posted on January 28, 2001 10:21:24 AM new
Sorry, but that's straight 1st amendment. The only schools that have student led prayer are private sectarian ones. Where on earth do you christian zealots get such misinformation?
posted on January 28, 2001 10:22:18 AM new
Notice that when you talked about all the other gods, you lower cased your g. Yet when you talked about God, it was uppercase. Now ask me that question again.
And that was some nice blasphemy you did there with my examples.
Newauctionguy--
An answer to one of items you listed.
The pilgrims, English separatists that came to America in 1620, were even
more orthodox in their Puritan beliefs than Cromwell. As a result, Christmas
was not a holiday in early America. From 1659 to 1681, the celebration of
Christmas was actually outlawed in Boston. Anyone exhibiting the Christmas
spirit was fined five shillings. By contrast, in the Jamestown settlement,
Captain John Smith reported that Christmas was enjoyed by all and passed
without incident.
After the American Revolution, English customs fell out of favor, including
Christmas. In fact, Congress was in session on December 25, 1789, the first Christmas under America's new constitution. Christmas wasn't declared a federal holiday until June 26, 1870.
It wasn't until the nineteenth century that Americans began to embrace Christmas. Americans re-invented Christmas, and changed it from a raucous carnival holiday into a family-centered day of peace and nostalgia.
posted on January 28, 2001 10:24:21 AM new
Hmmm.. seems to me that any school can have student-led prayers, whether they be in the form of a club, a group of students together, the annual "Prayer Around The Pole" at the beginning of the year... PROVIDED that they are not teacher/administration led and do not force others into doing it.
posted on January 28, 2001 10:25:08 AM new
Actually I only capitalized god out of respect to you, but know that you've tried to take a cheap point from my having done so, I won't do it again.
Blasphemy only to a christian, friend. I'm sure that all of our wiccans felt some sense of the rightiousness of what I said.
posted on January 28, 2001 10:26:06 AM new
Good point, Zazzie, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that it is a Christian holiday and that it is still honored by government. I don't see many Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. celebrating Christmas.
posted on January 28, 2001 10:30:03 AM newAll Bush is trying to do is go back to the founders original intent.
Ah, but you forget one key ingredient: Dumbya is NOT A SMART MAN! Everyone knows this fact.
He is a bull in the proverbial China Shop and our country is the fine china on the shelves being tossed askew.
McCain will spend much of his time when he is elected in 2004 (God willing ) picking up the mess that Duhbya is already creating.
posted on January 28, 2001 10:30:16 AM new
Read the whole article---there is very little about the celebration of Christmas that has anything to do with Christ. It is celebrated on Dec 25th--because early church leaders figured it would be good as all the other religions had celebrations at this time.
Christmas if full of PAGAN rituals--that if Church leaders looked long and hard at them--they would probably ban them. But why mess with tradition---eh??
posted on January 28, 2001 10:30:45 AM new
I think the rule is (at least this was the rule when I was in high school) that a school has to allow a Christian organization the same rights and privilages of any other club on campus but they can't be monetarily assisted by said campus.
posted on January 28, 2001 10:32:29 AM new
Mess that is being created? In a slanted view, I guess you could call it that. But this is just the beginning of a great four years. The turn around of a country that was hindered by deceit, lack of morals, etc.
posted on January 28, 2001 10:45:24 AM new
So far this seems the most conservative administration since Herbert Hoover. I pray to dog that we don't see the likes of the turn around that brought us.
I think Dubya is as at least as good at deceit and lack of morals as any other prominent US politician today.
posted on January 28, 2001 10:54:07 AM new
oh--here's another one
the motto "In God We Trust" is not part of the Great Seal, and did not appear on the dollar bill until 1957. It has no relation whatsoever to our government's formation.
So--Newauctionguy--where does it say that the GOD whose name is invoked is the Christian God. There are many Gods in the world's religions. You say it is 'assumed' because the first immigrants were Christian...but they were alos Puritan...should the USA go back their form of spartan worship.
Edited cause Maddienicks is watching out for me
[ edited by Zazzie on Jan 28, 2001 11:16 AM ]
posted on January 28, 2001 11:12:41 AM newnewguyI don't see many Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. celebrating Christmas.
Why should they? As a christian, do you even KNOW where the word derives from? A christian, is a FOLLOWER OF CHRIST...How in the world can a Jew, Moslem, Indu celebrate christ, since they are not his followers? Begging your pardon, but that was not a very clever comment
And GOD and CHRIST are two different things.
GOD is all-emcompassing, the creator of all...GOD is the pure energy which created that very first atom, from which we evolved after billions of years. Jesus was a Jewish leader and a good Rabbi - A Rabbi is a TEACHER.
Or perhaps, you see GOD literally as a very old, bearded man sitting in heaven?
posted on January 28, 2001 11:13:22 AM new
Hey, Zazzie - it's newauctionguy. I haven't seen networker around for a while.
God is God, newauctionguy. And the US government has no right to tell me or my kids that the one true God is the one who passes judgement and sends his followers out to spread hate and fear. It's a basic principal of this country! Freedom of religion!
The God I believe in is a Father - He loves us all equally. He forgives us all equally. And most importantly, (and most often missed), He expects and wants us to all love and respect each other - not beat each other to death over which version of Him is "right".
You worship your God in the way you see fit, and let the rest of us do the same.
(And, BTW - I am a Christian. Raised in the Church of Christ before learning that God can exist in a joyous place where they can even play a piano to accompany the hymns. But my Faith is every bit as strong as yours. He takes care of me. Always has. Always will.)
posted on January 28, 2001 11:15:14 AM newThe turn around of a country that was hindered by deceit, lack of morals, etc
Do snorting cocaine, getting arrested for DUI, and hypocrisy constitute GOOD morals in your book?
posted on January 28, 2001 11:19:11 AM new
Oh, and newauctionguy, since you're obviously a Bush supporter, let me pose a question I had on the pro-life thread that remains unanswered:
Can you give a rational argument as to why George Bush cutting off any federal funding and support for people who give emotional counseling to women in crisis and advise alternatives to abortion can conceivably be a 'good thing'?
posted on January 28, 2001 11:19:52 AM new
A Horrifying First Week? One poll, from FoxNews.com doesn't look too bad. Seems some Americans like what he's been doing in this, his first week in office.
Sixty-one percent have a favorable opinion of President Bush, and 64 percent have a favorable view of Vice President Dick Cheney. After only a few days on the job, 46 percent of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing, 14 percent disapprove, and fully 40 percent aren't sure.
posted on January 28, 2001 11:28:06 AM new
Dont forget Foxnews is pure republican, and they poll republicans. The liberals dont have their own station. To see unbiased views watch C-Span in the morning, and you will see not everyone likes Bush. I think McCain will beat him in 2004!
posted on January 28, 2001 11:43:30 AM new
With Clinton it was "define sex" With Bush it will be define "Christian"
Ask ANY preacher who "true" Christians are.
You will get one answer per sect.
Are they the "Christian gunmen" I keep reading about in other countries. Are they the "Christians" that keep killing each other in Ireland?
I just remember still, being taken out in the hall and beaten in 1959 in North Carolina because I would not join in a prayer led by the teacher. They were praying for stupid remeaning things like pets and politicians.
Why didn't the founding Fathers say that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of the Church or of Christianity if that is what they meant?
Because they were a whole lot brighter and far seeing than you are giving them credit for being. We are plagued with little men of limited vision.
[ edited by gravid on Jan 28, 2001 11:49 AM ]
posted on January 28, 2001 01:05:55 PM newNewauctionguy opines: The idea of the 1st Amendment was that no Christian sect would be more powerful/dominant than any other, yet Chrisitanity (as itself) would be the nation's religion.
I wonder if this wins Stupid Comment of the Week or Stupid Comment of the Year award?
To begin with, there were an established Jewish community in the New World in the 16th Century. The pilgrims came in 1620.
Article VI of the Constitution contains the following: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
In response to the following letter of congratulations from Moses Seixas, a leader of the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island:
To the President of the United States of America Newport Rhode Island August 17th 1790.
Sir
Permit the children of the Stock of Abraham to approach you with the most cordial affection and esteem for your person & merits and to join with our fellow Citizens in welcoming you to New Port.
With pleasure we reflect on those days--those days of difficulty, & danger when the God of Israel, who delivered David from the peril of the sword, shielded your head in the day of battle: and we rejoice to think, that the same Spirit who rested in the Bosom of the greatly beloved Daniel enabling him to preside over the Provinces of the Babylonish Empire, rests and ever will rest upon you, enabling you to discharge the arduous duties of Chief Magistrate in these States.
Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now (with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events) behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People--a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance--but generously affording to All liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship: deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language, equal parts of the great governmental Machine: This so ample and extensive Federal Union whose basis is Philanthropy, Mutual Confidence and Publick Virtue, we cannot but acknowledge to be the work of the Great God, who ruleth in the Armies Of Heaven and among the Inhabitants of the Earth, doing whatever seemeth him good.
For all the Blessings of civil and religious liberty which we enjoy under an equal and benign administration, we desire to send up our thanks to the Antient of Days, the great preserver of Men--beseeching him, that the Angel who conducted our forefathers through the wilderness into the promised land, may graciously conduct you through all the difficulties and dangers of this mortal life: and, when like Joshua full of days and full of honour, you are gathered to your Fathers, may you be admitted into the Heavenly Paradise to partake of the water of life, and the tree of immortality.
Done and Signed by Order of the Hebrew Congregation in Newport Rhode Island
Moses Seixas, Warden
George Washington replied:
Gentlemen.
While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.
The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and a happy people.
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.
Go: Washington
---------------------------------------------
Evidently, the vaunted Founding Fathers had a different appoach in mind than Newauctionguy. To my relief, they founded this country and not "newauctionguy".
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Jan 28, 2001 03:43 PM ]
posted on January 28, 2001 03:50:31 PM new
LOL @ "Which one of Bush's cousins works for Fox news? You know, the one who released the elecion results? They got him taking polls now?"
Probably, and Greenspan must somehow be related to the Bush clan too , as he's now agreeing it might be in our economies best interest to receive a tax refund too. hehe You just never know.
Edited to say, I meant tax cut, not refund.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 28, 2001 03:54 PM ]
posted on January 28, 2001 04:44:15 PM newnewauctionguy: the ideology of "seperation of church & state" certainly *did NOT* originate in the 60s, as you state.
Here is Thomas Jeffeson responding to a letter sent to him by a religious group after his inauguration:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
James Madison:
"In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts....The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst by an entire abstinence of: the Govt from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst trespasses on its legal rights by others." (in a letter to Rev. Jasper Adams)
and
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" (in response to a proposed Bill enforcing Christianity)
Here is a prophetic speech by Benjamin Underwood, 1876:
The time will come, when it will be seen, not less clearly, that the popular notion that there is an utter disconnection between Church and State in America, and that all our laws are in harmony therewith, is a notion which is at variance with the real facts. Nor is there a universal recognition of the right of all persons to avow and advocate their religious beliefs. There is in this country a class by no means inconsiderable in numbers or insignificant in influence that show by their acts, and a certain party among them by the frank avowal of their purposes, that they are opposed to equal rights and impartial religious liberty. Nothing will satisfy them but the incorporation of their own religious dogmas into the National Constitution, so as to make them a part of the organic law. Then, while we should not be insensible to the great achievements of a century, while indeed, we should feel gratified with the numerous evidences of progress, and among them the undoubted increase in liberality of sentiment, yet patriotism does not require, nor will a reasonable prudence and forethought permit us, to ignore the existence of evils which have descended to us, or those which have sprung up and assumed prominence in our own time, and, if not checked, may be a source of mischief in the future.
Here, as in other countries, there is a large class in whose education the principles of morality have been subordinated to the dogmas of theology, and whose devotion to their religion, in consequence, is far stronger than their sense of justice, or their understanding of its requirements in their relations with their fellow men. They are willing, at any time, to support measures that they think will promote the interests of their faith, without regard to the personal or legal rights of those who cannot adopt their views. Many of them lack the breadth of thought and catholicity of spirit to understand that there is any wrong in censuring and punishing those who reject their creeds, which they not only firmly believe to be true, but regard as surpassing in importance all other truths. Hence they would conscientiously, to the extent of their ability, prevent all discussions and suppress all doubts tending to disparage them, and interdict any denial of their truth or divine origin. They would gladly have the government changed to correspond with their religious views, and so administered as to favor and enforce exclusively their religious beliefs.
There are others who are more intellectual, but quite as much under the influence of theological creeds, who are in favor of a union between Church and State, because they see that, from their standpoint, there is a logical necessity for it, to make the government harmonize with the teachings and demands of their religion. ...
John Adams, the second U.S. President rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and became a Unitarian. It was during Adams' presidency that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, which states in Article XI that:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072).
posted on January 28, 2001 04:57:28 PM new
I am flicking my Bic in honor of Bunnicula. That was awesome.
This quote here: "There is in this country a class by no means inconsiderable in numbers or insignificant in influence that show by their acts, and a certain party among them by the frank avowal of their purposes, that they are opposed to equal rights and impartial religious liberty." gave me absolute chills, because it is so completely and utterly true to this day.
posted on January 28, 2001 05:09:27 PM new
You're welcome, Maddienicks Yes, that Underwood speech was incredibly spot on, wasn't it? I believe that as the religious right (ie Christians, in the U.S.) is becoming more predominant & vocal, working to strengthen its hold on this country, it is important to be vocal in return. It is a truth that if something is repeated often enough (& without opposition) it will soon be taken as fact.
[/b]krs:[/b] thank you, kind sir! <blush>
[ edited by bunnicula on Jan 28, 2001 05:11 PM ]
) picking up the mess that Duhbya is already creating.
