Why our lives, society are in such chaos
A superficial inspection of American culture reveals that it operates within a system of practices and/or doctrines that disrespect and/or reject Christianity and presume the material world is all that exists (that mankind is the measure of all things), resulting in Christianity’s exclusion from the public square, as evidenced by the long-term successful activities of the ACLU.
Webster identifies a word that is thus defined: secularism. It is the philosophy of choice for American intellectuals and political life.
It is the initial step on the path to shamelessness — with no reference point for decency — so rampant in our culture today.
The second major detractor to our culture is its acceptance of multiculturalism, giving equal credence to all philosophies.
This issue rules out critical thinking, resulting in the loss of reason, as evidenced by intricate subjects being treated in a simplistic manner.
Again, this is standard stock for intellectuals and within the political realm.
The third major depreciator is the socially required and legally enforced separation of our private and public lives.
It mandates that issues of ultimate meaning be kept private, leaving people without meaning, lacking a reference point for life’s essence.
Need we wonder why private lives, the public marketplace, the political realm and our culture are in such a chaotic state?
Larry Harrison, Lakewood
After "It is the initial step" you kind of wandered off the ranch there.
I tried to find and follow the logic thread but it was like pushing a worm uphill: not worth the effort.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 10, 2007 03:16 AMDear Editors:
I'm willing to bet you had ten letters that weren't the meandering, nonsensical mess that this one is. Why didn't you print those?
Larry: Try coming out and saying what you mean. I reckon 2-3 sentences would have done it.
What, by the way, did you mean?
Just another one of those, "Let's turn the clock back a few hundred years, and turn the nation over to one or other of the so-called "Christian" nut cults; who will then make it a "Christian-Taliban" ruled country, where ignorance and stupidity, together with superstition and prejudice, keep everyone in the same straight-jacket, under the thumb of whatever Elmer Gantry does the most theatrical job of banging a book and bellowing b-s", letters so dear to the hearts of today's "conservatives".
Gimme that old Je$u$ Bu$ine$$!
And I'll rule over thee!
(You know the tune.)
You three were up early to pat each other on the back about sharing the same point of view, aren't you? It's really quite humorous to read your clearly fear-inspired posts against Christianity, even though Christianity is subject to all sorts of limits that are not imposed upon other religions. For example, visit any public school(in Colorado at least) around Christmas time, and you're likely to see decorations honoring Hannukah and Kwanzaa, but if a teacher is foolish enough to put a Merry Christmas, well the sparks are gonna fly. Sometimes such an offense against all the secularist children who really don't want to play secret santa and receive gifts from classmates is enough to cause a teacher to lose her/his job, as one of my friends was unfortunate enough to find out. It sounds like Larry also takes offense with the potential behaviors that stem from following a Darwinistic thought process to its conclusion, not exactly the most unreasonable conclusion when one looks at what many people would do to others if they thought the only "moral" obligation they have in life is to survive and reproduce as often as possible. Keep posting though you guys, it's good to know that collectivism is still around for anyone with a functional mind to oppose.
Posted by on July 10, 2007 07:49 AMLarry Harrison is right about one thing. His is, to use his words, a very "superficial inspection of American culture". It is also a very convoluted one that sounds like the senseless meanderings of a wrought up mind.
I think maybe he would like to be conveyed back to the good old days when many "good Christians" misused Christianity to justify slavery and bigotry and did it with utter shamelessness.
I think what may bother Larry are all those different roads. He wants to close all of them except the Christian path. It's called rampant bigotry.
Posted by Truth on July 10, 2007 08:08 AM
Nice blog 7:49, and so true. I guess those three think they are not bigots and not cultivating intolerance and hateful rhetoric. Since it's Christian's though they wish to propogate the myth that it is acceptable.
The Christian Taliban remark was, and is ill- equipped?
Posted by Ben on July 10, 2007 08:14 AMWhy do people badmouth the ACLU?
They must hate Liberty.
7:49 and Ben
I am bothered by the statement:
"...visit any public school (in Colorado at least) around Christmas time, and you're likely to see decorations honoring Hannukah and Kwanzaa, but if a teacher is foolish enough to put a Merry Christmas, well the sparks are gonna fly."
Not true in my 23 years of teaching.
What public schools are not allowed to do is to promote any of these celebrations as more important or "true" than the others. Students learn about each of these cultural celebrations and that they are honored as "true" by various cultures in the world. Students in my up-close experience have always been free to express their culture's seasonal celebration.
Posted by Tom on July 10, 2007 08:36 AM07:49
Adopt a name and use it, then I might rebut your foolishness.
Posted by Charles B on July 10, 2007 08:38 AMAnd I suppose the letter writer's rambling and disconnected diatribe against everything that is outside his understanding, and/or indicative of any form of thought outside his limited presentation of his own fantasy concerning how "Christianity" is excluded from American life, IS NOT, itself, "bigotry".
Why, of course not! "Christians" can demand to have their views imposed on everyone, and that's just . . . proper missionizing (?) . . . "moral superiority "(?) . . . evidence of "righteousness" - as opposed to the evil thoughts of those who disagree (?) . . . or all these, and more? But for those not afflicted with the ego inflation of "Christian" self-righteousness to disageee wiith, and even speak harshly against , "Christians" is really bad.
There is an old saying: "If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, and is found in the company of ducks, it's probably a duck."
Perhaps those most offended by a comparrison of today's so-called "Christian" attacks on secular government, and freedom of thought, with the Taliban, ought to really make some effort to find out just how much the two movements have in common.
Ah! But, that would mean actually having to open up, and try to use, THE MIND their own god gave them in the first place. And that, above all, is the worst "sin" possible for the "fundamentalists".
Posted by Old Grouch on July 10, 2007 08:46 AM
As a Christian, I for one have never felt restricted in the practice of my religion. I think if people will look back, the idea of Christianity being "attacked" (for lack of a better term), began when the Christian Church inserted itself into the political arena in this country. Once it did that, many people began to feel threatened and pushed back.
If anything, the Christian Church has brought this chaos upon itself. Christians complain that their religious freedom is limited while they crusade to limit things as gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research. As a gay man, the Christian Church has limited my public and private life more then the government has limited my religious life.
The Christian Church prides itself on rallying against things that are "choices". But the truth of the matter is that religion is also a "choice". So if they believe that limiting other people's "choices" is okay, then why is it the end of the world when their "choice" seems to be limited?
John claims to be a Christian and a gay man leaving me to wonder how he can love a dogma that hates him. Latin is re-introduced in the Catholic dogma: Good. Now the credulous laity will not know what the pedophile priest is saying.
Deicide Corner: The mysteries, on belief in which theology would hang the destinies of mankind, are cunningly devised fables whose origin and growth are traceable to the age of Ignorance, the mother of credulity. -- Edward Clodd
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org and ask for copy of FreeThought Today) on July 10, 2007 10:02 AMPerhaps 07:49 AM might deign to inform us just what is more exemplary of "collectivism" than an auditorium full of sheeple shouting "AMEN! Hallelujah!" to the rant and cant of a Ted Haggard, for instance; and then paying the man well over $100,000 after he gets caught doing the very things - committing the very "sins" - he was ranting against. Not to mention the man's lying about the matter till he finally got offered enough to buy him out.
Oh! Yes! We do have the pronouncement of Doctor Dobson, to the effect that Ted is now - after 3 weeks of "therapy" - "100% hetersexual"; and is going away to prepare to become a "counsellor" for others. So naturally, the sheeple are obligated to help pay for this wonderful new way for Haggard to present Christianity to those who are not yet followers.
Oh! Yes! Of course! That's an example of "Christian forgiveness"; not at all one of sheering the simple minded COLLECTIVE of the sheeple for a payoff to let everything get swept under the rug, and put out of sight long enough for the scandal to blow over.
Different dictionaries, perhaps?
Posted by Old Grouch on July 10, 2007 10:14 AMRichard,
Please don't assume what my dogma is based on your perceptions of the leaders of different denominations. My faith experience has been a very personal journey that you will never understand by observing generalities.
Larry-
You're a nut. Sorry, but true, a straight up fanatic -- perhaps you should see a doctor as your wandering logic suggests perhaps there is something physically wrong with your mind.
It is amazing when the majority whine about being prosecuted, but then again, being the good Christian in the lion's den is central to the faith. Kind of hard to be the "prosecuted Christian" in your megachurch.
I find all religion to be not worth the paper it's printed on, but since Christian's are the majority here, I watch them the closest.
I feel so sorry for these lost little souls, who need an absolute authority to spell things out for them and who need the absolute last word when logic fails them " 'Cause God Said So!" The rest of us are cutting the apron strings to this "Father" and attempting to mature as individuals and as a race. Come, join us. The answers aren't always apparent, and we may get it wrong for a while, but in the end, we will be a truly stronger people that will be able to stand on our own and do things because they are right, not because we fear punishment from some all-powerful deity.
Posted by Roger on July 10, 2007 10:30 AMLarry wants a Taliban-like Christian theocracy. And then he also claims to be one of the poor, pitiful, hard done by little Christian martyrs who have to suffer the shame and horror of a "secular" society.
Funny that the poor put-upon martyrs seem always to be a phone call away from the White House (James Dobson & co) and always seem to be making a lot of noise through wackos like Robertson, Dobson & others whose faces & images are always saturating the airwaves.
If these charlatans are a "reference point for decency" then we're in worse shape than I thought.
Posted by drew on July 10, 2007 10:49 AMOh my cup runneth over with grist and sweet oils.
Larry said ” superficial inspection of American culture reveals that it operates within a system of practices and/or doctrines that disrespect and/or reject Christianity and presume the material world is all that exists (that mankind is the measure of all things), resulting in Christianity’s exclusion from the public square, as evidenced by the long-term successful activities of the ACLU.”
It would have to be a remarkably superficial inspection if it concluded that Christianity was “exclu[ded] from the public square”. There are more churches per square mile than pubs in this country, and even presidential hopefuls need to bend the knee before various church leaders if they are going to stand a chance. The Christian churches in the US are regularly quoted, consulted, interviewed, and deferred to on matters ranging from medical science, physics, and cosmology, let alone matters of foreign policy, morality, and the law. There is scarcely a subject over which religious leaders don’t get to have an influential voice. No election, however small, goes without some nod to the churches and a few pious statements to demonstrate the candidates holiness, be that for a would-be judge or the local sheriff.
One thing I agree with though, is that the form of virulent commercialized religion of the “Je$u$ Bu$$ine$$” as OG calls it, is indeed a base form of “disrespect” and rejection of Christianity.
Political Correctness of the greatest kind is to pretend that religion doesn’t have great influence in this country, and that religion isn’t ruled by commerce. Nobody is supposed to notice this and nobody is supposed to mention that it isn’t polite to mention noticing it.
Now, about the ACLU.
Seems to me it is quite active in championing people’s rights to follow the religion of their calling without state or other interference.
Also seems to me that it defends people regardless of their political affiliations or religions.
So as a proximal cause for any damage to the church, it is an unlikely suspect.
One interesting case is where the ACLU tried to get basic employment rights for church employees.
However, it is PC not to notice that churches routinely disobey basic employment rules, and this is routinely ignored and allowed.
Maybe this is what Larry meant, maybe he feels that the church should be exempt from ordinary laws and that the ACLU shouldn’t take up a case of discrimination or abuse if it involves the church.
Perhaps nothing short of a Theocracy would satisfy Larry.
"MSNBC News Services
Updated: 7:52 a.m. MT July 10, 2007
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches."
If you want to see what's wrong with society, just look at the above. Every misinformed, nutcase sect runs around calling every other misinformed nutcase sect "defective"(even while one's pedophile priests are abusing kids). And then every nutcase religion condemns every other nutcase religion to hell because their followers don't believe in the the "one, true path."
Eliminate this crapola & you'll be a long way along the road to eliminating chaos. Secularism & reason couldn't even dream up anything this dysfunctional and irrational.
Posted by drew on July 10, 2007 11:31 AMI had to take a couple of months off from posting in these forums, too many right-wingnuts and Bush apologists. The idea that Christianity is being opressed in this country is so far beyond the truth I cannot believe anyone would utter it. If anyone promotes a state religion, they are anti-American and do not believe in the cOnstitutioin. Period. I for one am sick of christians whining about being persecuted in the public forum, I feel it is quite the opposite, I now have to listen to people like Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani tlak about htier faith, it digusts me. It is none of our business what they do on their own time, I care about policy and performance. Not how often they go to church. Looking at the news of the day just proves my point, another right-wing hater is found to be a cusotmer of a prostitution business. Why is it always the holier than thou types who get caught banging the hookers? Keep your religious ideas to yourself and out of politics.
Also, demonizing the courts or the ACLU will surely come back to haunt all you haters, the last 7 years the courts are getting more conservative, what iof they decide that your brand of Christianity doesnt fit their belief system?
Get a life wing-nuts. Stop being hypocrites and start being citizens.
Posted by Jim Hart on July 10, 2007 11:34 AMC'mon Drew, we have to refer to that as "faith". Learn the codewords. And don't forget where the Pope learned his brand of leadership, that's right, the Hitler Youth.
Posted by Jim Hart on July 10, 2007 11:41 AMI sense a lot of hatred for Christians in some of these posts. What has happened to you personally, or even to a loved one, which might to cause you to be so defensive against a whole religion? Please try to refrain from (again) bringing up history, because that's totally irrelevant. It's like saying Germans are Nazis, or bald people are racists. Try also to maintain a truthful position unobscured by lies or rumors. I challenge you to be original and civil. Thanks.
Posted by Gail K on July 10, 2007 02:52 PMGail K
You have an unrelenting procession of letter writers on this site - most with a religious bent - trashing our society & its values & laying the "blame" for all society's ills - real & perceived - at the feet of those who don't follow a particular religious dogma (see letter from your buddy Larry above). Or at the feet of "secularists", etc, etc.
How about taking the blinkers off and asking your religious brethren for some "tolerance" and truthfulness. I'm so tired of Christians playing the martyr card when they always have a grand old time trashing people who haven't inherited the religious gene. They also have more money, power & influence in this society than about anyone else.
Posted by drew on July 10, 2007 03:45 PMDrew,
I saw no hint at the martyr card in Larry's letter. He stated his opinion as to why there is such tumult in our country. I tend to agree with some of it, while I am also confused by his word structure and meaning.
We can ask American Christians for more "tolerance," as you request, while most religions in the world have almost no tolerance, as most fanatics of any political or religious following have almost no tolerance.
I agree that Christians in the good ol' USA have very little to fear compared to those in many other parts of the world. In these places, people with your so-called "religious gene" opposing Christianity is taken to such serious levels that people are tortured and die regularly rather than convert from their Christian faith. We seldom hear of this in mainstream media.
BTW - can you please cite your sources regarding the wealth, power and influence of Christians? Thanks, I do appreciate discovering that myself. Sounds interesting.
Gail K told us:
"I sense a lot of hatred for Christians in some of these posts."
I didn't sense or read anything hateful toward Christianity that wasn't aimed at those Christians pretending martyrdom or insinuating their own righteousness in their beliefs. Could you point out what you consider hateful?
"BTW - can you please cite your sources regarding the wealth, power and influence of Christians?"
Let's see, by the most conservative estimate, 70%of Americans are Christians. The odds of them not controlling at least a majority of the wealth, power and influence in our country are extremely low. If they don't, then it's an indictment of Christianity as a breeding ground for under-achievement.
Posted by Charles B on July 10, 2007 04:52 PMThanks Charles B. That does make sense. I think I've seen estimates, or polls, which claim more than 70% of the US population are Christians, but either way, it's greater than a two-thirds majority! Common sense and democratic process would indicate that should be enough to give them a majority rule, if they themselves can agree about anything. I admit that I am among them.
On the other hand, I also believe that lots of people label themselves Christian erroneously. That might be their assumed birthright or something, but they know very little of what the faith actually stands for, much less do they have any intention to practice or proclaim it publicly.
In answer to your inquiry about my observation of Christian hate - wow, from "Old Grouch" and down, I see several who have no tolerance for Christians.
Posted by Gail K on July 10, 2007 05:12 PMOnce again, the usual crew of vultures is in attack mode here. Are you guys (Sharon B, Charles B., Old Grouch, Truth, dmz, Drew and Bango Skank always in a position of ambush? Are you so righteous that you have to lay in wait just to pounce on anybody who dares to use their “freedom of expression” that the left propagandizes as a cause they own? It is glaringly obvious that it is the leftist who instinctively goes against any freedom of expression that doesn’t fit their template. What a pathetic bunch of leaches that is always out for blood of those they disagree with. You all are far too impressed with your selves. None of you have the charm or dignity to simply discuss an issue without bringing out the claws and fangs. Yet you purport yourselves to be against violence, tolerant, multicultural, and kinder and gentler.
Posted by Mountain Cat on July 10, 2007 05:13 PMGail K
Larry may not play the martyr card, but he does play the blame game:
"..secularism. It is the philosophy of choice for American intellectuals and political life. It is the initial step on the path to shamelessness — with no reference point for decency — so rampant in our culture today."
You're the one playing the "martyr card" - "I sense a lot of hatred for Christians in some of these posts." (boo, hoo)
And as for money, power & influence - at least half a dozen Christian religious leaders (James Dobson for one - as well as the guy who was having the backrubs from the gay prostitute, until he was unmasked) have (or had) a direct line to Bush - he will take their calls at any time. That's not political influence?
And he won't even take a major decision unless he gets the OK from Dobson. If you'd like more proof, I'd be happy to get it. And to imply that the Christian community in this country isn't wealthy is just asinine.
Posted by drew on July 10, 2007 05:23 PMMountain Cat,
And what, pray tell, would you consider "a simple dicsussion with charm and dignity"? Hmm? Would that be merely a roundtable acquiescence in christian, conservative talking points? Would that be a mindless nodding of heads in agreement with whatever you want to advance?
Remember, pal, that debate is usually a rancorous process, especially in an open forum like this one. And just who is to blame for the country being as hideously polarized as it is at this point in our history? Two names certainly come to mind, Richard Nixon and Karl Rove. Hardly the gentle little kittens you insinuate conservatives to be. Indeed, Rove has done his job a little too well, since people cannot even try to discuss anything remotely controversial anymore without the fangs and claws shortly a-flyin'. If liberals seem to be short to attack, it is because thay are sick of being on the defensive all the bloody time; but now conservatives scream "Can't we just all get along?" when they are the ones who have been attacking and continue to do so all the time. Ever listen to talk-radio? Hardly a sane, gentle, kind, or even rational venue there. Chill out, and either ignore the attacks or leave the forum if it bothers you that much.
Posted by Paulie on July 10, 2007 05:27 PMDrew at 5:23,
That's okay, don't cry for me, I can deal with it. Christians just call themselves "blessed" not wealthy!
..
\/
Larry, the sanctimonious Christian says:
"secularism. It is the philosophy of choice for American intellectuals and political life.
It is the initial step on the path to shamelessness — with no reference point for decency — so rampant in our culture today."
And without missing a beat Mountain Cat says:
"None of you have the charm or dignity to simply discuss an issue without bringing out the claws and fangs."
Guess us "pathetic bunch of leaches" don't have the right to fight back - we have to just take what Mr Cat's pals dish out. I guess that's what people with "no reference point for decency" do.
I wonder if "irony" is listed in Mr Cat's dictionary - and while he has the dictionary out, he'll see that we're leeches, not "leaches."
Posted by drew on July 10, 2007 05:41 PMHey, mountain cat, I've decided to copy your post below but I've left out your various opinions and included only your factual statements:
Did I miss any?
Posted by Truth on July 10, 2007 05:43 PMGail K,
lots of people label themselves Christian erroneously.
I guess that's true - the Pope today decreed that all you non-Catholic Christians are all bogus. If you're not Catholic I guess we'll see you at the good old fire & brimstone party. Jerry Falwell will be there too. As well as the " usual crew of vultures : me, Sharon B, Charles B., Old Grouch, Truth, dmz, and Bango Skank." Yee-hah!
Posted by drew on July 10, 2007 05:51 PMMountain Cat said ” Once again, the usual crew of vultures is in attack mode here. Are you guys (Sharon B, Charles B., Old Grouch, Truth, dmz, Drew and Bango Skank always in a position of ambush?”
Yup, yup, yup. Ambush is what I do, and thank you for comparing me to such a wonderful bird. Can I be the Aegypius tracheliotus please?
Also thank you for placing me amongst such a pantheon of people like Sharon, Groucho, Charles, Truth, et al. Much obliged I am sure.
Sadly yes, I am in permanent attack mode, would that I could be like some folks who can be incisive without being cutting, but alas I lack the neurons for that behavior.
” Are you so righteous that you have to lay in wait just to pounce on anybody who dares to use their “freedom of expression” that the left propagandizes as a cause they own?”
No indeed, I am not righteous, and still I pounce, as you say.
But I pounce on those who are pouncable, those whose statements invite attack. A sloppy argument, or an over-reach, or a bad syllogism. This is my natural prey, not left or right, just sloppy thinking.
” It is glaringly obvious that it is the leftist who instinctively goes against any freedom of expression that doesn’t fit their template”
Perhaps the glare was too much for your eyes then.
It isn’t a matter of Left or Right, both ends of the spectrum are doctrinaire in their thinking and both intolerant of freedom or innovation.
Your “template” for instance, is the belief that it is the Left who are thus and not the Right.
Here is the thing Mr.Cat, Left can be deeply Conservative, and Right can be deeply Liberal, depends on the flexibility of thought.
Now there’s a thing to ponder, eh?
” Yet you purport yourselves to be against violence, tolerant, multicultural, and kinder and gentler.”
Yup, yup, so I am.
But intolerant of the intolerant, and violent towards the violent.
So here I am, waiting in ambush, ready for violence, but opposed to conflict and violence.
It’s a mystery I tell you!
drew, Sharon B, Charles B, Truth, & Bango Skank ( Love your nom de plume!)
I guess we've all been exposed , let's just give up and let the self-appointed spiritual Imams of the right-wing make all our decisions for us, and return to the halcyon days BC (before Constitution) where everyone had a gay 'ol time stoning, flogging, and torturing one another for sinful transgressions ......... Oh ,wait.... I was just reminded that Alberto Gonzales, George W. Bush, and Shooter Cheney all agree that we can do that again, and that pesky Geneva Convention was just "quaint". .....Never mind.
God bless the ACLU.
Christianity: just another odd and badly written mythology
Posted by on July 10, 2007 07:20 PMHi Drew, 5:51
You said, "If you're not Catholic I guess we'll see you at the good old fire & brimstone party."
Yeah, we'll all be in for a surpise, I am certain of it! I too am not a Catholic, and I do none-the-less have my fate already sealed, once and for all. And it is not of my own doing. I don't particularly care what the pope might think, he's just a man anyway.
Posted by Gail K on July 10, 2007 09:32 PMI don't have a dog in this fight. To me, religion is the stupidness disease.
The level of vitriol here is quite amazing. I don't care one way or the other. Those that attack Christianity always want to use the extreme fundamentalists as their template for all Christians. They fear them and their influence but they overreach in their arguments.
OG and drew - comparing Christians in this country to the Taliban? Get real. While some fundies may sound very extreme, they don't go around lopping off heads. Besides, their influence is over-stated.
However, if you believe that Christians have no right to feel they are under attack just think what happens every year in December - lawsuits brought against people for just displaying their religious symbols in schools, on public property, etc. The ACLU is always right there to fight these evil Christians.
Yet, right now in San Diego, a group of Muslim students are getting a gender and religion segregated classroom in which to meet and pray for an hour a day, with an adult leading the prayers. All of this is going on at an elementary school.
The ACLU has been eerily silent on this. Imagine if this was a Christian group. All hell would be breaking out with the ACLU leading the way.
What is wrong with this picture?
It seems to me that you secularists that are so afraid of Christians are in denial that they are under attack. The politically correct secularists in California are allowing Muslim students to do what Christians and Jews are not permitted. They see no conflict in their positions and have not said a word.
Mr.Serious said ” The politically correct secularists in California are allowing Muslim students to do what Christians and Jews are not permitted.”
Maybe it has something to do with Muslims being a minority?
Or do you think that they would continue to be given a pass if they were an appreciable size of the population? Incidentally, isn’t it the case that Christians are allowed to pray at school too if they want, but it just can’t be the teacher qua government employee leading them in prayer?
But more to the point, are you saying that the Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to have prayers and whatnot at school, or are you saying that you also want to have them?
You also seem to be under the impression that secularists somehow prefer Muslims, and this is a misunderstanding of what is going on. Humanists tend to be even more suspicious of Islam than they are of Christianity, but since the Christians are the ones with the power and the ones wielding the club (or the stealth bomber) in most cases, the focus is on them.
RU, good try but the Muslims are not asking a school official to lead all the students in Muslim prayer every morning.
Orthodox Jews also have gender segregated prayer, but not at school.
If Muslim parents want their kids to miss one hour of school each day, that is sad.
RU, I grew up in a "Christian Nation" where they set the rules, laws and conventions. The good old U.S.A.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 11, 2007 10:00 AMGail K,
I think you are confusing "tolerance", and "approval". I have posted several times my adherance to the principles of freedom of speeh and freedom of religion. Both of these are Constitutional guarantees; and I believe that I am clear in my position on them. They are both two way cutting swords. You are totally free to speak, write, draw, paint, photograph, etc.,; and I am always against form of censorship that would prohibit your expression. You are equally totally free to believe, preach, practice, pray, and otherwise fulfill whatever be the fundamentals of your religion, as well, so long as you do so within the bounds of legality. (Shooting medical doctors who perform abortion is neither legal, nor is it "tolerable"; but there are religions today which advocate this kind of conduct as being, somehow, either commanded or approved by the deity of the religion.)
I, too, am free to speak, write, etc., in criticism or applause, concerning anything you might present; and of course, concerning anything that is of interest or importance to me. I am also free to tell you to keep YOUR religion OUT of my life; simply because the guarantee of freedom of religion is also a guarantee of freedom FROM religion. (You are free to knock on my door to try to peddle your relgion; but I am equally free to shut the door in your face.)
When your religion - Christian, pseudo-Christian, ploytheist, bibliolatry, U.F.O., or whatever - demands to take place or precedence - in any way, shape, or form whatsoever - in any part of the governments of the United States, or any State, Territory, or Possession thereof, I'll exercise my right of free speech to - among other things - tell you that this is unapprovable and unacceptable, and something that should be opposed by all Americans - religious or irreligious - as well.
When ANY religion tells me - or anyone else, for that matter - that IT is the "only", "true", etc., etc., expression or form of belief, and that all others are, somehow, "defective", I'll certainly respond, by way of free speech, to indicate that such a position is one of ignorance, stupidity, and a form of monumental arrogance in being both ignorant and stupid.
"Tolerance" does not mean, nor does it imply, either "silence" or "approval". And those who seem to think that "tolerance" does mean, or should mean - by some form of legislation, or other interference with other people's rights - that there needs to be some form of either "silence" or "approval" to religious pretentions and/or presentations; or who cry "persecution" when others speak out to express disapproval of a religion, merely show their own lack of ability to understand the reality and meaning of the word.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 11, 2007 10:01 AMRU Serious - when you start with the tired old "Christians are under attack" stuff all I can do is groan. Christians in this country wield an extraordinary amount of political & economic power.
And they like using that power to bash, criticize & control. Just look at the tone & substance of the letter that started this thread. They like to dish it out - but when anyone fights back or criticizes Christians, they immediately start sobbing that they're "under attack" from mean secularists. Give me a break - and grow a thicker skin!
And for the record I believe that all religion should be kept out of our schools & out of the public square - not just Christianity. The whole sorry mess is totally dysfunctional.
Posted by drew on July 11, 2007 10:25 AMHi Gail K
I'm really glad that you "have your fate sealed" for the happy hereafter. I'm really pleased for you.
But what about the billion Muslims who are also blissfully certain that they "have their fate sealed" for the hereafter? Or the millions of believing Jews who also "have their fates sealed" or the Seventh Day Adventists who are certain that everyone else is wrong? Do you get my drift? if there's only one "true way" doesn't that mean that most of the world's devout are wrong?
And then yesterday Pope Ratzinger says that his is the only "true" church. And remember that Ratzinger talks to God all the time.
Oh - but I forgot - your way must be right!
Posted by drew on July 11, 2007 10:39 AMAs a pragmatist, I like to look for the unintended consequences of such actions as letting little Muslim boys pray in gender segregated rooms.
The kids in this elementary school will very quickly let these boys know what they think of this backward religion.
Kids can be cruel, they can also open the eyes of boys not allowed to see the other side.
One reason there are so many Americans without a formal religious affiliation, I think, is the amount of criticism the Bible and the evangelicals get here. Islam gets very devout adherents because they never even know there is an argument against all religion out there in the world.
For this reason I think the Bible should be taught "as a book' in public schools so Christian children can hear the arguments against the Old Testament specifically and all the discussions of the resurrection story that abound in agnostic households.
The light of day can dispel a lot of myths.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 11, 2007 11:08 AMHi again Old Grouch,
In response to your post of 10:01, I have not heard of any religion which teaches it is good to shoot abortionists.
Why are you discussing our freedoms to believe what we want? I did not tell you to keep silent. Please point out where I might have even hinted such a thing.
Posted by Gail K on July 11, 2007 11:23 AMHi Drew,
Yup. That's one of those curiosities about religion. Everybody thinks they've got the corner on truth. That's how I believe too. One can only guess that since everybody has a different view, and they are all so opposed to one another, that there is no way they can all be right. I'm glad you do seem to understand that there's no truth to religious "universalism."
Posted by Gail K on July 11, 2007 11:29 AMYawn... this is a circular conversation...not really worth having. Apparently many people here, on both sides, think that if they post enough....the other people will see their point. Not gonna happen. The initial post was a disaster, both in structure and concept -- but the vast majority of responses are even worse! Yikes!
Posted by JB on July 11, 2007 11:41 AMYes JB, I doubt any of these discussions ever conclude with consensus of opinion.
Posted by Gail K on July 11, 2007 11:59 AMSharon said ”For this reason I think the Bible should be taught "as a book' in public schools so Christian children can hear the arguments against the Old Testament specifically and all the discussions of the resurrection story that abound in agnostic households.”
I tend to agree with you Sharon and would want other religions taught at the same time. Let them hear about Islam, Judaism, Jainism, Hindu beliefs, Buddhism, etc.
Teach them the history, the core beliefs, and the day to day practices and implications of the beliefs.
Teach them about secularism and humanism too.
I see no reason why religions and beliefs shouldn’t be the subject of examination and study.
JB and Gail, what makes you think that a “conclusion” is the objective of discussion here?
Hi Gail,
OK - glad we've cleared up that you've got the corner on truth, then. Seems a little arrogant, but maybe that's just me.
Sorry about the 4.9 billion people who are going to "hell."
But how do I "seem to understand that there's no truth to religious universalism?" Actually, my understanding is that there's no truth to religious chauvinism/dogmatism.
Posted by drew on July 11, 2007 12:51 PMDrew,
Dogma is an established doctrine or system of belief. When you say you don't believe there's any truth to religious dogma, you need to be specific about the "dogma" to which you are referring - that of all religions, or one in particular?
If you believe in religious universalism, you're saying that you think all religions have the truth. Do you think this is possible, when they are all in opposition to one another?
Posted by Gail K on July 11, 2007 01:07 PMI don't subscribe to the narrow, elitist dogmas that are put forth by different denominations within the "big 3" monotheistic religions (as well as some fringe religions) that arrogantly claim to be the sole purveyors of the "truth."
And all religions don't necessarily have the "truth" - but I certainly believe that there are many universal truths about God & the universe that are - or should be - shared by all. That's why I am a "universalist," to some extent, at least. Whereas I'd bet you believe that your God is the one "true" God, whereas the Muslim God is a non-existent one.
The narrow chauvinistic belief that one's religion is the only one that represents "truth" is one of the major reasons that there is so much strife in the world. Unfortunately, religion, to a large extent, has become a source of mankind's problems, rather than a cure for them.
I have to get on with other activities, but will make one more brief comment for now. It is not religion per se which causes conflicts, it's how man chooses to react to what he believes to be truth. It's how we interpret things, and how we apply our interpretations.
I applaud those who oppose my position for at least taking a position, rather than completely sitting it out and denying that there is a larger force in the whole scheme of things.
Posted by Gail K on July 11, 2007 01:38 PMWell, i don't know how religion can be separated from "how man chooses to react to what he believes to be truth." But we'll agree to disagree.
Posted by drew on July 11, 2007 01:49 PMAh, so this is where the gang is. I hate not being a part of a big discussion. Unfortunately (yet fortunate for you, Truth), I have nothing to say.
Posted by John II on July 11, 2007 02:03 PMGail K,
It is the religious individuals - usually calling themselves "Christian" - who are the ones most generally found hollering about "persecution". And they are the ones who most generally expect that THEIR point of view is the one that should become a universal practice to be shoved down everybody else's throat.
When this proposition is challenged, especially by way of stressing OUR FREEDOMS, they are the ones who insist that the Constitution does not mean what it says; and that there actually is no real "separation of Church and State" when it comes to their insistence upon something.
Read the lines. Read the innumerable postings that keep on telling everyone that the Founding Fathers didn't intend what they intended. And read as well, the whining, sniveling, moaning and snotty insulting of others about "persecution" when anyone makes a sound Constitutional rebuttal to "Christian" religious ignorance, damn fool nonsense, and stupidity.
Or, to put it briefly and succinctly:
It's always a matter of:
Gimme that old Je$u$ Bu$ine$$!
And I'll rule over thee!
And, if you don't accept the proposition that I'm supposed to be your ruler; and let me be your ruler, you're persecuting me.
So, I'll nearly always speak in terms of OUR FREEDOMS when answering religious b.s.; and leave the shovelling of that to those "Christians" who make it their Bu$ine$$ to shovel it.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 11, 2007 02:19 PMI should preface my comments with an apology to Larry Harrison of Lakewood. I probably should not have ranted the way I did since it is taking away from the reason he got on here to express his opinion.
But since I did open this can of snakes, I’d better answer to the call to back up my words.
Paulie,
No, I certainly do not at all expect people to simply agree and get along. There is nothing at all wrong with someone saying, “I disagree with the author of the letter and here is why…” But that is not what many on this site do.
Many on this forum feel we should been more diplomatic in our approach to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. All I am saying is pretty much the same thing here.
Many on this forum are left leaning. Some I would consider very left leaning. And it is by and large the left which claim that they have cornered the market on diversity of opinion. But my opinion is that that is false propaganda because as soon as a diverse opinion comes out from someone that they disagree with they treat that person like a heretic. Many on this forum have the attitude that “Since I don’t agree with them, since I do not understand them and since I cannot follow their logic, there must be something seriously wrong with them personally.” Many on this forum think they have to get their nose into nearly every topic with caustic responses, rather than either just passing by a letter they don’t understand or cannot follow, or at least respond by asking for clarification.
Or in one recent instance, a person (whom will remain nameless) said nothing to a letter writer named Bart other than that he should take the letter “b” out of his name and replace it with a “t”. Now, who can argue with helpful information like that, right? It sounded a bit immature to me.
I am fully aware that this forum is a place to express political discourse. I mean, we are not discussing needle point here.
By telling a personal story I’ll illustrate to you a difference I experienced between two different settings on Mothers Day:
In the morning my wife and I were with my family. I have two sisters that are very left leaning. My oldest sister is by far the more radical of the two, believing that we were attacked on 9/11 because Bush would not sign the Kyoto Accord. She is pretty militant and evangelistic in her approach to politics; so much so that since she cannot go a half-hour without bringing up some sort of nasty comment about conservatives or without trying to cramming her views down the throats of everybody around her that she and I finally had to come to a moratorium on discussion of politics during holidays and birthday gatherings. I’m more than willing to talk about the topics and debate them with her, but my mother (who agrees with her much more than not) and others in our family prefer we don’t do so when we are supposed to be together to celebrate. Yet she constantly violates our agreement. So on Mothers Day, she brought up a controversial political subject. I simply and politely expressed by disagreement and brought up some solid facts about the matter. Her form of rebuttal was to first interrupt me at every opportunity by just saying in so many words, “No, you are wrong! No, you are wrong!” Or she would simply give me a dismissive laugh as if I was bringing up nonsense when I was actually voicing solid facts and quoting some experts in the area of concern. Then when she saw that was getting tough to deal with she would totally ignore my comments that she couldn’t debate and would steer the conversation to a different aspect of the topic all together. When she saw that wasn’t working, she resorted to impugning my intelligence by ask me if I thought I was smarter than all of those who believe the way she believes. So, as is often the case on this forum, if there is a difference of opinion that is difficult to understand or hard to debate there must be some defect in the brain of the person delivering the message. Not only is that a rude low blow, but it’s about the weakest debating tactic there is. Not once did she trying adding any facts or findings of her own other than ask me why I would disagree with Time Magazine. Of course, she wouldn’t listen to my answer to that either.
Contrast that setting with this one. In the late afternoon of Mothers Day we went to my wife’s side of the family. They are fairly liberal, definitely strong Democrats, but not with the in-your-face-and-you-are-stupid-if-you-disagree-with-me style. During dinner a very congenial discussion broke out concerning the Electoral College. There was a lot of disagreement, but there was a ton of healthy give and take, and healthy respect, no interruptions during the other person’s comments, no self-righteous no-you-are-wrong-and-my-view-is-the-only-one-that-is-right! responses, no scoffing at anyone’s comments, and no diversions or manipulation of the conversation if one did not have a rebuttal. There was even laughter a couple of times. It was really cool. It was really educational. It was really admiring. It was like a breath of fresh air; a clean feel to it, not nasty and pungent. It was the way debates can usually be handled. We didn’t necessarily change each others minds to any great extent, but by the end of the evening we were all a lot more understanding of the others viewpoint, and there was no hostility in the air when we departed company as when my wife and I left my own family’s gathering.
Okay, okay. I’ll stop with all the blah-blah-blah and get off my soap box.
"Then when she saw that was getting tough to deal with she would totally ignore my comments that she couldn’t debate and would steer the conversation to a different aspect of the topic all together. When she saw that wasn’t working, she resorted to impugning my intelligence by ask me if I thought I was smarter than all of those who believe the way she believes."
Ha, that's funny. Truth follows the same debate tactics: ignores valid points and declares that no one else believes what I believe.
It's a familiar behavior among liberals. I wonder why that is...
Posted by John II on July 11, 2007 03:02 PMJohnII said "It's a familiar behavior among liberals. I wonder why that is..."
Yep, but also common amongst all other political persuasions.
It’s common to the species.
Odd that you only noticed it amongst liberals though, confirmation-bias playing up eh? ;)
"Yep, but also common amongst all other political persuasions."
Aha, Mr. Skank! So you admit that liberals exhibit this behavior... ;)
Posted by John II on July 11, 2007 03:32 PMMountain Cat, you should be very careful sharing personal stories on these forums. If certain people don`t like your opinions in general, they will call your stories, big lies, pathetic lies, fabrications etc.
However if they like your postings in general, you can give us personal stories about multiple alien abductions and they will never utter a peep against you.
Sorry your relative is such a jerk. Also sorry she is a liberal.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 11, 2007 05:33 PM