As an aside, indeed the origin of the word ‘yule’ is debated but I was struck by the resemblance to the old Scandanavian word meaning wheel. While I admit that I am not trained in etymology and merely dabble (no doubt ineptly), the ties of the pagan rituals to this date are real and pronounced.

Steve- I thought I had made it clear that it was a collective “you” and not a personalized one. As for what are (collective)you doing that makes me think you want to outlaw sin? Are you serious? Repressive zoning legislation meant to prohibit certain businesses, the illegality of certain sexual positions, speech issues (Mexico City gag rule for instance), the banning or burning of certain books, songs, and movies…..I could go on. It’d be nice if you (collective you again) practiced what you preach, but as all non-christians seem to be tarred with the brush of immorality so then are christians labled and perceived as intolerant and exclusionary.

By Terry

December 6, 2004 01:02 PM | Link to this

And if anyone looks around - they will find no one who is offended by any of the Christian religious references at Christmas.

No one has ever heard of anyone who has ever been genuinely offended by them.

If you’re of another faith other than Christianity - none of the Christmas symbols are offensive to you.

If you do not believe in any religion - there is nothing offensive about any of them.

All any of this amounts to, is that we have a number of people bound and determined to create a problem where none really exists.

By Archie

December 6, 2004 01:34 PM | Link to this

As a christian myself I am not offended by the Christmas celebrations and traditions. Sometimes I think we forget the reason for the season, but I don’t think anyone can tell someone else what does not offend that person. There is no way I can know what someone else is feeling. People get genuinely offended by different things and I think as a christian it should concern me. Some of the christian folk here, I know what they are against but I don’t know what they’re for. Even though Dianne leans toward non-christianity I agree strongly with the last paragraph of her rebuttal.

By Mara

December 6, 2004 01:36 PM | Link to this

Hey Terry, that’s a pretty sweeping statement there, and pretty naive too. Considering the amount of time, trouble, money, and general aggravation expended trying to make the Christmas celebration exclusively Christian, it is inevitable that somebody gets offended by something. It’s human nature.

By Terry

December 6, 2004 01:52 PM | Link to this

Yes Mara - it is a “sweeping” statement. I would also be correct in stating that everyone must eat and everyone must sleep. And I don’t have to take official surveys to determine those, nor do I for Christmas symbols that contain nothing offensive about them. You may not agree with, you may not like them - but there is nothing offensive about them.

The celebration is “exclusively” Christian - because it is “exclusively” Christian. St. Patrick’s Day is an Irish celebration. Any and everyone can enjoy it or not enjoy it as they choose. But you can’t pretend that St. Patrick’s Day is a Jewish celebration - because of some nonsensical attempt at being inclusive.

By RS

December 6, 2004 02:02 PM | Link to this

Oh, this forum is SO up MY alley! I agree with some of you (Tim, Akeya etc) that all religions should be fairly represented & kids should grow up knowing other faiths do exist & should be respected as such. Well, well, Zack, now you know how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot. This is re the Christmas party where the focus was on Hanukkah. Why? Because the majority of celebrants were Jewish. Well, gee, doesn’t that fit right in with “the needs of the majority” which is what you fundies are always on about? No one is “moving away from this country’s Christian roots”, some of us are just trying to make non-Christians feel welcome too which I know you’re against. Why is it that you think YOUR faith is the only right one? The guy who owns the bagel shop down the road doesn’t try to push Judaism on Christians. The nice couple who own the Indian restaurant I frequent have never tried to convert me to Hinduism & the lady at the nail salon has never tried to get me to become a Buddhist. Think about that.

By Mara

December 6, 2004 02:16 PM | Link to this

so because you find nothing offensive in them ergo there must not be anything offensive about them? In fact your arguement is that even though I may not like them (perhaps even feel offended by the arrogant superiority they represent?) there isn’t anything offensive about them? To you perhaps. I don’t need to take a poll either to know that there are a lot of people who find christian symbology offensive in any venue. As for Christmas being exclusively christian, evidently you haven’t read my previous posts….not to mention the beliefs of the millions who celebrate the season in a completely sectarian manner. I’d guess that their Christmas isn’t exclusively christian at all. But I could be wrong…maybe I’ll take a poll and find out.

By Terry

December 6, 2004 02:27 PM | Link to this

Mara,

You are wrong as you said. Christmas is Christian. In fact, that’s what the whole argument always is: Christians imposing their religious beliefs, blah, blah, blah…

It doesn’t matter who celebrates Christmas - Christmas is still a Christian holiday. I celebrate it every year and really enjoy it - and I am not Christian.

And if you want to take your idea of what might be offensive to someone to the extreme, it might be offensive to someone that we all: Wear shoes. If we’re going to play that game, then yes, you’re right - someone may be offended about Christmas even though there’s nothing offensive about it.

By Mara

December 6, 2004 02:36 PM | Link to this

You’re right some might be offended by the wearing of shoes and far be it from me to say that, to them, the wearing of shoes is not offensive therefore they are liars just looking for attention. I can say that I am not offended by shoe-wearing. I can also say that my friends are not offended by shoe-wearing. I cannot honestly say that nobody is offended by shoe-wearing. I may not understand how it could be construed as offensive, but I am not that person and cannot assume what they feel. If they say they are offended, then I must assume that they really are offended. Eastre and Yule….

By Boscoe Roads

December 6, 2004 02:38 PM | Link to this

Mara..The Greek term for Easter, pascha, has nothing in common with the verb paschein, “to suffer,” although by the later symbolic writers it was connected with it; it is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word pesach (transitus, Passover). The connection between the Jewish Passover and the Christian feast of Easter is real and ideal. Real, since Christ died on the first Jewish Easter Day; ideal, like the relation between type and reality, because Christ’s death and Resurrection had its figures and types in the Old Law, particularly in the paschal lamb, which was eaten towards evening of the 14th of Nisan. In fact, the Jewish feast was taken over into the Christian Easter celebration; the liturgy (Exsultet) sings of the passing of Israel through the Red Sea, the paschal lamb, the column of fire, etc. Apart, however, from the Jewish feast, the Christians would have celebrated the anniversary of the death and the Resurrection of Christ. The English term which we know relates to Estre, a Teutonic goddess of the rising light of day and spring, April was called easter-monadh. The plural eâstron is used, because the feast lasts seven days. During this feast the Teutonic would sacrifice to this Estre to celebrate spring. This typically happened in April. This is not the same as the Christian Easter in which we commemorate the Death and Resurrection of Christ. Albeit, a new beginning, not quite the same, in as much as, the new beginning was needed only once whereas the pagan ritual would be repeated every spring. Likewise with Christmas. The true Christian nature is to celebrate the coming of the savior, hence the festive atmosphere, songs, ect. ect. The use of Christmas trees, mistletoe and believe it or not gift giving are all pagan rituals that have worked their way into these sacred celebrations. Although these Christian feasts contain pagan traits they did not originate from them, nor do the pagan customs have any significance toward the true meaning of these celebrations.

By Zack

December 6, 2004 02:44 PM | Link to this

RS—As usual, you contradict yourself. Aren’t you the same person who has said that the majority shouldn’t dictate what happens for the minority? My, how this is just another example of liberals contradicting themselves as it suits them. Flip-flopping, if you will.

Actually, there were NOT more Jewish kids than Christian kids at that school, but the “Christmas” play had NO songs in reference to Christ. No, it was all about Santa Claus and reindeer. This is absolutely inexcusible.

We live in a democracy. Why have we let the disagreements of those in the minority dictate what we do?

We need Christians to speak up, not people like yourself and Diane Glass and the ACLU to attack the Christian roots of this country and impose your whims on the rest of us.

By Zack

December 6, 2004 02:48 PM | Link to this

Norman—You’re right. This isn’t a free country. We used to be until the liberal agenda poisoned us.

A free country is not one where babies aren’t given the right to be born—generally because their whore-like parents want to have sex without having to raise children—to be bluntly honest. We’re also not a free country when you have freedom of speech modified by the threat of being called a bigot when you oppose gay rights. We’re also not a free country when Christians are having freedom of religion attacked like never before.

You’re right that we’re not a free country; you’re wrong for your supporting arguments.

I’m all for our being a free country again, and it’s going to take more standing up against the liberal agenda for it to happen.

By Terry

December 6, 2004 02:52 PM | Link to this

Mara,

And if they are offended by our wearing shoes - would you suggest that we all go bear-foot so that they’ll not be offended?

By mit

December 6, 2004 02:53 PM | Link to this

christmas, a time to spend alot of money on (some) people you would normally not spend a dime on. A time to feed the hungry (once a year? come on i know they are hungry more than that), and family time. the schools take it to the extreme and i am sure there are non-religious hostiles and religious hostiles trying to pull the schools in one direction or the other. but the fact is kids are suppose to go to school to learn not celebrate holidays no matter what they are. therefore the schools should teach and the parents can teach their kids whatever holiday they need to. Mara is right, sorry boscoe. jesus is thought to have been born in June (30th i think), this is info from theologians, so don’t go ballistic boscoe, b/c i don’t care when the guy was born. Norman, most of the bible is actually fact (historical references) that has been exaggerated (no one writes about losing) or given credit to God b/c they didn’t know how it actually happened (earthquakes for instance). its not myth, there is superstition though, which can fit into ‘myth’. but most of the people were actually real people. monotheism comes from eygpt, where moses ran from (coincedence?)

By Mara

December 6, 2004 02:55 PM | Link to this

Chicken or the egg Boscoe. Were the winter and spring festivals corrupted by Christianity or were the Christian festivals tainted by pagan ritual? You believe in the chicken and I, the egg. Unarguably before the christians came, there were thriving pagan religion with festivals celebrated at mid-winter and in the spring. Dedicated to pagan gods and celebrated with pagan rites. Did the christian celebrations come before the pagan, or vice versa? It’s obvious that we will disagree, but I wish you well anyway and a Merry Winterfest.

By Zack

December 6, 2004 02:58 PM | Link to this

Norman—Are you the same professor by your name who said that nothing good came from the Civil Rights Movement?

Saved from what? From sin! From being separated from God! Look around. Do you really think this world is a good place? It’s nothing like that. (Then I go to school and hear the Ralph Waldo Emerson/Henry David Thoreau belief that human nature is good—and then we’re expected to respect such a statement. My goodness, what a mess the secular education system is in.)

By Hugh Jorgan

December 6, 2004 02:59 PM | Link to this

Yeah, I celebrate Christmas, too, though I’m not Christian. Most of my family is and I see it more a holiday to honor the life of Jesus, who, while I don’t believe is my savior and lord, was a g******* good man and prophet, a good Jew, and arguably the most influential religious icon.

I go with letting the kids decorate with all the religions that exist in their class. Give the lone Jew or Muslim kid the chance to share his/her faith.

However, when it comes to endorsement (ie, teacher support, financial support, etc) the schools need to take a step back. Let the kids/parents take the lead.

By Mara

December 6, 2004 03:03 PM | Link to this

Terry, the point isn’t whether you have a right to wear shoes if it offends someone, the point is that the wearing of shoes could be offensive to someone. Your assertion that there wasn’t anything offensive about christian Christmas symbols was the same as saying there is nothing offensive about shoe-wearing. As I said, just because I don’t find something offensive doesn’t mean that it isn’t. It just means that it isn’t to me. Happy Winterfest.

By Boscoe Roads

December 6, 2004 03:08 PM | Link to this

Mara, of course pagan rituals existed prior to the coming of Christianity. That doesn’t mean Christianity developed from them, or stole, them as you suggested.

By RS

December 6, 2004 03:09 PM | Link to this

Nooooo, Zack, as per usual, you misinterpreted what I said. Let’s say the party WAS comprised of, for instance, 15 Jewish kids, 2 Christian & 1 Hindu. Well, have decorations, refreshments & songs to reflect all 3 religions since all 3 were represented. Believe it or not, I would NOT feel the Christian & Hindu kids are “less important” than the Jewish kids just because they were “outnumbered”. They’re still people! So, no, I am not “imposing my whims”, just wanting to equal everything out. Too bad you don’t understand the concept…

By Camisha

December 6, 2004 03:16 PM | Link to this

This will never be a free country because it was not founded on freedom, justice and equality for all people…

By Zack

December 6, 2004 03:21 PM | Link to this

RS—Actually, in your post you were admiring how a Christian play was making reference to Hanukkah but not Christianity, and you acted as though the Jewish kids were in the majority, which wasn’t the case. No, I didn’t misinterpret you; I think you just forgot what you typed.

You also acted as though we Christians have had it coming. What you fail to realize is that this country was indeed founded upon the Bible, and it’s time for Christians to make reference to God in public again, not to keep our beliefs to ourselves.

I repeat: A Christmas play had no Christian songs but had plenty of Hanukkah songs. My, how wrong.

By RS

December 6, 2004 03:28 PM | Link to this

No, Zack, I wasn’t admiring (gloating etc) re that event having Hanukkah but no Christian songs, just acknowledging. If this country was founded on the Bible, doesn’t that also include the OLD Testament as well? Isn’t that part of the Bible? Well, actually, the cornerstone of Judeo/Christianity…there IS room for more than one faith in this country, as evidenced by the population.

By Hugh Jorgan

December 6, 2004 03:32 PM | Link to this

Zack, much of the Constitution was written by Jefferson, who was a Unitarian. Unitarians believe in freedom of belief, bar none. I am Unitarian. Some Unitarians believe Jesus was born as lord and savior, some don’t. Many of us are ex-Christians and Jews, some are humanists and athiests.

By Zack

December 6, 2004 03:32 PM | Link to this

Camisha—Oh, we were a free country in the past, but that changed when the number of non-Christians attacking the Bible outnumbered the Christians defending it. Having the belief like “RS” has that our country should be all things to all religions hasn’t helped.

By Jodi

December 6, 2004 03:32 PM | Link to this

I would just like to comment that freedom of religion has not been restricted in this country and to imply such is misguided. Everyone still has the right to pray and worship as they see fit. People aren’t barging into anyone’s homes to remove their crosses or bibles. That, in my opinion is true oppression. Just because some don’t want Christian displays or traditions everywhere we look doesn’t mean that you aren’t still free to attend church and worship how you please. It just means that it should be private, not public. Please don’t compare that to true oppression—where Christians (or others) are killed for what they believe. It’s insulting to those who have had to live with such things.

By Zack

December 6, 2004 03:37 PM | Link to this

RS—Yes, people have the right to believe what they want to believe, but a country that has the weak foundation of plurality will sink fast, which is exactly what we’re doing. When you find out about a “Christmas” play where no true Christmas songs were sung, all I get from you is a post about how the shoe is now on our foot. (This, by the way, isn’t even the case, simply because the shoe never was on THEIR foot. In other words, this country wasn’t founded upon their religions, with them having their religious freedom violated the way Christians have had ours violated.)

By Jodi

December 6, 2004 03:45 PM | Link to this

It seems to me that really the only argument should be the difference between public and private realms. Public schools are just that—public. Anyone who wants to have a full blown nativity at their child’s school is free to enroll him or her in a private school. That’s really all there is to it. FYI—I say this as a Christian. You can do everything religious you’d like to do in this country—just do it at church or at home.

By chuck

December 6, 2004 03:50 PM | Link to this

I’ve never known anyone to be damaged by seeing or hearing Holiday displays or music. To non-believers, Christmas is a secular holiday anyway. For those who are believers, the holiday and all of the symbols that go with it are Holy. I don’t have a problem with displaying the symbols of other religions Hey Boscoe, Are you the same Boscoe that used to post all the time on the Car Talk bulletin board? If so, send me an e-mail.

By Archie

December 6, 2004 03:54 PM | Link to this

Jodi, you are the voice of reason. I agree with you.

By RS

December 6, 2004 04:01 PM | Link to this

Zack, I was going to comment but Jodi literally took the words out of my-computer! (Thank you, Jodi. You make PERFECT SENSE!)

By Lozen

December 6, 2004 04:03 PM | Link to this

Zack, You believe abortion is wrong (and a violation of rights and part of the liberal agenda) because “The killing of another human being is as wrong as it gets.” I assume this means you want to bring the troops home from Iraq. They are killing innocent human beings every day. And I assume you are against the death penalty. Right?

By Terry

December 6, 2004 04:06 PM | Link to this

Jodi,

Once upon a time, schools belonged to the community. The government stepped in, took control and labled them Public Schools. And when they were taken from the community and labled Public Schools - the myth of “Separation of Church and State” became applicable.

So, if you want to apply the reasoning that all people have to do is enroll their kids in private schools - where do they go when the government decides to incorporate those schools into its domain and they become public schools? This happening at the present time is a bit outlandish I know, but all schools used to be private in the past. And our the schools in this country were originally started by: Christians.

And no, religious symbols don’t belong at home or in church. It’s funny how we have an entire world of things that can be displayed in public - yet the only thing that supposedly belongs at home - is religious symbols. And the only reasoning behind that thinking is the mythical belief of: “Separation of Church and State”.

By Royal Chic

December 6, 2004 04:10 PM | Link to this

Lozen, you took the words right off of my keyboard….what perplexes me is that some conservatives don’t believe in abortion, but agree with the death penalty and all it’s judgemental perks…..there is no exceptions or middle ground….you can’t believe in one without believing in the other….it’s as simple as that…..

By RS

December 6, 2004 04:11 PM | Link to this

Oh, Zack, I DO want to make one comment; it seems like you’re in favour of the US being a dictatorship whereby one must be Christian or not have the same rights as those who ARE Christians. I thought that kind of “thinking”(!?!?) went out with the 1950’s.

By chuck

December 6, 2004 04:13 PM | Link to this

RS, That is pretty much a load of garbage. Let me ask you a question. Does the Hindu whose shop you frequent, care about you? Does the Jewish bagel shop owner? Apparently they don’t, because if they did, they would teach you the way to heaven. As Christians we know that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself gave us the Great Commission to go and make disciples. Our only crime is that we want you to go to heaven so we try to get you to surrender to Christ. “Religion” is about ritual. Christianity is about a RELATIONSHIP with Christ. If you don’t want that, there is nothing anyone can do about that…you have the choice. That doesn’t mean that I should stop trying to convince you and others like you (assuming you are a non-believer)to change your mind. You are not obligated to read my posts or to respond in any way. I however, am obligated to make the case for Christ whenever and wherever I can.

By Jodi

December 6, 2004 04:14 PM | Link to this

There are a lot of things that aren’t really allowed in public settings—not just Christian things. For example, you can’t smoke in the middle of an auditorium full of people. You can’t have sex with your spouse in the middle of a public park. There are all sorts of limits to what can be public. You hit the nail on the head when you said that schools belong to the community. They do. That is exactly why religion does not belong in a place where children are pretty much forced to be a good chunk of their lives. Anything that’s mandatory (like school) needs to be free of religious influence in order to be fair to anyone. Again, I repeat, you are welcome to do anything you want with your more narrow (I don’t mean narrow-minded or anything—I just mean the groups you associate with voluntarily) group of people. Those associations are voluntary not required. There are so many religions and different beliefs, even within Christianity, that there is no way to make everyone happy, so the easiest solution, to me, is just to eliminate the controversy by keeping it out of the classroom.

By Lozen

December 6, 2004 04:23 PM | Link to this

Jodi, You go girl! Yours is the voice on reason on this board.

By Jodi

December 6, 2004 04:28 PM | Link to this

Chuck—In my humble opinion, it is better (and easier) to teach people by example than by proselytizing. If you are an honest, hard-working individual who shows love to others and tries to do the right thing, then people will want to do what you do. Works means more than words. I doubt (although I wouldn’t presume to speak for him) that Christ would persist in evangelicising (if that’s a word!) those who have expressed a desire to be left alone. If Christianity is right for them, then they will see those who do good works and will flock to Christ. If all they here is words then I feel they are unlikely to see your point of view because it feels threatening to them and is unwanted. Not everyone is ready.

By RS

December 6, 2004 04:32 PM | Link to this

Chuck, it’s not so much the nice shopkeepers I know not CARING about me (whether or not they do is neither here nor there; I don’t obcess over such things), it’s just that they themselves don’t believe in Jesus so why should they be concerned about me surrendering MY life to Christ? As to my being a nonbeliever, true, I’m not a Christian but I do believe in God. Not good enough? Sorry!

By dan

December 6, 2004 04:36 PM | Link to this

Not a whole lot of reason on either side. The constitution dictates the separation of church and state to protect religion from the state not the state from religion. The current migration towards eliminating all religious reference is mistakenly perceived by many to be eliminating controversy. The plain obvious facts are it has been creating it. The reason we have vacations and celebrations in December is Christmas, not to say everyone is celebrating Christmas but that is why there are days off, parties etc. To say otherwise is revisionist. Now I am not particularly religious but, this drive toward secularism is simply another religion or if you like belief. As a function of the community a school should reflect that community and if the community is largely christian they should celebrate accordingly. If an individual feels threatened by a celebration that 80% of their neighbors enjoy and base their beliefs on it is they who are narrow minded.

By dan

December 6, 2004 04:37 PM | Link to this

Not a whole lot of reason on either side. The constitution dictates the separation of church and state to protect religion from the state not the state from religion. The current migration towards eliminating all religious reference is mistakenly perceived by many to be eliminating controversy. The plain obvious facts are it has been creating it. The reason we have vacations and celebrations in December is Christmas, not to say everyone is celebrating Christmas but that is why there are days off, parties etc. To say otherwise is revisionist. Now I am not particularly religious but, this drive toward secularism is simply another religion or if you like belief. As a function of the community a school should reflect that community and if the community is largely christian they should celebrate accordingly. If an individual feels threatened by a celebration that 80% of their neighbors enjoy and base their beliefs on it is they who are narrow minded.

By Terry

December 6, 2004 04:37 PM | Link to this

Jodi,

I get your point: We will remove all values, morals and traditions from the American way of life because: We can’t please everyone, so the only thing left is to do away with them all!

And you’re right - that’s about the way it’s working!

By Jodi

December 6, 2004 04:46 PM | Link to this

Terry—no one said anything about removing values or morals from American life. As I’ve said before, you are welcome in this country to teach your children what you please about God, values, etc., and you are also free to practice your religion as you feel. This is in no way threatened by removing Christmas references from school. There are many people in this country who are moral and good without being religious. There is a time and a place for religion, and it is not in the public sphere. Private property is an entirely different matter. If Christians are truly concerned about eroding morality, then there are plenty of things they can do within their own groups to combat that. Strenghten your own churches, increase charitable donations, teach by example and not by force. 29 children sitting in a classroom do not have a choice whether or not to be there. They have to be. It is possible, in this country, to live the morality which you yourself may choose. All that those who disagree with you are asking is that you live the way you choose and allow them the same courtesy.

By chuck

December 6, 2004 04:51 PM | Link to this

The point RS, is that they presumably believe that their religion is the way to heaven whether it is Hinduism or Judaism, the point is ETERNAL PEACE AND REST. If they believe that their religion is taking them to heaven, why don’t they want you to come along? The obvious answer is that either they don’t believe it and they are just going through the motions for the sake of tradition, OR they don’t care about you. These are people who know you but don’t care enough about you to help you get to heaven, yet I who never met you would love to see you there.

Jodi, as for the “teaching by example” thing is one aspect of the Christian witness. However, since the people on this board cannot see my life or my witness, this particular format calls for the use of words alone. That is why I try to use the words of Christ Himself in my posts when I can. For instance, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” If that is true…and it is…aren’t I obligated to tell the good news to as many as I can in the time that God gives me here on earth? The best analogy I can think of right now is a true story. A man was driving on a treacherous rode at night during a violent thunderstorm. In a flash of lightning, he was able to see that the bridge ahead was gone. He stopped his car just in time and then stood in the road trying to stop approaching cars from plunging into the river. Some stopped and turned their cars back to safety. Others, thinking him to be a mad man for being out in that storm just drove around him and unable to see that the bridge was missing, plunged to their deaths. The man could have just turned around and having saved himself, continued on his way but instead, he did what he could to save others. He felt obligated to try EVEN when those approaching certain destruction refused to listen. That is the mission of Christians. Any Christian who tells you otherwise is wrong.

By becky

December 6, 2004 04:52 PM | Link to this

Jodi: In my humble opinion you are full of contradictions. First you say keep your faith to yourself, practice it in the privacy of your own home. Then you say lead by example. How can you set an example for others if you suppress your faith except in your home? If you are in fact a Christian as you say, it seems you have been brainwashed by your atheist husband. Since a large majority of the United States proclaims Christian why would we change for the minority they may get offended? Probably because of “Christians� like you who don’t stand up for what they believe in for fear of not being pc or offending someone.

By the way: Exposing our children to cigarette smoke, sexual intercourse, and religious influence, thanks for that example, now I see the correlation.

By Terry

December 6, 2004 04:57 PM | Link to this

Jodi,

You somehow always manage - to miss the point.

We could sit here an swap examples all day long. You think religion might be discourteous to some one - and I could counter with someone forcing me: To wear a seatbelt.

We could go on and on about who’s being discourteous to whom and for what - never-ending. But, that’s not the point.

By John

December 6, 2004 05:07 PM | Link to this

Jodi, your intelligence and openmindednes is sadly lost on the likes of Zack and Chuck who epitomize myopia,hat and intelligence deficits.

By John

December 6, 2004 05:07 PM | Link to this

Jodi, your intelligence and openmindednes is sadly lost on the likes of Zack and Chuck who epitomize myopia,hat and intelligence deficits.

By John

December 6, 2004 05:07 PM | Link to this

Jodi, your intelligence and openmindednes is sadly lost on the likes of Zack and Chuck who epitomize myopia,hat and intelligence deficits.

By lozen

December 6, 2004 05:13 PM | Link to this

Oh Chuck, I see so much pride and hubris in your posts. You believe you are right and your way is the only way. Isn’t pride one of the seven deadly sins? On the one hand Christians are supposed to be humble and not proud. But on the other hand you’re supposed to go around proselytizing and trying to convince people who have their own religion (and have found a very different path from yours) that they are wrong and you are right and the only way to heaven is your way! You believe this simply because you grew up in a time and place when Christianity was the dominant religion and because a book written thousands of years ago says so. The Bible is your only proof that when you quote the Bible you are right! You have absolutely nothing else to back up your claim that Jesus is the only way to heaven! Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Hebrews all have a different path from yours. They are not wrong. Their way is just as holy and moral as yours. If you had lived in Egypt in 1000 BC you’d be arguing that Osiris or Isis is the only way. If you’d been born in a muslim country you would be quoting the Qu’ran as the only true path!

By Van

December 7, 2004 07:52 AM | Link to this

Mara, I can tell you read into things, things that are not there.

My whole point is the federal and state governments should not have the authority to tell local communities, school boards and cities whether they can or can not celebrate this time of year, in the way they want.

The threat of law suits is the only way the anti-religion crowd can intimidate. If the City of Tucker wants a menorah ,a nativity or a Christmas tree, it is their decision.

A house or community center with a menorah out front should not offened anyone. The old saying of “Live and let live”, my generation, should still stand today. What we have is cry babies that are offended if I wear shoes, or drink a beer. They will find something to whine about, from the most trivial items to the plain stupid.

Some folks may be offended if I fly the American Flag in front of my house, some would be offended if I didn’t. Some find Che Guevara a cultural icon, I see him as a mass murderer. If we try to please everyone we please noone. We have become the land of the easily offended - and that offends me.

For your information, I am a very conservative person, christian, served my time in military service and yes, you may have guessed, I voted for our President.

By chuck

December 7, 2004 07:54 AM | Link to this

Lozen, It has NOTHING to do with MY WAY. When I was doing things my way I was lost and headed for destruction. What I’m talking about is GOD’S WAY. HE gave His only Son to die for ME, a wretched lowly shell of a man. He gave us His Word to tell us how we should live our lives and I struggle EVERY DAY to try to live my life like Jesus. I often FAIL miserably, but when I do, I know those sins are covered by the blood of Christ and through confession and repentence I am forgiven. It doesn’t bother me when people like yourself throw stones. I expect that and whether or not you care, I forgive you for it.

By chuck

December 7, 2004 08:12 AM | Link to this

Van is right. These community decisions have NOTHING to do with the Establishment clause. The Constitution was very clear about how it could be changed and the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution to make it difficult to change for a reason. They NEVER envisioned an activist judiciary branch changing the Constitution on their own. That is exactly what has happened, though. These guys, we are supposed to believe, were smart enough to create a representative government from scratch, but they couldn’t say what they meant in the establishment clause? PLEASE.

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 08:34 AM | Link to this

Becky—I’m NOT saying that cigarette smoking and sex in front of children is the same thing as Christianity. My point was that in either case, as in school, the children are captive audiences—without a choice about being there. As for brainwashing, I would never accuse you of being brainwashed, so why do you accuse me? I come from a very religious family and so I feel that between them and my husband, I have a unique perspective. No need to be uncivil. We’re just having a friendly discussion here. I don’t have a problem with religious displays except for in places where people are forced to be there (i.e. school). A parade float or something doesn’t bother me at all because no one is forced to be there.

By Terry

December 7, 2004 08:46 AM | Link to this

Jodi,

Do you have a problem with sex education in school? There are children who are “forced to be there”, you know.

In fact, we could spend the entire day citing examples of everything from A-Z that takes place in a school; that is not in the realm of an academic education - and I doubt you would be overly disturbed about them taking place simply because children are “forced to be there”.

It’s only things of a religious nature that seem to bring out this tremendous concern about people being “forced to be there” - isn’t it?

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 08:51 AM | Link to this

gotta get on my bus to go to work. will respond later

By Akeya

December 7, 2004 09:16 AM | Link to this

Is there anyone that can explain why it would not be a good idea for schools to be all-inclusive?

I would think that even in a religious-themed school, we would want out children to be well-rounded, read: knowledgable about the many perspectives of one issue.

By Van

December 7, 2004 09:43 AM | Link to this

Akeya, Because it is not the job of the school to be all-inclusive.

It is the job of the school to teach, period. Social engineering is not the job, preparing for the real world is.

By Akeya

December 7, 2004 09:46 AM | Link to this

Van-

Do you think that the schools should eradicate all religious-themed holidays/issues?

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 10:00 AM | Link to this

Terry—I understand your point. Ideally, sex education should be taught at home, but the reality is that many parents are either unwilling or unable to do so, so children must have another source to learn about how their bodies work. I had many friends in school who had no clue about how sex works. There were a lot of misconceptions (i.e. you can’t get pregnant the first time, etc.). Kids need this information so that they can make good choices about their future. Things have probably changed since I was in school, but we had to have a permission slip to attend sex education. It’s a health and science issue—not a religious one. Akeya—I think that teaching children about all types of religions is okay. It does broaden horizons. I would like to just see it taught as history rather than as doctrine (I don’t really think that most schools teach doctrine, though). All of you—I’m really enjoying this discussion! Let’s all play nice today!

By Roy

December 7, 2004 10:07 AM | Link to this

To all you people who are offended at just about anything, I am offended that you are offended. What do we do now?

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 10:17 AM | Link to this

Good one Roy! LOL! I, for one, am not offended, per se, at religion in the classroom. I just don’t think it belongs there—other than in a context of a history lesson. I get even more nervous when it’s in government. All throughout history, when the prevailing religion is also the government, all kinds of bad things happen (Iran, Afghanistan, early Europe, etc.). I feel it’s just better to keep government secular and let people practice religion as they see fit on their own time. Everyone is free to do as they wish on private property, and I would never try to restrict that as long as they were law abiding.

By Zack

December 7, 2004 10:26 AM | Link to this

If I were to move to Japan, I wouldn’t expect them to accommodate me when it came to this sort of issue, so this raises the question of why the minority in this country expects the majority to make special exceptions for them.

By RS

December 7, 2004 10:32 AM | Link to this

Ah, Chuck, I HAVE spoken to many devout folks of non-Christian faiths & they believe that if you worship God & are a good person, you will go to Heaven no matter what religion you are. The problem I have with Christian zealots in their self-righteous, arrogant “My-way-is-the-only-way-&-any-non-Christian-is-a-godless-heeathen” attitude. It’s insulting & offensive, no matter how you try to sugar-coat it with declarations of concern; sorry. Now, what about folks living in Muslin, Hindu, Buddhist countries who’ve never been exposed to Christianity? Are they automatically going to Hell? It’s not THEIR fault they don’t know your secret of getting to Heaven.

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 10:35 AM | Link to this

Zack—I appreciate your viewpoint. A lot of people feel the way you do. However, have you ever heard the phrase “tyranny of the majority?” This was of utmost importance, I feel, to the founders of this country—that is why we’re a Republic and not a straight democracy. For example, in the South, the majority of people, at least at some point in history, were dead set on slavery and Jim Crow. Had we gone with just a straight majority rules, we’d still be mired in those types of problems. Having said that, I repeat, you are still allowed to practice whatever religious beliefs you feel are right. No one is asking you to renounce those—I wouldn’t dream of doing so. I have no problem, say, with a child reading the bible during “reading time” or even praying if they want to. I just don’t want it led by his or her teacher. I really don’t even have a problem with a bible study after school group—because it’s after school and the children can choose to be there.

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 10:37 AM | Link to this

RS—I asked Chuck about that yesterday, and he didn’t answer. I just can’t imagine that a loving God would turn away righteous people just because they never had the opportunity to hear about Christ. It just doesn’t fit with the message of love and mercy which I take from Christianity.

By RS

December 7, 2004 10:37 AM | Link to this

Jodi, you ROCK!!!!

By steve

December 7, 2004 10:52 AM | Link to this

According to many on this board, Christians should not seek to make converts. Christians should be free to practice their faith in their homes and in their church buildings, but not in the public square. What you do not understand is that the sharing of our faith with others is part of the practicing our faith. Jesus commands us to do so.

Also, do you realize that everyone on this board is proselytizing? We all think that we have the right answers and we are trying to convince others of it. I am not offended by it. I try to be respectful of others and hope that those who disagree with me will at least be respectful of me. But by no means am I offended by those who disagree with me.

Having said that let me now add this - When Jesus said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” - it is significant that he did not say A way, A truth, A life. He said THE way, THE truth, THE life.

Christianity is both inclusive and exclusive. It is inclusive in that it does not matter whether you are male or female, black or white, rich or poor, tall or short, American or Hispanic, or European or from any other nation. No matter where you are are what you have done in life - the offer of forgivness through Jesus’ death on the cross is available to you. However, Christianity is exclusive in that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12). It is only through Jesus Christ that one can have that relationship with God and have eternal life. I am sorry if you find that offensive, but it did not originate with me. Don’t shoot the messager.

By RS

December 7, 2004 10:59 AM | Link to this

That’s ok, Jodi I don’t think Chuck will respond to ME either; he simply has nothing to say. Zack, I’m not saying the Japanese should afford you, me or any non-Buddhist special exceptions if we moved there, just do us the courtesy of acknowledging that we ARE of a different faith & treating us with respect instead of acting like we’re subhuman. And I’m sure that would be the case; all the Buddhists I know do respect others.

By becky

December 7, 2004 11:01 AM | Link to this

Jodi, I am sorry but you can’t have it both ways either you want God to be a part of your life or you don’t. How do you witness to others if you suppress your faith. This more than likely wouldn’t happen in a public school anyway for fear of getting fired but let’s say for example that you found out that a teacher led a prayer at school, would honestly been upset that your christian child who is exposed to prayer anyway had to be part of a prayer at school. You don’t know why God lead that teacherto pray maybe it was to witness to a child that had never heard of him. What if that was this childs only chance to hear of God? Like I said this wouldn’t happen in a public should but my point is either you are for God or you are against him. As a christian you should know that it is our duty to spread Gods word. You know it doesn’t matter if it is in a school or on the side of the road. How will others learn of God if all the christians are afraid of offending someone so they keep quiet?

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 11:05 AM | Link to this

Steve—I didn’t see anyone saying they were offended. I’m certainly not. You definitely still have the right to share your faith with others, as you are doing now. No one is stopping you from doing so. You can go and preach in a public square if you so desire. Those who don’t want to hear what you’re saying can simply walk away. Children in school cannot. I’d pose the same question posed to Chuck to you: Do you feel that righteous Hindus or Buddhists or others cannot go to heaven if they’ve never even heard of Jesus Christ? Also, Steve, I would like to commend you for being respectful on this forum. It can be difficult when people disagree!

By norman

December 7, 2004 11:06 AM | Link to this

We prayed and sang hymns in public school and Christmas carols. I am not aware that this in any way prevented me finally from understanding that religion is bunk.

Stop worrying.

By Terry

December 7, 2004 11:11 AM | Link to this

Ever notice how many of those who are not religious - are more self-righteous than those who are…?

They get an idea in their head; usually that of “Separation of Church and State”, and then they preach to everyone else about what should be allowed, what shouldn’t, who should have the right to do this, that or the other and who shouldn’t. And somehow, via magic of sorts, they again preach to you about how their minority opinion automatically superceeds yours of the majority.

And then they accuse you of: trying to force your beliefs on everyone else!

It’s an amazing thing to watch!

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 11:12 AM | Link to this

Becky—Oh, but it does matter where it happens. There are appropriate times and places for such discussions. Again, I am not offended by references to Christ, I just feel you should “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” meaning that some things belong in the secular sphere, some in the religious. However, if your Christian child is friends with a non-Christian child, there’s an influence right there. Please don’t misunderstand. I feel you have a right to speak of your beliefs in ALMOST every situation—just not in those where the audience is compelled by law to be there. The hypothetical teacher in your example is also free to pray all he or she wants—just not out loud in front of her class. Is his or her prayer somehow not heard unless it’s out loud? Thanks for your opinion. You obviously have heartfelt feelings about this, and I commend you for it.

By Tim

December 7, 2004 11:13 AM | Link to this

yes it is amazing to watch… especially seeing that Terry you are one of the first ones to do so

By chuck

December 7, 2004 11:14 AM | Link to this

Actually Jodi, you asked me the question on Friday when you said,

“What about all of the really good and kind people in this world who have never even met, let alone heard of, Christianity? Do you really think God would punish them for something beyond their control? Boy we’re way off topic here!�

I answered with the following:

By chuck December 3, 2004 01:55 PM | Link to this Jodi, Instead of asking me that question, why don’t you go to the Bible itself for the answer. Since you did ask however, here is what the Bible says about that: Romans 1 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities�his eternal power and divine nature�have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 11:16 AM | Link to this

Terry—I don’t think I’m any more righteous than anyone else. We all just have differences of opinion here. That’s what makes this country so great! I appreciate your feelings on this issue. If no one disagreed with one another, there would never be any discussions!

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 11:21 AM | Link to this

Chuck—The verse 21 you quoted already made the assumption that the people knew God. What of those that don’t? Are they just supposed to intuitively know about God without having been taught? Why do missionary work then, if everyone is supposed to know without someone telling him or her? All of these scriptures were written in a place where people already had a religious tradition involving a singular God and Jesus Christ. Again, what of those who have never been exposed to either?

By Van

December 7, 2004 11:33 AM | Link to this

Akeya - No. But then again when the child asks what is Kwansa all about, or the Islamic oservance this time of year, the subject should be allowed.

I feel the school should celebrate the season, it is not a states or federal issue.

If a school wants a Christmas tree fine. If a teacher wants a menorah in her/him class room, fine, it will being questions and therefore the students will learn something. I am against someone saying - “You can’t do that - It offends me”, or someother inane utterence.

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 12:00 PM | Link to this

Zack—If you went to Japan, you’d be a visitor. Non-Christians in this country aren’t visitors, they’re citizens. Besides, Japan has a whole different type of government, society, etc. Apples to Oranges.

By RS

December 7, 2004 12:03 PM | Link to this

Jodi: I see Chuck DID come through & address our question. Actually, he had the Bible do so. Now, did you notice this Bible passage made NO mention of Jesus, Christianity or any one religion? What does that tell you?

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 12:15 PM | Link to this

Van—I agree with you insofar as people get offended too easily. We all could use a little more tolerance.

By Akeya

December 7, 2004 12:29 PM | Link to this

Becky- If the child were raised Christian, then it wouldn’t really matter they were made to participate in a prayer. I would even go as far as to say that they participated willingly.

And I think that Jodi already pointed out that if people have the choice of hearing the “message of God” that’s fine, as long as it is made an option and not a mandate.

It’s all about choice. People should have the option to want to submit to the teachings, not forced.

I, personally, would love for my son to be knowledgeable on many subjects. I would prefer that he learn about ALL of the holidays included in this season.

By Royal Chic

December 7, 2004 12:42 PM | Link to this

….Akeya, I totally agree with you…..contrary to “Christian” belief, it is in our Creator’s nature and out of his love for us that he gives us the freedom of choice…He never wants to force us to know him, serve him, and love him….that is our choice and thus every Biblical prophet, Adam and Eve, and Egyptians who served pagan gods were all given a choice……I am not religious, thus I am not a Christian because no denomination can limit or define my spiritual walk with the Most High, but I know that I was given a choice and I choose to believe that I am made in God’s image and whatever my spiritual purpose…it will never be defined by any religion…..

By chuck

December 7, 2004 01:17 PM | Link to this

Jodi, verse 20 addresses that: “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualitiesâ€â€?his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€?have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,” It is saying that nature itself points to God IN ADDITION to the other methods that His children use to spread the good news. In verse 21 they know God through His creation yet they refuse to acknowledge Him as God. The bottom line is this: 1) the Bible teaches that NOBODY is good enough to get to heaven through his or her own power. No amount of “good works” will do it. 2) The Bible teaches that God showed us His love by sending His only Son to live as a human and suffer all of the pains, illnesses and temptations as all of us have seen, but because He was able to live a perfect sinless life on earth, He became the ONLY acceptable sacrifice for our sins. 3) The Bible teaches that He accepted the mission that God sent Him here to accomplish and agreed to die on the cross for our sins. 4)The Bible teaches that because of His great sacrifice, God made this the ONLY means to spend eternity in Heave. 5) The Bible teaches that when Jesus was crucified He drew all men unto Himself and gave everyone the opportunity to accept the gift of eternal life. 6)The Bible teaches that as with any other gift, Salvation does not become ours UNTIL we accept it by acknowleding that we are sinners, lost without Christ, by believing that Christ is the Son of God, that he came to earth and suffered death on the cross for our sins, that God raised Him from the dead and that He now sits on the right hand of the Throne of God making intercession for us to the Father, and by repenting og our sins and accepting the free gift of Salvation. 7) The Bible teaches that when Christ ascended back into heaven He COMMANDED us to GO and spread the Gospel.

That’s why I do what I do. I don’t believe ANYONE should be forced to accept Christ. I also don’t believe that it is the function of government to evangelize whether it is through the schools OR any other means. That does NOT mean, however, that we have to bury every reference to God in the schools or in the PUBLIC arena. I ahve no problem with displays in the school because Christianity is a major part of our heritage as a nation. I would also not object to the inclusion of symbols of other religious holidays. The problem is that MOST administrators are so intimidated by the Athiests, that they are afraid to allow any display EVEN though no court decision has declared that to be the standard. On the other hand those same administrators have no trouble with displays of OTHER religious symbols such as Mennorahs. I personally know of children who have not been allowed to read their Bibles during “FREE” reading time at school, even though comic books were allowed. I know personally, children who have been told that they could not pray before meals in schools in direct violation of the Constitution AND applicable court decisions. This governmental intrusion into the private practice of religion greatly bother me. Do I think that school funds should be used to purchase religious items for school displays/ NO. Do I think that teachers OR parents OR students should be allowed to spend their own money for displays in the schools and other public places? YES. I wonder how many of those who say that they are offended by those displays shop in stores that display them or give “Christmas” presents to their bosses, or otherwise participate in the celebration of Christmas. I think the answer would be above 90%. The only thing going on here is that many non-Christians use those displays as a means to push God OUT of sight to try to lessen His influence. It is not about being offended. If it was they would not participate in ANY aspects. It is about selfish, petty, elitism.

By chuck

December 7, 2004 01:29 PM | Link to this

BTW, I would never try to FORCE God on RS or Norman or YOU JODI. The last time I looked, this is an open forum for the expressions of those who participate. Anyone here can choose whether or not to read my posts. You are all welcome to scroll past them at any point without even acknowledging them. However, if you choose to read them you have only yourself to blame if you become offended. I’m not offended by anything anyone says on this board whether it is about me or not. The only person I worry about pleasing is my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (AND my Wife).

By Tim

December 7, 2004 01:32 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I just wanted to say I liked your last statement that you put in parentheses… good point :)

By steve

December 7, 2004 01:46 PM | Link to this

Jodi -

You asked, “Do you feel that righteous Hindus or Buddhists or others cannot go to heaven if they’ve never even heard of Jesus Christ?” My only answer to that very difficult question is from the Bible - Romans 3:10-12,23 “None is righteous, no, not one;no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good,not even one…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

In other words, no one deserves heaven. All of us deserve hell. Is Jesus the only way? He claimed to be. I believe Him.

By the way, thank you also for the respectful tone all of your posts have had. I think it makes the discussion much more productive when we debate ideas and not people.

Now back to the original topic - I think we need to recognize that it is impossible for anyone to be neutral toward religion. I just think we have gone too far in trying to remove all references to religion from the schools. In a since we are teaching children that no matter what their religious beliefs are, there belief system is irrelevent outside of their homes and/or churches. I personally think that is a bad message. Now, I do not want teachers leading prayer or teaching doctrine to children in the public school. Mainly because I believe that the wall of “separation of church and state” that Jefferson wrote about was meant to protect the church from governement interference, not so much the other around. But we can go too far. The constititution guarantees us all freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.

By RS

December 7, 2004 02:01 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I am COMPLETELY in agreement with what you said starting from “That’s why I do what I do”. Steve; I’m still confused. You say the only way to Heaven/eternal salvation is through Jesus but what about those who were never exposed to Christian teachings? Assuming one believes that salvation through Christ is the only way, surely a loving Creator can’t doom someone for something that’s not their fault??

By norman

December 7, 2004 02:01 PM | Link to this

you idiots all talk about God as if you knew anything about him. You get all your information from the Bible, why not from The Wizard of Oz?

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 02:01 PM | Link to this

I would certainly not advocate not allowing a child to read the Bible during free time at school. I also think it’s wrong to not allow a child to pray before a meal. Those are both examples of overreaching.

By norman

December 7, 2004 02:12 PM | Link to this

Take the bibles away from them! Don’t weaken their rational powers! It will take them years if not decades to have the damage undone. We need more godlessness, less stupid piety.

By Akeya

December 7, 2004 02:13 PM | Link to this

Royal Chick-

It becomes really scary when you see the Hebrew-Isrealites on the corner…they are a scary bunch!

By norman

December 7, 2004 02:32 PM | Link to this

Why are the Hebrew-Israelits scary? I mean compared to any evangelical type? Are they black?

By Dave Oliver

December 7, 2004 02:34 PM | Link to this

This argument is not winnable. The holiday season was started by the Christian celebration of ‘Christmas.” Now with so many “CULTS” that are along for the ride the Christians are under great pressure to “share” the Christmas season with Jews, Muslims, agnostics, Budists, and even people that worship cows, and if they do not share they are taken to court. What a sad comemtary for a country that was founded on “Christian” principles. I say let the other “cults” have their “Happy Holidays” and we Christians keep our “Merry Christmas. End of story. Merry Christmas.

By Bob Swygert

December 7, 2004 02:41 PM | Link to this

As Chuck and Steve accurately pointed out, Jesus Himself claimed that “no one comes to the Father except through Me.” Jesus Himself claimed that salvation is only possible through belief in Him…only through belief in His atoning death on the cross as payment for sin. This is the message of the Bible and the traditional stance of the Christian religion. Is that intolerant? No. Please feel free to accept or reject Jesus. Please feel free to believe in Hinduism, Buddhism, paganism, communism, atheism or any other -ism. You have that right. But please understand that there are consequences to the decisions we make in life—especially religious/spiritual decisions. If you want to believe in Jesus, that’s wonderful. If you choose to reject Him, that’s your choice. But do not for a moment pretend that the consequences are the same either way. Everybody cannot be right. Either Jesus Himself is right or wrong when He claimed to be God… when He claimed to be THE way, THE truth and THE life.” Jesus never claimed that there were many ways to salvation. Jesus never claimed that all religious belief was equally valid or that all religions were true. Jesus insisted on belief in Himself alone. Again, that’s not being intolerant. Feel free to accept or reject Him. What about those who have never heard of Jesus? Their fate is in God’s hands, not mine. But this is exactly why Christian churches support missionaries around the world and support efforts to translate the “Good News” into every language and dialect. This has been the mission of the church for 2,000 years— to give everyone on this planet the opportunity to either accept or reject Christ.

By Royal Chic

December 7, 2004 02:42 PM | Link to this

Chuck, those symbols that you refer to as being used to force God out…..has absolutely nothing to do with God at all….God does not view any nativity scene or christmas tree, mistle toe, or manorah for that matter as sacred…it’s all tangible and has absolutely nothing to do with the spirit and will never be interpreted in the spirit…these are just ploys of the physical to get people in the a so-called “holiday spirit” to spend lots of money and control this great country’s revenue…..

By Brian Curtis

December 7, 2004 02:44 PM | Link to this

As usual, Zack has declared this subject directly related to the evils of abortion… and Terry is still outraged that people persist in believing that the rights of non-Christians are worthy of respect in this oh-so-Christian country of ours.

But on the actual TOPIC of this forum, I see no reason why schools shouldn’t explain the idea of Christmas, along with the holidays of other beliefs, as part of students’ education about history and the world.

Of course, that doesn’t mean teachers should be “teaching Christianity” or any such nonsense; they should simply explain the nature of the holiday prefaced with “Christians believe….” and let the students draw their own conclusions. Discussions about the holidays of other faiths—Hannukah, Ramadan, etc—would likewise be appropriate, as long as no judgments are made.

Like it or not, teachers have a higher obligation than the one to their personal faith. As guides and guardians of the next generation of Americans, their duty is to present information about the world and our country, not to persuade or proselytize by favoring one system of belief over others. In America, all religious views are supposed respected and treated equally by the government (including schools)—no matter which group has the numeric majority. Ain’t freedom wonderful?

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 02:51 PM | Link to this

Bob—It is obvious that you have heartfelt beliefs about Jesus. I commend you for that. I myself believe in Christ and try to do the right things. What I feel that most non-Christians are trying to express is that this is a multi-cultural, plural country where all of us (thanks be to heaven) can choose to believe how we want. They would just like to live in a society where people are not constantly telling them they’re going to hell. Whether you believe that they are or not is not the issue. It’s a matter of politeness, I feel. Christ wanted all to come to him, but I don’t believe (not that I would presume to speak for him—just my interpretation) that He really needs to have children in a public school be taught there without a choice in the matter. He would want us to choose to hear about him, rather than be mandated. But for heaven’s sake, feel free to tell whomever you want about your beliefs—just don’t do it on school time. I think that there is nothing wrong with believing in Christ and still wanting a separation of church and state. God doesn’t need the state behind him—believing people are enough.

By RS

December 7, 2004 02:54 PM | Link to this

Dave; last I heard, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc are viable religions, not cults. A cult is a group of nutcases led by some misguided crank who wants to take your belongings, control your mind & possibly lead a mass suicide. Royal Chic, you are absolutely right about religious symbols (as well as gift wrap, cards, decorations etc) being more about capitalism than spirituality (oh but they’re so much fun!) Norman, correct me if I’m wrong; Akeya may know more about this since she’s the one who actually brought this up but I believe the Hebrew Israelites she’s referring to are a community of spiritual, vegetarian/vegan African people who dress in beautiful African garb. They have deep roots in Israel but don’t subsribe to Judaism, or Christianity per se. They consider themselves Hebrew, not Jewish, actually although they observe the Jewish Holy Days. They can often be found in Little 5 Points & West End. Gee I don’t find them scary in the least. I’ve been privileged to know many of them & they are such warm, lovely people.

By Lyrazel

December 7, 2004 03:11 PM | Link to this

Its amazing that this topic (should faith ceremonials be taught by public school teachers) is strictly avoided.

Did your parents take you to church/temple, catechism, or were you all Theology graduates from birth? If a Martian read this blog they’d think you learned all your faith by osmosis (FYI: the gradual, often unconscious, absorption of knowledge or ideas through continual exposure rather than deliberate learning.) If you went to public school how involved was your 2nd-6th grade teachers in your religious upbringing? Was she supposed to be your source for religious instruction or did your family seek out ordained professionals?

Many members of this forum ridicule public education but any country that does not educate its masses will be trampled by ones that do. Other nations value education more than USA. Indeed, their standards are higher as far as teacher requirements for public schools whereas our standards for teachers tend to be body counts of the lowest paid members of the a passable educated society. Teachers are blamed for everything including parental responsibility of children so its small wonder they are damned if they do and damned if they dont. Students from Georgia face life in a state where speaking foreign languages comes under suspicion and ridicule. While most Asian/European students speak 3-5 languages we are graduating classes without music, arts and foreign language as part of the curriculum. In Georgia parents make arguments for accepting religious doctrine in textbooks but do not seem very bothered Georgia students have second lowest SAT scores in the nation, even considering how few actually take an SAT in Georgia. Sex education? What matter if a teacher teaches of sperm and egg data when any child can pop in a video and learn more about booty call than respect for sex? Just when do parents take part in children’s educations or are public school teachers there to instruct your child on everything including, manners, hygiene, and religion? So while you bicker just remember its an underfunded job that few people taje because of resentful bellyaching parents so clueless about who’s responsibility it is for their child’s religious training.

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 03:32 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel—Some very good points here. We really should get back to the basics with education. It’s becoming more and more difficult because of the increasing complexity of the world we live in. For example, it was a lot easier for some to teach history when it was from only 1 ethnic group’s perspective. It takes a lot more finesse to be inclusive of multiple vantage points—although I feel this is important. Also, the advancements in technology make it hard to keep up with our ever-changing world. Add to that the increasing absenteeism of parents and you’ve got a real problem on your hands. I, too, am sympathetic with teachers. Their job is so difficult, especially when people expect them to teach everything, not just the subjects they trained to teach. And, like you, I’d like to see sex education done at home. The problem with that is that so many parents don’t teach that, so children get their information from unreliable sources, like other 13-year-olds. Heaven help us!

By Chuck

December 7, 2004 03:36 PM | Link to this

It is good to have these discussins. I favor keeping Christmas celebrations. Historically, we are a western culture and post reformation. This resulsted in a Christian foundation to our nation and its cultere. It is appropriate for these roots to be explored in a school. To ignore or remove them is to impose a religious view. To expore them is to be objective. Norman I don’t know what in your background has made you so negative about Christianity. But call them Primitives is to be arrogant. See Blaise Pascal, F.F. Bruce as example of brilliant believers. (the list is undending)

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 03:40 PM | Link to this

Chuck—I actually agree with you. Norman is out of line to be so rude. We are all having a friendly discussion—no need to be insulting.

By Bob Swygert

December 7, 2004 03:54 PM | Link to this

Jodi,

Thank you for your respectful comments and for correctly pointing out that I’ve failed to address the original topic about religious references in public schools.

As I see it, the problem in this country is that we have become so hypersensitive about not offending anyone else’s sensibilities. Public schools are supported by all taxpayers— Christian and non-Christian. That means everyone should have equal access/ equal opportunity to express their message. Schools should allow Christian students to read the Bible during free time and to display Nativity scenes or other Christmas symbols. The same right should be extended to Jewish students during Hannukah, Muslim students during Ramadan, African-American students during Kwanzaa, etc etc. What’s wrong with a local government allowing a Christian group to display a Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn during Christmas? Nothing at all, as long as the same right is granted to other religious/civic groups. This does NOT violate any “separation of church and state” since the government is not endorsing any particular religious viewpoint. The state is simply being officially neutral toward religion, which is all the Founding Fathers—including Jefferson— had in mind. Christians do not have the right to “force” their religious beliefs on anyone … just as atheists do not have the right to “force” Christians into silence in the public arena. Again, Christians are taxpayers too and we have just as much right as anyone else to publicly express our beliefs in public schools or anywhere else. And as long as the government is officially neutral, who cares?

By RS

December 7, 2004 03:58 PM | Link to this

Bob: Hear, hear! You are so right!!!After all, this country was ounded on equality for everyone, not just one particular group, or all groups EXCEPT one.

By Royal Chic

December 7, 2004 04:01 PM | Link to this

Considering this country is a melting pot and would not be what it is today without the help of people of many nationalities and religions or beliefs….there should be a level of respect and observance of the many religions that make up the spiritual backbone of our nation in schools and everywhere else for that matter…..the majority will rule inevitably so in essence there is really no need to push any religious beliefs on anyone else…..Christians have an overwhelming presence without even putting for the effort to make their presence known…the angry “Christians” that condemn every non believer to hell before taking a look in the mirror need to ask themselves what if my child, an American citizen, chooses to be of a different religion or establish faith outside of religion all together…..will I be so quick to condemn them to hell as I do others????

By Royal Chic

December 7, 2004 04:09 PM | Link to this

Just for the record, will telling aspiring Christians that if they choose not to accept Jesus as their Savior they will go to hell a way to scare someone into Christianity or a loving expression of where your soul will dwell after being judged??? There is nothing peaceful, loving, and Christlike about that assumption……

By chuck

December 7, 2004 04:16 PM | Link to this

Royal Chic, The symbols are not being used to force God out. Their removal from all public life is symbolic of the attempt of athiests and others to remove God from the public arena. The intent of this movevement is, to follow the old adage, “out of sight, out of mind”. They think that if they remove God (in the form of religious symbolism) from all PUBLIC view, that they can still His voice and snuff out the root of Christianity in America, thereby causing people to accept Godless humanism as the basis for spirituality. Even if they were 100% effective in removing all public expressions of the Christian Faith, they will NEVER be able to limit God.

Bob S. Your statement above is one of the best articulations on this topic that I have ever read. Clear, concise, and full of meaning. That, people, says it all.

By Andrew Jones

December 7, 2004 04:21 PM | Link to this

I believe, Shaunti, that we as Christians should expose the law allowing Christian holiday symbolism. If we take action and do this instead of writing about it, perhaps we can make Christmas what it should be.

By Royal Chic

December 7, 2004 04:23 PM | Link to this

If you are deeply rooted in your faith whatever that may be God or whatever Higher Power one believes in will never be removed from your heart, mind, and spirit…..and what do you refer to as religious symbolism??? Christmas trees, lights, gift wrap, etc…..that is absolutely not religious symbolism….nothing of the physical will ever symbolize the nature of God….He is of the SPIRIT!!!

By Bob Swygert

December 7, 2004 04:26 PM | Link to this

Royal Chic… just for the record.

I could never condemn anyone to Hell. Since I’m not God that wouldn’t be in my job description. I’ll leave that up to Him to decide. But since Christ Himself insisted that He is the ONLY way to salvation, since Christ Himself died on the cross for the sins of all who place their faith in Him, since Christ Himself is universally acknowledged ( even among non-Christians) as the essence of peace and love, I have to assume that this basic Christian message is peaceful, and loving and well… Christ-like

By Royal Chic

December 7, 2004 04:30 PM | Link to this

In my humble opinion, faith is too often directly linked to things seen and not the unseen rather than the what we feel in the spirit….do we need to follow the tradition of the so called birthday of Jesus on December 25th and participate in all the Christmas festivities to display faith and believe in a Higher Power….this holiday has nothing to do with Christianity…..what do most families do on Christmas morning and throughout the day…..exchange gifts and eat tons of fattening foods…..I have spent Christmas day and not once even mentioned Jesus’ name nor the purpose of his being born…..some things are tradition and are done out of habit and other things like the actual study of one’s belief is a display of faith and a vigor to be more Christlike or spiritual……

By moveon

December 7, 2004 04:33 PM | Link to this

still waiting to hear what “kudzu league” school norman attended.

By norman

December 7, 2004 04:34 PM | Link to this

Blaise Pascal was terrified by the possibility that science disproved Christianity and he made every pirouette possible, and he was a genius, to try to offer reasons for belief. He finally said “the heart has reasons.” I agree but the heart is not a very good source of confidence.

By Royal Chic

December 7, 2004 04:35 PM | Link to this

I must say that I’m impressed by your ability not to judge, but I guess I was speaking about Christians who have Godlike complexes and judge every person outside of their faith…..I’m not a judgemental person…just trying to get insight on the ideas and far out convictions of extreme Christians….thanks for setting the record straight and speaking for yourself…and not the entire Christian community:)

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 04:38 PM | Link to this

Robert—I understand your point and don’t really think it harms anyone, per se. However, a courthouse is an official state building. As in school, people are compelled to be there. But as far as in stores, in parades, at your churches, in your neighborhoods, go for it. I think a lot of people would be offended to see, say, a highly visible Muslim symbol outside the courthouse. How would you feel as a Muslim to enter a courthouse, in today’s climate, surrounded by Christian symbols? Would you feel you could get a fair trial?

By Madeleine

December 7, 2004 04:46 PM | Link to this

Geesh! The funny thing reading all of the comments posted is that those who appear to believe the strongest on one side or the other and are so busy name calling and fitting others into a box—are the very thing they accuse the others of being—small minded.

Mara has an elementary view of Christians—all exactly the same no matter what the denomination. In her mind all christians teach you are going to burn in hell if you sin and are taught to point this out to others—So Wrong—this is a characteristic of the Baptist Denomination of the Christian faith—but not of all Christians.
Certainly not the way I was raised.

Boscoe—you are not well educated about your own faith (unfortunately—just as american children are taught in school that americans are the good guys and have never done delplorable things to other countries or minorities—so too are we often taught only basic information in church)

Mara is right—We did steal the pagan holidays! Sad but true. You can all boast your intellectual minds arguing which pagan holiday really was what and turned into what—it doesn’t really matter…pretty much Christians wanted people to believe—but we didn’t want to be boring and take away the awesome celebration—so we combined Christian events with pagan celebrations so everyone would be happy. Knowing this fact should not, however, shake your faith.
The creation story—for example—while I never claim that any one is right—the Bible, Darwin, yadda, yadda—maybe a little bit of everything. I believe the Bible creation story is a story—in the large scheme of things—Darwin seems more believable—but I believe God gave Darwin the mind and the desire to figure it out…

God doesn’t need religion to be God or for people to believe he exists—People created religion—the teachings of which have been translated from hebrew to greek to german, and english so many times that unfortunately the Fundamentalist—Right wing Christians preach these translations as they know them however—when studied in the original text—they often mean somehting entirely different. Yikes!

How about we agree—it is fine if you are atheist, you are christian, you are agnostic, you are Jewish, or you are trying to figure out what you are—whatever the case may be and not assume because someone is Christian that they are Jim and Tammy Baker or Falwell—Please! And not assume that if someone is atheist they are going straight to hell and must be hateful and unhappy, and on and on….

I think—unfortunately—those denominations of Chrisitianity that believe pushing people to believe in God, in Jesus—through teachings of fear from what will happen if you don’t, those christians who feel it is their place to judge others and say so seem to dominate the media—not the Mother Theresa’s of this world—it is because of this that Christianity is considered a bad thing.

And yes—it does seem it is o.k. to celebrate Hanukksh and Kwanza—not Christianity. It is seen everywhere—take the nativity down—but the star of David stays….

Well—this is our own fault as Christians—and it takes extremes to acheive balance sometimes—I realize this. Just like women’s rights—it took extremes to get any hint of equality—but then it has to come back around.

So—realizing that what I was taught as a child isn’t the only way is important—but don’t deny that what I was taught and believe isn’t even to be considered…

I think Christians should get it by now. I think balance can be achieved now. It is time to come back around. Lets celebrate all that is good. No need to be so hateful whether it is BS to you (Norman) or not! Believe how you believe and celebrate this and allow others to do the same.

By RS

December 7, 2004 04:46 PM | Link to this

Jodi, even as a Jewish person (i.e., as in Judeo-Christian), I’d be nervous entering a court redolent with blatant Christian symbols, if I were on trial; I’d worry if some bigot would judge/jury member would try to unfairly prosecute me just upon hearing my surname. You definately make a valid, compelling point

By Sage

December 7, 2004 05:00 PM | Link to this

The bible is only one of many holy books. There are several different bibles, Catholics use one version and Protestants use another. The bible has been translated and changed many times for political (King James) reasons. the bible is a book written over 2,000 years ago by one small religious group and it’s simply not big enough to contain the Great Spirit. All of the holy books together aren’t big enough for the mystery which cannot be named or defined by anyone. All of those books leave out the very important part of our own individual and personal experience. The worship of the bible is bibliolatry. To keep parroting “the bible says, the bible says…” to me shows a lack of real and personal experience of the Great Spirit. I could keep repeating over and over “The Koran says …” or the Upanistads say…” or the Egyptian Book of the Dead says….” Would that make me more credible?

By RS

December 7, 2004 05:09 PM | Link to this

Sage…you truly are! The problem with these fundies is they pick the most restrictive parts of the Bible to parrot, because it exempts them from actually (gasp, horror!) THINKING! Having an independent thought & the inherent responsibility that goes along with it is too scary…

By Jodi

December 7, 2004 05:15 PM | Link to this

Sage—Very good point. Anyone who’s done any study on the history of the Bible knows that it has been selectively “edited” by whomever was in power at the time (hence, the King James version, etc.). By doing so, each “editor” adds his or her own cultural background to the translation, whether intentional or not. There are often several meanings to a single word, and whichever one the translator decides is right, makes it in. You do this a few times and you get a completely different meaning over time. That is why I personally believe the Bible was meant to be a symbolic guide to living—not necessarily a literal one. The number one commandment was to love one another. Love one another. Before even bringing them to Christ, love one another.

By Randy

December 8, 2004 07:08 AM | Link to this

Jodi, Reading your comment on the bible. Here’s what I have learned, JESUS gives us answers to all doubts scientifically and logically if you know where to look, I love this about him. Being a logically thinking person, I have done research extensively on every question or doubt one could have as to the accuracy of the bible, God’s existance, Jesus being the messiah etc. On your discussion of the bible, the discovery of the Dead Sea Schrolls in 1948 eliminated any doubt as to the accuracy of the bible. We actually have more original copies of the bible than of Shakespere’s works. If you know where to look there are no doubts as to Christianity. Have a great day!

By Terry

December 8, 2004 08:36 AM | Link to this

Tim,

No, I am not “one of the first ones to do so”.

If I didn’t think people should eat chocolate ice cream - I would state just that. I would not try to hide behind some self-righteous notion of how we can’t force things on other people - as a means of trying to get my way with things.

Then, turn right around and demand that everyone eat apples, because [I] happen to think it would be good for everyone’s health - and so we should be allowed to force that on everyone.

By norman

December 8, 2004 08:48 AM | Link to this

What keeps Americans juvenile? Religion and sports. Religion destroys rational thinking. Sports infantilizes the American male (just ask their wives) and keeps them kid-like throughout their lives. Sports also create a form of male bonding which guarantees that males will never interact on significant issues, only on trivia. Religion and sports have much in common and are equally to blame for the low state of the American mind.

By Texas

December 8, 2004 09:10 AM | Link to this

Thank God Elementary Children aren’t bigoted. It’s not the children making the silly reasons to deny Nativity scenes in school. It’s irresponsible people like us.

Let’s look into this question a little more deeply, and this time let’s look at it differently.

Today in America we have children through no fault of their own born into poverty. With Prostitutes, Drug Addicts, Alcoholics for a parent. Children living in worn out Apartment complex’s filled with hate, violence and indeed hopelessness. Their only exposure to the outside world is through a broken down television and a Public School.

We in America have the opportunity to afford these children with the only knowledge of Christmas that they will get through our public schools. To deny them a nativity scene, a play teaching them the birth of Christ, with children who would be proud regardless of their religious background to be a part of the celebration. Yes, should I dare say a Muslim child could play the part of a Sheppard, a Jewish child to play the part of the North Star. And so on. Children aren’t filled with hate and bigotry. No indeed, children want knowledge, kindness and attention. Most children want to be a part of something new and exciting.

Learning about the Birth of Christ in an American Public School should not be prohibited. Indeed shame on those who believe it should!

Some children’s only warm meal comes from a cafeteria in a Public School. The only good they see and are taught is in a public school. They won’t get that at home, and no one will take them to church. No one will give them hope for a good future. We have the opportunity to teach a child who is unsure about his next step to rise above the petty arguments we see today, and give him/her a glimpse of the true meaning of Christmas, the Birth of Christ our savior.

AS GOD’S PARTNERS WE BEG YOU NOT TO TOSS ASIDE THIS MARVELOUS MESSAGE OF GOD’S GREAT KINDNESS. 2 Corinthians 6:1

By Randy

December 8, 2004 09:29 AM | Link to this

Norman is wrong on both accounts, sports makes us competative and successful, religion gives us a relationship with our creator and a bonding with others who view the world through heavenly “eyeglasses”. As for the american mind, I think it is superior to all other countries as we are tolerant of others(like Norman). Norman are you right about anything? I tried to resist saying anything but you are a unbelievable. You must be trying to cause a problem, I refuse to believe anyone is as stupid as your posts.

By Madeleine

December 8, 2004 09:48 AM | Link to this

Norman—you have—by far—the most intersting, and ofcourse, deeply synical responses to everything posted. You make me laugh in a good way. Enjoy your day! Sage—I couldn’t agree with you more—the Bible, the Kumran, etc. takes away from the Spiritual Experience. I, for one do not want the Divine Force I call God—to be judged by what others wrote, write, and or say about God or Jesus or any other prophet, whatever your pleasure.

Making the choice to write off even attempting to have a relationship with the holy spirit, or whatever you believe the divine force is, because of what People—Human Beings do in the name of that spirit or write in the name of that spirit is so unfortunate. What people miss out on because they make judgements based on what others say, not their own personal experience.

By Robbie

December 8, 2004 10:04 AM | Link to this

Think about things in this light:

The only reason this season tends to cause controversy is because of the convergence of holidays at the same time. (unfortunately.) What people fail to realize is that Chanukah isn’t the Jewish Christmas, nor Christmas the Jewish Chanukah. Chanukah has nothing to say about peace on earth, goodwill towards men, etc. It’s simply a the remembrance of a successfull revolution against the Syrian Greeks.

However, people in modern times fear that little Jewish children will feel left out. (And sadly, they do, as they are constantly shown the ease of Christianity in relation to Judaism.)

This happens because people in the public arena fail to make a difference between eduacating about a holiday and celebrating a holiday. It’s just fine to teach a class that “The holiday of Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus, who Christians believe is the Savior” and Chanukah celebrates the revolt of the Maccabees against the Syrian Greeks, and according to the story…”

If a teacher can separate him or herself from the story, there’s no problem in teaching about it. Generally, though, that’s awfully hard to do.

By Jodi

December 8, 2004 10:23 AM | Link to this

Robbie—What a great point! I also have no problem with children learning the histories of religious holidays. It’s part of what makes this country so great—its diverse population and traditions. Someone made the point earlier that we should be focusing more on math, science, history, etc. and less on celebrating holidays. I wholeheartedly agree. My high school wasted so much time doing things that were unrelated to learning of any kind. Every year we’d spend about a half a day watching stupid cartoon Christmas shows. We had numerous assemblies unrelated to anything educational. What a waste of time! I finally ended up going to early college because my senior year would have been a complete waste and I didn’t want to spend my time attending pep rallies and senior-itis field trips when I could be advancing my education. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

By Royal Chic

December 8, 2004 10:37 AM | Link to this

Sage, well said…..I wholeheartedly agree with you…..as for the topic….to study different cultures and the holidays they recognize is essential in the educating of our children and should never be excluded from their learning experience…..the problem arises when Christian symbols or Christmas festivities is the only thing that the children are exposed to…..chuck posted that “symbols” of the season are being pushed out of the public arena…..how about oversaturating the public arena….forcing children as robbie posted to accept Christianity as a norm or the chosen religion because of the glamour and appeal…..not out of faith and belief…..

By chuck

December 8, 2004 10:38 AM | Link to this

I’ve read a number of posts that question the veracity of the Bible (Norman, Jodi, RS et.al.)This statement from a web site sums up some of the most obvious reasons that you can trust scripture:

The historical accuracy of the Scriptures is likewise in a class by itself, far superior to the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations. Archeological confirmations of the Biblical record have been almost innumerable in the last century. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said:

“No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”

Scientific Accuracy Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:

Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)

Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)

Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)

Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)

Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)

Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)

Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)

Gravitational field (Job 26:7)

and many others. These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man’s everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts. It is significant also that no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in the Bible — in science, in history, or in any other subject. Many have been claimed, of course, but conservative Bible scholars have always been able to work out reasonable solutions to all such problems.

Another contention made on this board concerns the “political translations” made by King James and others. There is a great web site on the History of the KJV of the Bible. Among the historical records that exist on this topic are the original resolution that brought together 47 of the most learned men in England. It stated:

“That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service.”

Also in the record is a list of 15 directives for the translators. These directives required among others that:

“8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

By norman

December 8, 2004 10:39 AM | Link to this

Teachers may have trouble discussing religious dogmas and stories. Take Hannukah for instance. Jews and Christians are supposed to believe that the Jews battled against pagan Syrians who wanted to destroy their faith. Not really true. Many Jews welcomed the Hellenistic culture of the Greek-Syrians, successors to Alexander the Great as a way of reforming their primitive Semitic religion. The war was a war between two sets of Jews, the fundamentalists vs. the modernizers, with the Hellenistic Syrians supporting the modernizers. But the Book of Maccabees was written by the winning side and we get only that viewpoint. There are many parts of the New Testament which cannot be discussed at face value. St. Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection as “spiritual,” he returned in a spiritiual body, this contradicts any notion of a physical resurrection, but the Church suppressed these ideas. They of course could not excise Paul from the New Testament, but many wanted to.

Good luck teachers! With your lousy education I don’t know how you are going to cope. School teachers have the lowest GPA of all college grads.

By Jodi

December 8, 2004 10:46 AM | Link to this

Norman—Please don’t go lumping all teachers together! I, like I’m sure everyone, have had good teachers and bad ones. I had a brilliant science teacher in high school who made learning so interesting that I remember a good portion, all these years later, of what he taught. However, on the other hand, I had a college roommate who wanted to be a teacher but could barely read and could not spell at all. I wonder what became of her… Like any profession, there are good and highly educated teachers and some not-so good or educated. I had a MIDDLE school band teacher with a Ph.D. who, despite numerous offers to teach high school and college, chose to stay with us (althouth, I have no idea why ANYONE would want to teach 12-year-olds! Poor guy!). Norman, Norman. One of the signs of true open-mindedness and intelligence is the ability to refrain from blanket stereotypes.

By chuck

December 8, 2004 10:46 AM | Link to this

You can tell from my previous post about the KJV Bible, that EVERY EFFORT was made to insure that the Bible was TRUE to the original Hebrew and Greek that they were written in. There was NO POLITICAL pressure to fit the Bible to the political climate of the time.

By Royal Chic

December 8, 2004 10:50 AM | Link to this

Chuck, the argument is not whether scripture can be trusted, but in the way it should be interpreted if at all…the “Holy” Bible is a symbolic guide for your spiritual path, but in no way does it encompass the wholeness of Spirit….of all faiths, religions, and spiritual paths….it gives most “Christians” something to quote from, however nothing to live by……faith without works is dead…right???? or shall I say following Christ in the only areas that are inside your comfort zone???

By norman

December 8, 2004 10:54 AM | Link to this

Chuck: your notion that the Bible is archaeologically correct is totally wrong. Please consult THE BIBLE UNEARTHED. ARCHAEOLOGY’S NEW VISION OF ANCIENT ISRAEL AND THE ORIGIN OF ITS SACRED TEXTS, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silverman,New York, The Free Press, 2001.

By Robbie

December 8, 2004 11:14 AM | Link to this

Norman -

(not an argument, just a bit of trivia for you) The Book of Maccabees is not included in the Jewish Bible. It’s there in the Christian Cannon, but not the Jewish one.

Just thought I’d pass that on. That’s one of the reasons Chanukah is such a minor holiday - it’s one of the few holidays that’s not mentioned in the Torah at all. (There are a few others, too.)

To compare it to something American - Chanukah is like Labor Day. Not much changes during your daily routine other than taking a bit of time to mark the occasion.

By Texas

December 8, 2004 11:16 AM | Link to this

Separation Of Church And State

“In God We Trust” is our national motto. (36 United States Code USC), Section 186)

“In God We Trust” has been on our coins since 1863, even before it was our national motto. (31 USC, Section 5112(D)(1))

Our Pledge of Allegiance cites “one nation under God.”

Both state legislatures and United States Congress employ paid chaplains to pray at the opening of all sessions.

All military branches of the United States government have paid chaplains.

The inscription on the Liberty Bell cites Leviticus 25:10. “And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.”

A portrait of Moses with the Ten Commandments hangs above the Speaker’s chair in the United States Congress. (But this is illegal in our public schools and municipal government buildings.) It is shameful that the very institution which governs us and makes the laws are able to display the Ten Commandments but the citizens cannot. Does this form of government sound familiar?

The Library of Congress (another government institution) has statues of the apostle Paul and Moses, and it has large inscriptions of Micah 6:8 and Psalms 19:1 prominently displayed. (Try pulling that off at the next high school football game.)

“He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” Micah 6:8

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” Psalms 19:1

The Lincoln Memorial (Government property) has chiseled on it, “Judgments of the Lord are righteous.”

The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is dedicated to a soldier “Known but to God.”

There is a prayer room in Congress. (Go tell your local school board you want the same thing that “our” Government has….a prayer room. Better yet, ask the ACLU if they will either allow prayer rooms in our schools or fight to have the one in our Government removed… just for grins of course.)

This has to be the best one yet. The very branch of our US Government which ruled against prayers at a high school football game opens the Supreme Court Session with the words, “God save the United States and this honorable court.” They do this publicly, not privately.

The United States Constitution refers to Jesus, stating the Constitution was signed in 1787 “in the year of our Lord.” (Could the US Government explain which “Lord” they were referring to on this document, if not Jesus?)

The United States Government has mandated “National Day of Prayer.” (36 USC, Section 169(h)). (Think about that…. The very government which has ruled against public prayer at schools because of the misguided “Separation of Church and State” doctrine has mandated a “National Day of Prayer” — by US Government Law!!)

Separation of Church and State. Maybe it is the believers in the US who have been separated from the State. Has that ever happened in recent world history? Think about it.

God Bless America!

By norman

December 8, 2004 11:31 AM | Link to this

Robbie: thanks for the news about Maccabees but it is not news to me. The first two books of Maccabees were included in the Jewish Bible that was translated into Greek in Alexandria for the use of Greek-speaking Jews. It came into the Bible of the early church that way, they used this Septuagint Bible for their Old Testament. Later on when the rabbis got nervous that the Septuagint might lead Jews to Christianity they took these book and several others (the Apocrypha) out of the Jewish Bible. But without the books of Maccabees we would know little of the second century BC struggle between Hellenizers and fundamentalists in Judaea.

This really proves one of my points, namely that a lot of adding and subtracting has been done to the Bible over a thousand years. Gives you no sense of confidence to say the least.

By Robbie

December 8, 2004 11:40 AM | Link to this

Norman -

If you haven’t already, check out the books of Richard Elliot Schwartz. You’d enjoy his stuff.

By RS

December 8, 2004 11:54 AM | Link to this

Robbie: You’re right; as a little kid, I did feel left out at Christmas & I WENT TO HEBREW SCHOOL! Can you imagine what it’s like for Jewish students in public schools? Oy vey (LOL)! Jodi: As in your case, I never saw the need for all that rah rah garbage in school & assemblies were just a way to chill & get out of class. High school did NOT prepare me for being out in the real world; I learned, hands-on, as I went along. Chuck: None of us know if there was any political pressure in Biblical times; we weren’t there

By Lyrazel

December 8, 2004 12:15 PM | Link to this

I can appreciate your (?) research Texas but just what are you trying to say by it? That Christian symbols and writings permeate American culture and its history? By doing so you also show us how in-your-face Christianity establishes itself into our culture as divisive as well. The way to get rid of divisivness is to learn to live with other peoples beliefs or non-belief. My question to you would be just why ball games need to start with affirmations to god? Is there something about team sports that requires holy thoughts of the audience or participants? Dont sports games have more to do with warrior cults a much more pagan than a christian faith-tradition? Cant toss virgins to the victors from the loosing side’s audience anymore…so prayer was substituted…

By Boscoe Roads

December 8, 2004 12:27 PM | Link to this

Norman, the fact of Christ’s Resurrection is affirmed by more than 500 eyewitnesses, whose experience, simplicity, and uprightness of life rendered them incapable of inventing such a fable. They lived at a time when any attempt to deceive could have been easily discovered, who had nothing in this life to gain, but everything to lose by their testimony, whose moral courage exhibited in their life can be explained only by their intimate conviction of the objective truth of their message. Again the fact of Christ’s Resurrection is attested by the silence of the Synagogue which had done everything to prevent deception, which could have easily discovered deception, if there had been any, which opposed only sleeping witnesses to the testimony of the Apostles, which did not punish the alleged carelessness of the official guard, and which could not answer the testimony of the Apostles except by threatening them “that they speak no more in this name to any man” (Acts, iv, 17). Finally the thousands and millions, both Jews and Gentiles, who believed the testimony of the Apostles in spite of all the disadvantages following from such a belief, in short the origin of the Church, requires for its explanation the reality of Christ’s Resurrection, fot the rise of the Church without the Resurrection would have been a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself.

By norman

December 8, 2004 12:28 PM | Link to this

Look Jodi, I also had good teachers. But that was a while back. Do you really think today’s teachers can navigate the dangerous waters of religiosity?

By norman

December 8, 2004 12:46 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: have you read St. Paul, he speaks of Jesus returning from death in a spiritual body? What does that mean? You might want to look at the book “St. Saul” by Donald Harmon Akensen.

By norman

December 8, 2004 12:59 PM | Link to this

From SAINT SAUL. A SKELETON KEY TO THE HISTORICAL JESUS, by Donald Harman Akenson(Prof. of History, Queens University, Kingston, Canada), pp. 177-178; “Within Saul’s writings there is a distinct implication that he accepted the resurrection only as a spiritiual event. (1 Cor. 15:44-45)”.

Remember Paul’s epistles are the earliest part of the New Testament. What he reveals about what Christians believed and did not believe comes before the Gospels were put together for various tendentious purposes — 20 to 50 years later.

By chuck

December 8, 2004 01:02 PM | Link to this

Norman, there are over 300 archaelogical confirmations of Biblical History. Most of the archaelogists who made these discoveries had no connection with any church or religious organization, though a few had commissions from the Catholic church. RS, the discussion in earlier posts was that King James put pressure on the translators to make the Bible fit his particular brand of theology. Based on the historical record, this simply is not true. Royal Chic…your post made no sense. The Bible was not written to encompass “all faiths”. It is God’s message to the Christian Church. It is not, for the most part, open to “interpretation”. In most cases it clearly states the truth. For those matters not clearly deliniated there is room for interpretation. For example, the Bible is clear on the area of homosexuality. IT IS SIN. In no uncertain language the Bible forbids homosexual activity. It is an abomination to God. On the other hand, the Bible is less clear about the consumption of alcohol. It doesn’t forbid the use, but in almost all cases, the Bible cautions against using alcohol. I choose not to use alcohol because I don’t want to leave any possibility that my use of alcohol might cause another who could not use it in moderation to stumble. I don’t condemn those who use alcohol in moderation, because I believe that they have the freedom in Christ to partake. It is a matter of conscience. The Bible is CLEAR…”Thou shalt have no other gods before me”. There is no ambivalence there, hence Budhism, Shintism, Islam, etc. are not true faiths because they don’t worship the one true God.

By norman

December 8, 2004 01:15 PM | Link to this

Chuck: I read scholarship to learn. You just spout what you believe without any citation.

By chuck

December 8, 2004 01:16 PM | Link to this

Norman, It is clear that Jesus resurrected PHYSICALLY. He told Thomas to touch His hands and side when Thomas doubted that it was Jesus. He ate with the disciples. The TOMB WAS EMPTY. His body was physically resurrected. The reference to a “spiritual body”. The Apostle Paul acknowledged this in ICorinthians.

By chuck

December 8, 2004 01:29 PM | Link to this

Actually Norman, The first part of that response came from a web site called christiananswers.com and it cited numerous sources both Christian and Secular. For the second part concerning the translation ordered by king james, I gave you the web address so that you could check it out yourself. That is a little different from giving the title of some book that may or may not exist, but that certainly would not be available to the readers of the post at hand. I could fill this board up with research, but the truth of the matter is, very few (including you) would bother to check the facts anyway. Some dishonest posters fill this board with non-existent “research”. I could go back and cite sources for most everything I’ve posted, but it would be a waste of time because even if the sources were provided to you, you would never in a million years look them up because they don’t agree with your own narrow-minded opinions. BUT, as a favor to you, I would be glad to cite sources for you. Go back and choose any statement that I have made in any of my previous posts and I will provide you with PRECISE sources for the information. The onus is on you. If you doubt any statement choose it and I will provide you authoritative sources that back it up.

By Texas

December 8, 2004 01:29 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, A PRAYER to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game. “But it’s a Christian prayer” some will argue. Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country founded on Christian principles. And we are in the Bible Belt. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-1. So what would you expect — somebody chanting Hare Krishna? If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer. If I went to a soccer game in Bagdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer. If I went to a ping-pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha. And I wouldn’t be offended. It wouldn’t bother me. When in Rome…

Yesterday you stated “that it was not the responsiblity of teachers for religious upbringing” indeed you went on to condemn the “clueless parents”.

I say to you and indeed to this forum:

“Some children’s only warm meal comes from a cafeteria in a Public School. The only good they see and are taught is in a public school. They won’t get that at home, and no one will take them to church.”

Praise God Lyrazel that your children are alive and well and have you. But what of the Children with no one to look too? What of those I spoke of in my earlier post. Do we deny them? This Christmas we can teach a small child from a disadvantaged home Christ if only in a small way through a Nativity Scene or a Christmas Play. Is that so wrong?

By RS

December 8, 2004 01:35 PM | Link to this

Chuck; Hmmm, avowing that all other religions are bogus except for one’s own strikes me as being a little, er, arogant. They ARE religions, therefore they believe in God. Chuck AND Boscoe, maybe Christ was in a coma for 3 days following His crucifiction; after all, He DID lose a lot of blood, and regained consciousness the 3rd day, hence Resurrection. In primitive times when medical knowledge was a lot sketchier than it is now, such an occurrance would be viewed as nothing short of a miracle.

By Zack

December 8, 2004 01:35 PM | Link to this

Boy, I mention the fact that this country was founded upon the Bible and point out how it’s totally Constitutional for a public school to have a Christmas play where the real meaning of Christmas is referred to, and then I’m accused of endorsing tyranny on the minority.

Then again, what else would one expect from people who try to attack the Bible? My goodness, the public school system was pretty good when I was in school (which wasn’t that long ago), but now that we have the liberal agenda firmly entrenched in it, things have gotten worse. (Don’t spank a student!!! Even if he has a gun and is selling drugs, don’t do that!! Take the high road!! Also, lie to students about homosexuality! Tell them it’s a perfectly normal lifestyle!! Tell them how to use condoms, although they don’t even work—another fact conveniently hidden by the liberal media!! Tell them that men and women have gender roles that are interchangeable!! This, like the other components of the liberal moral agenda, is unsubstantiated by facts, but tell it anyway!! Whatever you do, however, don’t mention the Bible! We’d have an absolutely perfect society if we all would live by it 100%, but don’t mention it!!)

Brian Curtis—Yes, I mention abortion a lot in here. Ever notice how I never get a legitimate refute (and never will)? Liberals talk a lot about how their rights allegedly are trampled upon. This is garbage. I mention abortion because it’s blatant, cold-blooded murder, and we’re asked to support it as though it’s simply a mother’s right. My goodness, what a sick way of thinking!

As mentioned, this country was founded upon the Bible. If Jewish kids want a Hanukkah play, they should attend a private Jewish school. We should not take Christianity out of the secular school system and treat it like it’s detrimental to students. The state is clearly overstepping its boundaries when it comes to the Church.

By Boscoe Roads

December 8, 2004 01:35 PM | Link to this

Norman I don’t see any suggestion of being raised from the dead in a spiritual body.

Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans 6:3. Know you not that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death?

6:4. For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.

6:5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

By Sage

December 8, 2004 01:38 PM | Link to this

My father was an intelligent man although he had only a sixth grade education. He read a great deal and wondered about the bible all his life. When he died (at the age of 92) he begged, “God, why won’t you show me your face?” There was never any sign that he got an answer. Perhaps, like some on this board, his interpretation of what god’s face looked like was too literal. There were the nurses who smiled, bathed him gently, and were kind to him even when he was not nice to them. There were family members who stood by his bed and suctioned his lungs when he could not breathe. Perhaps if he could have made the leap from biblical literalism and looked for the love and caring in those eyes, he would have died knowing he had seen the face of the great spirit.

By steve

December 8, 2004 01:38 PM | Link to this

Norman,

NOWHERE in the New Testament does Paul state that Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual and not physical. In fact he states clearly that it was physical, particularly in 1 Cor.15 “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” In other words, Pauls says that if Jesus’ physical resurrection was not real, that that is the end of Christianity - we all have better things to do. But Paul absolutley maintains that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead.

Also, as far as archeological support for the Bible may I recommend a brand new book? It is by William Dever entitled, “What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel”. William Dever is considered by many (including many nonChristian archaelogists) as the leading scholar in the area of Near Easter archeology in the world. You also may want to check out F.F. Bruce’s “The Canon of Scripture” - it very thoroughly traces the development of the Scriptures.

By norman

December 8, 2004 01:39 PM | Link to this

Chuck: you entirely miss the point. The Gospel account of thomas touching Jesus’s body was written many years afterwards. The earliest expression about Jesus’ resurrection was in Paul and it was about a spiritual body not a physical body. Those who wrote the Gospels were embarrassed by Paul’s notions but could not deny them directly, so they tried to give a different interpretation.

By Boscoe Roads

December 8, 2004 01:50 PM | Link to this

OK RS, but then what happened after that? Why did the guards leave and at such a time so that they would not witness anything? Did Jesus remove the stone from the front of the sepulchre by himself when it took more than one to put it there? And what about the numerous witnesses to the Ascension of Christ? If you have a reasonable explaination to these I am willing to listen.

By norman

December 8, 2004 01:51 PM | Link to this

1 Corinthians, 15: 44-45: What is sown is a natural body, and what is raised is a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is a spiritiual body too. So the first man, Adam, became a living soul, and the last Adam has becomea life-giving spirit.”

You bible-thumpers have gotten me quoting scriptures!!

By chuck

December 8, 2004 01:54 PM | Link to this

RS, I hate to sound rude, but for you to be so adamant about your positions, your lack of knowledge is astounding. Jesus’ tomb was gaurded by the Roman army and a stone weighing as muck as 3000 pounds was placed in front of the door. Hmmmmmm coma for three days no food and no water, comes out by moving a 3000 pound stone, overpowers a squadron of Roman guards. Makes sense to me. The Romans knew what Jesus had said and took precautions to see that he did not come out of the tomb. He arose anyway. As for your assertion that my claim about Christianity being the only true religion is “arrogant”. It is NOT MY CLAIM. Aren’t adherents to any religion expected to follow AND BELIEVE its teachings. As a Christian, I follow Christ. Christ said He was the ONLY WAY. Your problem is with Him not me. Finally, Sage. Maybe your father should have read the Gospels in which Jesus said “if you have done it (referring to KINDNESS)to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me. These folks were acting as the hands and feet of Christ as they ministered to you father.

By Boscoe Roads

December 8, 2004 01:59 PM | Link to this

Norman, that is a ridiculous notion and there is no basis for fact in any of it. If you have any, other than your own meandering fantasies, please tell us.

By Royal Chic

December 8, 2004 02:07 PM | Link to this

Chuck, my post to you would make no sense because you are Christian and believe that your God is the one “true” God..because the Bible tells you so….I am happy that you are convinced..what makes sense to you would never make sense to me; it’s relative…the Bible does not encompass the wholeness of the Spirit is what I said……what you missed in my post is that FAITH and SPIRIT is what matters, and being a Christian does not mean that you possess these qualities….religion is designed to control the masses and it has done a great job thus far…..RELIGION cheapens the value of the SPIRIT…..

By Boscoe Roads

December 8, 2004 02:13 PM | Link to this

“For God hath raised up the Lord, and he will raise us up also by his power. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.For star differeth from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption. It is sown in dishonour, it shall rise in glory. It is sown a natural body: it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written: Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again.” The ressurection in question is ours Norman, not Christ who is already risen.

By chuck

December 8, 2004 02:18 PM | Link to this

Norman, Luke, who BTW was aphysician wrote in the Book of ACTS chapter 2: 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ,[a] that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Paul wrote: 1 Corinthians 6:14

14God honored the Master’s body by raising it from the grave. He’ll treat yours with the same resurrection power. Sounds PHYSICAL to me.

By Boscoe Roads

December 8, 2004 02:19 PM | Link to this

Religion controls the masses in what sort of way Royal Chic? It would seem to me that in this day and age that religion is losing its ability to control those masses.

By Royal Chic

December 8, 2004 02:25 PM | Link to this

Boscoe Roads, How can you say that when this forum continues to refer to “tyranny of majority” the fact that nativity scenes, Christmas festivities, and other so-called Christian symbols are being pushed out of the public arena because of the minority’s opinion????

By Royal Chic

December 8, 2004 02:26 PM | Link to this

I almost forgot religion controlled the masses in the 2004 election as well…..how convenient????

By chuck

December 8, 2004 02:27 PM | Link to this

Norman, The scripture you referenced is referring to the bodies of believers that go on to be with the Lord PRIOR to His second coming. The spirits of believers go to be with the Lord at death. Those spirits are rejoined with their physical bodies at the second coming of Christ. At that time the bodies will be changed (though they are still physical bodies) to make them incorrupt for heaven. Paul explained these things in I Thessalonians. Chic: Read my last post.

By Randy

December 8, 2004 02:29 PM | Link to this

What it really comes down to, is people believe what they want to believe. If they don’t want to believe in God, they make up some crazy belief. God puts all kinds of proof of his existance and Jesus being the messiah. But my experience is that they don’t want to know the truth. They don’t want to know!

By Bruce

December 8, 2004 02:30 PM | Link to this

Although I am a first time poster on any such form as this, and as a Christian who believes the Holy Bible is the inspired word of God, and that Jesus is the ONLY way to eternal life, (a conscience decision I made of my own feel will) I felt compelled to weigh in on this subject.

Norman – As you suggested I did a search on the book “The Bible Unearthed�. On their home page in the last paragraph the author’s state:

“It is our hope that The Bible Unearthed will provide an opportunity to debate and intelligently discuss new directions in the archaeology of the lands of the Bible�and to see past archaeological theories about biblical history as valuable foundations and the starting points for future research, not confrontational lines drawn in the sand.�

As I read through the statements I saw nothing that would lead me to believe these men wanted to discredit the Bible a factual. The Bible is always the best starting point.

For all Non-Believers - I say this, if I am wrong about what I believe (stated above) then what have I lost? Nothing! But I stand to gain, what I believe is, Eternal Life. However if you are wrong what have you lost? The Bible is very clear on this one, you will spend all eternity separated from the only one that truly loves you, without question, no matter who you are, or what you have done. As I read your postings I ask myself “what are these people so afraid of?

For the Believers – We must remember the only difference between believers and non-believers is God’s wonderful Grace. Also remember God still answers prayers, so pray, pray, and pray some more.

By chuck

December 8, 2004 02:31 PM | Link to this

Chic…religion, such as secular humanism, controls. A relationship with Christ gives freedom.

By Royal Chic

December 8, 2004 02:37 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you are absolutely correct…..for some a relationship with Christ gives freedom, thus a relationship with Allah gives a Muslim freedom, a relationship with my Creator gives me freedom….nothing is absolute but the Most High not even Christianity:)

By Bob Swygert

December 8, 2004 02:38 PM | Link to this

Hi folks… I left this forum yesterday and I see we’re still going around and around in circles. Let’s get back to the original issue at hand— Should public schools allow students to display religious symbols of the season and make reference to Christmas, Hanukah, Kwanzaa, Ramadan, etc? Here’s my two cents: (1) Yes. The ever-popular “separation of church and State” only requires the GOVERNMENT to be officially neutral. It does not make any prohibition at all regarding churches, synagogues, mosques and religious people. It’s intent is to protect the free exercise of religion from state control or supression.

(2) Public school students and teachers are American citizens protected by the First Amendment. They have every right to publicly express whatever religious message they so desire.

(3)Student-initiated religious expression is absolutely 100% protected free speech.

(4)Since teachers are technically agents of the state while they are on the job, they should exercise discretion in publicly proclaiming their faith while at school. It would be very inappropriate for a teacher to launch into an evangelistic message during class time followed by an altar call or to begin each class by having the students pray to Jesus. However, teachers are certainly free to wear crosses, skullcaps or other religious insignia which does nothing more than identify that teacher as being of a particular faith. Teachers should also be free to lend assistance as faculty advisors to student-led clubs— i.e. the Christian Students Club or the Atheist Students Club. As long as these clubs are voluntary student-led clubs their “message” is protected free speech.

(5) Since schools are supported by all taxpayers, every group should have equal access. If the idea of a high school Bible club offends you…get over it! If the idea of a high school pagan worship or atheist club offends you… get over it! The price we pay for living in a free society is that we will hear messages we disagree with.

(6) To all my fellow Christians on this forum, I wish you a very Merry Christmas and God’s blessings in 2005.

(7) To all the people of other faiths, I wish you a very Merry Christmas and God’s blessings in 2005.

(8) To all the atheists, I was once an atheist like you until I saw the light. Merry Christmas and God’s blessings to you also.

By Royal Chic

December 8, 2004 02:40 PM | Link to this

Bruce, so let me get this straight if you are not Christian you are a non believer in what may I ask????

By Boscoe Roads

December 8, 2004 02:48 PM | Link to this

Actually RC that’s the point of my question. If religion had such control over us than those symbols wouldn’t be removed so readily would they?

By RS

December 8, 2004 02:50 PM | Link to this

Boscoe & Chuck: Nooooo, I do not think my Biblical knowledge is sketchy/incomplete. I simply do not believe everything I read, in a literal sense. I, personally, think Jesus had a lot of help removing the stone. And how do we know the guards actually DID leave at that moment? We weren’t there. I know I’m committing a terrible sin by exercising independent thought. Witnesses to the Ascension…I can tell you I witnessed someone’s pet dog typing out an 18-page dissertation on the theory of relativity. But, would you believe me? I HOPE not. Zack, if a Jewish child should have to attend Hebrew school if they want to see a Chanukah play, then by the same token, a Christian child should have to attend Christian school to see a Christian play. What you are espousing is a horrendous double standard designed to make all non-Christians feel inferior & undeserving of the same rights. Just because I’m a “minority” does NOT in ANY way make me less of a person & deserving of equal treatment than the rest of you. Have you never heard of the Constitution?

By Boscoe Roads

December 8, 2004 02:52 PM | Link to this

Royal Chic, not everyone that voted for President Bush was influenced by a religious organization to do so. Some simply felt that Kerry wasn’t up to the task. i.e. Swift Boat ads.

By RS

December 8, 2004 02:53 PM | Link to this

Bob: Very well said & a merry Christmas to you as well; but, you forgot to wish me a happy Chanukah! Wahhhhh…

By Royal Chic

December 8, 2004 03:00 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, I never said everyone who voted for Bush…..just the masses who voted for Bush….LOL!!

There is no choice in the matter….the government has stepped in to prevent religious fanatics from doing so…..governments control societies as well….if religion can’t do it then we can always count on the government to step in…..

By Boscoe Roads

December 8, 2004 03:02 PM | Link to this

RS, you’re correct we weren’t there, but those that penned the Bible were, as well as other witnesses. You are also correct in pointing out that I would not beleive you if you told me you witnessed a dog reporting on the theory of relativity. Simply because the message of the dog has no meaning to me. The message of Christ dying on the Cross for MY salvation has more of an affect on me. The direction for living my life in a manner to ensure my salvation has meaning to me. Thus when someone else says you can’t have those symbols at a school I would naturally object simply because those things have meaning to me.

By Lyrazel

December 8, 2004 03:05 PM | Link to this

To you Texas I give the BAH HUMBUG AWARD for that pitiful cry for salvation to all those pitiful children who get only one hot meal a day at public school—it galls me to hear that coming from someone who so blatently supports the right conservative agenda. Underfunding of all civic programs, whether arts or hot meals in schools has been drasticly cut by the republican administration and is continued to be cut for the ‘relief’ of tax payers. Let them eat ketchup.

Your second argument: But what of the Children with no one to look too?…Do we deny them? This Christmas we can teach a small child from a disadvantaged home Christ if only in a small way through a Nativity Scene or a Christmas Play. Is that so wrong?

No its not wrong…its nice you want to share suddenly with those same pitiful children that have been watiting around for 364 days until the next christmas when the parade of humanity comes tromping through town on a shopping frenzy fostered by guilt.

You should do yourself a favor and actually read some Dickens this year. His portrayals of Christian guilt driven charity resonates to this day.

By Bob Swygert

December 8, 2004 03:08 PM | Link to this

RS. Mea culpa. May you and your family have a happy Chanukah and the blessings of the King of the Universe.

By Boscoe Roads

December 8, 2004 03:10 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, since when is Dickens a Christian Story?

By Akeya

December 8, 2004 03:21 PM | Link to this

Bob, Jodi, Lyrazel, and Brian

Great comments!

I agree with you all.

Lyrazel, you’re a woman after my own heart. Parents are usually not blamed for their children’s education or lack thereof… Think about how DFCS workers are constantly being named incompetent when it’s the parents’ fault that they children are in custody!!

By chuck

December 8, 2004 03:51 PM | Link to this

RS, It seems to me that the Romans were pretty strict about what soldiers could do and not do. I think if you check your military history you would find that a Roman soldier would be put to death for abandoning his post and disobeying a direct order. Most would probably not do that…especially when they were there as a squad, led by an officer as was the custom. If the gaurds were there for the specific purpose of making sure that Jesus stayed in the grave, I don’t think they would have allowed a small group of disciples break in and let Jesus out. Not only is your knowledge of the Bible lacking, but also your knowledge of history.

By chuck

December 8, 2004 04:14 PM | Link to this

signing out for the day. MERRY CHRISTMAS!

By Lozen

December 8, 2004 04:16 PM | Link to this

Zack, You have a tendency to exaggerate. You say liberals don’t believe in spanking a student even if he has a gun and is selling drugs? As a liberal I can tell you, you turn that student over to the police. I think you have some simplistic stereotypes about liberals. And you don’t seem to have any compassion. You do mention abortion a lot. It is easy for a man to point the finger at women who decide they cannot raise a child/another child. Abortion is not an easy choice for most women. To think it is shows your lack of compassion. Apparently you don’t want students to use condoms to prevent pregnancy and you don’t want women to have abortions. You really believe people aren’t going to have sex until they’re 25 and finished with college? Do you remember being 14 when the sap began to rise? You do know don’t you that there is disagreement about when a foetus becomes a person? Some think at birth when the child takes its first breath. Some believe from the moment of conception. Others believe once the child could live on its own if something happened to the mother. The bible does not say abortion is murder. Jesus never mentioned abortion. Just as he never mentioned homosexuality. You made a previous comment about whores wanting to have sex and not wanting to take care of babies. Are you saying it’s better for whores to raise children than not have them? You never answered a question about what you believe about the murders taking place in Iraq and when the state murders someone on death row either. Do you or do you not believe murdering innocent women and children in Iraq is okay? Do you live 100% by the bible? Do you take all the money you make every seventh year and give it to the poor? Have you ever worked on Sunday? Do you love your neighbor, yes, even your gay neighbor? You say if Jewish kids want a Hanukkah play they should attend a private Jewish school? Well, I could say if christian kids want a xmas play they should attend a private christian school. That would make just as much sense.

By norman

December 8, 2004 04:18 PM | Link to this

Chuck: you have a mental block! Again you are quoting Luke who wrote some forty years AFTER St. Paul. Paul has the most original understanding of what Christians first believed about the resurrection of Jesus, that he was raised spiritually not physically. Why is chronology so hard for you to get? 50AD comes before 90AD.

Boscoe: My views are based on Akensen, as I have noted. Yours are based on fantasy and Catholic delusions.

By Texas

December 8, 2004 04:50 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, A traveler at an airport bought a small package of cookies to eat while reading a newspaper. Gradually, she became aware of a rustling noise. Looking from behind her paper, she was flabbergasted to see the man sitting beside her help himself to the cookies on the table. Not wanting to make a scene, she leaned over and took a cookie herself.

A minute later, she heard more rustling. He was helping himself to another cookie! She was angry but didn’t dare allow herself to say anything. As if to add insult to injury, the man broke the last cookie in two, pushed half across to her, ate the other half, and left.

Still fuming later when her flight was announced, the women opened her handbag to get her ticket. To her shock and embarrassment, there was her pack of unopened cookies!

Pride caused the woman in this story to make the falulty assumption that she was right and the gentleman was wrong. Instead of seeing him through God’s eyes and praying for wisdom to handle the situation God’s way, she was completely blind to his kindness toward her.

When you find yourself in a conflict with others, avoid prideful assumptions by walking in God’s love. See other people and situations through His eyes. After all, your vision is limited, but He knows exactly what’s going on!

THE PRIDE OF THINE HEART HATH DECEIVED THEE, THOU THAT DWELLEST IN THE CLEFTS OF THE ROCK, WHOSE HATITATION IS HIGH; THAT SAITH IN HIS HEART, WHO SHALL BRING ME DOWN TO THE GROUND? Obadiah 1:3

By Texas

December 9, 2004 07:35 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel I wasn’t going to respond to your personal attacks, however I feel compelled to clarify some of your accusations:

The topic of this forum is about Religious references in school. You and indeed most representing your point of view say NO because one Jewish kid may be offended. Regardless of the fact that over 80% of society wants Religious (Nativity) references in school, I merely bring up a argument using your position by pointing out the plight of inner city child and in some cases children living in our own communities. (This by the way is NOT FICTITIOUS as you eluded too).

(“the parade of humanity comes tromping through town on a shopping frenzy fostered by guilt.”) Why do you assume people only help during Christmas. While I will agree that more people are inclined to give more, you don’t know what people give or do during the other 364 days of the year. Try visiting a church and see for yourself.

It also galls me to think that the right conservative agenda is under funding civic programs. Indeed shame on us for allowing that. But since YOU brought it up, pray tell, just exactly how much money does it take to perform 40 million abortions?

By Boscoe Roads

December 9, 2004 08:28 AM | Link to this

Norman, where does St. Paul say that Christ was raised spiritually? He doesn’t! It’s no suprise you get your veiwpoints from Akensen, you practically quote him word for word. Don’t you have any original thoughts of your own?

By Lyrazel

December 9, 2004 09:03 AM | Link to this

Texas, Should 20% be told: o shut up and suffer nativity because damn we are a CHRISTIAN nation and whatever you 20% believe is fraud. Where did you get those figures, btw?

Actually I said why not allow children to be exposed to all faiths and learn about all religions and holidays? Kids are highly curious. Go back and read my first post. I even designed a lesson plan. There is no reason to be afraid of faith and no reason to be afraid of people who dont believe the same parables. And yes, I feel if you want christ back in christmas then take your kids to church and not the mall. Its not the duty of a public school teacher to teach your kids religion. Thats the job of a parent.

You still deserve my award Texas. You LOVE so much but cant seem to believe you would ever be wrong about WHAT you are actually supporting. Hence the award. Time to read about the tax breaking republican platform. Go ahead and really delve into current agendas of the conservatives—its everyone for themselves. Sounds like a great plan—for greedy. Please dont start abortion arguments when you odiously miss the point about current budget cuts, for that perfect world where every baby is welcome just is not true ESPECIALLY in the USA. Do have a search into the budget cost cutting prenatal care & children’s social services of Sonny Perdue and see how much he has taken away from the innocent, mentally retarded and helpless newborns. Go visit a Medicare office and ask: has the current republican administration helped you help people more? Go to a Foster Parent office and ask: Are there fewer babies needing help? Or more? Go visit a prison where unwanted children now run with inmates for crimes like mental retardation and not being adoptable because they are too old. Go work at a shelter some day in August and you might discover a truth about America so many want to deny. If you like a perfect world then make it one by volunteering time like I do with action not just faith. Its so easy to spew faith; but volunteers are in short order.

Thank you Akeya, your voice is one I respect because you maintain a dignity that practices what is preached at you and you havent lost your sense of humor like I do.

By RS

December 9, 2004 09:35 AM | Link to this

Thank you, Bob; I knew you’d come through! Boscoe, re those that penned the Bible/witnesses; I have no proof as to whether they made this all up or not. Yes, I acknowledge the fact that Christ’s crucifiction has a lot of meaning for you, but maybe by the same token, the hypothetical dog typing up a doctorate has meaning for someone else (although I hope not!). Chuck, the point I’m trying to get across is, I wasn’t there during Biblical times, so I have no idea if the Roman soldiers DID leave their posts or not. I don’t believe every single thing I read & hear. That could be open to interpretation too. Texas, this is re your question to Lyrazel about how much funding for 40 million abortions would cost. A pretty penny, I’m sure. But think of the zillions of dollars coming out of taxpayers’ pockets year after year to support unwanted & diseased babies that we did not ask to take care of.

By moveon

December 9, 2004 10:14 AM | Link to this

still waiting for norman to reveal his Kudzu-league school.

By chuck

December 9, 2004 10:17 AM | Link to this

Norman, The Gospel of Luke was written between 59-61 A.D. not 90 A.D. as you stated in your post. The writing of I Cor. and II Cor. occurred in 57 and 58 A.D. respectively. That is a difference of a couple of years NOT 30 years as you stated. Additionally, Luke was a dear friend of Paul’s and learned much from him about the Christian life. Much of what he wrote was derived from the teachings of Paul. I think the problem is not that I have a mental block, it’s that your mind is permanently closed to the truth.

As for you RS, I’m sure you don’t believe everything you read. Based on your posts, you only believe those writings that seem to support the positions that you have already adopted. As of yet, you have presented no evidence to support what you have written.

By chuck

December 9, 2004 10:21 AM | Link to this

Moveon, Based on what he’s written, I am certain that Norman graduated from at least junior college.

By Texas

December 9, 2004 10:28 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, Actually I did not say anything about other religions. I merely made a case for Christian cause in which the climate is to remove all Christian reference. Go back and read my posts. And again, assume all you wish about me as a Parent.

You while standing on you condescending pedestal pointing out the failures of the conservative agenda, you continue to fail to make the connection about Parents. Let’s talk about the case for Angelo Marinda. This eight-month-old was killed two years ago by his own Father. Angelo was first came to the attention of the authorities when he was hospitalized with broken bones, just 12 days after he was born.

Instead of getting the baby out of that home and put up for adoption, the Child and Family Services of San Mateo, California put him in foster care. Then kept sending him back home for visits, despite repeated evidence of abuse during those brief visits. Eventually, the agency sent him back to his death.

Now the same agency and the same judge seem to be repeating a similar pattern with Angelo’s two-year-old sister, who has become the center of a child custody case.

A newspaper account puts it this way: The mother of a murdered baby came close to losing her daughter Monday during a contentious hearing in San Mateo County juvenile court.” The judge gave the mother “six months to get her life together with the help of Children and Family Services of risk losing her daughter.”

Note how the focus in on the mother, not the child.

Some how there has been built into the thinking, the laws and the practices of judges and social welfare agencies around the country the notion that there are “services” which can be provided by social workers that will turn parents of neglected or abused children into better people who can be trusted to take care of their children in the future.

This is called “family re-unification,” so that children who have had to be removed from their homes and put into foster car can later be returned to their parents after an agency’s “service” have worked their magic. It is a faith which passeth all understanding.

You might think that there would be a lot of hard evidence to convince the authorities to risk children’s welfare and lives on this theory. But you would be wrong.

In California, the theory of family re-unification services was put forth by a Stanford professor many years ago and, when a study commissioned a few years later, that study was done by the same professor — and even he found the results inconclusive.

Yet children’s well-being and even lives are still being gambled on an unsubstantiated notion.

It speaks volumes about the level of official irresponsibility that the authorities did not even try it get an objective evaluation of a policy with such profound consequences. Perhaps they feared what an objective evaluation might turn up.

Why such loyalty to an unsubstantiated theory?

That theory—that faith—enables judges and social worker to “do something” when confronted with tough and tragic family situations. Then, like Pontius Pilate, they can wash their hands—and perhaps even look themselves in the mirror.

The sad fact is that so much of what is called “expertise” is little more than political cover protecting decision-makers (Note the omission of which decision makers) from accountability for their own actions. Whether in a social welfare agency, a university or a corporation, you can always say that you followed the advice of experts, in order to get yourself off the hook when things go wrong.

The tragic irony in the “family re-unification” gamble is that so many American families are so anxious to adopt children that they are going overseas to get them, in order to avoid the bureaucratic ordeals created by social welfare agencies here.

An agency called Children and Family Services has to provide services in order to justify its existence, regardless of whether those service are effective, ineffective or counterproductive. By maintaining “confidentiality,” ostensibly to protect the privacy of children and families, the agency can insulate itself from public scrutiny and criticism.

What all this means is that everyone is protected — except the children. The County Counsel’s office in San Mateo has asked that the policy of holding court proceedings behind closed doors in child welfare cases be changed. The time is long overdue to let some light and some fresh air into theses proceedings. It might even save some Childs life.

Oh, and on your award, why don’t you pin it on yourself.

By Tim

December 9, 2004 10:34 AM | Link to this

Chuck, by telling RS “I’m sure you don’t believe everything you read. Based on your posts, you only believe those writings that seem to support the positions that you have already adopted” If that is not the pot calling the kettle black I don’t know what is

also… it cannot be proven when the book of Luke was written… therefore it must be DEDUCED… so neither you or Norman can be sure when it was written… most scholars believe it was written around 70 AD… I find it interesting that at the Christian University that I attended I was taught that it was PROBABLY written around 90 AD… but like I said NO ONE can be certain when it was written

but I would also like to say that you are correct with your statements of 1st and 2nd Corinthians… most believe they were written around 56 AD

By Randy

December 9, 2004 10:44 AM | Link to this

I have a question? What are the benefits to not being a Christian? With all that Christianity offers, peace of mind, eternal happiness, etc. Somebody enlighten me.

By chuck

December 9, 2004 10:50 AM | Link to this

Tim, the following is an excerpt from: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh072.htm

“The fulcrum of Wenham’s argument is his conclusion that the book of Acts was completed around 62. He states that “the only satisfying explanation of the writer’s silence concerning the trial [of Paul] … is that when Luke wrote these closing lines it had still not taken place” (p. xxii, 225-29); the end of Acts provides us with its date: two years after Paul’s arrival at Rome in 59/60 (Acts 28:30-31). Moreover, Luke’s positive portrait of Roman authorities makes it likely that Acts was written prior to the Neronian persecution of 64.

Having established the date of Acts, Wenham proceeds to relate the synoptics to Acts. Acts 1:1 shows that it was written after Luke’s gospel. Wenham suggests that Luke’s gospel appeared in the mid-50s, using the following line of reasoning (pp. 229-38): Tradition has it that Paul was referring to Luke when he mentioned “the brother whose fame in the gospel is through all the churches” (2 Cor. 8:18). Wenham defends this tradition, and argues that Luke’s “fame in the gospel” came from the wide circulation of his gospel. Since 2 Corinthians was written around 56, Luke’s gospel must have been finished “by 55 at the latest” (p. 237). This fits with the evidence in Acts, where Luke and Paul part ways for several years in the early and mid-50s (the “we” passages end at Philippi in Acts 16 and resume in Acts 20).”

Go to the web site if you would like to read the entire article. There are a number of other sources available. You should remember that our knowledge of this time period grows over time as new information becomes available.

By Boscoe Roads

December 9, 2004 10:56 AM | Link to this

RS, for over 500 witnesses there is no proof that they invented the story either. They lived at a time when any attempt to deceive could have been easily discovered, who had nothing in this life to gain, but everything to lose by their testimony. Again the fact of Christ’s Resurrection is attested by the silence of the Synagogue which had done everything to prevent deception, which could have easily discovered deception, if there had been any, which opposed only sleeping witnesses to the testimony of the Apostles, which did not punish the alleged carelessness of the official guard, and which could not answer the testimony of the Apostles except by threatening them “that they speak no more in this name to any man� (Acts, iv, 17). Finally the thousands and millions, both Jews and Gentiles, who believed the testimony of the Apostles in spite of all the disadvantages following from such a belief, in short the origin of the Church, requires for its explanation the reality of Christ’s Resurrection, fot the rise of the Church without the Resurrection would have been a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself.

By Tim

December 9, 2004 11:01 AM | Link to this

Chuck… those are great reasons why one could believe that was when Luke was written… my point was that still no one can prove when it actually was written so for you to say that it was written between 59-61 AD (or in your second post ‘by 55 at the latest) or for Norman to say it was written in 90 AD is incorrect… both can give good arguments why they BELIEVE when it was written… but still no once can prove undoubtedly when it actually was written… even in 2 posts you showed 2 dates of when Luke may have been written… which is fine

(from my earlier post of Luke being written after 70 AD I got my references from The Nelson Study Bible… NKJ version)

By Bob Swygert

December 9, 2004 11:03 AM | Link to this

Hi Folks,

This week we have observed the 63rd anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.

Let’s say I wanted to write a historically-accurate account of that terrible day. Now, I’m not going to use computers, video tape, films or any other modern devices. I’m just gonna talk to eyewitnesses or to the family members or friends of eyewitnesses. I’m going to get my information about what happened at Pearl Harbor from people who were actually there or from people who were closest to those eyewitnesses who have since died. No doubt, some of these eyewitneses will have hazy recollections dimmed by the passage of time. But I’m sure other eyewitnesses will remember what happened as if it were just yesterday.

Once I’ve sifted through their stories, I’ll write my account of the attack. I bet it would be pretty darn accurate because I talked to the people who were actually there even though I was not even born in 1941.

If I can do that, why is it so difficult to believe that the Biblical Gospel writers couldn’t do the same thing within roughly the same time frame and not come up with an accurate account of the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus?

By Lyrazel

December 9, 2004 11:15 AM | Link to this

I can take what I dish, Texas. Bah Humbug to me too for dampening your sweet fluffy dreams of reality, please note its far easier to say than do.

I have a question too, if some kid wants to celebrate a Voodoo solstace ceremonial in public school would you be upset with the teacher who allowed him to draw pentegrams on the blackboard. After all little Jimmy is just practicing his faith, dontcha know, and sharing with the class.

By bob swygert

December 9, 2004 11:31 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel…

It’s OK with me if little Jimmy wants to put voodoo pentagrams on a bulletin board at school as part of HIS celebration of some voodoo holiday. Of course, I would object if the teacher spent geography class time having Jimmy deliver a evangelistic message to a captive audience of students, trying to convince them to become fellow voodoo believers. I would have no problem if Jimmy wanted to discuss voodoo during a comparative religions class. Now, can Christian students please have their Nativity scene at school to help them celebrate OUR holiday?

By Randy

December 9, 2004 11:32 AM | Link to this

I guess no one has a benefit to not being a Christian. I thought so.

By mit

December 9, 2004 11:43 AM | Link to this

name a benefit of being a christian. and no answers that are speculative, like going to heaven because no one on here has died yet so therefore, no one on here really knows if there is even a heaven. they just believe there is one. which i don’t believe in. so from my own view, benefits of being christian vs. non-christian make no sense. oow, i know a benefit of being non-christian, i don’t have to worry about going to hell b/c there isn’t one. you believe there is a hell so you have to walk the fine line of 7 deadly sins, which people break one or two on here all the time.

By Jodi

December 9, 2004 11:46 AM | Link to this

Randy—Although I myself am Christian, it is pretty obvious to me why some people would not want to be. As with most religions, there has been a lot of bloodshed, hatred, and strife created by people in the name of Christ (which I’m sure he is horrified by). People all over the world grasp on to what makes them feel safe and whole, whether Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, etc. If you had grown up in a Buddhist society, I’m guessing you would be Buddhist, too. The benefits, as with Christianity, are feelings of purpose, enlightenment, hope, and sense of community. How’s that? Are you seriously telling me that you cannot think of any benefits of other religions? If there weren’t benefits, no one would participate.

By RS

December 9, 2004 11:47 AM | Link to this

Tim, thanks for defending my position, you took the words right out of my keyboard! Bob, GREAT analogy (the Resurrection & Pearl Harbor). I perceive the difference as being Pearl Harbor is something that scientifically makes sense, unfortunately & can (& did) happen. Although we did not have the technology then that we do now, there were still cameras. The Resurrection? No cameras, just word of mouth down through the ages & let’s face it, science-wise, it makes no sense. In answer to your question, Randy, those of us of alternate faiths don’t see it as the benefits of not being Christian, we more so see it as the benefit of feeling at peace in the religion we observe. As for atheists, I really can’t say as I’m not one but I once had one as a friend. She had a very big heart & was the happiest, most contented of souls. I know you feel she’s doomed to Hell but she doesn’t worry about it.

By RS

December 9, 2004 11:51 AM | Link to this

Jodi, kudos to you, as always! You answered Randy’s question (the benefits of being a Christian vs non-Christian) better than I did/ever could have.

By Tim

December 9, 2004 11:57 AM | Link to this

RS~ :)

By Texas

December 9, 2004 11:58 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, There’s a letter from a parent “Visit to an American Public School from Hell.” Needless to say the parent has taken his child out of this school. Any way, the school McCann Technical School, North Adams, MA.

I can go on about minors, 13 and up who can receive gynecological exams, birth controls, treatment for STD’s, AIDS and referrals for abortions WITHOUT parental consent.

But I will just stay the course an answer your question.

The School Website, **www.mccanntech.org “he stated was a treat and answers your question”. The path: Library, Top 10 Internet Sites. This lead to outside teen websites, including “Teen Hoopla,” “Goth-an inside look for outsiders-grotesque, desolate, vampires, interest in death, Marilyn Manson, Nine Inch Nails, Dead Can Dance, Self Cutting, Appeal of Graveyards, Blood Drinking, Death Fixation and Depression. “World Wide Punk, Punk Music Reviews-Tragedy, Naked n’ Happy, Nunnery Nutty, Bend Break Spill, Scrotum Grinder, Sonic Abomination, Brick Bomb, Bouncing Souls, Chemical Generation, Death and Fame, Give Blood, Hip Hop Style-Urban Decay, likes to shock and disgust, Make up for Men, Candy Man, Testosterone and Dog.

Check it out for yourself, than see if we’ve gone too far.

Oh by the way, I’m too old for children in school, and my son’s as of yet have no children. I wouldn’t say I was a good parent, made too many mistakes, but I try. And I don’t want to go into my charitable contributions and activities, but I can always do more.

By Randy

December 9, 2004 12:04 PM | Link to this

Jodi, No one said anything about other religions. On not being a Christian, anyone who would not be a Christian because some others have used it for their own gain(which I’m sure has happened), would be like, I will not be a American Soldier because some other Soldiers have committed crime etc. If you let that stand in your way you will miss alot. To me anyone who has used Christianity for their own benefit is not a real Christian. There is a difference.

By bob swygert

December 9, 2004 12:13 PM | Link to this

Mit..

I’m a Christian. I’m not perfect, far from it. I don’t worry at all about going to Hell because my Savior, who IS perfect, paid the price for my sins through His atoning death on the cross. I believe in Heaven and I believe I will go there after I die. Not because I deserve it, not because I try to be a good person, but only because of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. I will go to Heaven because it’s a free gift offered to all who place their faith in Christ. What about Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims etc? They have the same opportunity to receive the gift of Heaven by placing their faith in Christ. Or they can continue to try to do enough good works to work their way into Heaven. How much good work is enough? Who can say?

But let’s say poor Bob is a deluded, superstitious Christian who believes in myths. Heaven and Hell don’t actually exist. Suppose Norman is right after all. You live, you die, and that’s all there is.

Poor Bob has lived his life trying to be kind and loving to other humans in the name of his Lord. Is that such a bad way to live? What have I lost?

But let’s suppose Heaven and Hell do actually exist? What have you lost?

It’s not my intention to either scare you or argue you into becoming a Christian. Ultimately, it’s a choice based on faith. You either believe or you don’t. I cannot absolutely prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus is God, or that He was born of a virgin, or that He rose again out of that tomb. By the way, atheists or non-Christians cannot prove that any of these things didn’t happen either. It’s ultimately a matter of faith either way. It’s your choice.

By RANDY

December 9, 2004 12:24 PM | Link to this

You are absolutely right Bob, being a Christian has nothing but great possiblities, heaven, great life etc. Being a non-Christian has very little upside and potentially a enormous downside. Why anyone would choose not to be a Christian is mind-boggling.

By mit

December 9, 2004 12:38 PM | Link to this

bob, what about people who have killed someone and are also christians, they still get to go to heaven, just because they ask for forgiveness?

and what about a person who is killed by another who didn’t believe in christ, yet? he still goes to hell?

it just doesn’t make sense to me, and i do believe some christian teachings are scare tactics. i lost my faith when i was a little kid in daycare. i was scared out of my wits by a preacher (he was fired when they had a bunch of crying, scared kids afterwards). since then i have always questioned the aspects of the bible, which i have read and studied to be not in my belief. (not the teachings, which i did a report on in college showing the similarities of religious teachings of all the worlds religions, almost verbatim as far as showing how to live one’s life but verge away when it comes to what happens after life).

texas, what are you trying to say with that website, most of those are just names of bands.

By norman

December 9, 2004 12:57 PM | Link to this

Chuck: the fact that Luke appears pro-Roman does not mean he wrote before the Neronian persecution. It means that he was trying to make Christianity acceptable to the Romans and to differentiate it from Judaism which in Judaea had risen up vs. the Romans. Luke and John are more pro-Roman than Mark or Matthew because they are trying to appeal to gentiles more.

By Royal Chic

December 9, 2004 12:59 PM | Link to this

That is the big conspiracy behind RELIGION; it’s all based on the benefits of having a spiritual walk when it should be about having a spiritual walk to learn more about our Creator and this gift of life we’ve been given and to search to find our spiritual purpose…..as the “Christians” would quote ‘it’s better to give than to receive’…..why is it not about expressing our appreciation to our Creator rather than being consummed with getting blessings and not going to Hell…..

By Boscoe Roads

December 9, 2004 01:09 PM | Link to this

RS, in year 700 there was a priest who had doubts of the real presence of Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament. One day at Mass he prayed that his doubts would be removed. As he said the words Consecration the Host turned into Flesh and the Wine turned into Blood. Would you imagine this makes sense scientifically? In 1970 the Holy See ordered a through scientific investigation using spectroscopic analysis, high powered microscopes and advanced medical technology. The most illustrious scientist, Professor Odoardo Linoli, eminent professor in anatomy and pathological and clinical microscopy, headed the investigation and was assisted by Professor Ruggero Bertellie of the University of Sienna. The investigation showed the Host had indeed turned into flesh, into a fine slice of a human heart, and was incorrupt, as though it had just been taken form a heart. The analyses were conducted with unquestionable scientific precision and were documented with a series of photographs, which were made public by Professor Linoli on March 4, 1971 in the church of the miracle. Other scientists were asked by the Holy See to verify these findings. When all of the data was accumulated, the scientists were in accord: “Without reservation, this is a slice of tissue from a human heart, as though it had been expertly sliced by a surgeon’s scalpel through the center of the heart. And, though subject to decay as all flesh is for 1298 years, it remains incorrupt.” These findings were published in September of 1971 in the official newspaper of the Vatican, L’Osservatore Romano. The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood type: AB uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin. In scientific testing the Blood tested as if it were fresh blood after almost 1300 years.

By Boscoe Roads

December 9, 2004 01:14 PM | Link to this

Royal Chic now you’ve got it! The Almighty God is, in Himself, eternal happiness. Therefore nothing can be wanting to Him. Were something lacking to Him, He would no longer be God, in whom all perfection dwells. And still, there was a time when God called the wonderful universe into existence. Million and millions of blessed spirits now surround Him in heaven. A host of suns and myriads of stars form, as it were, a via triumphalis—a triumphant way, on which He treads. On our earth, the three kingdoms of nature: the animal, plant and mineral kingdoms, of which He made man the king, proclaim His wisdom and power, His beauty and goodness. Considering this, we involuntarily ask ourselves: For what reason did God, to whom nothing is wanting, create all this beauty, and call these many creatures into existence? Reason and faith answer: God did it out of purest love and goodness, out of Divine generosity. He did not wish to enjoy His bliss and happiness alone;—He desired that other beings should share His glory and His riches. For this reason He called creation into existence. God is the Creator. Man, the creature, is the work of His hands, His possession. It is the duty of man to consider the Creator as his supreme Lord and Master, to prostrate in reverence and admiration before Him; to adore and praise Him. To adore the Divinity, to pay homage to God—what an honor for a poor creature! To acknowledge in God all good, all truth, all that is worthy of affection; to submit one’s understanding and will to God’s greatness; to offer Him one’s soul and body; yea, even to wish to consume oneself in order to procure Him honor and glory—can there be a nobler aim in life?

By Randy

December 9, 2004 01:14 PM | Link to this

MIT, That’s part of the deal, no one is guaranteed tomorrow. If you die in a car wreck today or get murdered on your way to the grocery, anyone who has not accepted Jesus at the time of their death, will be forever separated from him. If God didn’t leave this doubt as to when you will die, alot of people would wait till the last minute to accept Jesus. But no one knows when that is.

By chuck

December 9, 2004 01:17 PM | Link to this

Norman, talk about spouting stuff without citing sources. Your last post wins the prize. Luke was most likely NOT jewish. His gospel was written to the gentiles to a degree, but most of those gentiles were under Roman PERSECUTION from Nero. Writing favorably of the Romans certainly would not convince those gentiles as to the veracity of the Gospel. The evidence I cited is just one of many NEW examinations of the chronology of the Bible. What you said is nothing more than your supposition. It is certainly NOT SCHOLARLY as you like to consider yourself. The truth of the matter is that I could bring you the AUTOBIOGRAPHY of Luke if one existed and if it said something that you have chosen not to believe, you would find some reason to denigrate it even if it was supported by eye witness acounts, artifacts and Nero’s official seal. Like so many, you start out with the conclusion THEN shape the the evidence to fit what you already believe, just like RS and Jodi.

By norman

December 9, 2004 01:37 PM | Link to this

I guess history was your worst subject, Chuck. I give up. Cannot cope with invincible ignorance. (If that phrase is unknown to you, ask the Inquisitor General, Boscoe what it means.)_

By Bob Swygert

December 9, 2004 01:38 PM | Link to this

Mit,

Here is the basic, boiled-down difference between Christianity and every other religion in the world—-

Christianity says all human beings are sinners deserving of hell because of our sins, our imperfections. We are all separated from a perfect God because of our sin nature. God gives us all free will to choose to accept Him or reject Him. Just like Adam and Eve, we have all chosen to eat the apple, to go our own way without God. But because of His love for us, God created one way we could be reconciled to Him. That one way is through placing our faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning death on the cross. Our salvation is not based on how good we are or how many nice things or evil things we do. The only reason we are “saved” is because of Jesus’s perfect sacrifice on the cross. All God asks is that we place our faith in Jesus. Jesus is God in human form.

God was under no obligation to provide any way of salvation. Yet because of His love for us, He provided one way. Mit, if you are drowning and I come along, I’m under no legal obligation whatsoever to try to rescue you at all. However, if out of my compassion for you I throw you a rope will you complain because I didn’t throw you 100 different ropes? God is likewise under no obligation to provide hundreds of diferent means of salvation.

If you murder someone and later become a Christian, will you be forgiven and go to Heaven? Yes, absolutely. Because that forgivness is only based on your acceptance of Christ. He has already done the work.

Now, every other religion in the world is based on doing good works to try to earn Heaven and to earn God’s approval—however those other religions define God. Christianity=faith in Christ. Other religions=doing good works to try to win God’s approval.

Those two viewpoints are polar opposites and un-reconcilable. Either it’s based on faith in Christ’s perfect, completed work on the cross. Or it’s up to each person to try to do enough good works to gain God’s approval. Both cannot be right. Otherwise, Christ’s death on the cross becomes a meaningless action.

Yes, Christians should do good works. But they should do good deeds BECAUSE they are saved and because through doing good deeds they honor the One who saved them. Not all Christians live up to that. Everybody has a story about some Christian they knew who was the meanest man in town. Or about some TV preacher who was only interested in cheating poor widows out of their social security checks. Plenty of evil things have been done by Christians or those who called themselves Christians. But plenty of good deeds have been done by Christians also. The history of Christianity has produced evil actions like the Crusades or the slaughter of native Americans. But it has produced far more examples of people like Mother Teresa or Billy Graham. But again, Christianity is based on Christ, not on what some Christians did or did not do.

Mit, keep questioning and reading. God is big enough to handle your questions and doubts.

By Randy

December 9, 2004 01:41 PM | Link to this

I guess by Norman’s last post, you won the discussion Chuck. He always gets personal when he loses a argument and Norman loses every argument!

By Texas

December 9, 2004 01:44 PM | Link to this

Mit,there you go, shows how much I know when it comes to today’s bands. I tried to enter the site, and can not find the disastrous sites indicated in the article I read. I have sent an e-mail to the author requesting additional information. Once I obtain it, I will share it with you and Lyrazel.

By Boscoe Roads

December 9, 2004 02:03 PM | Link to this

I wish it were that easy Bob. Somebody who is a repeat offender won’t necessarily make it simply because they believe in Christ.

By Royal Chic

December 9, 2004 02:18 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, you speak as if I was lost and now I’m found…..all of a sudden today out of the blue….I must admit I have been lost, but never so lost to let religion confine my spirituality….the ability to seek out His purpose for me and all humans lives within me and every other human soul and is very much apart of me without associating myself to any religion…..we are all prophets inspired by our Creator and don’t even realize it….we settle for following so called prohets that claim to be inspired by God to distort the message of the Most High and we take everything for face value without ever building a relationship with Him and making him our only Answer to the many questions of mankind:)

By lozen

December 9, 2004 02:19 PM | Link to this

Bob, Bob, Bob, You say to mit: “God was under no obligation to provide any way of salvation. Yet because of His love for us, He provided one way. Mit, if you are drowning and I come along, I’m under no legal obligation whatsoever to try to rescue you at all. However, if out of my compassion for you I throw you a rope will you complain because I didn’t throw you 100 different ropes? God is likewise under no obligation to provide hundreds of diferent means of salvation.” What you’re forgetting is that (as the christian myth goes) Yahweh pushed her in the water to begin with! He created humanity and then condemned humanity and then changed his mind and loved humanity. So he sent his son to be tortured and sacrificed on a cross to save us 2,000 + years later from our mistakes. And down through these thousands of years all those millions of people who were born in other non-christian countries and taught a different religion and never heard of Jesus don’t have a chance because they were just born in the wrong place! This makes no sense at all.

By Bob Swygert

December 9, 2004 02:24 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

I’m not certain I understand your point. I don’t believe any Christian who sincerely placed his/her faith in Christ could ever lose his/her salvation. At any rate, judging the sincerity of that Christian’s faith would be a task for God, not you or me.

By Texas

December 9, 2004 02:32 PM | Link to this

Uh-oh, Boscoe, don’t go there my friend. (Purgatory) You and I believe that way, but we’ll lose a lot of ground covering it.

By Bob Swygert

December 9, 2004 02:39 PM | Link to this

Lozen—

God (Yahweh) gives us free will to choose to accept Him or reject him. He did not create us as robots incapable of rejecting Him. That is hardly “pushing us in the water to begin with.”

God also reaches out/has reached out to people through His Spirit, the Old Testament Prophets, nature, the Bible, the lives of millions of Christians like Mother Teresa, missionaries who have spread around the world to share His love, translaters who are busy translating the Bible into every language and dialect on earth, overseas missions groups who are busy trying to get those Bibles into the hands of every person in every country they possibly can, and most importantly, through the life and example of Jesus Christ. I’m sorry you feel God isn’t doing enough.

By Boscoe Roads

December 9, 2004 02:48 PM | Link to this

Royal Chic you said, “why is it not about expressing our appreciation to our Creator”, The purpose of life is to give glory to God. Plain and dare I say simple. Bob You have a false security that all is forgiven. But is this not sheer insanity in sin to believe that you may offend your God and break His rules and enter? What manner of life would there be in your Kingdom of Heaven? Heaven is gained by merit. It is a narrow road, and too few stay upon it, for the diversions and the pleasures of life lure them away. The road is narrow, but all who remain gain eternal life in the Kingdom of your God. All who fall away and don’t return must spend endless years in purgatory. And others give themselves willfully, and I say ‘willfully,’ for no man is lost to satan, unless he goes to him of his own free will. All will enter by merit! Many shall enter through suffering and atonement and penance.

By Lyrazel

December 9, 2004 02:54 PM | Link to this

Bob, I have no trouble with building cute nativity scenes but is school the place to build them or church? Isnt church the place to learn about baby jesu and the holy night? Isnt church the place where children seeking god and jesus’ love learn the lessons of holy scripture? What if public school teacher is not christian should she be obligated to know scripture so she can tell the children names of 3 wise men? Should a public school teacher be obligated to teach nativity & christianity if not versed?

By chuck

December 9, 2004 02:57 PM | Link to this

Actually NORM, I have a degree in History, Secondary Education from CSU. I also have an M.ED. in Middle Grades Education, A second in Administration. I also have a Ed.S in Middle Grades Ed and another in Administration. I just completed the work on my Doctor of Education degree from VSU in Administration and am currently writing my dissertation. I’ll “research” you under the table anytime. If you feel up to the challenge, let me know.

By bob swygert

December 9, 2004 02:59 PM | Link to this

Boscoe—

By Royal Chic

December 9, 2004 03:00 PM | Link to this

Well, if it is so simple why did you take the time to make that long post about God’s nature and his love for us and go as far as to quote scriptures…..what’s simple for some may not be simple for others….if it is so simple then there is no point of the Christian ministry now is it?????? You sounded as if you were trying to convince me of something I already know and my original post was in reference to “Christians” that loose sight of their spirtitual purpose all in the name of getting to “heaven” and being blessed…..

By norman

December 9, 2004 03:11 PM | Link to this

chuck: those teacher education degrees ain’t worth a damn and you know it.

Looks like our Christians are battling one another over the details of salvation, grace, and all that rot. Better have them kill one another and leave the rest of us alone.

By lozen

December 9, 2004 03:17 PM | Link to this

I was born in the 20th century. Perhaps if I’d been born 2,000 years ago it wouldn’t be so difficult to just accept such a fantastic tale: Yahweh impregnates a little Hebrew teenager and she has his son, but wait! It’s really him. And he sacrifices that son (who is himself) to save everyone from their sins! Of course, there would be no sin if he hadn’t said “these things shall be sins,” to begin with. Adam and Eve were curious and wanted to know things so they ate from the tree of knowledge (wow you just couldn’t do anything more sinful than to want knowledge, could you? I really do know that it was not about knowledge; it was all about obedience. Gotta teach those people to obey their king/god!) So all humanity was condemned to everlasting death. But then some time later for some reason, Yahweh does a flipflop and decides he really loves us and wants to give us a second chance. Then comes Jesus. But Jesus is the only way to salvation and the most important birth of all time. So why didn’t Yahweh wait until that could be recorded on camera so there would be no way it could be denied? Why, if you know what is going to happen throughout all of time would you choose that time and place and then never again show humanity any proof? And never mind that millions upon millions of people all over the world never heard of Jesus or if they do hear about Jesus they feel the same way you would feel about Mohammed. Do you explore Mohammed to see if perhaps he is the one true way to salvation? Of course not, because you already know the way. Well, they already know the way too. They know the right way is what their parents and culture taught them growing up just like you do.

By chuck

December 9, 2004 03:18 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, There is NOTHING we can do to MERIT Salvation. The only part we have in it is in that moment when we surrender our lives to Christ and accept Him as Savior and Lord.

“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” (John 1:12).

The Bible says that we can do nothing to earn our salvation. God, because of His grace, did all that needs to be done.

“He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.” (Titus 3:5a). “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The Bible says that we can know for certain that we have eternal life if we have believed in Jesus as our Savior! “And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:11-13).

We know that we have eternal life because changes have taken place in our lives since we became a Christian.

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

These may be small changes. At first, they may not even be noticeable to others. But this verse tells us that positionally, we become a new person when we accept Christ and changes in our life are inevitable.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

The Bible is very clear about that, friend.

By RS

December 9, 2004 03:23 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, again, since I wasn’t around in the year 700, I can’t just blindly believe the Host & wine turned into flesh & blood. As for what happened in 1970, records can be doctored up. I DO believe in miracles, but that miracles have a scientific basis. I believe in God, for sure & that God has a hand in all things of nature, including science.

By Boscoe Roads

December 9, 2004 03:28 PM | Link to this

Bob, when you go over the veil no man shall stand forward and be able to plead your cause. You will come stripped before the Eternal Father Who will look into your heart, and what measure of merit have you brought with you. Only He can judge how much is enough, every man, woman and child of conscionable age and knowledge must give an account of his actions and the manner in which he spent his time upon earth when he comes over the veil. I assure you, you know not the day or the hour: tomorrow you could leave, within the hour you could leave. You must understand that not all who cry ‘Lord, Lord,’ can enter into the Kingdom. It is won by merit and obedience to your God. *”And whereas indeed He was the Son of God, He learned obedience by the things which He suffered: and being consummated, He became, to all that obey Him, the cause of eternal salvation.” *- Hebrews 5:8-9

By Boscoe Roads

December 9, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this

RS, the example I gave you was proven scientifically what more do you want? Chuck, what you’re telling me is that I could do anything I want as long as I have faith in God. You can’t sin against God and expect to recieve salvation. You have to do some sort of works on earth, prayer, sacrifice, penance…you simply have to do those things.

By Bob swygert

December 9, 2004 03:36 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

Of course the church is the best place to learn about Christ. I don’t expect public school teachers to have an obligation to teach students about Jesus— unless it’s in the context of a comparable religions class. That was never the issue in this forum. The original question everybody’s been debating all week is ” Should public schools prohibit all religious references during religious holidays?” My position has been and continues to be that students have the absolute, 100% protected First Amendment right to sing “silent night,” or put up a Christmas display that includes a nativity scene, or a voodoo pentagram, or whatever. As long as the school (the government) is officially neutral, as long as teachers are not turning class time into opportunities to try to convert a captive audience, as long as every student has equal access/equal opportunity then who cares?

By Johnson

December 9, 2004 03:47 PM | Link to this

Well I’ve been following this forum for the last few days and it has strayed quite a bit off the original topic, but since it’s moved into the arena of religion, I thought it would be interesting to discuss spirituality for those of us that are not Christians. I am well into my middle ages and was exposed to Christian teachings when I was younger (I actually remember prayer in school), but over the years I have not found the Christian faith to be a satisfactory explanation , for my life anyway. I certainly believe in a creator of some sorts (I also believe in Evolution by the way), but I believe this creator/entity to be way beyond my human comprehension. So my sprituality comes from what I observe in nature, and it probably approaches eastern philosophies, that is, some sort of reincarnation of the spirit. Of course I know this sounds like touchy feely, left coast banter, but my point is, I sense more in nature than just what is observable, i.e., a force, or energy, or whatever…a strong something that extends life beyond the capacity of our bodies. Basically, there is no end point. There is no heaven, nor hell, nor God in man’s image (note…I didn’t say there is no God), nor Saten. Anyway, for those open to discussing there spirtual beliefs beyond arguing about Christiananity, please feel free to contribute to this thread.

By RS

December 9, 2004 03:51 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, I don’t profess to be a science whiz, but I’m having a problem seeing how such a thing can be possible, sorry. I do have a cynical nature, I admit, & I’d have to actually WATCH the thing turn into a heart before I believe it. And what you told Chuck really resonates. A few years ago, I was aquainted with a gentleman who claimed to have been “saved” as a result of turning his life over to Jesus. Well, fine, but he clearly did not “walk the Walk”. He was a con artist, a habitual liar, disrespected others’ belongings, borrowed money without returning it, cheated, stole, got others to lie on his behalf, was money-hungry, had VERY impure thoughts about women & regularly visited prostitutes. When I called him out on this, he said he has the license to indulge in any type of behaviour he wished because (get THIS!) he “knows” he can always pray to God for forgiveness, be forgiven & know he can go out & sin again to his heart’s content because being “saved” means he can just pray for forgiveness & everything will be hunky-dory. How convenient. According to his convoluted way of “thinking”, even though I do not indulge in a mere FRACTION of the unsavoury activities he does, & I’ve given to charity etc, he will get to Heaven & I won’t because he’s “Christian”(??) & I’m not. A lot of idle lip service, if you ask me.

By Bob swygert

December 9, 2004 03:52 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

Tell you what, I’m perfectly comfortable standing before the Eternal Father and pleading nothing else but my faith in Christ’s perfect merit/ perfect sacrifice on the cross. I’ll leave it at that. I think I’m in pretty good hands.

Lozen, You are absolutely correct. The story of Christ’s birth, life, death, resurrection IS hard to believe. And I will never be successful at trying to argue you into believing something you choose not to believe. It all comes down to faith. I spent years as an atheist trying to intellectualize everything. But some of the most real things in this universe cannot be put in a test tube and analyzed in a laboratory. But it ultimately comes down to a matter of faith.

By Lyrazel

December 9, 2004 03:53 PM | Link to this

Sure Bob, but why should a teacher who is a Hindu be obligated to put up symbols of Christianity in her classroom just to please the season’s revelers? See? Two ways to see the same point.

By RS

December 9, 2004 03:57 PM | Link to this

Johnson, you are not alone. Your beliefs are very much like mine with a few differences. Yes I believe in Heaven & Hell although the determination as to where each of us will end up has more to do with your deeds on Earth as opposed to what religion you are, in my opinion. Well, I do believe we were made in the Creator’s image & the myriad body, ethnic & facial differences in us should indicate to so-called religious & spiritual types that maybe it’s time to stop discriminating against & mistreating others who don’t look a certain way…a VERY big gripe of mine.

By chuck

December 9, 2004 04:02 PM | Link to this

NORM, As part of my course of study I have over 50 graduate semester hours in History and 60 undergraduate quarter hours in history. I know that you struggle intellectually with just that junior college diploma but if you keep at it even you can get a college education.

By Brian Curtis

December 9, 2004 04:03 PM | Link to this

Randy: Sorry for the late reply. Your question was:

“What are the benefits to not being a Christian? With all that Christianity offers, peace of mind, eternal happiness, etc. Somebody enlighten me.”

To use one VERY obvious example: the benefits of being a Muslim (rather than a Christian) are obviously quite powerful and meaningful IF Islam is, in fact, the religion with the correct answers. (In other words, if the true god is Allah, and not Jehovah or whoever.) If the Muslims are right, then Christians and Jews are heretics who will be denied paradise.

Likewise, if the Vikings were right all along, there would be enormous benefits to worshipping Thor and Odin rather than Jesus and his dad. Ditto for the Hindus, Shinto, and so on.

But I suspect you may be asking a more open-ended question along the lines of “What’s the benefit of not believing in ANY god, compared to believing in (favored deity X)?” Is that correct?

If so, then I can answer that as well: Not spending your life believing in something that turns out to be false represents a HUGE benefit compared to wasting your life chasing a mirage. The key, of course, is how to tell whether a given religion’s claims are true (and therefore worth our devotion and effort) or false (and therefore a waste of time).

I haven’t seen anyone make a definitive answer even among those who agree that SOME sort of deity exists, let alone those who doubt even that premise. And I think it’s unlikely we’ll stumble across an answer they missed on this forum.

By Royal Chic

December 9, 2004 04:03 PM | Link to this

Johnson, nice to read ya…..and I would love to discuss spiritual beliefs beyond arguing about Christianity:) I definitely believe there is a Higher being because evolution could never be an explanation for my ability to see in color, smell the roses, and feel a much needed breeze on a summer day…..that is love from the Most High and nothing else…..His Spirit is all around us and we can come to know him by looking inside ourselves…..and often times neglect the nature of things to explain away religious beliefs and empty customs and traditions that have nothing to do with our spirits….

By Brian Curtis

December 9, 2004 04:05 PM | Link to this

Of course, I should acknowledge at this stage that we have ignored the actual stated topic of this thread. AGAIN.

Debating the validity of one religion over others (or over no religion at all) is not the same as discussing whether religious concepts have a place in public-school education.

By Royal Chic

December 9, 2004 04:09 PM | Link to this

I apologize….the last line of my post should read ‘and often times we neglect the nature of things to explain away religious beliefs and empty customs and traditions that have nothing to do with our spirits’

By Bob swygert

December 9, 2004 04:10 PM | Link to this

Lyzazel,

Because that Hindu teacher is a public school teacher who should not be allowed to censor the free religious expression of her students. Same thing if you had a Muslim teacher and all her students were Hindu.

All I’m saying is that (1) public school students are not required to abandon their religious beliefs and 1st Amendment rights the moment they cross the threshold of the schoolhouse door and (2) the price we pay for living in a free society is that we will be exposed to certain messages— like nativity scenes or voodoo pentagrams or the intellectually-overwhelming arguments of atheists— that we may disagree with, and (3) all that “separation of church and state” requires is that government be officially neutral toward religion. That’s all. have a great evening! Drive carefully!

By Royal Chic

December 9, 2004 04:15 PM | Link to this

Brian, you are correct…..but how much time should we waste on stating the obvious that in a country where religious freedom is founded…..we should allow all religious expressions to have place in public schools, but as an educating experience not to convert…..

By Brian Curtis

December 9, 2004 04:18 PM | Link to this

Royal: That’s one of the most sensible comments I’ve seen on this thread. And it took us HOW long to get here?

By Randy

December 9, 2004 04:25 PM | Link to this

Brian, Isn’t it weird that the topic of conversation turns to Christianity on this forum every time? Why, because its the true one. Also, Allah and Jehovah are one in the same, remember the sons of Abraham, each went separate ways? I don’t feel Christianity is following a myth, Jesus has provided every answer logically that I have ever seen asked. Some people just don’t want to listen. A creator has been proven to exist, without a doubt. Scientifically as well as logically.

By Johnson

December 9, 2004 04:25 PM | Link to this

I will convert to any religion that explains why ajc.com is so slow.

Brian, I agree my thread has gone off topic, but the whole thing has been beat to death anyway, and no one has really changed their mind. I would say ajc.com has plenty of bandwidth for all, but apparently they don’t :).

Royal Chic, you echo my sentiments exactly. I received my university degree in zoology and had to take an entire semester in Evolution at UNC, a very liberal university. You would think my professor would have been anti-religion but he was actually a very devout Christian. While I don’t share his Christian beliefs he made me realize that sprituality and science are not incompatible.

RS..Yes, I also believe that our spiritual path is determined by the choices we make in life, if nothing else, that we have to “stay back” and try it again, so to speak. I just don’t believe in a “heaven” where we are aware of ourselves as we are in life. I also don’t believe in Dante’s hell. To me, those types of dogmatic beliefs are really kind of trivial compared to the majesty of the universe. Fortunately, being free from the burden of dogma, I can easily say I don’t know what my path will be. I find the golden rule seems to be the best way find my way to enlightenment though.

By Randy

December 9, 2004 04:30 PM | Link to this

One other point Brian, these posts have strengthened my faith. I have not heard one valid point from someone who doesn’t believe. On the other hand, the Christians all have the same frame of mind(basically say the same thing), which is the clue I am looking for. They all see the world from the same view. I’ll see them in heaven and any others who find the truth out before they pass on. You are welcome also. Have a great day.

By Randy

December 9, 2004 04:38 PM | Link to this

Really I read the posts and none answered my question, what benefit is there in not being a Christian. Brian’s doesn’t make sense as a Creator has to exist(proved by physics and the 2nd law of thermodynamics) and why wouldn’t he make himself known?

By Royal Chic

December 9, 2004 04:46 PM | Link to this

RANDY, Why should there be benefits in having faith and believing in Christ or a Higher power???? The benefit has already been bestowed upon us: LIFE!

Is your faith and belief directly correlated with the “benefits” you receive as a Christian???

By RS

December 9, 2004 04:47 PM | Link to this

Johnson, even though I believe in a Heaven & Hell & you don’t, NO WAY would I ever disrespect your beliefs by trying to push mine on you. Life (afterlife??)lesson 101: That’s one basic difference between a fundie & a person capable of independent thought

By Royal Chic

December 9, 2004 04:48 PM | Link to this

Johnson, I totally agree….science does not exist without the Spirit existing first….anything science has proven was already absolute because the Spirit is absolute:)

By lozen

December 9, 2004 05:03 PM | Link to this

Hello Johnson, and welcome to you. I am past middle age and grew up in the south surrounded by fundamentalist religion. I too did not find those teachings to be useful. It seemed to me to be a very small and narrow world and I could not accept it as truth and fit myself into it, although I did try. So I read, studied and thought a great deal about my spiritual path. Hope to hear more from you!

By randy

December 10, 2004 08:08 AM | Link to this

Johnson and Iozen, the problem is you all went to church as children but you never accepted Christ as your lord and savior. You probably were children who questioned authority also, I want to do what I want to do, when I want to do it. Sound familiar. Just a thought.

By norman

December 10, 2004 08:12 AM | Link to this

A Vatican university, the Regina Apostolorum, is offering a course in Satanism and exorcism. I think Boscoe, Randy, Zack and all the other devilish Christians on this web ought to enroll.

By randy

December 10, 2004 08:13 AM | Link to this

Royal Chic, I know the benefits to being a Christian, I don’t see any benefits to not being a Christian. I do understand that selfish, self-centered people would hesistate in being a Christian, as they would think they would have to give up something to be a Christian. Actually the only thing you give up is not worth having anyway(selfishness). However, I find this to be scary as I don’t know the time of my death.

By norman

December 10, 2004 08:18 AM | Link to this

Randy: you are a classic pharisee!

By randy

December 10, 2004 08:25 AM | Link to this

Ah! We have Norman here early in the morning to share his wealth of knowledge. The guy who attacks every person who doesn’t agree with him, if you are a Christian or a athlete or even an American beware. He offers no proof of what he says, but that doesn’t stop him. Normie doesn’t your mommie need you for something.

By Boscoe Roads

December 10, 2004 08:45 AM | Link to this

RS, I can understand your skepticism. I usually reply with that story to those who look for a more scientific answer for all this. When given this story they’re often still skeptical afterwards as well. Let me explain another way why I trust in this so much. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the instructions on the way one should live their life has any harmful effects. Whereas, advise contrary to this CAN have some harmful effects whether medically or psychologically. The story about the man who had a “license” to sin is exactly my point. If God is so forgiving then why did he cast 1/3 of the angels from heaven or why did he destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? I can say I love Christ all I want, but what have I done to show Him that I do? Maybe I will Norman then I’ll know exactly what to say to chase you away!

By RS

December 10, 2004 08:49 AM | Link to this

Randy, I know a lot of people who are non-Christians; they are big-hearted, compassionate & giving. In other words, anything but selfish. Among these is a gal who is actually an atheist. She doesn’t believe there us a God but she loves people & animals. I always questioned authority, too. All that means is I’m capable of thinking for myself. And say what you wish about Norman, but he, too, is very capable of independent thought & has been proving it repeatedly.

By Lyrazel

December 10, 2004 08:57 AM | Link to this

Is Christianity just about telling people how godly you are, Randy? Week after week you seem to engage in this My-God-is-better-than-your-god style of manditory acceptance of your religious philosophy that is exactly the sort of narrow mindedness Johnson & lozen compained about permiating christian sects in the south. And please stop whinning about norman, his opinions are just as valid and invalid as Boscoe’s and equally on topic. Its tedious…

By Larry Fish

December 10, 2004 09:04 AM | Link to this

I hope you’re including yourself in that Lyrazel.

By norman

December 10, 2004 09:16 AM | Link to this

There once was a Christian named Randy, Who asked the devil for candy, You should be more austere, Said that hoary old queer, Still, sybaritic Christians are handy.

By Terry

December 10, 2004 09:26 AM | Link to this

This forum is off-base and needs to get back on the topic!

…Gay Marriage!

By Alex

December 10, 2004 09:32 AM | Link to this

I think Norman is jealous Randy. For him celebasy isn’t an option.

By Johnson

December 10, 2004 09:35 AM | Link to this

Actually Randy that doesn’t sound familiar, I pretty much did as I was told. I went to Sunday school, was babtized as a methodist and pretty much figured I was a Christian. In fact I was fascinated by Jesus as I understand him to be, a kind man that spread only love. I even thought about studying theology. Then as the years passed, and I traveled the world, became educated, watched loved ones die, and started thinking for myself I realized that I didn’t believe what I had been preached, it made no sense to me. And these days, I’m am further turned off by Christians, as the messages I hear are only of intolerance and blind obedience. I’ve read your posts and you have stated that without your faith, you would really have no morality. I find that a frightening thing actually…it means you really can’t think for yourself and would probably be easily manipulated by those that use religion to control people. My sense of right and wrong comes from the concept of treating people as I would have them treat me. If you become disillusioned with your faith, you now have no sense of right or wrong. It’s a scary thought that there are many out there like you.

By RS

December 10, 2004 09:46 AM | Link to this

Johnson, that is EXACTLY how I feel. I’ve seen some of Randy’s posts that gave me the impression that if he wasn’t a born-again Christian he’d cheat on his wife so in that case, I’m glad he is, as I find infidelity despicable. I’m a non-Christian, as you all know & in the 10+ years I’ve been with my husband I’ve NEVER been unfaithful. Then again, I don’t put myself in that position anyway. But I think that proves my point; I’m able to determine right from wrong on my own.

By Royal Chic

December 10, 2004 10:03 AM | Link to this

Randy, you miss my point all together…..but I must say that I’m not surprised….my question to you was are the “benefits” you receive as a “Christian” directly correlated to your faith and spiritual path?????……as to imply as Johnson and RS have stated doing the right thing without looking for a REWARD is what having morals is all about….not ranting about the benefits of being a Christian and all the wonderful rewards you receive from being controlled…..LOL!!!

By Dane

December 10, 2004 11:10 AM | Link to this

I have managed to stay out of this one for a week, but since I didn’t see any postings from the perspective of a teacher (unless I missed one), then let me offer one.

I am a high school teacher with a large body of students (I teach music, and have a 146 member competitive marching band). In that 146 member band, along with my music theory classes, and instrumental instruction, I have a wide spectrum of students with an amazing array of ethnic and national backgrounds, specifically, I have nine young ladies who are “women of cover,” i.e. Muslims. I point out a number because I made accomodations for those children who wanted to march in my band that they could still wear their head scarves under their uniform helmets. I also have several Hindu children, some Jewish children, several Vietnamese Buddhists and quite a few Goth kids in the mix.

My point is that how am I, as the cool and hip teacher that I am, supposed to answer questions that I get when it comes to the “reason for the season?” I’ll tell you how I do it, Very Carefully. In all actuality, most kids are pretty educated and are curious about other cultures. My band room is decorated with a little of everything for the season, and our Christmas Concert, which is tonight, is the “Carol of the Bells,” “Do You Hear What I Hear?” and the finale is “Joy To The World.”

Is anyone complaining about the religious nature of those musical selections? No. All of my “interfaith” students will be performing, and one of the young Muslim ladies will be performing an oboe solo on “Do You Hear What I Hear?”.

The debate is here, not in the schools. The debate is among adults, not the students. My faith is mine, the Holiday is celebrated by more than Christians, for various reasons it’s still a time to come together and love and respect one another as Humans, as People.

By Lyrazel

December 10, 2004 11:20 AM | Link to this

Me? Trite, boring and redundant! Always!

By Zack

December 10, 2004 11:27 AM | Link to this

I would love to see a day where Christianity is not treated as though it’s something harmful—especially when it’s anything but that.

We have in our schools drugs, violence, rampant misbehavior of students, teachers too afraid to stop it, a terrible curriculum, a sleazy environment altogether, and now people are worried about Christmas songs being played in schools?

I guess it’s no wonder that schools are so bad. The ones complaining are these kids’ parents.

By bob swygert

December 10, 2004 11:35 AM | Link to this

Hi Folks,

Please allow me to chime in on this idea that “only Christians are good, moral people.” Nothing could be further from the truth. God created all human beings “in His image” as Genesis states. This is a very rich phrase with many levels of meaning. I don’t believe this means that you and I ARE God. God exists distinct from His creation. But I think part of what this means is that we share some of the attributes of God— the ability to reason, self-awareness, free will, the ability to choose between good and evil.

( I’m not using the masculine pronouns “his/him” because I think God is a male. The Bible tells us God is a spirit. That means God has both masculine and feminine characteristics, just as do human beings. It’s just that English doesn’t have any good gender-neutral pronouns.)

God created all of us with this moral sense of right and wrong. That’s why Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Neo-pagans, etc can all be good, kind, loving people. There is some value and truth to all these different religious viewpoints because they are all attempts to reach back to the God who reaches out toward us.

But as a Christian, I believe the fullest relationship with God is only possible through Jesus Christ. That is not at all intolerant. I have no desire whatever to censor/kill/destroy/suppress those who believe differently. To “tolerate” something simply means to allow it to exist, whether or not you personally agree with it.

But one of the biggest mistakes of our muddy-thinking modern era is this notion that “it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you believe something…. all values are relative… all truth is whatever you think it is.”

If all values/morals/truth is relative, then please list under what circumstances child molestation or rape is acceptable behavior. You may think it’s wrong. The child rapist may think it’s Ok. How can you both be right?

By Bob Swygert

December 10, 2004 11:42 AM | Link to this

Dane…

Good post. You’ve proven my point that schools should accomodate all religious expressions. And I agree that this is best left to students without some ACLU lawyer bent on crushing any religious references.

Sounds like you’ve done a great job here with your students. Hope the concert goes very well!

By Dane

December 10, 2004 11:52 AM | Link to this

Why is it that, as someone posted earlier, the topics often get swept aside and it becomes a debate over who’s religion is best with the usual suspects firmly declaring their unshakeable belief in God and Jesus? And, to be quite honest, I’m surprised gays aren’t being dragged into the debate as the culprits behind removing religous references in the schools.

My posting a few minutes ago gave a perspective that has been absent from this forum, and that being one from a teacher. Everyone seems to know best, but I’m a teacher, for Pete’s sake! I see literally a thousand kids a day. I know what they say, what they think, and I deal with their parents on a daily basis. I get called at home because of some issue or other, and I’m always at PTA and Band Booster meetings. Somehow I manage to go to college for my M.A. degree, and there I interact with college kids.

The one thing I have garnered from all my life experience on this issue is that the “issue” is with adults, more often than not, adults with no children that are actually involved in whatever the “issue” is.

I said that tonight my musical ensembles will be performing our Christmas concert, as they have ever since I have been teaching—- going on ten years now—- and there is no controversy. With all the students and parents of different ethnic backgrounds and different religions you’d think people would be upset because of the Christian nature of the music and the season, but they’re not.

By Cancer Victim

December 10, 2004 12:37 PM | Link to this

Dane, Gays cause everything from poverty, to out of wedlock children, to children in foster care, to the illegal drug epidemic, to blindess, to cancer!

They are even the cause of my cervical cancer. I am 40 years old without children and recovering from a total hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Had I had children, I would have had a MUCH lesser chance of getting this type of cancer. Had my ex-husband been faithful, I would have never divorced. Had I never divorced, I would have had children. Had gays not demoralized America my husband would have never cheated. Gays have single handedly ruined my life!

By norman

December 10, 2004 12:54 PM | Link to this

Cancer Victim: good job! you must have learned to think in a Christian environment, except for the humor, of which they have none at all.

By Johnson

December 10, 2004 01:00 PM | Link to this

Cancer Victime,

If you were typing that with tongue in cheek, then I commend your for you satire,

However, if you are really serious, I have to say I am sorry for your disease, but I think most people reading your post can see why your husband left you…and it ain’t because of gays. Again, if you are serious, the fact that you cannot bear children gives more credence to the existance of God, than any other posts on this forum.

By Tim

December 10, 2004 01:04 PM | Link to this

I know that this is totally off subject but I have to say that what ‘Cancer Victim’ had me amazed… I sincerely hope that is not how truly you feel

Cervical cancer is certainly not a joking matter… and if you truly believe that if you had children that your chances would have been lessened maybe so… but my mother has 4 children and had to have a hysterectomy at the age of 36 because of cancer… just because there is a smaller chance doesnt mean you still will not get it

so I just wanted to say that if what you indeed wrote is truly how you feel before you start blaming other people for you problems you might want to look in the mirror

p.s. I wish you a speady recovery!

By lozen

December 10, 2004 01:08 PM | Link to this

Dear Cancer Victim, you are joking, right? I sure do hope so.

By Boscoe Roads

December 10, 2004 01:09 PM | Link to this

Dane, with respect to your position I would have to hear the viewpoint of the teacher who stopped a student in Silent prayer because prayer is not allowed in school. Different circumstances dictate different results even from people of the same profession. FYI the adults involved in this issue with schools are typically adults WITH kids involved with the school either now or will be soon.

By lozen

December 10, 2004 01:16 PM | Link to this

Dane, good to hear from you this week with your truth about what is happening in schools vs. the fantasies some create in their minds. If the foundation of your life is a fantasy it’s easy to fantasize other situations. That’s one reason I am not a christian.

By chuck

December 10, 2004 01:27 PM | Link to this

Dane, the reason these posts get off of the topic at hand has to do primarily with the art of conversation. As we discuss the topic, side issues come up. For example, my first post in this thread directly addressed the topic. Then RS asked a question about why one religion was better than another. Most of the time the tthreads work themselves around to the topic again, but through the process of conversation we learn a little more about ourselves and others. Face it. Few of these topics can stand alone and keep the interests of those who post. The side issues that come to mind through discussion of the topics are diverse and lead us in directions that interest us.

By Cancer Victim

December 10, 2004 01:29 PM | Link to this

Well, 77% of Geogia believes that these gay folks are the crap on the bottom of our shoe and need to be made run out of our state! Most of you here are in that 77% and probably the same people that are bashing my posts.

Throw ‘em in hole, like the politician in Bama says!

By Dane

December 10, 2004 01:43 PM | Link to this

Cancer Victim, I sincerely hope you’re trying to be funny, in the “Six Degrees of Separation” vein.

Here’s another interesting tidbit, before my band goes on the field to perform, we pray. Yes, we pray. One of the positions in the band is “Corps Chaplain,” and that student traditionally leads us in the “Lord’s Prayer.” This year, my Chaplain is a young lady named Fehruza who’s family is from Iran, and she says the “Lord’s Prayer”. Nobody has a problem with that, in fact, she recieved her position from a vote of the band members. It’s all strictly voluntary, and as I told the Band Boosters, I would be more than willing to do away with the office if anyone was offended, there was none.

By Dane

December 10, 2004 01:51 PM | Link to this

Thanks Chuck, it is easy to forget that this is, in fact, a conversation.

Cancer Victim? Or is it just “Victim” ?

By Tim

December 10, 2004 01:52 PM | Link to this

Dane, during my four years in band during high school we too prayed before every performance (marching band and concert band), including competitions and parades. This was done strictly on a voluntary basis, someone who did not want to participate did not have to (still most everyone did). Our prayer was led by a different person every week and I was honored the few times I had the opportunity to lead the prayer. We also prayed before our band banquet at the end of every year (which including in attendance students, parents, and yes TEACHERS). I was also honored to lead that prayer my senior year.

By Tim

December 10, 2004 01:58 PM | Link to this

I also remember a day at school my senior year where I wore a shirt that said ‘heaven yeah’ on the front and ‘hell no’ on the back… I was approached by one of the asst principals who said he did not think my shirt was appropriate for school… I told him ‘with all do respect I have every right to wear this shirt and if you try to hinder me every news crew in town will be at this school’… he then escorted me to the head asst principal (yes strange to believe but there was such a thing at my school… there were either 3,500 or 4,500 people at my high school)… he asked her if my shirt was allowed… she read it and said ‘oh yes that has to do with his religion and he has every right to wear that shirt’… and I was sent on my way… I would also like to add that the head asst principal was a lesbian who was not a Christian (I say this to show that even those who were not ‘religious’ still respected my views and beliefs)

By mit

December 10, 2004 02:00 PM | Link to this

is this cancer patient serious??!! i haven’t noticed one christian who posts on here that thinks that radical. i mean seriously, how is a gay person responsible for out of wedlock childern? they can’t have any childern, they’re gay!! i like getting off topic on here, christmas and schools is boring after you said what you have to say. and debate about the exist of god is healthy conversation, sometimes turning ugly but apologies are made and all is forgiven and the conversation continues.

By Dane

December 10, 2004 02:03 PM | Link to this

It’s a common tradition among marching bands everywhere. We did the same thing when I was in high school, we prayed in the Million Dollar Band (Bama for those who aren’t familiar) (where I got my degree) and we prayed in the Phantom Regiment Drum & Bugle Corps. I have absolutely complete respect for everyone and their beliefs, in fact I think they should be celebrated.

By mit

December 10, 2004 02:04 PM | Link to this

it seems as though i don’t know how to spell children today, sorry

By Tim

December 10, 2004 02:06 PM | Link to this

one more story that is all I promise

also during my senior year I was involved in a 40 day rally called ‘yes I believe in God’… for 40 days we had a different task… one day we were to write a not to a teacher or administrator telling them how much we appreciated them and that we would be praying for them… well I gave my note to that same Asst Principal who said that I was allowed to wear shirts with religious messages on them… after she read the note she came up to me, hugged me, and told me that that note really meant a lot to her and that she was going to put it on her desk and read it at least once every day… I ended up running into her about a month ago at my brothers high school football game (she is still one of the Asst principals at the high school)… she informed me that she still had that note on her desk and still reads it at least once a day… and I informed her that when ever she crosses my mind I still say a prayer for her! (this all coming from a woman who is not by most peoples definition ‘religious’)

I said all of this simply to say… that first NO ONE can take away your faith… and that yes students are still allowed to bring their faith to school… and second you don’t have to shove your religion upon someone for it to impact them… I simply sent a note to someone and that note 5 years later is still impacting that persons life

By Bob Swygert

December 10, 2004 02:10 PM | Link to this

Dane,

Keep up the great work as a music teacher. Sounds like you are accomodating the varying beliefs of your students very well.

Cancer victim— I also wish you a full recovery. My own family has been devastated by cancer over the years, so I am very sympathetic.

As far as Gays, I lived in midtown Atlanta for 25 years and know several gay people. I was one of the few people who voted against the gay marriage ban last month. I have no problem with gays having the same economic benefits bestowed through a civil marriage as do heterosexual couples. That’s not to say that I approve of homosexuality. But my personal religious beliefs should not dictate what civil rights any group of American citizens should or should not enjoy. By the way, for whatever it’s worth, I’m also a conservative Republican and a Southern Baptist. And Norman, I do have a sense of humor. I think you’re very funny.

By Dane

December 10, 2004 02:12 PM | Link to this

EXCEPT when that person’s beliefs are filled with hate and violence. Victim’s last posting was repugnant, but with such offhanded comments like she made, she is gathering very little sympathy.

By CV

December 10, 2004 02:13 PM | Link to this

how is a gay person responsible for out of wedlock childern?

Gays are solely responsible for the moral decline in our nation, culture and world. If the morality in our nation was what it should be, unwed people would not desire to have sex out of wedlock.

By mit

December 10, 2004 02:19 PM | Link to this

i think every sporting event at all schools have some kind of prayer, they did at my HS and college. as a atheist i have a conflict when it comes to group prayer, sometimes i will bow my head in respect of others beliefs but then i think should i even do that since i am not praying, so sometimes i just stand there. i think sometimes in this country that being a christian is a given and no one really thinks about the group as a whole, like at graduation ceremonies where they have a prayer knowing full well that college campuses are very diverse (except UGA it seems). that’s the mentality that i don’t understand, and i believe a moment of silence rather than a spoken prayer for the group is much more useful in some instances.

By Dane

December 10, 2004 02:29 PM | Link to this

Thank you very much, Bob, your comments are very much appreciated.

Norman, I think a lot of people don’t get you because they don’t recognize sarcasm or satire, and like Bob, I think your comments are usually pretty funny.

Victim, dear, you are striking out at a group of people as a target for your own personal tragedies. The moral decline of our nation comes from all walks of life, sweetie. There was a lot of making out in the back seats of Bel Aire’s in the 1950’s that led to out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and that was way before any “gay rights” movements. You can’t seriously link any gay person to Jimmy Joe and Carole Anne getting it on in the back of Jimmy Joe’s F-150 out in Cartersville, now can you?

By CV

December 10, 2004 02:35 PM | Link to this

how is a gay person responsible for out of wedlock childern? You can’t seriously link any gay person to Jimmy Joe and Carole Anne getting it on in the back of Jimmy Joe’s F-150 out in Cartersville, now can you?

I repeat — Gays are solely responsible for the moral decline in our nation, culture and world. So yes, any children JJ and CA spawn are the fault of gays. If the morality in our nation was what it should be, unwed people would not desire to have sex out of wedlock and would not produce unwanted children.

Gays should be taxed twice to pay for all of these children and the war on drugs and the clean up in NYC and DC. I will further say, if our country had a high moral character that it once had, the terrorists would respect our country and would have never bombed our country. Yes, gays are responsible for 9/11 and the over 3K lives lost.

By mit

December 10, 2004 02:36 PM | Link to this

CV, how do gays impact what heterosexuals do out of wedlock, they don’t. you are saying that since there are people who are gay, heteros are more likely to have children without marriage? that makes zero sense. my friends’ kid is not the result of gays, its the result of his semen working, him scared of getting married and the mother didn’t want him marrying her just because. which i am sure he will do someday. how my friend and other peoples doings effect what you do in your life have no correlation whatsoever. i am married and i have no kids, who does this effect, it doesn’t make people do anything differently from what they are going to do anyway. to blame gays as the scapegoat makes no sense. they keep the population down because they don’t reproduce (hey NO abortion from them). they don’t increase the population by having children out of wedlock, only heterosexuals can do that.

By mit

December 10, 2004 02:44 PM | Link to this

CV, if you’re right and gays are responsible for the decline of civilization, then you have to take responsiblity for wiping out the native americans. and therefore responsible for the decline of civility. i suppose you think the desegregation laws are unconstitutional too.

i can’t help myself: CV, your comments are ridiculous and unfounded.

By Bob Swygert

December 10, 2004 02:58 PM | Link to this

Ok Folks,

It’s Friday afternoon and this forum is rapidly sinking into the absurd. It’s time to chill out, have a cup of spiked eggnog, gather ‘round the fire and sing Christmas carols…. and we can build the fire by burning Norman at the stake. Have a good ‘un!

By Dane

December 10, 2004 03:00 PM | Link to this

Victim, you are just that, a victim. You are a victim to your own misguided rage and you’re seeking to lash out, and gays happen to be a convenient target.

By CV

December 10, 2004 03:05 PM | Link to this

Dane

And as a lesbian, those are the comments I have had to endure all of my life. The cancer comment came straight (pardon the pun) from a co-worker who closed my door and left me with her take on how “my kind” destroyed her life.

Shame on 77% of Georgia.

I hope I have made some people think.

By lozen

December 10, 2004 03:10 PM | Link to this

I am in my early sixties and when I was a teenager we didn’t know what gay was, okay? There was an awful lot of drinking and sex going on in the cars at the drive-in theater and a lot of my classmates getting married suddenly and having babies seven months later . CV, please call the county health dept and ask to see a therapist. You really need some help.

By chuck

December 10, 2004 03:20 PM | Link to this

Rookies! Why do ya’ll respond to CV? I doubt that he/she is a cancer victim. I would almost certainly be right in saying that CV is just trying to get responses to his boring pathetic posts. He’s probably been posting under another name and no one paid attention to what he wrote so he started down this road and apparently it is working. As a veteran of many years participating in these kinds of boards (I was a bloger before blogging was cool)I’ve seen many of these types of posters. I call them bomb throwers like in the political realm. Usually, if you ignore them, they will either straighten up or go away. Occasionally they escalate the rhetoric until the moderators kick them out.

By chuck

December 10, 2004 03:26 PM | Link to this

Bob, Have agreat weekend. Merry Christmas to the Christians and Happy Holidays to the rest of you. Our system’s going down for maintenance, so I’ll see ya’ll on Monday.

By lozen

December 10, 2004 03:29 PM | Link to this

Okay CV, you fooled me. So the people who have made these comments to you are the ones who need the help. I say shame on 77% of Georgia also. I voted against the tricky bill. I worked as an episcopal church secretary once and the church minister had been married twice. He was so busy running back and forth between the four kids from the first marriage and the three he and his second wife had during two years, he was hardly ever at work. But he got some group that was supposed to turn gays and lesbians straight to come and do a workshop at our church. A lot of his time and energy and the church’s money went into setting up this workshop. I was delighted when one person showed up to take the workshop, a gay woman’s mother who was unhappy with daughter’s choice. In the meantime, the archbishop of one of the other churches in town was in hot water for fondling teenage girls on camping trips. Seemed to me the money could have been better spent on finding a way to screen those heterosexuals! The minister was later removed by the church board!

By Dane

December 10, 2004 03:29 PM | Link to this

Victim, dear, if you are a lesbian then you are indeed a victim of internalized homophobia. Anyone who’s seen my posts on past topics will know that I am a gay man. I am what many extremists fear and loathe: a successful gay man. I am a teacher, and a decorated combat war veteran. I am also successful in that I have been with my partner (also a veteran) for six years on Monday.

Don’t think I haven’t heard it all, too. If your postings were designed to make us “think,” they did, that you are just another ranting gay-basher blaming gays for the woes of the world.

By norman

December 10, 2004 03:33 PM | Link to this

Bob Swygert: you Christers have burned enough people already!

By Dane

December 10, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the pointers, Chuck!

By norman

December 10, 2004 03:37 PM | Link to this

For the Christians a real sense of humor, Is just about as welcome as a tumor, They pray on their knees, With nary a sneeze, And base all their faith on a rumor.

By Johnson

December 10, 2004 03:40 PM | Link to this

Dane,

I don’t think you got CV. She is on your side.

By norman

December 10, 2004 03:45 PM | Link to this

Christians are really like sheep, They obey with nary a peep. Forgive them their sins, They’ll fill up your bins, But for their minds you just have to weep.

By Dane

December 10, 2004 03:50 PM | Link to this

Boy, I don’t know whether to feel duped or duped. Maybe this where I should bow out of today’s discussion! CV, my apolgies, and congratulations, you got me big time.

It is time for me to go, anyway, I’ve got to go run some errands before my kids start showing up for tonight’s concert.

Everyone have a great weekend.

Again, good one CV, I actually noticed what you were saying after I had just clicked “post!”

By CV

December 10, 2004 03:58 PM | Link to this

Sometimes others have to see their own hate before they realize how stupid and cruel they are. Maybe some of these people on these posts will read my posts are realize how cold thier hearts really are.

My heart is warm. I am full of love from family, friends, my Partner, and yes, from God.

By RS

December 10, 2004 04:36 PM | Link to this

Norm, in case I’ve never addressed any comments to you, let me say now that I think you’re very intelligent & wildly funny; your limericks are priceless & you really should be doing stand-up! Bob, I personally find you to be what a good Christian should; tolerant & compassionate. Dane, I wish I had teachers like you when I was in school; and a happy 6th to you & your partner! MIT & Lozen, the 2 of you make a lot of sense. CV: I’m so sorry to hear of your illness, a speedy recovery to you! I hate to hear of anyone having cancer (well, Bin Laden & his ilk would be notable exceptions! LOL) & yes, I admit I’m confused; will the REAL CV please stand up? Whoever made those hateful homophobic remarks is just plain ignorant & misguided. Now, the lady who is a lesbian, I truly feel for you that you have to deal with such a disgusting bigot 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week; I hope you’re in a loving, committed relationship with a fine woman & someday soon will be able to marry your partner & partake of the same rights & privileges as the rest of us; you deserve no less. Have a great weekend, all!

By Tim

December 10, 2004 04:40 PM | Link to this

hey RS where’s my love?! :) lol

By RS

December 10, 2004 04:49 PM | Link to this

Tim, you always have that! I’d be a lousy f* hag otherwise! XOXOXOXOX Smoochies! RS

By Brian Curtis

December 13, 2004 08:06 AM | Link to this

Sorry for the late reply, Randy. I’m not surprised you didn’t understand the points I made, and that “all this discussion has only strengthened your faith.” Wearing blinders tends to do that. My question now is, were you even asking a question at all if you intend to ignore the answers? For you, there probably can be no “valid point” counter to your own unassailable beliefs—which makes discussion pointless.

But I AM curious about which part of the answer puzzled you—the benefits of believing in another deity, or the benefits of not believing in one at all? Both perspectives make perfect sense once you allow the possibility that Chrsitianity may be wrong.

By randy

December 13, 2004 08:48 AM | Link to this

Brian, If Christianity is wrong, why do you feel the need to fight it on a daily basis? Since one of the biggest atheists ever, Antony Flew a professor in England, has changed his mind after 50 years and decided to become a Christian. Stating that there is to much evidence from DNA to not believe in a creator, there is hope for you and Norman. Hopefully it won’t take you 50 years to figure it out, you may not have that long. Have a great day.

By randy

December 13, 2004 09:09 AM | Link to this

Brian, I have stated to absolute scientific answer for a creator to exist several times. However, I will do it again for you. Final determination, no matter how far back in time you go, 10 billion years whatever, the universe, life etc. all had to start at some point come into existance. Since things don’t appear out of thin air on their own(Physics), they had to be created by a Creator(GOD). The only possible argument is that the universe is eternal(always existed). This argument was defeated by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that the universe is losing energy therefore can’t be eternal. Also, when I was in college, astronomy class talked about the sun going Super Nova. Remember? All this proves that the would is not eternal and a creator exists.

As far as Jesus being the messiah, there is enormous evidence to that being true. I can list a few if you need them. I believe that people must bond with the creator of this universe, I call his son Jesus and him Emmanuel, others may call him something else. But I know you must bond with the “Good” entity reguardless of what you call it. I sure someone in deep dark Africa, who has never heard of Jesus may have another name for him. In Jesus’ day his mother would have called him Eneesuwah(I’m not sure of the spelling) and it would have been the same “good” entity that created this world and paid the price for me and you on the cross. All we have to do is accept that gift an not insult him by rejecting him. Have a great day.

By Brian Curtis

December 13, 2004 10:53 AM | Link to this

Randy, I don’t “fight” Christianity at all. Christians can believe whatever they want, as long as they respect my right to do the same. I take that position with all religions and creeds… and I think that’s the position schools should take in discussing religious events as well.

Even if your “scientific” arguments were valid (hint: they’re not), they would point only to the necessity of some sort of deity. What makes you think it’s the Christian one, as opposed to Zeus, the Hindu gods, or Amaterasu?

But it’s a moot point, since the existence of ANY deity must remain conjecture; that’s why it’s called a matter of faith, after all. “Everything must have a cause” is a philosophical position, not a scientific necessity; indeed, we know several examples of uncaused events anyway. Moreover, if everything MUST have a cause, then postulating a god doesn’t answer the question—it just pushes it back one step, to “What created God?”

As for the laws of thermodynamics, I’ve seen them misinterpreted many times and in many ways. The second law states that the end result of any thermo. process in a closed system must increase—there’s nothing there about the universe running out of energy, or spontaneous order arising in localized systems as long as the total entropy of the system overall increases (or receives an input of energy from outside).

Your faith is just that—faith. And it’s fine. But you asked what benefits there are to NOT being a Christian, and I explained a few. If you’re wrong and the agnostics are right, you’ve wasted your life. Worse yet, if you’re wrong and the Muslims or Wiccans are right, you’re a heretic worshiping a false god! The benefits of avoiding either of those fates are obvious.

By Carol Marianne

December 13, 2004 11:12 AM | Link to this

I don’t believe religion belongs in the public realm of education. Xmas and religion….keep these beliefs at home or inside a church of one’s faith. Not every child comes from a religious home and shouldn’t have to be subjected to mainstream religion and its manifestations.

By RS

December 13, 2004 11:35 AM | Link to this

What Brian C. & Carol M. stated this morning makes a lot of sense!

By norman

December 13, 2004 12:26 PM | Link to this

Many Christians are fascinated by The Da Vinci Code novel, which will be a Tom Hanks movie next year. Why are they falling all over themselves for an anti-Christian movie which attacks the basis doctrines of Christianity? Because, in my view, they are very skeptical of the teachings of Christianity which are in themselves very fantastic and quite questionable. In a novel they can indulge in their skepticism without the disdain of their pious friends who would call them names if they were reading serious biblical scholarship. So don’t be surprised if the Da Vinci Code movie outsells The Passion of the Christ.

By Zack

December 13, 2004 01:41 PM | Link to this

RS—You WOULD be the type to think Norman is intelligent and funny. It’s ironic how you’re always talking about bigotry and hatred, but you two show more of that toward Christians than anyone else on here, probably.

You say you wouldn’t want to be in a courtroom with “…blatant Christian symbols”. This kind of comment frustrates me greatly.

By the way, instead of worrying about a Christian play in a secular school, to be honest, we all should be concerned and take action against the Jewish influence on Hollywood. Its propaganda is having a very negative influence on its audience, which is why I’m not interested in 90% of the movies that come down the pike, especially if Steven Spielberg or Martin Scorcese is affiliated with it.

Ever notice how “The Last Temptation of Christ”, a blasphemous, dishonest movie against Jesus, is portrayed by the liberal media as something positive, but something TRUTHFUL, as “The Passion of the Christ”, is attacked fiercely by said liberal media?

By mit

December 13, 2004 02:06 PM | Link to this

hey brian, just thought i would put my two cents in to a misconception that the earth was always a place life could live on. the origins of life on earth from a scientific point of view is hotly debated. But one thing scientists all agree on today is that life does not form anymore because the atmosphere consists of Oxygen which is extremely corrosive and will not let new life form. And to me DNA evidence proves against a creator because we can trace evolution through it and show homology between human genes and say, chicken genes (which they just sequenced this week). but you can trace human genes all the way back to bacteria, the first earthbound life forms. but you can also use this data to try and prove a case for god as well.

biblical question i have tried to get an answer to for a long time now: where does Cain’s wife come from? literally though, not what region.

By Brian Curtis

December 13, 2004 02:14 PM | Link to this

MIT: Good points!

I don’t worry too much about testing the truth or falsity of the Bible, though, because to me it’s just another collection of folklore. Worrying about its historical/scientific accuracy misses the larger point of the messages it conveys (which are, admittedly, confusing and often contradictory). But hey, that’s legends for ya.

By Texas

December 13, 2004 02:15 PM | Link to this

Zack, Your Post makes a lot of sense and I agree whole heartedly. Randy you also make good points. Please continue your contributions to the right cause. Christianity stands for goodness. You my friends are doing the work of the righteous! Continue to stand tall in your FAITH! God Bless.

By mit

December 13, 2004 02:30 PM | Link to this

brian, that was meant, to randy, i got myself confused when you two were going back and forth. so i have gone back to that post, the (physics) is actually biological and thats where the oxygen comes in. i never heard that interpetation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics put that way before, and i don’t know any physicist that says the universe has always been here (big bang theory) and since the sun is going to explode (super nova) proves there is a creator? i don’t understand.

By RS

December 13, 2004 02:34 PM | Link to this

Zack: I know you don’t agree with a thing Norman says & I wouldn’t expect you to but he certainly is witty & can think for himself. Now, why don’t you scroll back to the comments I’d made to Bob Swygert & THEN accuse me of displaying anti-Christian hatred & bigotry? The reason why being on trial in a courtroom festooned with blatant Christian symbols would make me useasy is because as soon as the judge & jury get an inkling of what I am, it’d be all over for me. Yes, I am aware of the liberal media’s stance on those 2 films but it works the other way too. I’ve read plenty of reviews penned by conservatives ripping apart “..Last Temptation” & lauding “..Passion”. That’s ok, though. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion & frankly that’s exactly what I’d expect from the conservative media. “Take action” against Hollywood’s Jewish directors? AHA! I knew it, I knew it! OK, Zack, what do you propose? Shall we get together & burn a few crosses? Or, even better, let’s fire up those ovens & gas chambers! Oh, that’s right! There WERE no such thing; the Holocaust was fiction; duh! My mistake. How silly of me.

By Dane

December 13, 2004 03:31 PM | Link to this

I must live on another planet out here in the bucolic tranquility of north suburban Atlanta.

My concert Friday evening went off perfectly. We played to a packed house in my school’s auditorium. During our second number, a song called “The Star,” or more commonly known as “Do you hear what I hear?,” there was a hauntingly beautiful oboe solo played by a young lady wearing a black dress and a black head-scarf. That young lady’s family are Turkish Muslim immigrants. My point is, that there, during that Christmas concert, there was lighted Christmas trees, pointsettias, tinsel and other festive trimmings, and gasp a Nativity Scene!

Inclusiveness is what I practice with my students, and is generally the order of the day at my high school. Removing any religous reference is a loss to everyone, not to just the Christians. But, on the other hand, not including any other religious holidays or references is equally as wrong, and is discounting other non-Christian beliefs as false.

Yes, yes, we all know that America was founded on Biblical principles, yadda yadda, but sorry, folks! have you taken a look outside your safe little gated communities? America is fast becoming non-white, and with the influx of Asians and other traditionally non-Christian immigrants, America will not always be a Christian-dominated society. We must, as a society, be willing to adjust and change to accommodate others. While it’s not true for all areas, my high school, in particularly my high school band program, is a microcosm of the changing face of America, and to be a successful teacher I have to be willing to accept everyone for who they are—- and I do.

By norman

December 13, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this

I am sick of attacks on the Last Temptation of Christ, based on a novel by the Nobel Prize winner Nikos Kazantzakis. He attempted, as did the film, to show how a person might be both human and more than human, how a sense of being more than human might gradually develop. The things depicted about Jesus’ marriage, etc. were portrayed as temptations by Satan not as fact. The movie had a very bad actor playing Jesus, Willem Dafoe, but the idea was in no way anti-Christian. It was a reasonably good movie, better than the sado-machocism of Mel Gibson’s Passion.

By randy

December 13, 2004 03:41 PM | Link to this

Brian, If you don’t believe, why don’t you tell us how the universe really started. Christianity has answered all my questions, I really never had any doubts, just did some research to try to help others. Seems like people like you don’t want to be helped. OK. As far as living my life wasted, I’m certain that a creator exist and that he has made himself known, I’m not wasting my life at all. The ones who I feel sorry for are people who don’t know that they don’t know and won’t back off their position, pride is a deadly sin. My life is full and extremely successful, thanks to Jesus my lord and savior.

By Dane

December 13, 2004 03:46 PM | Link to this

How can anyone be upset that there are actually people that didn’t like “The Passion?!?” Geez, that movie made more money than the GDP of most of the nations in the world! Mel Gibson is practically bathing in money!

I never saw it, and never will. I’m simply not into snuff films. But I’m sure that THIS line of discussion ran its course several months ago, and this is the last of it by me.

I said my part, I made my comments about inclusion, I relayed the story of my concert and of the wonderful diversity of my students and how we could all stand to learn a thing or two.

By Brian Curtis

December 13, 2004 04:22 PM | Link to this

Randy: Pride? I’m fairly happy with my life, which I’m sure is just as full and successful as yours—thanks to no one but me.

I’m not a cosmologist, but I know that many physicists debate several promising theories about the origin of the universe—and none of them require a creator. If you believe in one, that’s fine (as I said). The problem comes when you want to go around “fixing” the beliefs and ideas of others if they don’t agree with you. (And how could Christianity have answered all your questions if you never had any doubts? An unshakable faith is the same thing as closed mind—a vice, not a virtue.)

Repeat after me: I may be wrong. That should give you all the humility you need to navigate discussions such as these.

By randy

December 13, 2004 04:39 PM | Link to this

Brian, I have seen some Christians(Bob, Texas, etc) pour out their heart to those of you who are not Christian, telling you what Jesus means to them. We have given you guys absolute proof that there is a creator and still you refute it and come up with lame excuse after lame excuse. You all are the Queen of Denial(Nile). If you are not searching for truth, why do these posts? If you are trying to make us not believe, that’s not possible for someone who is a “true” Christian, we have had a life-changing experience. I think that if Jesus came down from heaven and appeared in front of you and shook your hand, you would still deny his existance. But as I said before, if one of the biggest most influencial atheists Antony Flew finally figured it out, there may be hope for you.

I guess what it comes down to in your minds, is that if a creator does exist, you all are in a bad situation. Your Super ego won’t let you capitulate to the creator and your have convinced yourself of some false doubts, that you cling to. You have my sympathies.

By RS

December 13, 2004 04:51 PM | Link to this

Oh Dane, how COULD you? You are just too, too mean! First, you had to bust Randy’s, Zack’s & Boscoe’s bubbles by proving to them that a gay person can be a brave veteran who’s also a decent, productive member of society as opposed to a degenerate pedophile. And now you have to further ruin their day by informing them there will come a time when Christians will no longer be the majority in the US. But that’s ok. Knowing those 3, they will be in denial & not believe a word you (or I, Norman, Tim, Akeya, Jodi, Johnson etc) say

By lozen

December 13, 2004 05:09 PM | Link to this

Keep up the good work RS, Brian, MIT, Dane, Jodi, Sage, Johnson. Although I doubt any of the reason in your messages will get through. One of the reasons I am not a christian is because I realized what an anti-intellectual bias it promotes. At least that’s true of fundamentalist christianity which is all I knew growing up in the south. They told me, “stop asking questions, girl, close that mind. You just accept what I say and have faith or you are in danger of hell fire.” They told me I was not supposed to wonder about god and I should read the good book and it would tell me everything I needed to know. I was terrified that I would go to hell because I just couldn’t ever see that it was any different than those greek stories about gods. My favorites were the creation stories of different Indian tribes with all the animals! I thought the Xmas story was nice but I didn’t think it was fair for the angel to make a teenager have a baby with god before she even had a chance to go to college! I couldn’t understand how a Hebrew rabbi, who lived 2,000 years ago could have anything to do with me and my sins. I read the bible and couldn’t understand why some claimed there were no mistakes in the bible. It said one thing in one place and something totally different in another. But most striking was how one person could read the same book and march to end racial discrimination while another person read it and claimed that god meant for us to live in a segregated world. One person interpreted it to mean we should love and help each other. Someone else used it to judge everyone and beat them over the head with backward rules and regulations. Fortunately, I was able to get past that fear. I realized if I was’t supposed to think, I wouldn’t have a brain. Christian fundamentalists believe they must proselytize and attempt to convert people who follow other religions. Therefore it’s fine in their mind to accost me on the street or knock on my door at 10:00 on Saturday morning to try to convert me to “the one right way.” They are doing that for my own good you see. It’s not because they are arrogant, it’s because their god says they have to be arrogant for him! If one is a fundamentalist one cannot accept the idea that other religions are just as valid as theirs. Would I really want to spend eternity in a place where you can’t ask any questions? Would I want to spend eternity with Randy and Zane and Chuck and Boscoe?

By Brian Curtis

December 14, 2004 08:27 AM | Link to this

Randy: Thanks for the sympathy—and the condescension that always accompanies it. As I’ve said repeatedly, it’s fine for you if you believe in Jesus and company. But that’s no reason to sneer at those who don’t. If that basic concept is beyond you, then I think it’s you who have nothing to contribute or learn from these forums.

But cheer up: maybe someday Shaunti and Diane’s column will actually be about proving Christianity superior to all other beliefs, and you and your cohorts (Texas, Zack, etc.) can really let loose.

You pity me? I pity you, actually; you’re so dead-set in your beliefs that you literally cannot comprehend any other perspective, or even admit that you might be wrong. Every day, more and more people wake up to the truth that the faith they were raised with might—just MIGHT—not be the divine, revealed, final truth. Many switch to other faiths, or abandon religion entirely.

And—to quote you—“If they can figure out, maybe there’s hope for you too. Someday.”

By Brian Curtis

December 14, 2004 08:29 AM | Link to this

Now tell me honestly, Randy; doesn’t that sound condescending, hostile, and arrogant?

And yet it’s your own words played back to you. What does that tell you?

By norman

December 14, 2004 08:42 AM | Link to this

I’m glad Lozen has joined this web. There are many Southerners who have suffered under the reign of evangelical Christianity all their lives. Would that more of them would speak out. I have often wondered if the major problem of the South were not racism but too much religion.

By RS

December 14, 2004 09:05 AM | Link to this

Norman, I’m glad to see Lozen here too for the same reasons as you

By JohnR

December 14, 2004 11:30 AM | Link to this

Christians are the new entitlement class. They believe that by virtue of their faith (and the fact that a majority of Americans are Christian) that they are entitled to use the Government as an agent of their beliefs; indeed, that the government should sponsor and promote their beliefs. Apparently what Christ supposedly said about rendering unto Caesar what is his falls upon deaf ears.

I find it simply incredulous that christians somehow in a free and open costitutionally protected society can maintain that they are being persecuted. I challenge them to explain to me exactly how, and in what way, the government is abridging their free practice (tax exempt baby) thereof. Is it simply possible that like most religion that if you say something enough times it becomes the truth?

I see no problem with Christmas being celebrated in schools since it has essentially been stripped of any significant religious meaning by our society (which in fact says something about our “christian” nation) and is more a holiday of consumption than anything else. I think non-christians should accept the fact that the tyranny of majority rules. In fact I have no problem at all with any religious activity in schools, so long as it is voluntary.

By RS

December 14, 2004 11:38 AM | Link to this

John R: Very astute observation! According to that kind of convoluted logic, only the “majority” should have rights & privileges. In other words, non-Christians should be exterminated, African-Americans should once again be relegated to riding in the back of the bus & gay people? Well, you can guess! If, hypothetically, we lived in a society where the majority were pedophile rapists, does that, by the same token, mean THEY should be the only ones who count? Makes no sense, but then again, any fanatical religious fundamentalists have that twisted arrogant attitude.

By norman

December 14, 2004 12:12 PM | Link to this

RS: you misunderstand John R. He shares your and my belief in separation of church and state, but he is a realist, as I am, and sees no harm in many atenuated practices which were once religious. I do not see how Christmas trees, creches, etc. in public or semi-public places do harm to non-believers. It is much more important to battle against government financial support for religious bodies through faith-based initiatives, vouchers, and the like. An occasional prayer, a Chrismas carol, and all that is pretty harmless. John R. is not saying that minorities have no right, he is saying that there are important rights to defend and trivia to ignore.

By Zack

December 14, 2004 12:55 PM | Link to this

RS—As usual, you have no leg to stand on, so you take the typical liberal approach of trying to put words in others’ mouths. I made some comments against the sick Jewish propaganda being laced in so many movies out of Hollywood, and when I said this called for action, you tried to say I was endorsing another Holocaust. Now you’re saying the same thing to John R.. I’m so sick of the way you and those like you think. I have about as much desire to see a Spielberg or Scorsese movie as I do to attend a lecture where the speaker has the same worldview of you and Norman. Your extreme posts simply reveal your character, or lack thereof.

Kinda ironic, as I said before, how you allegedly stand against bigotry but simultaneously show plenty of it. If you don’t want to be in a courtroom that has “…blatant Christian symbols”, feel free to move to China where you can see blatant hanging of ancestors, if you’d feel more comfortable. I’m so sick and tired of rhetoric against Christians, even though it’s just that: rhetoric. We live in a sick, backwards society where anything is accepted by the left except for a reference to God. (Look at how liberals protest the teaching of sexual abstinence. Even though it’s 100% effective, its teaching is protested, which is one of many ways the left fully confirms that establishing its own agenda, not doing what’s best for society, is the goal.)

You accuse people of being against Blacks. Kinda ironic coming from a Jew, a group of people strongly known for their racism against Blacks. (Heck, a Jewish country club told Michael Jordan years ago that he’d be welcome to play there any time but would not be welcomed as a member. They didn’t tell him why but didn’t have to. I loved his response: Prior to a subsequent game, when the Illinois lottery was being discussed, he said if he were to win it he’d retire at halftime and then begin building a country club that would have a giant sign out front saying: “NO JEWS ALLOWED.”)

Yes, I’m sick and tired of the extreme double standard by those on the left, like you, RS. Everything non-Christian if perfectly fine with you, and anything Christian, in your opinion, needs to be avoided. As for the “…blatant Christian symbols” in a courtroom, you can rest assured of an unbiased decision by a Christian judge because Christianity is the only religion that honestly calls for true, unconditional love to all. This country was founded upon the Bible, but now we have you and those like you wanting to force your relativism-based tyranny on the rest of us—and then accuse Christians of doing the same to you. We were a fine country when we were close to the Bible. After moving from it, we’ve clearly moved away from being a fine country as well. In a country where you can kill your own baby to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood, pass out contraceptives—which are immoral, disgusting, and ineffective—to students, mention the idea of gay marriage and actually have it considered by Congress, destroy life and conduct stem-cell research in the so-called name of progress, force-feed the overt, extreme, threatened-if-you-don’t-accept liberal agenda down the throats of students all over the country, we’re going to have a blog where we address the issue of having a Christian play at a secular school—all because the left has forced its wrongful interpretation of “…separation of Church and state” on the rest of us? My, what a farce.

Christians don’t exactly help matters by being quiet. I find it very symbolic that Joel Osteen, the pastor of the nation’s largest “Christian” church, doesn’t even have a cross in his sanctuary. Instead, feelgood sermons and his website address abound. Christians have done a sadly effective job of blending in with society and letting the liberal agenda change our legal system from what it was originally.

By randy

December 14, 2004 12:56 PM | Link to this

Brian, It’s possible that one day I could be wrong about the millions of dollars of real estate that I buy each year(all credit to Jesus, he can take it away anytime), but with the lord’s grace I am absolutely on target. I am not trying to be condending, maybe you confuse confidence with arrogance. Really I see the picture and so do other Christians and ones who are not Christian, don’t get it. If you ever become Christian you will look back and say to yourself, “I couldn’t see the forest for the trees”. I know you don’t understand and I can’t argue someone into heaven. If I could argue them into heaven, I would argue with them 24/7, it is that important, but apparently it doesn’t do any good.

By Tim

December 14, 2004 01:34 PM | Link to this

‘We were a fine country when we were close to the Bible’

Brian, when was this? when we were such a ‘Christian’ nation that we allowed slavery (on Biblical principles)… or maybe during the civil rights movement in the 1950s… when African Americans had to go through Hell to get ‘equal’ rights

I am a Christian… I just find it amusing when others say that ‘we need to get back to the good ol days’… I have read the history books… I haven’t found ‘the good ol days’ yet

By JohnR

December 14, 2004 01:36 PM | Link to this

I am not in favor of the “tyranny of the majority” but am not so foolish as to not recognize it’s existance. It seems that non-believers and believers both seem to have the idea that exposure to any ideas other than their own are dangerous, or harmful. Everybody makes up their own mind, and in a pluralistic diverse society like ours there are plenty of viewpoints to go around. So i doubt the little kiddies are gonna be damaged by an “idea” or a christmas tree, or “silent Night” or crosses, or anything else.

While it is obvious that this country was founded, and inhabited by protestant christians for the most part, the framers of the Constitution certainly did not want a situation like existed in England where religion was State supported and codified into law. Mandating participation in Christmas festivities is wrong, same as prayer, to anyone who is forced to be someplace like a classroom; however, so long as that participation is voluntary I see no problem with it.

Again, I see no evidence of religious persecution in this country, and I do not believe that just because the majority participate, everyone should. I also do not believe in denigrating others for practicing religion, or not choosing to practice.

By Akeya

December 14, 2004 01:36 PM | Link to this

Man… I sure missed a lot…

The funny thing about all of the posts that I’ve read is that I’ve still not heard a good reason that schools should not be all-inclusive.

What is the problem with including everyone?

By RS

December 14, 2004 01:42 PM | Link to this

Yes, after it was printed, I was looking over my response to John R & it DOES look like I’d disagreed with him; actually I think he’s RIGHT. Zack, this entire post is for you. First of all, I want to thank you for repeatedly comparing me to Norman, I find that quite a compliment. Now, when you make a comment such as “sick Jewish propaganda” as opposed to “sick Hollywood propaganda”, that tells me that yes, you have issues with the Jewish race. And I believe Scorcese is not Jewish, although I could be wrong about that. Your stereotype of all Jews hating black people is laughable. I’ve always had African-American friends and are you familiar with Atlanta’s African Hebrew community?? Well, in a perfect world, sexual abstinance would be practiced by anyone unmarried but this, as you very well know, is not a perfect world & yes, people do have these urges & many of them will not control said urges. Also, there are people who do not have the opportunity to marry or even be in a loving relationship yet they have these desires too; do they need to be punished?? I’d rather see contraceptives being used than witness a rash of diseases & unwanted pregnancies. Sorry but I consider a fetus a clump of cells that is just a part of the mother’s body, no different than arteries & bones. Stem cell research, which, yes, would compromise the “life” of a fetus, would save a viable, already living person. If an infant will be born severely deformed, or into an environment where he/she will be abused & neglected, then, yes, I feel they’d be better off aborted. You mentioned Christianity being a religion of true, unconditional love. I’ve been lucky enough to know many who practice that, including (& I know I’ve mentioned her in this forum) an atheist. Not only that, but with her, it’s heartfelt, not because she’s trying to accrue whatever brownie points will get her into Heaven. And Zack, don’t get so upset about all the Christians keeping quiet & not speaking up. Believe me, you’re doing an excellent job taking up their slack…

By RS

December 14, 2004 01:47 PM | Link to this

Akeya (& anyone else wondering the same thing), the “problem” with including everyone is that the MAJORITY view those outside their charmed circle as inferior subhumans

By mit

December 14, 2004 01:53 PM | Link to this

man, zack is p** off.

what is the ‘blantant christian symbols’ and the court about. they make you swear to tell the truth using a bible, i guess that means that any non-christian or other religion can lie, all right! (joke) is that what you are talking about, i haven’t seen any christian symbols in a courthouse other than that. abstinence is not effective! contraceptives are effective. you have that backwards. here’s why: girls lie about not having sex and boys lie about having sex, any statistic about it can’t be trusted. on top of that, your government has shown that 88% of abstinence pledgers don’t make it. Not only are they more likely to not use a contraceptive, they are also more likely to spread STDs because they don’t go and get tested, they have pledged abstinence so they are scared too (and not taught about it). I do not know one girl from high school who waited for marriage, and the one girl i know that actually tried didn’t make it (darn college). the only virgins i know today (2) are both males (in their late 20’s, both in med school, and both of asian descent, weird) and they actually don’t plan to wait till marriage, they just haven’t found the right girl yet. (whatever that means, that’s just what they told me)

contraceptives are yucky (funny!) if more people used them then I guess we couldn’t talk about abortion anymore and then the left wouldn’t be left anymore and the right wouldn’t have anyone to complain about anymore, and the cycle goes on.

By RS

December 14, 2004 02:09 PM | Link to this

Zack, I hate to burst your self-righteous bubble, but you might want to read what MIT posted a few minutes ago. Also, you claim to be familiar with the Bible; how can you overlook the many instances of pre/extra marital sex chronicled??? By the way, I got such a kick out of you touting Christianity as a religion of unconditional love (TRUE Christians practice that, yes) out of one side of your mouth & then out of the other side, you praised Michael Jordan for making a disgusting, racist remark (although, yes, I agree the way he was treated at that country club was despicable). As for me supporting anything non-Christian, no, that is NOT true. I certainly did not think 911 was a good or admirable thing. Far from it.

By Akeya

December 14, 2004 02:12 PM | Link to this

RS-

It just seems logical to include everyone so that no one will feel left out, betrayed, etc…

There I go living in that dream world again!

By Texas

December 14, 2004 02:15 PM | Link to this

I’m sooooo confused! I went back and read a lot of ya’ll’s POSTS. Most all support Christian References in School. The conservative posts never once mention excluding anything. The Liberal post support Inclusivness. We’re all saying the same thing. Except a few. In fact, Dane states his event went off perfectly and he said they had a Nativity Scene. But soon after, the next few post ignored the fact that they had a Nativity Scene and we went back to condemning each other. What’s wrong with us? Are we just chooseing and picking words instead of what people are really saying? (I’m guilty of that too). I believe this is blown way out if proportion. It’s just a few isolated schools and communities which need their people to get involved and fix their paticular issues.

By RS

December 14, 2004 02:26 PM | Link to this

I think anyone, myself included, who believes all groups should be treated fairly & equally is living in a dream world. Supposedly we’re living in such enlightened times but I don’t see it. I’d LOVE to see a forum dealing with how disabled/disfigured people are treated, as that is one of my “sacred cows” but I doubt that’ll happen as that is one group everyone seems to love to hate.

By mit

December 14, 2004 02:26 PM | Link to this

akeya, its funny that i don’t here anyone else (muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc) carrying on about schools and holidays. i have never heard someone mad about the school not celebrating the changing of seasons or the phases of moon. why is everyone mad now about schools not doing christmas stuff, when in reality the school made the decision not the ‘left’government, i don’t recall anyone going school to school saying you can’t do it. so why all the hoopla now? i don’t think a school should celebrate anything, its freakin’ school, if they do a play it should be by a real playwright, and if you want to see a nativity scene you can go ride by that church on the corner of clarimont and north druid. they go all out! public schools have been really getting on my nerves these days, did you hear about that girl getting expelled for having scissors!! get real, how is the arts and crafts class suppose to work or has that been cut out of the budget along with PE. now we can have a school full of non creative fatsos. good plan!

By Akeya

December 14, 2004 02:37 PM | Link to this

Mit,

I can see your point that the school should stick to academics, but I wouldn’t mind my son learning about several different religious holidays as opposed to learning about just one.

RS- I would love to see forums about such issues.

But, since we are Diane’s and Shaunti’s entertainment, we’ll not see forums that don’t cause some sort of political upheaval…

By RS

December 14, 2004 02:37 PM | Link to this

MIT, yes, I heard about the female student being expelled for having scissors in school. I also heard similar ridiculous tales, including one about a student getting in trouble for bringing prepackaged cups of jello for dessert in case (get THIS!) it was really jello SHOTS, as opposed to plain ole jello! My goodness. Really, I don’t see the harm at all of allowing religious/symbols in the classroom, in theory, as long as all faiths IN the class are equally & fairly represented. It’s when one group is pandered to & everyone else ignored that I have issues.

By JohnR

December 14, 2004 02:37 PM | Link to this

Akeya-

Certainly there’s nothing wrong with trying to include everyone, and I believe that this is done, for the most part. I have to agree with Texas that the thread of most posts on this particular forum generally line up with that point of view. There are extreme readings by certain administrators of what constitutes church-state seperation, but honestly from where it was when I was in the public schools 30 years ago, things have come a long way.

Ultimately, recognizing the religious aspects of Christmas in schools is a harmless thing so long as the school does not mandate a particular point of view about it one way or the other. Certainly singing Christmas carols, and making decorations for the Christmas tree in the third grade had no lasting affect on my worldview, or spiritual direction. Mostly it was a real kick, and it beat studying. People on both sides should lighten up.

By RS

December 14, 2004 02:41 PM | Link to this

Akeya: Ha! With all the hotheads on this board & I include myself, ANY discussion could very well turn into a political upheaval!

By RS

December 14, 2004 02:46 PM | Link to this

John R, one factor is the spirit (no pun intended) in which any given teacher presents Christmas symbols, carols, decorations etc. It can be done sensitively or in a way in which hurts/offends non-Christian students. Yes, a nice way of dealing with this issue in the classroom is to give equal time to the various faiths of ALL the students in said class; anyone see a problem with that? And no, I’m not being combatative, just curious.

By Akeya

December 14, 2004 02:53 PM | Link to this

Next Week’s topic:

How can red states avoid references to virginity and African-American students when talking about chocolate covered cherries?

By JohnR

December 14, 2004 02:56 PM | Link to this

RS- Yes i suppose that could be a problem, but I imagine that any teacher that started prostelytizing would eventually get reported. And indeed, any other religion that celebrates a holiday around the same time should certainly be included.

By RS

December 14, 2004 02:57 PM | Link to this

Akeya’s tongue-in-cheek comment about chocolate-covered cherries had me convulsed with laughter, but all kidding aside, I DO see things getting to that point!

By RS

December 14, 2004 03:04 PM | Link to this

John R: I imagine that such a teacher WOULD eventually get reported but the climate of that particular school board’s administration would have a hand in determining the outcome & unfortunately, this could all very well happen AFTER the fact (i.e. after some of the students were made to feel hurt & shunted aside.

By Tim

December 14, 2004 03:05 PM | Link to this

Akeya~ that is a serious problem that we must find an answer to :)

that was too funny!

By Akeya

December 14, 2004 03:14 PM | Link to this

RS, Tim-

Sometimes I think they come up with this stuff to keep us pitted against each other.

Sometimes I do rather enjoy the goings-on here…

By Shaunti

December 14, 2004 03:21 PM | Link to this

Akeya & Co.

Well, Diane is on a much-needed vacation but since I couldn’t find a way to escape, you guys definitely are doing a good job of providing my Christmas entertainment!

And by the way — if you have nicely upheaval-oriented column ideas, toss ‘em out there. I’ll be sure to check the posts the rest of the day.

By lozen

December 14, 2004 03:22 PM | Link to this

I loved the chocolate covered cherries question.. I can’t remember if it was Randy or Zane who claimed in previous posts that Anthony Flew had become a believer after years of being an atheist. Not true. He’s still an atheist. Here’s what he said in response to being asked if he now believes in god, “I do not think I will ever make that assertion, precisely because any assertion which I am prepared to make about God would not be about a God in that sense … I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations.” And to say “We christians have proven to you beyond a doubt but you reject it,” is so crazy. Just because you say something does not make it true.

By JohnR

December 14, 2004 03:26 PM | Link to this

RS- Well… What can I say to that? I suppose that could happen.

By RS

December 14, 2004 03:31 PM | Link to this

Well, Lozen, some people do really feel that if they believe something, or, more to the point, if they’ve allowed themselves to be brainwashed into “believing”(?!?) something, then by golly, it must be true! Shaunti, thanks for acknowledging any feedback. For starters, how about the topic Akeya & I touched on about how the physically disadvantaged are treated; is it right or wrong? Should there be an alternative & do said afflicted women have it harder than similarly afflicted men?

By RS

December 14, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this

John R: Oh well that’s another can of worms altogether, about how school administrators should keep on top of goings-on in order to avert mishaps & even tragedy (remember Columbine?)

By Akeya

December 14, 2004 03:36 PM | Link to this

Shaunti!

Great to finally hear from you! :)

I would absolutely LOVE to talk about the welfare state and what you and Diane’s opinions!

Since I’m a social services worker, I am particularly interested in these issues.

I’m way past bored with the religous/abortion/homosexual topics…

By Akeya

December 14, 2004 03:41 PM | Link to this

er…sorry for the grammatical and spelling errors there…

By Shaunti

December 14, 2004 04:30 PM | Link to this

Akeya and RS,

Forgive me, but in the looooong string of posts I can’t find the ones you mentioned, on the topic of the physically disabled. Can you give me a date/time stamp for that section of posts, so I can find it? Also, Akeya, what about the ‘welfare state’ specifically are you interested in hearing us debate?

There used to be a ‘suggestion box’ section on the Woman to Woman site to capture these kinds of ideas… I don’t see it anymore, so my fumbling attempts will have to do.

By Shaunti

December 14, 2004 04:34 PM | Link to this

• this may be a duplicate post; the server is having problems…*

Akeya and RS,

Forgive me, but in the looong string of posts I couldn’t find the ones you mentioned, about the physically disabled. Could you give me a date/time stamp for that section of posts? Also, Akeya, what about the ‘welfare state’ were you interested in having us debate?

There used to be a ‘suggestion box’ on the Woman to Woman site to capture these sorts of ideas, but I don’t see it anymore so I guess my fumbling attempts will have to do…

By RS

December 14, 2004 04:40 PM | Link to this

Thanks again, Shaunti, for your interest in reader/participant feedback. My suggestion was posted today 12/14 at 3:26pm, if that helps.

By Akeya

December 14, 2004 04:40 PM | Link to this

Shaunti-

Well, I’m interested in people’s opinions of our current welfare system, what people call “welfare” and if people believe that the welfare system is a hindrance or beneficial. When I speak of welfare, I mean food stamps, TANF, medicaid… Whew! There’s so mych to that one topic. I really just want to know you and Diane’s opinions about these programs and what they mean.

Also, the topic about physically disabled was mentioned very briefly by RS.

Here’s a copy of it:

“By RS

December 14, 2004 02:26 PM | Link to this

I think anyone, myself included, who believes all groups should be treated fairly & equally is living in a dream world. Supposedly we’re living in such enlightened times but I don’t see it. I’d LOVE to see a forum dealing with how disabled/disfigured people are treated, as that is one of my “sacred cowsâ€? but I doubt that’ll happen as that is one group everyone seems to love to hate.”

Also, maybe some topics on the differences in cultures and effects on American society…

By norman

December 14, 2004 04:44 PM | Link to this

As I recall that public schools and holidays is the topic I recall also that Georgia Public Radio this morning had a story about how poorly equipped Georgia schools are for the influx of Hispanic children. Give us a break! Integration destroyed the public school system for blacks and whites alike and there is little hope Hispanics will even get the terrible education those in public schools now get. I’d advise Hispanics: go elsewhere or your kids will never get an education unless you can pay for it, as a large percentage of whites are forced now to do.

Schools do not have the time to discuss Christmas and Hanukkah and Kwanza — nor will they be able to discuss Our Lady of Guadelupe. They cannot even teach reading, arithmetic, and writing.

By Akeya

December 14, 2004 04:45 PM | Link to this

Have to go…

will respond tomorrow.

Thanks, Shaunti, for acknowledging our pleas for topics!:)

By RS

December 14, 2004 04:47 PM | Link to this

Thanks for your help, Akeya! Shaunti, here is the addition to what Akeya provided: “For starters, how about the topic Akeya & I touched on about how the physically disadvantaged are treated; is it right or wrong? Should there be an alternative & do said afflicted women have it harder than similarly afflicted men?”

By Tim

December 15, 2004 09:12 AM | Link to this

Shaunti… I too have an interest that I would like brought up on your column… during this week Atlanta Police Officers went into a midtown bar and shut down a show called ‘Naked Boys Singing’ sighting that it was pornographic and the bar was not allowed to show it… I would like to discuss what should be deemed pornography and what should be looked upon as art… I would like to thank you and Diane of the column… I always have something to think about :)

By Randy

December 15, 2004 09:36 AM | Link to this

I want to congradulate my fellow Christians, you guys are great. Boscoe, your knowledge is unbelievable, Bob and Texas your heart felt posts would make anyone I know come to Christ, Chuck and Zack you guys are great and very informing and everyone else who has made a post favorable to Christ. After offering the proof and insight you all have posted, anyone who hasn’t felt the presence of Jesus, just doesn’t want to know. A word of encouragement, 75 years ago my mothers family was unchurched, the pastor of the local church went by my grandmothers house each sunday on his way to preach. He would ask my grandmother each sunday to “come join us at church”, she would say “no thanks” and did for several years. One sunday he asked her and she said “no thanks” and he said “you sure are waiting a long time”. She got under conviction(only a christian will know what this means)and to make a long story short, lead her whole family to the lord. That’s 8 children, husband, probably 150 grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Everyone in my family has accepted Christ, the last one did it a year or two ago, as he was going in for heart surgery and said “he needed to stop playing this insane game” and accepted Jesus as his lord and savior. So what we need to do as Christians is be constantly doing what the lord wants us to do(spread the word), peoples hearts soften and and it can make a big difference in hundreds of people’s lives(just helping one see the light). God Bless you guys.

By norman

December 15, 2004 10:03 AM | Link to this

Randy: you keep telling us you have accepted Jesus. I am more interested in knowing whether Jesus has accepted you. I doubt it.

By Texas

December 15, 2004 10:15 AM | Link to this

Thanks Randy for your kind remarks you are right on my friend. Here’s something for all the women out there!

Women have strengths that amaze men. They carry children, they carry hardships, they carry burdens but they hold happiness, love and joy. They smile when they want to scream. They sing when they want to cry. They cry when they are happy and laugh when they are nervous.

Women wait by the phone for a “safe at home call” from a friend after a snowy drive home. Women have special qualities about them. They volunteer for good causes. They are pink ladies in hospitals, they bring food to shut ins. They are childcare workers, executives, attorneys, stay- at-home moms, biker babes and your neighbors. They wear suits, jeans, and they wear uniforms.

They fight for what they believe in. They stand up for injustice. They are in the front row at PTA meetings They vote for the person that will do the best job for family issues. They walk and talk the extra mile to get their children in the right schools and for getting their family the right healthcare. They write to the editor, their congressmen and to the “powers that be” for things that make for a better life. They don’t take “no” for an answer when they believe there is a better solution.

They stick a love note in their husband’s lunch box. They do without new shoes so their children can have them. They go to the doctor with a frightened friend. They love unconditionally.

Women are honest, loyal, and forgiving. They are smart, knowing that knowledge is power. But they still know how to use their softer side to make a point. Women want to be the best for their family, their friends, and themselves.

They cry when their children excel and cheer when their friends get awards. They are happy when they hear about a birth or a new marriage. Their hearts break when a friend dies. They have sorrow at the loss of a family member, yet they are strong when they think there is no strength left. A woman’s touch can cure any ailment.

They know that a hug and a kiss can heal a broken heart. A woman can make a romantic evening unforgettable.

Women come in all sizes, in all colors and shapes. They live in homes, apartments and cabins. They drive, fly, walk, run or e-mail you to show how much they care about you. The heart of a woman is what makes the world spin!

Women do more than just give birth. They bring joy and hope. They give compassion and ideals. They give moral support to their family and friends.

And all they want back is a hug, a smile and for you to do the same to people you come in contact with. Women have a lot to say and a lot to give.

This is a note of appreciation to some wonderful women…

[ Author Unknown — from ‘Sermon Fodder’

By RS

December 15, 2004 11:56 AM | Link to this

Texas, I have to tell you, as a woman, the ‘Sermon Fodder’ submission you posted actually brought tears to my eyes, it was so heartfelt!

By RS

December 15, 2004 12:05 PM | Link to this

Tim, great idea for a future column! Shaunti, I have a few more suggestions (I’m on a roll!) “What are the advantages & disadvantages of homeschooling?” “What should be done about bullying in schools?” “At what point should a single mom introduce her boyfriend to her still-living-at-home children?” “How do the role models for today’s kids differ from the ones we grew up with?” “How involved should we be in how our kids dress?” “Do today’s schools adequately prepare our children to live in the real world?”

By Zack

December 15, 2004 12:10 PM | Link to this

RS—Like I said, you and Norman do have very much in common: You’re both full of hatred, void of reason, and in denial. Norman has book knowledge and is good at typing enough pseudo-intellectual statements for your type to think he’s smart. As I said, you both have a huge, blatant double standard, not atypical for liberals. Akeya is right up there with both of you.

By Tim

December 15, 2004 12:22 PM | Link to this

RS~ thanks… I think a lot of people would have strong opinions on both sides (surprise surprise :)

you had some great suggestions as well :)

By RS

December 15, 2004 12:31 PM | Link to this

Zack, thanks for the compliments, I should be so lucky as to have going for me what Akeya & Norman do. Well, Tim, as always, I think you & I would be on the same page re the topic you suggested!

By RS

December 15, 2004 12:36 PM | Link to this

P.S. Zack, in reading over your post, I’m confused about something??? You accused me of being full of hate. Yet I’m the one who wants to see all religions represented in classrooms & you want to see all non-Christian religions shoved out. Now, why does that signify that I’M full of hate & YOU’RE not? Can you clarify that for me?? I mean, is it ok to hate people as long as they aren’t Christians? That’s the impression I’m getting from you.

By Zack

December 15, 2004 01:39 PM | Link to this

By the way, the remark about “chocolate-covered cherries” was about the sickest, most racially-insensitive comment I’ve heard on this blog. I wonder if an apology will be forthcoming. I doubt it. Here this person is trying to run down Republicans and in the process shows the lack of taste the left is known for. Unfortunately, the intensity of this comment has been matched and outmatched by the intensity of hateful comments against Christians. Sadly, it’s unrealistic to expect an apology for this, either.

MYTH-DISSPELLING TIME: Reminder to the world: If you oppose homosexuality and gay marriage, you’re not showing hatred. You’re not a bigot. (I would love it if liberals showed that they knew the definition of love and hatred. By their actions, they have them reversed.) Don’t live your life inhaling the fumes of liberal propaganda that are attacking our moral ozone layer.

By Zack

December 15, 2004 01:42 PM | Link to this

RS—I’m against the fact that, even though this is a Christian country—or at least was founded as one—we’ve reached the point where every other religion can overtly and unapologetically have its agenda set forth in public schools, but Christians have to raise their hand and ask permission to speak. This is not right. We need Christians to stand up and speak out against the ACLU and others.

By Tim

December 15, 2004 01:59 PM | Link to this

Zack… would you be willing to give specific examples of how other religions ‘overtly and unapologetically have its agenda set forth in public schools’

If you had actual reasons to oppose gay marriage that weren’t filled with hatred then maybe people wouldn’t think you weren’t showing hatred… what is a gay person supposed to think when people who oppose same-sex marriage compare gays and lesbians to child molestors, people who practice bestiality, or incest?

(I am not saying that you, Zack, have made these comparisons… but this is one of the first things A LOT of people throw out when they start in on gay men and women)

By Bystander

December 15, 2004 02:12 PM | Link to this

Do all of you people not have jobs, lives? Or is this forum the only thing you have to do all day long?

Tim, the world, particularly the US, will not be happy until gay people are hauled off to the gas chambers.

By lozen

December 15, 2004 02:16 PM | Link to this

Tim, don’t expect answers to your questions from Randy. He isn’t really taking part in a “dialogue”. He’s conducting a monologue. He says abortion is murder and we all know murder is wrong but I asked what he thinks about innocent women and children being murdered in Iraq and the death penalty and he never answered.

By Akeya

December 15, 2004 02:28 PM | Link to this

sigh

First of all, Zacky, the comment was supposed to be ridiculous.

You’re so busy hating me that you can’t even see that. You don’t know anything about me to judge. You are the saddest person in this forum. You cannot leave well enough alone.

You think that you will get into heaven by teling anyone who does not believe you that they will go to hell.

I guess we’ll see you there.

I haven’t made any comments to you, or any hateful comments for that matter, yet you continue to bring my name up.

No, I will not apologize for the comment because it was meant the way that I intended.

You should be apologizing to me for being as nasty and hateful as you are.

Do you have a crush on me or something? Why do you insist on goading me?

By mit

December 15, 2004 03:04 PM | Link to this

stop saying ‘this country was founded on the bible’ because it wasn’t. this region was taken by people who used the bible. and they used it in a bad way. they used it to force convert and destory the people who already lived here, mainly in south america anyway. the america we know today fought for independence from england because of taxes and they were treated as ugly step-children, nothing biblical. yes some people were running from the church of england but they didn’t make up this entire land and they didn’t start the revolution. to think that the writers of the constitution only intended freedom of religion to be for christians insults their intelligence. the other world religions are not new, and most are older than christianity. if you want to go back in time and live more biblically become amish. ooh, but i bet you’ll miss your tv.

By Dane

December 15, 2004 03:15 PM | Link to this

Akeya! No you didn’t!

I thought I’d spit my Vanilla Coke all over my screen when I was reading back over the last couple of day’s posts!

By Akeya

December 15, 2004 03:20 PM | Link to this

Dane-

Oh didn’t I?:)

By RS

December 15, 2004 03:24 PM | Link to this

Oooh, Zacky-poo, you need to get out a little more! Haven’t you noticed the malls, schools, downtown areas, etc are absolutely festooned with Christmasobilia but there’s nary a Menorah, Star of David etc to be seen? The “chocolate-covered cherries” remark was made BY an African-American lady who has a sense of humour & the ability to laugh at herself, 2 gifts that you, sadly, lack. Very typical of you Bible-thumpers that insist on taking yourselves so seriously. Now, if you’re against a group of people for what they are (yes, gay people are born gay, just the way you & I were born straight), plus you compare them to vile, dangerous perverts, don’t you think that smacks of hatred & bigotry? Uh, noooo, Akeya, I highly doubt you’ll ever get an apology from Zack. I just checked the weather report & thus far, Hell shows no signs of freezing over. When that changes, maybe then you’ll get your apology

By Akeya

December 15, 2004 03:33 PM | Link to this

Alas, RS-

What shall I do without an apology from Zack?

I shall just as soon lie down among the wolves, for I am not worthy of his praise…

Woe is me!

By Dane

December 15, 2004 03:40 PM | Link to this

You know, I honestly think that most of the posters on this forum don’t really read the posts unless a post is from somoeone with whom they are having a posting-battle with. I write my posts from real, everyday, public school classroom experience. Not from some office at an insurance or banking firm, but from interacting with literally thousands of kids a day, and from dealing with their parents and other guardians.

There are kids in my school who have kids. So much for the “abstinence pledge.” There are kids in my school who are gay, and there are Muslims, and Hindus, and Buddhists. There are Wiccans and Goths, and skate board kids, and kids who drive slammed Honda Civics and kids with “Jesus Fish” on the backs of their lifted F-150’s right next to their Confederate flags and “W ‘04” stickers.

There is a cross-section of the diverse population of this state—- indeed, of this entire nation, right here in this North Atlanta suburban high school in which I teach. There was plenty ‘o religious reference last Friday night when my concert band and choir performed our Christmas concert, and no one batted an eye. Christmas is with a doubt a “Christian” holiday, and I most certainly celebrate it both at work and at home, but I always stress the importance of everyone’s religious beliefs and the contributions of other cultures to the betterment of American society as a whole.

By Randy

December 15, 2004 03:44 PM | Link to this

I don’t think like Zack that you all are hateful, you just don’t know.

By Randy

December 15, 2004 03:48 PM | Link to this

Dane, none of those categories of people(Gays, gothic etc) are excluded by Jesus to accept him as their lord and savior. Maybe that’s the problem, you all think you have to be a certain way to accept Jesus. He takes people like they are, with all their faults. I have many and he accepted me.

By RS

December 15, 2004 03:51 PM | Link to this

Akeya, a bunch of us are in the same boat. Zack & his ilk have managed to make insensitive, hateful comments to many of us, with nary an apology. He’s firmly convinced he’s right & we “liberals” are brain-dead morons who don’t have any idea what we’re talking about. Whatever…And do you realize that if a newly-arrived individual from a far/mid Eastern country, whose exposure to Christianity, to date, had been at best, minimal, viewed Zack’s post, this person would get the impression (understandably) that Christianity is a religion of hate? What does that tell you?

By Texas

December 15, 2004 03:57 PM | Link to this

Dane, Why is it? Why is it that when you refer to Christians you have to add a touch of bigotry? You who profess tolerance in almost all your post show very little tolerance towards Christians. Not all Christians are the same. You yourself proclaim to be a Christian. Do you have a Jesus Fish on your car with a Rainbow or a Confederate flag?

By lozen

December 15, 2004 04:12 PM | Link to this

MIT you made some good points about “this country is not founded on the bible.” This country was doing just great with Native Americans practicing their various versions of spirituality. The natives have a story, “When the missionaries came we had the land and they had the bible. They said ‘Let us close our eyes and pray.’ When we opened our eyes, they had the land and we had the bible.”

By norman

December 15, 2004 04:15 PM | Link to this

I will never forget a woman who was holding up traffic in front of a pharmacy window drive-in and I when I challenged her to get moving, she replied that she was a Christian!!! This is the stupidest but most common refrain from loosers I have found. Let’s face it, Christians are not the most fetching of people.

By mit

December 15, 2004 04:20 PM | Link to this

i have never noticed Dane’s hatred of christians, its funny how some people will read way too into comments like the chocolate covered cherries bit (very funny) and take other things at face value from people they like or agree with regardless if its factual or not. like the atheist turned christian, who actually hasn’t converted. isn’t zack the one who hates the jewish hollywoods, and then he says the CCC bit is racially insensitive. let me find his quote: the sick Jewish propaganda…out of hollywood.

zack, your funny

By Randy

December 15, 2004 04:20 PM | Link to this

Norman, We Christians are feeling your love.

By Akeya

December 15, 2004 04:29 PM | Link to this

Mit and RS-

Thanks to you both for understanding the meaning of the comment and not blowing it out of proportion.

By Texas

December 15, 2004 04:36 PM | Link to this

Mit, I did not say hatred.

Yes, Indeed, it is funny how people read way too much into comments like:

“Jesus Fishâ€? on the backs of their lifted F-150’s right next to their Confederate flags and “W ‘04â€? stickers.”

If no bigotry was meant, why didn’t he just refer to F150 with Jesus Fish and others with Confederate flags if he did not intend to take a blow at Christains.

In addition, he takes another stab at “So much for the “abstinence pledge.â€?

Condoms or birth control didn’t do the job either. But no intolerance meant, right?

I guess you just can’t see that.

By Dane

December 15, 2004 04:40 PM | Link to this

Texas, dear, I was actually listing what I was seeing throught the window of my office out in the student parking lot! There is no bigotry there, save from the reader.

By RS

December 15, 2004 04:46 PM | Link to this

Well, Akeya, I (& mit, Lozen, Norman, yourself, Tim, Dane etc)are more likely to see & appreciate tongue-in-cheek humour because a) We’ve had lots of practice doing our own thinking as opposed to having the church do it for us & b)we actually HAVE a sense of humour

By Texas

December 15, 2004 04:57 PM | Link to this

Dear Dane,

When you where looking out the window did you see any other car with a Jesus Fish, or is it only on Trucks with Confederate Flags? Could you have left the flag off, or was your intent to take a blow at the Christains who voted on the amendment?

Why the ding with “So much for the “abstinence pledge.â€?

Isn’t it a blessing that the student had the child instead of having an abortion.

Abstinence would have prevented the pregnancy. It’s not the pledge that didn’t work, it was not holding to the pledge that failed.

Does your school give out condoms? Does your school educate girls on Birth Control? Did these preventative measures work? Or was the blame solely on the “abstinence pledge?�

Tolerance is a two way street. Practice what you preach my friend.

By Tim

December 15, 2004 04:57 PM | Link to this

RS~ I just know that God gave me a brain so I can actually think for myself and be a Christian and find something like what Akeya said amusing (knowing that is how she meant it… if she had meant it to be rude and crude then I would have been offended… but I knew how she meant it)

By Randy

December 16, 2004 08:50 AM | Link to this

QUESTION OF THE DAY, Everyone keeps talking about how the phrase or meaning “Separation of Church and State” is in the founding documents(constitution, bill of rights etc.) I can’t find that statement or anything that is close to that meaning anywhere. Only saw something to the effect of “No national Church”. When our founding fathers etc. came to america it was to get away from the one church that they made you go to “the church of England”. Somebody help me, everybody talks about separation of Church and State and I can’t find where our founding fathers meant that at all and certainly nothing about freedom “from” religion? Thanks for everybodys help.

By norman

December 16, 2004 10:22 AM | Link to this

The Federal Constitution made the USA the first state to ban an established church. Established churches continued in several of the states until the 1820’s. The first country to specifically separate church and state in so many words was France, in the later decade of the French Revolution. We Americans should be proud that our Republic since it was refounded in 1789 has not had an established church. (of course, down here in Dixie the Baptist Church has been established in all but name for a long time.)

By JohnR

December 16, 2004 10:50 AM | Link to this

Yes, I’m sure that the native Americans, and indigenous peoples all over the world can take immense satisfaction in the fact that even though they lost their land, culture, and birthright they have Jesus.

There pretty much isn’t anyone posting on this forum who is not guilty of intolerance in some form or another. I find it humorous to read these posts where each side banters back and forth about who the biggest playa’ hater is, when the answer is pretty much whomever is typing.

By RS

December 16, 2004 10:51 AM | Link to this

Tim-That’s EXACTLY what I was referring to, re your feedback on Akeya’s “chocolate covered cherry” quip, but unfortunately, Zack & those like him will never get it. Sad…

By Akeya

December 16, 2004 10:52 AM | Link to this

My question is, why are we still using the Founding Fathers to uphold or abolish certain principles?

That was hundreds of years ago!!

Can we please step into the 21st century?

By norman

December 16, 2004 11:10 AM | Link to this

Akeya: it is good to refer to the founding fathers, that is the very principle of constitutional construction. We are lucky, however, that they were an unusually enlightened and tolerant bunch. Had they been Christians we’d be in real trouble.

By Texas

December 16, 2004 11:29 AM | Link to this

JohnR It is accurately said that it is easy to be an angel when nobody ruffles your feathers. But it seems that feather rufflers will always be around.

We’re told that 19th Century German statesman Prince Otto von Bismarck once became so incensed at the criticism of a professor (he must have ruffled the prince’s feathers), that he challenged him to a duel. Protocol had it that the one challenged was to have the choice of weapons.

The professor made his choice… sausages! He sent word to Bismarck, along with a pair of sausages, that one sausage was safe to eat. The other had been poisoned with trichinae, which would cause a slow and lingering death, or at least long invalidism. He informed the prince that he should choose which sausage to eat and said he would eat the other one.

Bismarck reasoned that a man might die with some sort of honor on a dueling field, but never by food poisoning. He sent the message back, “His highness has destroyed the sausages and asks that you be his guest at dinner this evening. After due consideration he feels he may have been slightly in error. He believes an agreement can be reached.”

One of the most important trips a person ever takes is “to meet someone halfway.” Bismarck met his adversary halfway and chose to bring something useful from his conflict.

When others ruffle our feathers, we always have a choice. We can meet them on the dueling field, where one will clearly win and the other will lose, or we can meet them halfway. Even armed only with words, we can seek to hurt or we can seek a solution.

The choice we make will make all the difference

By Randy

December 16, 2004 01:44 PM | Link to this

Banning a established church(I would be against that) is a far cry from separation of church and state. I still can’t find anything in any document on separating the state from the church. Is this a total misunderstanding? Looks like giving someone a inch and them taking a mile.

By mit

December 16, 2004 01:47 PM | Link to this

tex, I see what you are saying about the fish and fords comment dane made but I took that as a jab or poke at rednecks and not christians. and in no way did it come across to me as bigotry. i said hatred in my post because i define it like this. a bigot is a person, hatred is what they say. so when you called dane a bigot then he must be saying hateful things…so your comment of “added touch of bigotry” said to me he speaks hate. which i didn’t agree with you on that one. i poke at groups too, i don’t consider myself a bigot by any means but i am intolerant of many things (like johnR says).

By Randy

December 16, 2004 01:51 PM | Link to this

I just drove 2 and 1/2 miles from my house, I passed 13 churches, last week I got to church 5 minutes late and barely found a seat(in a 13 hundred seat church). This was the second service of the day, the usher told me the first service was also packed. All these churches are Christian(mainly Baptist and Methodist). The ones of you who don’t attend church, must feel very lonely!

By mit

December 16, 2004 02:02 PM | Link to this

randy, Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731). NOte the date: 1789, way before jefferson’s letter in 1802 about the exact same thing.

the 1st amendment which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…which means that the government and religion are separate.

Government cannot control religion and vice versa where can you not see it?

By mit

December 16, 2004 02:13 PM | Link to this

randy, of all the people I know, i only know few that attend church on a regular basis. and of all the teaches of jesus you have read or i think you might have, you should know by now that church, just because people go, is not the way to heaven. jesus taught that the ‘church’ is everywhere and anywhere. you are not required to go to church for salvation and you are not required to give them 10% of your pay check like another church i know of.
to be mean about it, everyone who goes to church helps me get shopping and eating done alot more quickly…and the lines are not as long at six flags either (joke, which is sure to offend)

By Randy

December 16, 2004 02:15 PM | Link to this

I’m totally against the church running the government. However, I am for what makes our country strong, that’s strong families, churches, etc. The government shouldn’t deter from these just because a very small percentage of Americans don’t like church. Do it percentage wise, take a vote on who wants what. I would hate to see what the current generation would do if we had been in the “Spiritual state” we are in now, against Hitler. Thank God we were a stronger Christian nation then, or we may be speaking German right now. Auf Weidersen.

By mit

December 16, 2004 02:20 PM | Link to this

or do you mean a stronger jewish state? since hilter didn’t kill christians.

By Randy

December 16, 2004 02:24 PM | Link to this

Mit, I am totally against money being even mentioned in Church, why, because people like you use it as a objection. My brothers church has a box in the back of the church, they don’t mention money at all, you put money in if you wish. Most churches do need people to donate money, as like any place they have bills to pay. What a concept. Doesn’t the tonight show for example have commercials to pay its bills. Maybe if the electric company and the water company would give them free electric and water, they could go without a collection plate. I’m different from you, if I know 400 people closely, 395 go to church. I do live in the surburbs.

By Randy

December 16, 2004 02:26 PM | Link to this

My uncle who was a Christian, died November 6, 1944 fighting against Hitler. 50 million died and you all(non christian) think EVIL doesn”t exist.

By mit

December 16, 2004 02:34 PM | Link to this

what do you mean by…the government shouldn’t deter from these…that govt. should run churches? which one should they encourage me to go to? is it going to change every four to eight years which church we go to?

what i believe makes this country strong is not family or church, its the ability of everyone(almost) who lives in this country come together in a time of need to work as a family, like after pearl harbor, 9/11, or any other happening that put us at danger. most did not join the army to go to afghanistan but look how much money was given and help offered for the victims. if the churches on your 2.5m trip all go away tomorrow this country will not fall apart. and you already know that divorces don’t crumble a nation.

By mit

December 16, 2004 02:43 PM | Link to this

i don’t use money raising in church as a objection, i have no problem with people giving money to the church if they want to, what i have a problem with is making a mandatory 10% a year to join a church.
if you know 400 people..is that a mistype?

i had relatives die in WWII also, so what are you saying? hilter did bad things (evil, bad, same thing) he was not the antichrist though. just a bad person or rather a crazy person. jeffery dalmer was a bad person too but he accepted jesus before we executed him so he’s in heaven now.

By Randy

December 16, 2004 03:02 PM | Link to this

I think whatever the government was doing 50 years ago in its relationship to Church was good, that’s why we won WWII and WWI. Because we were a strong Christian nation, now the media would report how many soldiers died today and would hender the war effort then

By RS

December 16, 2004 03:08 PM | Link to this

Randy, 1st of all, my condolences on your uncle’s death, even though it happened so many years ago. My feeling is that even had he not been a Christian, he’d still be deserving of going to Heaven because he died nobly. MIT, I couldn’t tell if you were being serious or funny but I consider both Dahmer & Hitler to have been horrendously evil; being crazy should not excuse them. Millions of innocent people still died violently because of those two. Now, here is one reason why I’m soured on organized religion (you’ll notice I said “organized religion”, NOT “God”;) precisely because of mandatory donations. We have that in my faith too. Synagogues charge hefty annual membership fees & actually sell tickets (NOT cheap by any means) for High Holy Holiday services! I’m sharing this at the risk of incurring a particularly vitriolic anti-Semitic assault from Zack! He’ll probably rub his hands together & chortle with glee upon viewing this post…

By Tim

December 16, 2004 03:08 PM | Link to this

well let’s see during the time frame mentioned we had women fighting for the right to vote… and then the Civil rights movement… these things during the time that the USA was such a ‘strong Christian nation’… makes me wonder

By RS

December 16, 2004 03:14 PM | Link to this

Yes, Tim, pre-1960s America was awash in discrimination & inequality. Judging from the hatefulness I’ve seen in this forum, I guess compassion, equality & justice are not Christian values, even though Jesus Himself lived His life according to those very “non-Christian” (?!?) values. Confused? So am I!

By norman

December 16, 2004 03:29 PM | Link to this

Few things change. O’Reilly is campaigning against an imaginary conspiracy vs. Christmas. When I was in the 7th grade many years ago the teacher told us that Xmas was a way of eliminating Christ — and hinted that merchants (Jews?) were responsible. Well we were too young to know that the X stood for Xristos, Christ, and that Christians had been using that X as a short cut for almost 2000 years.

By Randy

December 16, 2004 03:32 PM | Link to this

No one is deserving to go to heaven(not even my uncle). We all fall short, only by accepting Jesus as our lord and savior may we enter heaven. Church is like everything else, it has it faults, I overlook them. No one or nothing is perfect.

By Tim

December 16, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this

Norman, I was told the same thing as a child… guess they accidentally left the last part out

RS~ I think it is sad and unfortunate that that is how some people view Christians (seeing as I am one)… as you stated that is certainly not what Christ stood for (good observation, you sure you are Jewish :)) … but I can certainly see where they would get that perception from

By Texas

December 16, 2004 03:39 PM | Link to this

Mit, I do not wish to speak ill of anyone. If the comment was isolated, I would agree with your assessment. However, several times in the past, this exact touch of bigotry was portrayed and I can prove it. But there’s no glory in that. When one speaks of tolerance and inclusion, then speak it.

No one is guaranteed happiness. Life just gives each person time and space. It’s up to us to fill it with joy. Your religion is what you do when the sermon is over. Critism never built a house, wrote a play, composed a song, painted a picture, or improved a marriage. I believe the most important thing a father can do for his children is to love their mother. You wouldn’t be worried about what people think of you if you knew how seldom they actually do.

I am a firm believer in Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

By RS

December 16, 2004 03:45 PM | Link to this

Tim, I KNOW the fundies would strongly disagree, but YOU are one of the truest Christians on this forum because you do have those Christ-like values (compassion & tolerance) It’s a shame some people have to ruin it for the rest of you. Yep, I’m sure I’m Jewish. Don’t believe me? Well you need to try my chicken soup! (LOL)

By mit

December 16, 2004 03:45 PM | Link to this

RS, i was serious.

hitler was crazy, no normal sane individual would do such bad things. i am not saying he can plead innocent by insanity though. Dalmer was crazy in the same sense, but i was just making the comparison that hitler is viewed as the antichrist and dalmer is supposedly in heaven because (and as Randy states) he accepted jesus before execution so he was saved and went to heaven. in my reality, if there is a heaven neither would be in it no matter if they are saved or not. but that is not the reality of the church.

By Akeya

December 16, 2004 03:50 PM | Link to this

We win wars because we have lots of money to purchase WMDs and the like, not because we’re a strong Christian nation…

By Your Wrong

December 16, 2004 03:52 PM | Link to this

Jeffry Dalmer (spelling ??) was beaten to death by another inmate.

By Tim

December 16, 2004 03:55 PM | Link to this

RS~ I will have to try the chicken soup sometime just to make sure :) there is a lady in my office that brought in some left overs from her Hanukkah dinner… I did enjoy that… she called it her ‘Jew food’… I am sure your ‘Jew food’ is good too :)

(sounds like a good title for a cooking show :)

By mit

December 16, 2004 03:59 PM | Link to this

texas, i don’t understand what you are trying to say. but there is glory in proving someone wrong with facts. i know some who would enjoy it done to darwin.

Are those proverbs? i have a problem with one of them: criticism doesn’t make things (like you stated) but it does make things better, like the improved marriage one. you must except criticism in order to improve upon something. that makes it a good thing.

By RS

December 16, 2004 04:00 PM | Link to this

MIT, now that I know you were serious, I’m in perfect agreement. Yeah I seem to remember now that Dahmer was killed by another inmate. Personally I couldn’t give a rat’s happy tail how he died, the important thing is, he’ll never murder another innocent child. Yes, Akeya, that IS the reason we’ve won wars. Look at some of the non-Christian nations that are still going strong after all these years.

By mit

December 16, 2004 04:02 PM | Link to this

your wrong,

your right! he was beaten to death. he was saved in jail though.

By RS

December 16, 2004 04:05 PM | Link to this

Tim, we sometimes call chicken soup “Jewish penicillin”. Funny you should mention the term “Jew food”. Years ago, the kosher foods section in some supermarkets was labeled “Jew Foods”. Let’s see….what’s on my grocery list. Hmmm, dog food, cat food, Jew food….Get my meaning?

By Dane

December 16, 2004 04:33 PM | Link to this

MIT got my comment right, the one about the fish and Fords. Ford’s festooned with fish and flags generally seem to have very narrow-minded rednecks as drivers.

Simple observation. While “Eve Was Framed” as a bumper sticker tells me someone is pretty broad minded and probably very cool.

By Randy

December 16, 2004 04:40 PM | Link to this

I’m going to agree that Tim is one of the strongest Christians on this forum. He’s seems to have a good heart.

By Randy

December 16, 2004 04:43 PM | Link to this

RS, What non-Christian nations are you talking about?

By Dane

December 16, 2004 04:43 PM | Link to this

Today is the last day of school for the students in my neck of the woods, and my partner and I are headed out of town for Christmas in the morning, and to do some skiing at Snowshoe in West Virginia.

I wish you all the best, and I probably will not be back to post for a week or so. Happy Hannkwanzmas everybody!

By Tim

December 16, 2004 04:49 PM | Link to this

Randy, Thank you… that means a lot

Dane, have a wonderful holiday… and be safe… stick to the bunny slopes :)

By Tim

December 16, 2004 04:51 PM | Link to this

RS~ I got ya… now just waiting on the chicken soup :)

By Steven

December 16, 2004 04:51 PM | Link to this

I’m wayyyyy behind in this conversation, but just wanted to take a second to wish Dane and his partner a Happy Anniversary and many more!! You go, boys!

By Dane

December 16, 2004 04:54 PM | Link to this

Thanks Tim, and Randy’s right!

RS, Akeya, MIT, Randy, Texas, norman, and anyone I’m forgetting, you all have the best holiday you can, and recieve all the blessings possible, and I’ll “see” all you when I return to discuss whatever the next topic may be!

Peace to all!

By Akeya

December 17, 2004 08:05 AM | Link to this

This is probably a bit late but,

Have a wonderful vacation, Dane!

By RS

December 17, 2004 08:57 AM | Link to this

Whoops, I “missed” some of this, I left the office right after my last post yesterday. Dane, have a WONDERFUL time & happy holidays! Randy, what you said to Tim was extremely classy & I mean that sincerely. Oh, glad you asked (about non-Christian nations). Well, the 1st one that pops into my mind is Israel, no surprise there. Amazingly, they’ve stuck it out despite years of many many odds. And look at all the Oriental & Middle Eastern countries, also India (Buddhist, Muslim/Islamic & Hindu) that have been around for ages. Well, this is my token “nice” post for the day; expect me to revert to my usual combatative self (JUST KIDDING!!!)

By mit

December 17, 2004 09:42 AM | Link to this

RS, or more simply, every country that isn’t an offshoot of a eastern european country. that makes…alot.

By mit

December 17, 2004 12:20 PM | Link to this

Yes & that’s something rabid Christians need to look at

By lozen

December 17, 2004 12:51 PM | Link to this

Randy’s two posts yesterday were instructive. In the first he sounds so afraid christianity is going to be banned. In the second he talks about passing 13 churches in 2 1/2 miles and how his church is packed on Sun. morning. Is there something obvious here? I don’t go to church and I’m not lonely on Sun. morning. I have a deep peace in my heart and my relationship with the Great Spirit is with me always. I have wonderful neighbors, family, co-workers and friends. I don’t need to listen to someone tell me how worthless and sinful I am for 45 minutes on Sunday morning because it is not true. I was not born in sin and neither were you! We were born innocent children and blank slates for the most part. If we become evil there are many to share in the blame for that. Until we realize that evil is created by many factors (family, culture, lack of education, lack of opportunity, etc) we will never understand or destroy evil. But it is our responsibility as humans to find the causes of evil and do something about it. As long as we expect big daddy in the sky to do it, we will not be fully adult humans.

By Tim

December 17, 2004 01:19 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I agree with a lot of things that you usually say… and again I agree that I would not want to go to a church and sit there for 45 minutes and listen to how worthless and sinful I am (but I did grow up pentecostal… our sermons like that usually lasted at least 2 hours!) BUT I hope that you do not lump every church into that same category! There are plenty of churches who do not preach about how aweful people are Sunday after Sunday… when I was 18 I left the church I was raised in (it was a family church that my family started going to when my grandmother was 3 years old)… it was a very hard decision… but unforntunately I was tired of all of those sermons telling me what an aweful person I (and everyone else) was… so I did leave and found an INCREDIBLE church that made me feel so excited about being a Christian again… every Sunday I left just so excited about being a Christian (I no longer attend that church because it is in Orlando and I now live in Atlanta)… I remember after Sept 11 there were a number of ministers who were preaching about how that was God’s punishment for our country… the title of the sermon at the church I attended was ‘God didn’t do it but he sho will use it!’

so just so you know… not all churches are out to beat you into the ground

By Bob Swygert

December 17, 2004 01:34 PM | Link to this

Lozen…

I really have nothing to tell you. You are totally self-sufficient. Life is good and you don’t need anything. Okay. That’s fine. I hope you will always be so.

I do find it very interesting that conspicuously absent from your list of the “causes of evil” is any personal responsibility. That was just an oversight on your part? Or do you feel that if someone does evil then family/culture/society/ everybody else but me is to blame?

Since we are all born with a blank slate and born good, how is it that a very young child will disobey his/her parents? Break things, etc? Since the parents presumably did not teach that child to disobey them, exactly where did he learn it? just some food for thought.

By Zack

December 17, 2004 02:06 PM | Link to this

RS—I “got” Akeya’s little “joke.” You said I didn’t. I don’t know if you’re referring to her actual “joke” or her alleged right to say it since she’s black, but in either case, as usual, you’re wrong. What are you going to do now? Call me anti-Semitic because I refuted you? Please. As for the “joke”, it’s sleazy and vulgar, two adjectives that describe you at times.

So much to say to so many people in so little time. I’m coming back to you, RS, not that anything you say deserves a response but because your sheer hypocrisy is hard to ignore.

Norman—Can you go two posts in a row without trying to insult Christians (“trying” being the key word)? You’re about the biggest bigot I’ve ever known of. You never did tell me if you’re the same person by your name who took a shot at the black community, but it wouldn’t surprise me. At least you quit e-mailing me and using all kinds of vulgar language like you had been doing.

So, you yelled at a woman who supposedly was taking too much time for you at the pharmacy drive-thru, huh? Did it ever occur to you that maybe she was in poor health and couldn’t move faster? Could you not have done the unthinkable and parked your car and walked in? I’m so sick of the attacks on Christians nowadays. These attacks come from all over the place. When watching the news the other night, there were people complaining about intelligent design being referred to in a textbook. Someone said it was Creationism in disguise—as if that’s a bad thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (RS, if you want me to respect your posts at all, say something to Norman the next time he shows his bigotry against Christians, that is, if you’re not too busy doing so yourself.)

Actually, it IS. Creationism should not be in disguise. It should be open and unapologetically open, the ACLU’s whims on it notwithstanding.

RS—You were angered by my statement about “…sick Jewish propaganda” in Hollywood. Get over it. You want an apology for this? Forget it. I don’t apologize when I’m right. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with what I said. I didn’t attack Jewish people; I attacked the propaganda in the filmmaking—and there’s a lot of it. I’m so sick and tired of the bias against Christians in so many movies with Jewish directors.

You dared to say that “The Last Temptation of Christ” and “The Passion of the Christ” were essentially on the same level, just with two different sides opposing and attacking the other. My, what a twisted comment. The former was a fictional movie intended to attack Jesus. The latter was 100% historically accurate. Don’t try to link the two, my friend. However, your statement doesn’t surprise me, especially since it came from the same person who said that our founding fathers shouldn’t be mentioned because that was hundreds of years ago. (THIS kind of comment shows that our educational system is not working.)

You like to point the finger at those who disagree with you and try to accuse them of being against Jews. Kinda ironic how you NEVER refute Norman for his overt bigotry against Christians. No, you’re just the kind who welcomes his statements with open arms. I guess you’ll just continue trying to attack others, as opposed to making valid statements on your own. One thing that people in your shoes do is, knowing that they have no leg to stand on, they try to trip those who do.

This country was founded upon the Bible. I’m tired of the fact that Christians today are treated with overt bigotry and a twisted interpretation of the law, thanks to people like Norman, Akeya, yourself, and the ACLU speaking up. Thankfully, most people in our country don’t think as you do, but unfortunately, your type speaks up more.

As for abstinence not being an effective means of education, again, this is a ridiculous comment at best, something I’d fully expect from someone who believes evolution should be in schools—although there’s no evidence to support it—that “safe sex” should be in schools, although evidence is highly stacked against it, that abstinence should NOT be in schools, although there’s no evidence against it, and that your sexual orientation is out of your control, although people do have orientation changes.

At least you people went home disappointed on election night. Take that, Michael Moore crowd! Take that, bigots! (This isn’t to say Bush doesn’t have his flaws, but at least he’s not a bigot against Christians, like the Moore crowd is, and at least he’s not wanting to forget the principles this country was founded upon.)

By Tim

December 17, 2004 02:21 PM | Link to this

Zack~

just curious… can you personally change your sexual orientation back and forth?

By Tim

December 17, 2004 02:25 PM | Link to this

sorry… my post did not fully show up

sexual orientation- The direction of one’s sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces (The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary)