AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > December > 13 > Entry
Should cities such as Chicago restrict the Nativity from being shown or re-enacted at public Christmas festivals?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Imagine a city Christmas festival where Joseph leads Mary, on a donkey, in a triumphant procession of carolers down to city square. This scene takes place in our aggressively secular neighbor state of Ontario, Canada, at the Christkindl Market Festival in Kitchener.
Back in our much more Christian-aware country, however, the city of Chicago decided that Chicago’s annual Christkindl Market Festival couldn’t possibly include a replay of the reason for the season, via clips from the upcoming movie The Nativity. City officials said that would be too “insensitive and offensive” to visitors of other faiths. Visitors, mind you, who were fully aware that they were going to a “Christkindl” festival: literally, “Christ Child.”
The city of Chicago does not organize the festival, but historically it is one among mostly private sponsors. The organizers, the German American Chamber of Commerce of the Midwest, this year accepted a $12,000 sponsorship from New Line Cinema, which then planned to show Nativity clips. But according to Jay Sekulow, founder of American Center for Law and Justice, the City of Chicago said that if the clips were there, city money wouldn’t be.
That decision seems foolish and even discriminatory. As new Line executive Christina Kounelias wistfully put in a recent AP story, it’s “hard to believe that non-Christians who attended something called Christkindl market would be surprised or offended by” the presence of religious-themed clips.
Some might wonder why Chicago would use public money to sponsor a Christmas (as opposed to “holiday”) festival at all. But Chicago – and other cities – use public money to sponsor all kinds of initiatives with ideological implications, including movies themselves! Chicago helps fund the Independent Film Project which helps Indy filmmakers produce and show all sorts of ideologically-diverse offerings.
Churchgoing Americans are getting tired of public and corporate money supporting a wide array of worldviews, and yet trying to exclude just theirs. A recent Rasmussen Report Poll showed that 69% of Americans prefer seasonal corporate advertisements to explicitly say ‘Merry Christmas.’
At this time of year, most people of other faiths are gracious toward those who want to unapologetically celebrate the birth of the Christ Child. Public officials could learn from their example.
Rebuttal
Are people of other faiths really “gracious” about celebrating the birth of the “Christ Child” or are they just happy to get a day off? Shaunti may not find any Buddhists complaining about getting time off on December twenty-fifth, but that’s not because they secretly want to be taxed for government-supported religious festivals. It’s because Christmas is considered a secular holiday.
Many Jews embrace the yuletide season as “a time to consider their relationship to the wider society,” reports an article in the 2004 holiday issue of Reform Judaism. The article goes on to explain: “As early as the 1870s, Christmas began to change from essentially a religious to a secular national holiday a process accelerated by commercialization and the custom of gift-giving, which over time spread from the home to the school and the workplace.”
Most American workers get December twenty-fifth off with pay, regardless of their faith. If Christmas wasn’t considered secular, there would also be time-off for Hanukkah, along with some Kwanzaa-prompted Macy coupons for one-day shopping sales. The season has morphed into a cross-cultural celebration about gift-giving, vacation time, kissing under the mistletoe and Santa Claus — not to mention, verbal gaffes at office parties.
There is a reason for the season: It’s called capitalism. The religious intent of Christmas should be reserved for private, religious functions. Otherwise, the state would be supporting the unconstitutional use of taxpayer money.
Celebrating Christ’s birth doesn’t require advertisement campaigns or a new pair of bunny slippers. And, I would add, not all Christians demand secular recognition of their personal religious beliefs. For some, the sacred is just that.
“I’m not comfortable with our sacred symbols being used for any commercial enterprise including the sale of theater tickets,” says John Buchanan, Chicago-based Pastor at the Fourth Presbyterian Church.
“Beyond that,” he adds, “I generally believe that respect for one another in this wonderfully diverse nation suggests that we not insist on displaying our particular religious symbols in public space. In fact, not only does the Constitution prohibit it, our amazing system of separating church and state has been very good for both institutions.”
Comments
By Randy
December 18, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this
Why does “JESUS” scare or bother people??? No one has a problem with any other religion. I would like to think some other people(besides Christians)get to go to heaven. However, just by peoples reaction to Jesus, tells me, that the only true religion is Christianity. Why else would it disrupt so many.
By Bill
December 18, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this
Taking “Christ” out of Christmas is Un-American. Maybe they should go to Iran and live.
By Susan
December 18, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this
I don’t get it, they say that they don’t want to insult some people, is why they don’t put up Christian symbols. So, businesses insult 85%-90% of the USA(Christians), so that 2 or 3% aren’t insulted. Doesn’t make economic sense! Where is the logic in that?
By Mara
December 18, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this
Randy, how many times does it have to be said before you understand that the actual religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with it? Using public resources to advance the narrow views of a single sectarian philosophy is not only patently unfair, it is also blatently unconstitutional. The government is NOT supposed to support ANY religious view, no matter how many (or how few) citizens subscribe to it.
That means no public resources for Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Pagans, Scientologist or anyone else. Not even Christians. THAT’S why nativities don’t belong in the Commons nor should their existance be subsidized by the State.
By Mara
December 18, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this
Yeah, Bill. Taking the establishment clause and freedom of religion out of the Constitution is un-American also. Maybe YOU should move to the theocratic state of your choice to live. Seems like you’d be more comfortable not having to deal with religious diversity and equality.
By Brian Curtis
December 18, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this
According to Randy’s logic, NAMBLA and the American Nazi Party must be on the path of righteousness… because only The Truth could offend so many people.
By 2D
December 18, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this
Mara… What exactly do the following words (the establishment clause you refer to) mean:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
What we adhere to now is what the Supreme Court has interpreted them to mean over the course of the last couple hundred years. But does that mean the Supreme Court could not alter the interpretation? Of course they can. In my opinion, they should because, also in my opinion the current climate is not what Jefferson and the Founding Fathers ever originally construed with those words.
By Lyrazel
December 18, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this
I see Christmas as a mega-shopping event that starts at Halloween and ends after January sales. Indeed the retail industry has named the day after Thanksgiving as Black Friday and I have yet to hear Christians complain about that moniker. Sales for anything are yammering at the fevered pitch and everywhere it is: BUY BUY BUY BUY MORE! THIS is Christmas in the USA and there is not one christian who can deny this mega-consumerism pervades all areas. Its a long shopping event. Gone are the reasons to go to church—here are the reasons to go to the Mall—more self-described christians go to the mall during Advent than to church. Indeed last year many mega-churches closed. I cant see this as a religious holiday anymore.
Excuse me christians—if your own church has not enough display up for you—complain. If TV does not show enough jingle junk—if the malls are not decorated to your taste—complain. The muzac in grocery, dry-cleaners, and liquor stores is enough to permeate every follicle and pore plunging many into absolute misery to endure this season of obligatory shopping. It is a holiday that makes even nice people frantic, stressed and tired by Dec. 2nd. THIS IS WHAT CHRISTMAS HAS BECOME IN THE USA—a retail event. You are obligated to get the gift—spend more than your credit card limit—buy this, that, those and yet shopping-devoted christians get their wigs in a twist if the store uses the moniker: Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.
With all the budget cuts to state resources, mental health hospitals closing, schools, the upkeep of infrastructure, pay for police, fire and emergency services—with countless homeless—why should tax dollars be spent on religious displays when there are churches in the area who can spend their funds on decorations? No government or private citizen has yet to sue a church for putting up its holiday religious displays—and THAT is where they belong—to remind the faithful that the holiday is not about shopping or spending or Santa. There are churches in every neighborhood—in every borough and every enclave of suburbia and inner cities. Decorate them.
By lovelyliz
December 18, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this
Religious displays are an all or nothing deal. You either allow any legitimate religion to display it’s icons and perform on public property or you deny all of them.
By lovelyliz
December 18, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
Religious displays and performances are an all or nothing deal. You either allow any legitimate religion to access to public property or you deny all of them.
By candide
December 18, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this
To me all the fuss about Christmas and Hannukah is hilarious. Both are bogus holidays. Christmas celebrates the fictitious birth of Jesus of Nazareth about whom the Christian churches know nothing true. Hannukah celebrates an alleged miracle to counter the modernization of fanatical Jewish extremists in the 2nd century BC. Both are ridiculous celebrations.
By Archie
December 18, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
My answer to the topic question is no. Shanti makes a point when says that public money is used to sponsor all kinds of ideological ideas that are not agreed upon by everyone. If you don’t believe, or don’t like a certain display pertaining to a religion, well, don’t go down there where it’s on display. Everybody gets offended at some point when it comes to expenditure of taxpayer money,tough. Diane does make a good point about the constitution but rules aren’t followed to the letter in government or outside of government. We really should be concerned about the lies told for this Iraq war and the taxpayer money spent for this war. No weapons of mass destruction and there were no plans for Iraq to get them. Trillions of dollars have been spent but we’re concerned about one nativity scene…
By Mara
December 18, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
2D - by publically providing resources from the common fund, does the government NOT indicate a “prefered religion” status to the majority religion, Christianity? This clear preferance seems to encourage the premise that Christianity is indeed the State-sanctioned ideal. In effect, it appears to establish Christianity as America’s religion.
By lovelyliz
December 18, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
It’s not the Nativity scene itself that creates the problem, but like with that airport-Chritmas-tree-removal-rather-than-include-a-menorah incident last week, it’s the notion that other religions with other holidays might want to be included that sends these fo0lks into a tizzy and so rather than dealing with all they choose to deal with none.
By The72John
December 18, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
Oh sure, the week before Christmas let’s get into a screaming hateful religious argument again. Thanks, no.
By Christian
December 18, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
It’s OUR Holiday, doggone it. Ours! See the words Christmas and Christian? See any similarities? OURS!
By Chilao
December 18, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Since I tend to deal honourably with my fellow humans year-round, I really don’t need a special time of year to make the effort to be nice to everyone. LOL
I thought the Chicago thing was abit bizarre, seeing as how they(Chicago) can put public funds(however covertly) to the Christmas event, just as long as they played no film-promo for the movie, The Nativity Story. I was like, HUH? It’s only a movie and it IS Christmas, after all.
Christmas will always be considered, by me at least, and this is merely my OPINION(LOL), to be a distinctly Christian holiday. Many years I can somehow avoid the exact words Merry Christmas but I HAVE been nabbed twice so far this year. C’est la vie. One was last week outside a Lebanese food store that many, right after 9/11, thought was a store of those heathens, when coming to find out they were Lebanese Christians..LOL
By 2D
December 18, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Mara… I understand your point. I guess I see the first ammendment from a different perspective.
Based on the given text, and what I’ve read about the Founding Fathers, I believe the original meaning was to prevent the government from forcing individuals to be of a certain faith and to ensure that the government allow individuals to express their faith in their own terms, even if that means to have no faith. I also believe it implicitly means that the government should not consider a person’s religious affiliation (or lack thereof) when it comes to application of the law. Having a nativity scene on public property does not infringe upon anyone’s right to belong to practice a different faith or no faith whatsoever.
If the Founding Fathers, and the early builders of this country meant to remove God from the government entirely, then we would not have the references to God and other “traditions”, like swearing people in on a Bible, present in our governmental institutions.
In the nativity example, I could argue that a nativity scene does not show a preference to one religion, rather it shows respect to the acknowledged beliefs (however strong they may be) and belief structure of nearly 90% of the population.
There are lots of folks who are passifists, who do not desire the existence of the military, and definitely do not agree with the military actions of the recent past. However, would you say we should not have publicly funded parades and gatherings on Veterans Day or Memorial Day ? I would venture a guess that the opposition to our military would be greater than those who identify themselves as non-Christians.
By Lily Toad
December 18, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
My family will be celebrating consumerism. We have Christmas trees, Christmas presents, Christmas cookies and will be listening to my mother’s Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing Christmas carols, but none of us is religious.
By The Founding Fathers
December 18, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
“In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes”
Jefferson
“To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise”
Jefferson
“There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites”
Jefferson
By Chilao
December 18, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
So the Mormon Tabernacle Choir will be singing Consumerism carols? LOL
By Chilao
December 18, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
from Encarta:
2. transitive and intransitive verb sing something joyously: to sing or call out something in a joyful and lively way (literary) example: The sun shone, and the birds were caroling.
By Jefferson
December 18, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this
“We hold these truthsto be self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” - I think I wrote this.
Do you remember that I also studied the Bible, even eliminating the parts that I found unlikely to be true.
“I am a Christian in the only sense Jesus wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his ethics, in preference to all others; ascribing to him every human excellence.” - I think I said this too.
I might not have been a Bible thumpin’ Southern Baptist, but to think I didn’t believe that Jesus was a righteous dude is a complete misconception. I just didn’t like the practices of the church institution. Not sure what that would make me today, but definitely not an atheist.
Of course, I didn’t want a strong Federal Governement either until I became President. Then I made the rules I wanted and did as I saw fit.
By Chilao
December 18, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
relevant article: Why Conservatives hate the term Happy Holidays:
http://www.slate.com/id/2155509/nav/tap1/
By The Founding Fathers
December 18, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
I might not have been a Bible thumpin’ Southern Baptist, but to think I didn’t believe that Jesus was a righteous dude is a complete misconception. I just didn’t like the practices of the church institution. Not sure what that would make me today, but definitely not an atheist.
I believe you’d find that as a man of the Enlightenment and a Deist, that you believed in a rational, non-superstitious Deity, more of an Architect than a stern and punishing Father.
You might also remember that you re-wrote the Gospels, removing all miracles attributed to Christ and leaving only his words and actions behind, and ending with his death and burial, not ressurection. Anything supernatural was eliminated.
The men who framed the Constitution were not “religious” in the way that the evangelical political right-wing would have you believe. They were rational men who embraced Deity as a concept of reason rather than as some superstitious manifestation of mumbo-jumbo. When Jefferson said “the purest religion” he was refering to its content, to the message of love and acceptance that the fundamentalists and evangelicals are working so hard to distort.
Your own post is indicative of Jefferson’s beliefs - he ascribes to Christ every human excellence, and praised not his miracles but his ethics. When he says “endowed by their Creator” he refers to the Deistic view of Creator, not the Old Testament one.
The ancillary writings of the most influential Founding Fathers clearly indicate their position on secularism and the inter-mixing of religion and government. If the world today doesn’t EXACTLY reflect what they had in mind, so what? The world is infinitely more complex than they could possibly have imagined, and institutions that existed for one purpose in their day exist for entirely different purpose today.
The town square no longer represents the central gathering place for all people, so why should it be co-opted for a Nativity scene where there are already tens upon tens of Nativity scenes lining the boulevards? When is enough recognition enough?
I’ll tell you one thing for certain - the doctrine of separation of Church and State as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court for over 100 years in varying degrees of application is far closer to the original vision of the framers of the Constitution than the vision of today’s politically active evangelicals could ever be. If Jefferson or Madison were alive today to see what some of those men and women propose, they would recognize no part of their own philosophies.
By lozen
December 18, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
Public money should not be used to sponsor any religious event. As an atheist I enjoy the feelings and the lights of Xmas. I do not enjoy being forced to hear the christian fable. Nativity scenes at churches or private homes don’t bother me at all. At Stone Mountain recently I was amazed when I (and all Buddhists, Pagans, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) were forced to hear the telling of that fable as if it were truth. If I had paid for my ticket, I would have demanded my money back! It is not the place for it. I do not want anyone (most of whom know a lot less about christianity than I do) forcing their beliefs on me. How would you christians like it if Muslims or Hindus covered every public building with their symbols and presented their myths as if they were truth to your children when they visit Stone Mountain.
By Christian December 18, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this It’s OUR Holiday, doggone it. Ours! See the words Christmas and Christian? See any similarities? OURS!
Before it was “your” holiday (co-opted by the early christian church) it was a Roman holiday called the Saturnalia, for one. December 25 was a pagan holiday! Obviously you know nothing about religious history.
By Chilao
December 18, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
Speaking on Nativity Scenes, on my country road are many but one in particular has, off to the side, in some shrubbery, a sitting down, full-size RAM figurine. If life-size, he would be LARGE(I have seen the heads of all the world’s wild sheep/goats mounted in one musuem, a special exhibit), but not excessively unrealistic. Thought that mighty intawestin’ and all I could assume was it was some reference to the Abraham/Isaac story.
Anybody hear about the pranksters, this year, in Plaistow, NH, who replaced the baby-in-the-manger with an empty beer-can? I had to send the link to a friend in Boston, with the inquiry if he had suddenly started buying canned beer..LOL (he does not drink)
By Big John
December 18, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Mara and Lyrazel—Finally a topic we completely agree on! Good posts this AM!
What really seals the deal about Christmas in my mind is the fact that it is COMPLETELY NON-BIBLICAL IN EVERY WAY. In fact, much of the pageantry of Christmas is actually ANTI-BIBLICAL.
By Big John
December 18, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
I mistakenly thought there was an actual passage in the Bible specifically forbidding the celebration of birthdays, but there isn’t. However, many Bible scholars feel the evidence is overwhelming that celebrating your birthday is anti-God. Here is a link that explains this line of thinking:
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/788/Birthdays.htm
By Mara
December 18, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
2D - in this instance we two may be required to agree to disagree. I believe that the Separation doctrine bars the government from funding, in any way, the public observance of any particular religion (Sam Adams pushing through the Congressional opening prayer notwithstanding…in fact, the reason Adams had to works so hard to get the prayers instated was because John Jay and John Rutledge were concerned with the religious diversity that existed among the members of Congress. That they felt that there could be no one prayer that would satisfy all present. Eventually, they acceded to a NON-sectarian prayer.) You see publicly funding Christian observances as mere respect and I see it as preferential treatment. Different interpretations, as you say.
If the Founding Fathers, and the early builders of this country meant to remove God from the government entirely, then we would not have the references to God and other “traditions”, like swearing people in on a Bible, present in our governmental institutions
From my readings and researches the founding fathers were predominantly Deists. (for those who don’t understand the difference between Christian and Deist, “Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible”).
The swearing in on the Bible is not mandated by any law, written or un-written. (See the latest “controversy” about newly elected Keith Ellison wanting his private swearing in done with the Koran.) From what I know, no federal employee is required to swear on any holy book, nor by any deity. To clarify the intent on the founders, let me refer you to James Remsberg’s “Six Historic Americans” - quote:
“When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it…. There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God’s laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory. Those who have been called to administer the government have not been men making any public profession of Christianity…. Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing Christian” (quoted by Remsberg, pp. 120-121, emphasis added).
I’m not sure what to make of your reference to the military and publicly funded parades. The military is a part of the government, already funded by the government, so one would have to wonder what rationale these “pacifists” would use to argue against their participation in a publicly supported event. I’d be interested in hearing that argument.
By Big John
December 18, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
For a scholarly discussion of Christmas, here’s another good link:
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/41/Christmas.htm
Personally, that’s why I have no respect for 99% of the self-proclaimed Christians in the world who want to spend my tax dollars supporting their evil fantasies. These are the same idiots who can’t see why public prayers using microphones are no good. The few real Christians I know are able to separate Godly things from manly creations. The fake Christians spend most of their time defending pagan practices co-opted by Constantine.
By Big John
December 18, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
For a good laugh, here’s a link in which a Catholic apologist defends his evil beliefs and practices:
http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/christmas.htm
Basically, he argues, just because something is not in the Bible doesn’t mean we can’t proclaim it to be God’s Word. Furthermore, even when something is specifically prohibited, like putting a Christmas tree in your house, no problem….just do what committees of men have voted for and ignore the Books.
By Former Evolutionist
December 18, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Creationists are convinced then that there is a law against the theory of evolution — the second law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists, on the other hand, continue to reject the idea that thermodynamics is in any way incompatible with evolutionary theory. They insist that creationists simply don’t understand thermodynamics. But the great physical scientist Lord Kelvin, who was the very founder of the second law of thermodynamics, was a Bible-believing Christian and a creationist! Kelvin, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, was convinced that the science of dynamics was incompatible with evolution. In one of his published lectures, Kelvin said:
“I need scarcely say that the beginning and maintenance of life on earth is absolutely and infinitely beyond the range of all sound speculation in dynamical science. The only contribution of dynamics to theoretical biology is absolute negation of automatic commencement or automatic maintenance of life.”
By freedomadmin
December 18, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
For discussion of women’s rights please come over to the Freedom Forum!
p.s. Diane rules!!!
http://www.forumcityusa.com//index.php?mforum=freedom
By Zack
December 18, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
The vast majority of bloggers on this site will say yes, I’m sure, but they’re wrong.
There’s nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with a Nativity scene, and guess what? As far as freedom of speech goes, it’s being attacked not by the presence of a Nativity scene but by the absence of one.
I knew a topic like this one was imminent.
By Zack
December 18, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
former—Darwin rejected his own theory over time. I’d like to joke that he evolved from being an evolutionist, but in reality, no one evolves, period.
“freedom”—Women’s rights are not the “rights” we hear about from the stupid feminist movement. Get your facts straight. As for Diane, she’s very intelligent but also very blind, so her intelligence is highly misused.
By Susan
December 18, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
YEA THAT’S RIGHT DARWIN “repented” BEFORE HE DIED. SO HE’S IN HEAVEN.
By Zack
December 18, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
Susan—Not believing in evolution in and of itself doesn’t make one a Christian.
By Chilao
December 18, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
Zack - I THINK you missed Susan’s dripping facetious sarcasm there. LMAO
By Lily Toad
December 18, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Women’s rights are not the “rights” we hear about from the stupid feminist movement. HUH?
By Idiot Round-Up
December 18, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
This is a refutation of the Darwin recanting myth from a CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENT DESIGN WEBSITE
By Zack's Buddy
December 18, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
Women have three rights:
Fix my dinner Get my Beer Shut up
By NetBanker
December 18, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
With all the budget cuts to state resources, mental health hospitals closing, schools, the upkeep of infrastructure, pay for police, fire and emergency services—with countless homeless—why should tax dollars be spent on religious displays when there are churches in the area who can spend their funds on decorations? No government or private citizen has yet to sue a church for putting up its holiday religious displays—and THAT is where they belong—to remind the faithful that the holiday is not about shopping or spending or Santa. There are churches in every neighborhood—in every borough and every enclave of suburbia and inner cities. Decorate them. Go Lyrazel! You win the Tiara today! Very well said!! Do we really need to be spending our govt dollars on
I heard Sean Hannity whining about this topic and thought pretty much what Lyrazel wrote. It IS entirely possible to experience Christmas with absolutely no Christ in it. There ARE 2 Christmases in America. One is the religious holiday that belongs in church, consists of the lighting of the Advent Candles, and includes Midnight Mass with “Joy to the World” and “Away in a Manager.” I’ve spent many a Christmas this way and am surprised that those who complain about the Chicago event aren’t more upset at the secularization of their holiday and aren’t working to take it away from the public to put it BACK in the Church.
The other Christmas is the public Christmas of gifts, candy canes, trees, Santa, flying reindeer, lights, Frosty, etc. The Christkindl Market is really the SECOND Christmas as are all the similar christmas markets across Germany and all of Europe. I’ve been Christkindl markets in France, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria and interestingly there is a distinct absence of Christ at those too. That’s because those markets are are basically not much different than ‘The Dogwood Festival’ except that they’re in December.
Lozen…I saw a Christmas Tree lot at a church and thought how odd that they’re selling a pagan symbol to raise money for their christian church. I thought the same thing as a teen when I’d see the trees in our Church all decorated with religious symbols. Hello!! There are no pine trees of those varieties in Bethlehem!!
By 2D
December 19, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this
Mara… Interesting points. And we can agree to disagree, I have no problem with that. I don’t want the government to ever prevent a Muslim, a Hindu, a Jew or anyone else to not be able to practice their religion as is the case in other countries. I also do not believe that individuals should ever believe that the government applies law differently to people of different religions, or races, genders, ages, etc.
However, I also believe that we are Christian nation by virtue of the fact that between 80-90 of the population depending on which poll is used identify themselves with some sect of Christianity. The government hasn’t established that. The people have through their actions and through their own beliefs.
Quite frankly, I see better uses of government money than for Christmas celebrations. Shucks, go feed the homeless people, get them clothes, do something!
By Brian Curtis
December 19, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this
2D: If you’re basing your analysis on people’s actions, then we have very very few Christians in this country at all.
By Brian Curtis
December 19, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this
By the way, Lord Kelvin was also disastrously mistaken about the age of the earth, because he overlooked radioactive decay as a source of internal heating.
Such errors are common among young-earth creationists who don’t look at the facts.
By Lyrazel
December 19, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this
Thank you Netbanger for the tiara. I could have mentioned something about state pension plans close to bankrupting but this is a young crowd.
(Retreats off stage left)
By suzan
December 19, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this
tHOMAS JEFFERSON ALSO SAID
“Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted.” —Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283
“One of the amendments to the Constitution… expressly declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others.” —Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
“The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and… if any act shall be… passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.” —Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. (*) ME 2:303, Papers 2:546
By Brian Curtis
December 19, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this
Suzan: Quite right… and the only way to ensure religious freedom is to keep it totally separate from any governmental involvement, which Jefferson and other founders were in strong agreement on.
Perhaps the endless debate on Public Displays of Piousness could be resolved by establishing separate categories for
a) Government Buildings, such as courthouses and public schools, and
b) Public Spaces, such as town squares.
Religious displays could be permitted in Public Spaces, provided that every group had equal access and no favoritism were shown… but would still be forbidden within Government Buildings, to avoid endorsement of one particular faith over others (or over none at all).
Not that this would satisfy the “Christian nation” crowd—but then, nothing less than total theocracy would anyway.
By Samanta
December 19, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this
Hello Free porn movies and free hardcore sex videos. Updated daily with the newest free porn movies and free sex videos to free adult movies. [url=http://www.realfreevideos.com/mr/rftp02/s1g1/gallery1.php?id=1455]free porn movies gallery (teens)[/url] [url=http://www.realfreevideos.com/uniform/nh2/s2g3/gallery1.php?id=1455]free porn movies gallery (asia)[/url] [url=http://www.realfreevideos.com/5sv/btts/s5g2/gallery1.php?id=1455]free porn movies gallery (anal)[/url] Bye
By Mara
December 19, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
2D - I also do not believe that individuals should ever believe that the government applies law differently to people of different religions, or races, genders, ages, etc
unfortunately, the evangelical right and the Bush administration has convinced quite a few non-Christians that this is indeed the case. Whether you are a Muslim being profiled for “flying while muslim”, a non-believer entering a courthouse festooned in 10 Commandments and Biblical references, or a gay couple trying to get married in a state that has no law against same-sex unions…one does tend to wonder if the law is the law is the law. By pushing for laws based on their religious beliefs, public spaces honoring their religious laws, and their insistance on government funding for public displays of the birth their god, some Christians are certainly trying to make non-Christians feel un-welcome, un-“American”, and doubtful of their “equality” under the law. And seeming to take great pride and satisfaction out of it, too.
You see us as a Christian nation because the majority of citizens self-identify as such. I see us as a secular, democratic republic where one’s religion is immaterial to the state. Or at least, that’s what we’re supposed to be, ideally.
I suppose it depends on whether you mean a “nation” as in “a group of people”, or a “nation” as in a philisophical concept.
By Mara
December 19, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel, did you mean to call him “Netbanger”? LOL!! Freudian slip?
By Brian Curtis
December 19, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
Mara: Well said! The whole point of our religious freedom is that a nation full of Christians doesn’t have to be a “Christian nation.” Or a Muslim nation, or a Jewish nation, or anything else.
By Chilao
December 19, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
It is my understanding that our Founding Fathers had many heated discussions when meeting to write the Constitution, over even having a prayer before they started each meeting, because they were interested in forming a secular government and wondered if the prayer was even appropriate, under the circumstances.
and NO, I was NOT there, not really QUITE that old..LOL
By Chilao
December 19, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Must be something in the water out there near Haggard’s Colorado church, note also the exercise in the parking lot using fake assault rifles: (OnwardChristianSoldiers)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PASTOR_RESIGNS?SITE=WVTMTV&SECTION=US
By Mara
December 19, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
Thanks Brian. The Washington Post has initiated an “On Faith” blog - http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/williamjbyron/2006/12/whostosay.html - and the question of America being a Christian nation is the topic of the week. One of the commentaters today, William Byron, had this to say:
“America is a nation populated for the most part by Christians, but that is not to say America is a Christian nation. Values like love, peace, and justice—Christian values all—are not exclusively Christian values.”
“A dominant value can define a culture and Christians may well hope that “their” values will help to shape a culture and thus define a nation. But that does not mean it is a Christian nation; it simply points to the prominence of Christian values in a community of complementary values.”
Pretty much what I said, but much pithier. :^)
By RP
December 19, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
The title for this article is very misleading. Chicago didn’t say that they couldn’t play the movie clip, they said they couldn’t recieve taxpayer money if they did.
The First Amendment does not entitle you to government money. Period.
Let’s also remember that government regulates most (if not everything) it gives money too. Do you really want the State dictating how the Church operates?
By The72John
December 19, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
However, I also believe that we are Christian nation by virtue of the fact that between 80-90 of the population depending on which poll is used identify themselves with some sect of Christianity. The government hasn’t established that. The people have through their actions and through their own beliefs.
And what makes this nation great is that 80% of the population is free to pursue Christianity to the fullest degree they choose, without forcing it upon the remaining 20%.
I really have to wonder what the fuss is about - when I drive down the main streets of my hometown, I see Christmas decorations everywhere, of both the secular and sacred variety. There are nativity scenes - at least one of them live with real honest-to-God camels and llamas - there are trees, there are wreaths, there are Stars and lights, holly garlands and red bows, candles, MORE nativity scenes…
Where exactly is the supression of Christmas and its celebration as a sacred holiday that seems to be stirring up all the trouble?
By GOB
December 19, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
Where exactly is the supression of Christmas and its celebration as a sacred holiday that seems to be stirring up all the trouble?
John - You must not have heard. We are living through a WAR ON CHRISTMAS!
By Chilao
December 19, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
Oh, that RAM figurine I mentioned yesterday, I noticed better this morning(the house/yard along a stretch where paying attention to the road a little more important than yard ornaments). Seems the RAM is the ONLY item in that yard, when most others have either nativity scenes, secular Christmas decorations, or combinations of the two. But the RAM yard has the sole ram, that is all.
this is on the other side of the street of a house that had a full-size replica of Osama Bin Laden hanging from a rope from a tree branch, with a knife through his heart, right after 9/11.
By Chilao
December 19, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
I stopped to take pictures of that one but they did not come out great, he was hanging about 30 feet up in the air, alongside the road.
By Mara
December 19, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
Chilao - By RAM…do you mean a male ovine? I’m just wondering because you fully capitalized it every time you wrote it, which usually indicates an acronym. I’m not being snide, just tryin’ to clarify.
By Chilao
December 19, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Mara - yes, a male sheep, curly horns, sorry. (no acronym, the upper case for gender emphasis only)
Abraham and Isaac(we shun human sacrifice from now on) story.
By Lyrazel
December 19, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
give myself a DUH……>duh…..its that K that got me…..>DUH
By Chilao
December 19, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Mara - first mentioned at my 12:58 yesterday.
By Big John
December 19, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
Best line from a Christmas song: “As for me and Grandma, we believe”.
By Big John
December 19, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
You know it’s really Christmas when you hear the following songs: “Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer”, “Feliz Navidad”, and “Jingle Bells” sung by the barking dogs.
So what are your choices for best and worst Christmas songs, W2W bloggers? For best Christmas album, it’s hard not to vote for “A Charlie Brown Christmas” by the Vince Guaraldi Trio.
By Big John
December 19, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
“Sleigh Ride” by Steve Lawrence and Eydie Gorme is fantastic. Of course, who doesn’t get goosebumps at hearing “O Holy Night”. I don’t celebrate Christmas now as an adult, but I do still get a little teary when I hear “The Little Drummer Boy”—I had no gift to bring, pa-rum-pum-pum. Give me a hankie.
By Big John
December 19, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
Bing Crosby and David Bowie are great on “The Little Drummer Boy”—not as weepy as other versions, but very creative. No one can sing (or whistle) “White Christmas” like old Bing. That’s still the official Christmas song of the Republican Party, isn’t it? And, of course, no one can sing “The Christmas Song” like Nat King Cole. Surprisingly, Jim Nabors sings well, even Barbra Streisand has a few good ones.
By Big John
December 19, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Here are my cyber-gifts to you all for Christmas:
Jack—A date with kimberly.
SusieHomemaker—A date with Brad Pitt.
72John—A date with Brad Pitt.
Renee—Unlimited Delta tickets so she can visit Atlanta more often.
chuck—A Bible, so that he might actually read it one day.
BC—“The Road To Reality” by Roger Penrose so that he might understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics better.
Monica, Kevin—A tazer to control their students with.
Mara—A dictionary with only reeeaaaalllly big words in it.
NetBanger (his new blog name)—4 tabs of windowpane and a weekend in NYC.
Chilao—His own personal Ram figurine.
lozen—A book on how to make your fingers even longer.
kimberly—A gallon of scotch, a couple of fatties, and a Matthew McCaughney DVD to watch.
By RP
December 19, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
My favorite is “Carol of the Bells” especially really nice instrumental versions of the song. Also, “O Holy Night” and “We Three Kings of Orient Are” neither of which I’ve heard this year. :(
I used to like “It’s Cold Outside” until I read all of the lyrics. “Say, what’s in this drink?” What’s up with that?!?!
By Big John
December 19, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
RP, There is an excellent version of “We Three Kings” performed by a middle Eastern group that is fantastic. “Carol of the Bells” is very nice. I think I prefer “Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow” to “It’s Cold Outside”, however.
By Big John
December 19, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Most annoying Christmas songs: “Silver Bells”, “Have a Holly, Jolly Christmas”, “I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus”—unless performed by Alvin and the Chipmunks, of course.
Funniest Christmas song: “I Ain’t Gettin Nothin’ For Christmas”.
By Big John
December 19, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Anyone betting on snow for Christmas this year? After UGA put a whuppin’ on Auburn a few weeks ago, I would say that anything is possible. I have a big bet with a guy whether the Bulldogs will finish in the top 25 or not. If they win their bowl game, I should collect.
By Renee
December 19, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Okay I know I’m going to regret this but…
Never mind..
Christmas is different to each individual. If it is CHRISTmas to you then by all means have the nativity scenes etc.., some people have Santa, whatever. Personally, nativity scenes do not offend me, and I don’t really care if someone has them…I think it’s more tradition more than anything.
By Mara
December 19, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Hi Renee. Hear, hear!
And this just in…another flurry of outrage descending on a British airline.
Seems that British aviation company “bmi” won’t let one of it’s stewardess’ take her Bible into Saudi Arabia. Even though it’s illegal to bring in non-islamic religious literature into that country, she insists that she is being descriminated against by the airline because they won’t help her break Saudi law, (i.e. they won’t transport her Bible into Saudi Arabia). They made an effort to accommodate her faith, but she refused the duty transfer.
I’m guessing she just didn’t want to miss out on this chance to prove exactly how oppressed Christians really are….
By suzan
December 19, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
Brian, actually you may not remember but I am a died in the wool Christian. I do not believe you can force your beliefs on anyone. I also don’t believe that people should be sooooooo sensitive about religious displays. I really dont care if someone wants to set up a Ramadan display on Capital Hill. I just thnik that the entire PC thing is so out of control. It would be funny if not so sad that displays, public or private for that matter now are being pulled down left and right because it offends someones sensebilities. There was a woman recently who put a a peace sign wreath in her complex of condos on her door. Someone there was just sure it was satanism and the condo comandos made her take it down.
People are so easly offended I cant even imaging who we got this far in this country with out a full scale war here over some kind of belief (not counting the civil war of course) to date.
What’s next? Ohh don’t wear that color it’s against my religion or belief. oooooooh better not eat that it is againt my belief.
So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ Himself is that reality. Colossians 2:16,17
In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable. Those who worship the Lord on a special day do so to honor Him. For we don’t live for ourselves or die for ourselves. If we live, it’s to honor the Lord. And if we die, it’s to honor the Lord.
So why do we condemn another believer? Why do you look down on another believer? Remember, we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
Yes, each of us will give a personal account to God. So let’s stop condemning each other. Romans 14:5,6a,7,8,10,12.
Merry Christmas
By Big John
December 19, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this
suzan, I’m all for Christmas displays until people start associating spiritual values to them. The Bible is crystal clear about the practice of creating and worshiping idols. A lot of Christian (esp. Catholic) apologists try to claim that kneeling and praying before statues is not the same as praying to them, which misses the point completely. God is a spirit, so any graven image is false.
By Big John
December 19, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
I do support your interpretation of the New Covenant as revealed in Colossians and Galations among other places. However, it still stands that Christ emphasized that he was here to fulfill the Law, not to do away with it. As such, the commandment not to make graven images still stands in my mind.
By Big John
December 19, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
For the Bible “literalists” :
God says plainly in His Instruction Book to us, that He will not accept that kind of worship, even though intended in His honor. To Him, He says, it is offering what is abominable to Him, and therefore it honors, not Him, but false pagan gods. God says we must not worship Him according to the “dictates of our own conscience”—a term we often hear. But Jesus says plainly, “God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). And what is truth? God’s Word—the Holy Bible—said Jesus, is truth (John 17:17); and the Bible says God will not accept worship when people take a pagan custom or manner of worship and try to honor Christ with it.
By kimberly
December 19, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this
Big John, (Mongrel?) Your gift list is um… (formally) too kind! (truthfully) mean and twisted. Not that I don’t appreciate the Scotch and the fatties, but why do I get a DVD to watch and the others get a “date with?” That’s not right. Also, please apologize to Lozen immediately. If you’re man enough to admit you’ve been crass and inconsiderate, that is. Try to be NICE in His Holy Name at Christmastime, for whatever the heck that might be worth. Yeah, fa-la-fricking-la to you too.
By suzan
December 19, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this
Well, here is another perpestive on Christmas and Chrismas Trees.
The fact of the matter is that the Christmas tree originated in Christian Germany about two thousand years after Jeremiah’s criticisms of wooden idols. It originated from two Christian symbols found in homes at Christmas time. The first was a “Paradise tree,” an evergreen which was hung with apples which represented the tree of life in the Garden of Eden. The second symbol was a “Christmas pyramid.” This of course was a triangular shelf holding Christmas figurines and decorated with a star. By about the 16th century these two symbols had been combined into the Christian Christmas tree.
Thus, the Christmas tree is a thoroughly Christian symbol, and Christians ought not to feel guilty for having one of them in their home. On the other hand, the Christmas tree is not essential to Christmas, and Christians may, of course, do without it if they choose to. If you see a Christmas tree in the home of a non-Christian friend or a relative, you might take the opportunity to point to it as the symbol of the fact that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem so that they might have eternal life.
On Christmas trees, that’s the CRI perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
The information presented here on the origins of the Christmas tree is taken from The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: Micropaedia, Vol. II (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1981), 904.
By TramadoL66962
December 19, 2006 05:36 PM | Link to this
I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen, but I don’t care. Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.
By TramadoL99831
December 19, 2006 07:25 PM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to anything today. I don’t care. I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. Basically not much happening right now. Maybe tomorrow. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
By TramadoL78276
December 19, 2006 09:02 PM | Link to this
I just don’t have anything to say right now. I haven’t been up to anything recently, but it’s not important. I’ve just been sitting around waiting for something to happen, but shrug.
By Mara
December 20, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this
Ah, Christians. Ya gotta love ‘em when they work so hard in their attempt to claim that everything leads back to their god.
suzan - I’m assuming that you pretty much stuck to the history of christians and the tree. I’m guessing that you accept the idea that before St. Bonifice in the 7th century, NOBODY was bringing in evergreens, decorating them with God and Goddess colors (gold/red-silver/green) and hanging treats and bells on them (for the wood sprites). Of course the northern pagans had no Yule tree, no Yule log, and no Yule celebrations decorated in holly and missletoe until the Christians came to deliver them from darkness. While the first “Christmas” tree may indeed have been an invention of St. Bonifice, the tree itself was a part of existing celebrations. Encyclopedia Britannica (conveniently?) requires a subscription so I can’t go check the entire entry but I will say that try as you might, desire to claim everything for the christians can’t obscure the truth. And the truth is that before Christianity there were other religions. These religions had traditions and symbols of their own. Christians found that conversion went much smoother if they usurped those symbols and traditions instead of discarding them completely. Hence celebrating the birth of Jesus in December, and including all those pesky pagan influences…like mistletoe, holly, wreathes, Yule logs, the colors, the candles, the feasts (ham, anyone?). Ye GODS! Almost ALL the trappings of Christmas, except for the Nativity, harken back to the Germanic/Scandinavian Winter Solstice celebrations.
I suppose you believe that Easter began as a christian holiday, too. (sigh)
By titiguan
December 20, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this
Hello people.Winter good time! This is best. Best ski:[URL=http:// jay-peak-ski-resort.20m.com]jay peak ski resort[/URL] Best credit secret:[URL=http://zaxswq.com/victorias-secret-credit-card/pay-victorias-secret-credit-card.html]pay victorias secret credit card[/URL] Best house:[URL=http://opiytr.com/charlotte-north-carolina-real-estate/real-estate-in-charlotte-north-carolina.html]real estate in charlotte north carolina[/URL] Best forex info:[URL=http://opiytr.com/forex-training/forex-training-course-currency-trading.html]forex training course currency trading[/URL] This is cool:[URL=http://opiytr.com/punishment-enema/punishment-enema-picture.html]punishment enema picture[/URL]
By Semen
December 20, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this
http://buyphenterm-ab.blogspot.com/ http://url.53mp.com/mm1n http://www.zayfa.com/buyadipex http://beach.icookingoil.info/ http://valiumdrug.blogspot.com/ http://epics.ecn.purdue.edu/lara/projects/casino-4.html http://chapel.nikebreath.info/ http://www.forumprofi.de/forum7624/ http://annuity.investriogroup.info/ http://www.wvup.edu/dweaver/_books/00002371.htm
By Semen
December 20, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this
http://buyphenterm-ab.blogspot.com/ http://url.53mp.com/mm1n http://www.zayfa.com/buyadipex http://beach.icookingoil.info/ http://valiumdrug.blogspot.com/ http://epics.ecn.purdue.edu/lara/projects/casino-4.html http://chapel.nikebreath.info/ http://www.forumprofi.de/forum7624/ http://annuity.investriogroup.info/ http://www.wvup.edu/dweaver/_books/00002371.htm
By Brian Curtis
December 20, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this
Suzan, I’ve got no problem with people believing whatever they wish… that’s what religious freedom means. And the only way to preserve and defend that freedom is to keep government out of it. Why does that part of the equation cause so much uproar and indignation from extremist Christians?
It has nothing to do with “being offended”… that’s a red herring intended to distract from the more important principle of religious freedom (aka, mandatory government neutrality on the topic). As soon as the government starts favoring one religion or belief over others, religious freedom is dead. Period.
That’s why vigilance is necessary—because it would be soooo easy to just go along with the majority faith of the moment and shrug off these little encroachments as “no big deal, everybody’s doing it.” And next thing you know, abortion is outlawed as “a crime against God,” or businesses are forbidden to operate on the Sabbath, or women aren’t allowed to hold jobs or travel alone. All because the majority faith got a free ride for too long.
By Mara
December 20, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this
Brian - nicely put.
By Big John
December 20, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this
BC—I agree with you that governmental endorsement of a particular religion is bad policy, but the fact remains that abortion IS a crime against God.
By TramadoL28701
December 20, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this
Not much on my mind right now, but it’s not important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me. I just don’t have anything to say right now.
By Big John
December 20, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this
Mara—You may meed to do more research regarding Christmas trees. You keep repeating the myth that the tannenbaum came from Germany, when in fact it is an ancient custom which traces back to Nimrod. Here’s a quote for you:
Two key figures in the origin of Christmas are Nimrod, a great grandson of Noah, and his mother and wife, Semiramis, also known as Ishtar and Isis. Nimrod, known in Egypt as Osiris, was the founder of the first world empire at Babel, later known as Babylon (Genesis 10:8-12; 11:1-9). From ancient sources such as the “Epic of Gilgamesh” and records unearthed by archeologists from long-ruined Mesopotamian and Egyptian cities, we can reconstruct subsequent events.
After Nimrod’s death (c. 2167 BC), Semiramis promoted the belief that he was a god. She claimed that she saw a full-grown evergreen tree spring out of the roots of a dead tree stump, symbolizing the springing forth of new life for Nimrod. On the anniversary of his birth, she said, Nimrod would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts under it. His birthday fell on the winter solstice at the end of December.
By 2D
December 20, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this
Brian… If you are speaking of a Constantine-like imposition of religion, or the type of government intervention that we see in Iran, then I totally agree with you. That type of government intervention does not allow for any deference to other religions or religious expression.
In fact, I would say the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was Constantine’s dream of the “Chi Rho”. It made Christianity a requirement of the state rather than the underground, organic movement it was previously.
However, I conditionally disagree with your statements about mandatory government neutrality on the discussion of religion and that if the government appears to favor one religion or belief then all religious freedom is dead. That is an extreme to which I cannot go. As I mentioned earlier in my conversation with Mara, I absolutely believe that the government can honor the beliefs and traditions of the vast majority of people without preventing others to worship in their own way or not worship at all.
By Big John
December 20, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this
kimberly—Just so you know, I spoke with Santa Claus last night for several hours regarding your dissatisfaction with your gift this year. When I told him about your situation (no good man to take care of you), he replied “I already sent her a canoe, a boat, and a helicopter……”
By suzan
December 20, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
Well, I suppose we must all agree to disagree. But is it not wonderful that we have a country that allows that. I do not believe in Government sanctioned religion. However, I dont believe in Government sanctioned discrimination. I do believe that abortion is not only a crime against God, but a crime against women, a lie, and a crime against man. It saddens me that it is used by most women in this country as a means of birth control. With abortions in the millions to date you just cant tell me that it was for the health of the mother or rape.
There is no pretty way to spin abortion. It is an evil that we will reep a sad price for.
By Brian Curtis
December 20, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
But whether your religion views it as a crime has nothing to do with whether it should be banned by LAW. Our laws must be based on secular goals and intent, not religious doctrine.
By Big John
December 20, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
suzan—If you love Christianity as much as you say you do, then I beg you to do more Biblical research into the proper ways to honor God and the improper ways. Hint: Cutting a tree down, bringing it inside, fastening it to the floor, and decorating it with silver and gold (i.e. the Christmas tree)is specifically prohibited in Jeremiah 10 due to its association with Nimrod (Osiris).
By GOB
December 20, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
It saddens me that it is used by most women in this country as a means of birth control.
Do you really believe that abortion is the preferred method of birth control for “most women in this country?”
It is an evil that we will reep a sad price for.
Like a lower crime rate? (see Freakonomics)
By kimberly
December 20, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
Mongrel, you spent several hours last night hanging out with a mostly unemployed creepy kid-toucher in a smelly red suit who gets paid by marketing whores at commercialization time to lie to children while coaxing them onto his perverted, alcoholic, pedophilic lap? EWWWWWWWWW! Maybe you’re the one who needs some new friends.
By Lyrazel
December 20, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
Brian Curtis—(chuckle) Seems we love to debate separation of church and state but that is just because we love debating. Its a theory—not truth. Many states have laws in their books that follow religious doctrines and federal/state employees get days off for christian holidays (this includes Sunday off btw). We will never be able to avoid religion in politics or government. All who run for the office of the Presidency—church attendance is openly shown and mandatory—to prove to his/her constituents that he/she is a person of faith. What GA candidate did not mention their close association with God, or attendance at a house of worship, etc.? In truth the American voting public demands religious beliefs of their elected government leaders—atheists don’t get elected.
So, show me that we live in a nation where there is actual separation of church and state and I will go buy a bottle of wine this Sunday to toast the revelation.
By Political Foreskin
December 20, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
Abortion? They estimate that of the 50 million abortions in the USA since Roe V Wade, all 50 million were committed by women. There hasn’t been one abortion by a man in all that time. Women are the evil ones, not the men. They estimate that there have been 50 billion men, and 50 billion women born in all of history. They also figure that there are only 50 billion souls in hell. That means that all 50 billion souls in hell are women. It’s simple math, so dont blame me. I didn’t make the rules, god did, and you no good evil women witch folk are going to burn in hell for eternity, while we men will play football with cold beer and really great sandwiches. Ah, eternity: the great equalizer. (no backs, no vice versas, no changies).
By