Please wait...
↑↑↑
Old messages
↑↑↑
↓↓↓
New messages
↓↓↓
Today I won an argument against a belligerent militant atheist.
(Topic: there's no substantial difference between the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" and the "Westboro Baptist Church." Both are oppressively intolerant of anyone who differs from their religious beliefs.)
It never ceases to amuse me how many people think that "separation of Church and State" is mandated by the First Amendment, which is certainly *not* the case at all.
Now if only someone could educate the SCOTUS on that point of law and set "stare decisis" straight on this point once and for all.
What the First Amendment *really* means on Church and State
What it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
"Respecting an establishment of religion"
We came from England. England has (and still does have) a State Church. It's the Church of England the head of which is the English Monarch, the Clerical chief bishop of which is the Archbishop of Canterbury - who does not have "pope-like" authority, but basically is a Chief Executive Officer of sorts.
THAT is what the First Amendment was aimed at avoiding.
There is absolutely nothing in the First Amendment that even hints at such things as:
1. probiting prayer in public schools
2. Nativity scenes on public property
3. Christmas plays, concerts or pageants in public schools or on public property
4. Christmas trees on public property (such as the White House)
5. Chrismas Vacation and Easter Vacation (instead of Winter Break and Spring Break - ok, calling it Easter Vacation might put somewhat of a damper on those goings-on in Florida every Spring...)
Everything that has happened that negatively impacts those things on that list up above is the result of *civil litigation* in the courts and *court* decisions based on a secularist and ****wrong**** interpretation of the Constitution's intent based on the actual language contained therein.
Remember that famous Limbaugh-ism? WORDS MEAN THINGS.
That's not what it means! Freedom of religion is freedom *from* religion, and we have a Constitutionally protected right to never ever ever come into contact with any expression of religion which offends us (and that is: ALL of them!!)
... so say the militant atheists. They're wrong, of course.
This is why I insist that atheism *is* *a* *religion*. It is a religion which teaches that no God exists. That's not the same thing as "no religion" and it's *certainly* not the same thing as "Constitutionally mandated concealment of any belief in God"
As I've mentioned countless times before, I have no problem with people being atheists (I find it disappointing but it is absolutely their perogative) ... I have a problem with people jamming atheism down our throats by lawyering up (or simply shouting a lot) every time someone displays a different belief in public.
I'd love to see Vince have a theological debate with the infamous child-molester Curly S.
I'd argue that the way my parents were raised - *required* to say the Lord's Prayer in school the same way we said the Pledge of Allegiance - might have been unfair - considering they were Jews.
OTOH, people who say moment of silence is a slippery slope obviously don't know that there are atheists who meditate... ;)
Then again, the whole world is crazy - a kid here was reprimanded for bringing tfillin (phylacteries) to a non-religious (but all-Jewish) school and allowing some of his friends to use them for prayer before school. (friends asked, so he brought to lend out!)
They said that it was religious coercion.
I'd agree that that's over the line. Coercing non-Christians to recite a
Christian prayer is just as bad as the school a couple of years ago who did
the "be a muslim for a week" assignment.
Here's the rub: coercing atheist practices is just as bad as coercing the practices of any other religion.
Here's the rub: coercing atheist practices is just as bad as coercing the practices of any other religion.
Yeah - it's one thing to expose children to other cultures or even talk about the theology in a general sense. I don't think it's wrong, for example, to give a history lesson that includes an overview of what Muhammed did in his life, or Jesus, or Moses, or John Smith... as long as it's in the context of history and/or literature.
I remember bringing in a dreidel and telling the kids about lighting candles. Once my mom brought in a slideshow of pictures from Israel that included the Western Wall and people praying, but all she said was "Here's the Western Wall. It's a very holy place to the Jewish people, and people pray there. Jews pray three times a day."
The question is whether it's informative, in the way that you might learn about Greek or Norse mythology, or coercive. I think there's enough space between the two. I may know who Athena and Zeus are, but nobody ever tried to convince me to pray to them... ;)
Mon Sep 23 2013 14:12:37 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar
This is why I insist that atheism *is* *a* *religion*. It is a religion which teaches that no God exists. That's not the same thing as "no religion" and it's *certainly* not the same thing as "Constitutionally mandated concealment of any belief in God"
a NULL-Pointer still is a Pointer though.
Sep 23 2013 4:26pm from triLcat
I'd argue that the way my parents were raised - *required* to say the
Lord's Prayer in school the same way we said the Pledge of Allegiance
- might have been unfair - considering they were Jews.
Show me one word, one phrase, one concept in the Lord's Prayer that can be construed as something other than Jewish?
Please??
The only thing "Christian" about it is that it was first uttered by Jesus Christ. A ****Jew**** by the way... ;)
Today I won an argument against a belligerent militant atheist.
Like you-know-who, I'm sure he failed to recognize that s/he/it lost
Show me one word, one phrase, one concept in the Lord's Prayer that
can be construed as something other than Jewish?
I can't. But it seems to me that the overall tone is more christian than jewish. The focus on forgiving sins, debts.
Anyway, it's not specifically a jewish religious ritual.
Sep 25 2013 2:57pm from LoanSharkShow me one word, one phrase, one concept in the Lord's Prayer that
can be construed as something other than Jewish?
I can't. But it seems to me that the overall tone is more christian
than jewish. The focus on forgiving sins, debts.
Anyway, it's not specifically a jewish religious ritual.
Most of what Western Europeans and North Americans consider as "Jewish" is a curious mixture of Torah, Talmud, Tradition, and the Kabbalah.
For Orthodox Judaism it's simple. If it isn't in the Torah, it isn't required of Jews. And if it *is* in the Torah it's ***mandatory***.
But in any event the Lord's Prayer is a *prayer* and not a *ritual*.
In the Lord's Prayer there is only one sentence dealing with "forgiving" and "debts"/trespasses.
In phonetic Hebrew it goes like this:
U-SLACH LONU ET HOVOTHEYNU
KA-ASHER SOLACHNU GAM ANACHNU L'HA-YAVAYNU
"Forgive us our sins
As we (have forgiven) [or] (forgive) those who sinned against us."
Not my translation; I am not in any way fluent in Hebrew. And in fact, that portion of the New Testament was most likely originally in Aramaic. And I know even *less* of that! ;)
To work at the true intent of the Lord's Prayer would require an in-depth analysis of the influence of Essene/Zealot socio-polical thought on Jesus Christ. And most of that would be pure speculation.
The bottom line? The Lord's Prayer is quite possibly as close to a "perfect nondenominational prayer" as we are likely to get.
Replaced the 10" LCD screen on my netbook, which was inadvertently stepped on as I prepared to go to the TAPR digital communications conference on Friday.
Seems to me that if I repeat a *specific* prayer every morning (mandatory at school) it becomes also a ritual.
Wed Sep 25 2013 10:26:33 PM EDT from LoanShark
Seems to me that if I repeat a *specific* prayer every morning (mandatory at school) it becomes also a ritual.
So long as you say it. I grew up in the 70's and had parents that rejected the same notions and I skipped out on that.
Sep 25 2013 10:26pm from LoanShark
Seems to me that if I repeat a *specific* prayer every morning
(mandatory at school) it becomes also a ritual.
First, we were not discussing the prayer in the context of public (or other) school recitation in an 'assembly situation' (and yes, saying the prayer in homeroom or other class situation is a school assembly situation, not a church).
Next, as much as it may not be in the Citadel Tradition, please stay on topic. Getting off the topic is a distraction. That may work in the US Senate or the House of Representatives where the practitioner(s) and/or the recipient(s) of the "technique" are intellectual nonentities..
I absolutely assure you that is not the case here.
So please. Don't do that. It irritates me (not important).
And (this *is* important) it dilutes the integrity of the dialog.
Uhh vince... yes we *were* discussing the Lord's Prayer in *exactly* *that* *context.*
As such, your heavy-handed response is inappropriate.
So long as you say it. I grew up in the 70's and had parents that
rejected the same notions and I skipped out on that.
Well, I was raised by agnostics -- who sent me to Christian Sunday School to broaden my horizons, and then subtly undermined everything I'd been taught, once I was back home.
I have a weird perspective as a result, I suppose.
Wed Sep 25 2013 07:55:25 PM EDT from vince-qMost of what Western Europeans and North Americans consider as "Jewish" is a curious mixture of Torah, Talmud, Tradition, and the Kabbalah.
For Orthodox Judaism it's simple. If it isn't in the Torah, it isn't required of Jews. And if it *is* in the Torah it's ***mandatory***.
Actually, Vince, that's not correct.
There is a specific Jewish sect that believes that if something is not in the Tanach that it's not required. They are called Karaites.
However, most of Orthodox Jewry very much considers Talmud, Mishnah, and many aspects of Tradition and Kabbalah mandatory. In fact, much of rabbinic Orthodoxy holds that if a tradition is practiced continuously in the same way by the same community over X amount of time, it gains the strength of law for that community.
However, most of Orthodox Jewry very much considers Talmud, Mishnah,
and many aspects of Tradition and Kabbalah mandatory. In fact, much
of rabbinic Orthodoxy holds that if a tradition is practiced
continuously in the same way by the same community over X amount of
time, it gains the strength of law for that community.
Wow, does that ever sound so very Roman Catholic!
The Roman church position is that there are three Authorities:
1. Sacred Scripture (Old and New Testaments)
2. Tradition (as you stated, "practiced contiously... strenght of law")
3. The Magisterium (the Teaching Authority of the Church)
Nobody (usually, at least) argues with #1. Few argue with #2, however if you allow enough time then tradition can change. Example... there is as much opposition today to Rome's return to the Tridentine Mass and re"legalization" of Latin Masses as there was back in the late 1960s and early 1970s when Rome moved the Liturgy into the vernacular. Times change; people change; and Tradition can change with either.
Now, #3, on the other hand, causes much mayhem and discord - even to the point of disintegration, as in the Reformation. As in the Great Schism (see prior post on the "Filioque" episode).
Not so much today - at least in the large scale.
Hmmmm.... we need more Jews!