JayHoover

[Nineveh]

I thought this was a better place for our discussion, don't want to derail dave's thread any more than it is

Originally posted by JayHoover

First of all, you can certainly cite examples of extremes that are ridiculous. Overall, there is a massive amount of religious freedom in the USA. Jeez, you guys own every major power block around in the country, and you still feel oppressed?

I didn't bring up" feeling oppressed", you did.

How many Presidents are not Christian?
How many Senators are not Christian?
How many Representitives are not Christian?
How many Supreme Court Judges are not Christian?
How many Governors are not Christian?

What does this have to do with anything?

It's funny... most people think politicians lie... what except when they tell you what religion they subscribed to?

Look, this is Jesusland, plain and simple.

Well! You said so, must be so...

Thankfully, there's a little bit of realization out there that it serves both the secular and the religious to spearate the church and the state.

Because that's the way the majority of the Founders set it up to work. We run into a problem when Christians aren't allowed to offer prayer at the beginning of a town council meeting because a witch gets "offended".

The government should wisely remain neutral on issues of religion in public venues. That way you Christians are equally protected as are others who don't believe your religion but have their own. It always seems to escape you folks that if you implicate the government in religious favortism, you are gonna be screwed if the favortism shifts away from you particular blend of bleief system.

I'm well aware pagans hate Christ. They hate Christ so much they try to rewrite our history. Congress is pohibited from making laws concerning religion, however a town has the right to place a manger scene on it's courthouse lawn because, that's what the people decided to do.

I'll bet that for all the religious rightists on this formum who'd want the government to force prayers in school and support Christiantiy, not one of them would make the same case if the croyance du jour were Islam instead of Christianty.

You keep harping that Christians are the majority, then want to whine because we don't want to support paganism. Let the pagans support paganism. If a lil islamic kid wants to pray, it's not a Christian who will stop him.

Because "ID" is a thinly veiled code-word for "God". Theists don't seem to get it: Evolution is about science, and Creationism is about the Bible. It is religious in nature. Teach religion in religion classes (like comparative religion), and teach science in science classes. But don't teach a religious idea as science.

You have two options here:

1. The parents can "be involved" and have a say

-or-

2. You want them to shut up and sit down so you can teach them whatever you decide.

It's very very VERY simple.

Yes it is, option 1 or option 2.

Why not? It has both Old Testament and New Testament precedence.

Oh please.

Where is it you want ID taught then? In private Christian schools? That's fine. In fact, isn't it already?

I don't rightly care if it's taught in pullik skool. Like I said, I'm only forced to fund it. I dunno if ID is taught in Christian schools.

Personally, when I wanna look something up I go to AiG.

And instances like these are stupid and should be fought against.

Yes, it is stupid, I'm glad we agree

I'll help you fight against them. People should be allowed to say "Merry Christmas" at work. Or Happy Chaunkkah, or Kwanzaa. Or Candlemas Eve. I agree with you, but overwhelmingly, these events are few and far between, and are instances of extremism.

You missed a whole lot of news over last Christmas then.

Hardly the norm.

Even down to prohibiting the color of napkins.

This reminds me-- what is it that defines a "pagan" from a non-pagan?

Please keep in mind, you are asking me for my definition. I tend to keep things simple.

I see three groups of people in the world. Jews, Christians, and pagans.

 

[cattyfan]

originally posted by JayHoover
I'll help you fight against them. People should be allowed to say "Merry Christmas" at work. Or Happy Chaunkkah, or Kwanzaa. Or Candlemas Eve. I agree with you, but overwhelmingly, these events are few and far between, and are instances of extremism.

I refer you to here for a lengthy discourse on how Christians are increasingly being oppressed in virtually every arena when it comes to the holidays.

 

[JayHoover]

Re: JayHoover

Originally posted by Nineveh

I thought this was a better place for our discussion, don't want to derail dave's thread any more than it is

That's fine.

I didn't bring up" feeling oppressed", you did.

You said:

"Unfortunatly, the move is afoot to erase Christ from every corner of our society."

That would be the result of oppression.

What does this have to do with anything?

What it has to do with anything is that you live in a country that is ruled and governed by Christians by an overwhelming majority. At the same time, you state that there's a "move is afoot to erase Christ from every corner of our society." This is odd given that Christians run the country.

It's funny... most people think politicians lie... what except when they tell you what religion they subscribed to?

Well, I don't subscribe to what "most poeple think" when there are facts to define what can be known. Do "most politicians lie"? Perhaps they do. But your true comment here is really that even those who profess Christianity aren't really Christians-- because only the Christianity you might subscribe to is the "real Christianity"? Is that what you're saying? Because it sounds like it.

Well! You said so, must be so...

No, overwhelming numbers state it. By far, most people in the USA are Christians.

Because that's the way the majority of the Founders set it up to work. We run into a problem when Christians aren't allowed to offer prayer at the beginning of a town council meeting because a witch gets "offended".

Because your second sentence dismantles the effort of your first sentence. Any Christian can pray before any council meeting. Go pray. you cannot be stopped.

What you can't do is mandate everyone prays at your council meetings. And having the Council rise and proclaim, "Okay, we shall have our opening prayer" is mandating prayer under government aegis.

This is such a simple situation, but it becomes complicated because what the real motive is you want Christianity ensconced in government proceedings.

No. You cannot have it. Sorry. (And if you get it, believe me, you too shall be sorry. You already strongly imply that those "politicians" aren;t really Christians. You want to be subjected to their idea of prayer?)

I'm well aware pagans hate Christ. They hate Christ so much they try to rewrite our history. Congress is pohibited from making laws concerning religion, however a town has the right to place a manger scene on it's courthouse lawn because, that's what the people decided to do.

Sorry, I don't understand your claim that "pagans hate Christ". I see no relveance to the comment, nor is it necessarily true. I don;t even know what you mean by "pagan" -- you're all supernatural-believing theists to me.

As to the manger scenes, again, public property is the venue of the government and the government needs to remain mute and neutral on issues of religion.

Private property is a different matter.

You keep harping that Christians are the majority, then want to whine because we don't want to support paganism. Let the pagans support paganism. If a lil islamic kid wants to pray, it's not a Christian who will stop him.

If a Christian has his way and puts prayer into school, you surely don;t think the prayer will acknowledge Allah do you?

Your argument is very messy and convoluted. I am not "harping" that Christians are the majority -- they simply are the majority. Then you claim they don;t want to support pagaism in the same post where you insist that Christianity is being erased from society (only the people in power can do that. They have to rule in favor of such erasure). Please make some effort to make sense.

You have two options here:

1. The parents can "be involved" and have a say

-or-

2. You want them to shut up and sit down so you can teach them whatever you decide.

Yes it is, option 1 or option 2.

What are you talking about? For one, most Americans are so poorly schooled in science they... well, they don't even realize the evidence for evolution is massive and overwhelming in scope. And you want these parents deciding what to teach in science class?

Look, things were the way you want them about 50 years ago and prior. You know, the Scopes trial didn;t end successfully for evolution-- it was still outlawed across the land. Then, in 1957, the "atheistic Russians" orbited a satellite over our Dark-Ages heads and we went-- "Uh-oh. Maybe this here science is important."

Overnight, the push to become more scientifically literate led to the greatest revolution in technology the world has ever seen. That machine you comminucate with the rest of the world is a direct result.

Now you want to go back to that? Fine. Teach your kids that the earth is 6000 years old and that every other science is suspect because you need to have a creation myth take precedence over reality. Leave my kids alone however. I want my child schooled intelligently, not mythologically.

Oh please.

Don't blame me. I didn;t write it. I just disbelieve in it.

I don't rightly care if it's taught in pullik skool. Like I said, I'm only forced to fund it. I dunno if ID is taught in Christian schools.

Nor do I. But if it is, it's their right.

Personally, when I wanna look something up I go to AiG.

Eeesh. What a surprise. Try talkorigins, which presents both sides and references evidence. Wait. That won;t matter. Scripture overrides evidence, right?

Yes, it is stupid, I'm glad we agree

On this, yes.

You missed a whole lot of news over last Christmas then.

Even down to prohibiting the color of napkins.

Like I said, that's stupid and extreme. I'd join you in combatting such idiocy. But I didn;t miss the news. There were a few instances of this, but it's not a revolution. It's by far the exception, not the rule.

Please keep in mind, you are asking me for my definition. I tend to keep things simple.

I see three groups of people in the world. Jews, Christians, and pagans.

I see. Anyone who doesn't believe in the bible is a pagan.

And you consider them "silly", right?

You must be a fun neighbor.

 

[BillyBob]

Re: Re: JayHoover

Re: Re: JayHoover

Originally posted by JayHoover

By far, most people in the USA are Christians.

Is that a problem?

 

[Nineveh]

Re: Re: JayHoover

Re: Re: JayHoover

Originally posted by JayHoover

You said:

"Unfortunatly, the move is afoot to erase Christ from every corner of our society."

That would be the result of oppression.

Sorry you feel that way. But I don't feel "oppressed". I think the folks who try to remove God from the public square are doing more to show their hypocrisy than anything else.

What it has to do with anything is that you live in a country that is ruled and governed by Christians by an overwhelming majority. At the same time, you state that there's a "move is afoot to erase Christ from every corner of our society." This is odd given that Christians run the country.

Like I said, odd politicians are only assumed to be telling the truth when it comes to their religion, huh?

Well, I don't subscribe to what "most poeple think" when there are facts to define what can be known. Do "most politicians lie"? Perhaps they do. But your true comment here is really that even those who profess Christianity aren't really Christians-- because only the Christianity you might subscribe to is the "real Christianity"? Is that what you're saying? Because it sounds like it.

No, not at all. But just calling myself the Mayor doesn't make it so either. A tree is known by it's fruit.

No, overwhelming numbers state it. By far, most people in the USA are Christians.

There are a lot of folks right here at TOL who say that too. But weighing what they believe against what Christ said sort of gives one a different impression.

Because your second sentence dismantles the effort of your first sentence. Any Christian can pray before any council meeting. Go pray. you cannot be stopped.

No, but I could be sued if a witch is offended. Happend in GA around last spring, if I'm not mistaken.

What you can't do is mandate everyone prays at your council meetings. And having the Council rise and proclaim, "Okay, we shall have our opening prayer" is mandating prayer under government aegis.

See what I mean about showing hypocrisy when trying to remove God from the public square? One offended witch can try to make everyone bend to her singular will.

(I guess I shouldn't point out the US Congress starts with a prayer... )

This is such a simple situation, but it becomes complicated because what the real motive is you want Christianity ensconced in government proceedings.

LOL

That's funny

How old do you think I am that I started the whole thing way back when Congress was first formed? If the majority of folks want to pray before they start spending my money, more power to them. I don't require folks to check their faith at the door when they take a certain job.

No. You cannot have it. Sorry. (And if you get it, believe me, you too shall be sorry. You already strongly imply that those "politicians" aren;t really Christians. You want to be subjected to their idea of prayer?)

The US Congress has no power to establish a religion. According to the 1st amendment I am free to excersize my faith. And so are my Congressmen.

Sorry, I don't understand your claim that "pagans hate Christ". I see no relveance to the comment, nor is it necessarily true. I don;t even know what you mean by "pagan" -- you're all supernatural-believing theists to me.

Ok

As to the manger scenes, again, public property is the venue of the government and the government needs to remain mute and neutral on issues of religion.

Pardon?

Public property is what?

Silly me... and here all this time I was thinking the public pays for it and has access to it and it was well... public. And if the public of a town wants to decorate they have that right. It's their town, not yours, Mr. ACLU. A Christmas display is not establishing a religion. Quit being paranoid.

Private property is a different matter.

Until some pagan makes a case he is "offended", prolly another ACLU lawyer like in Roy Moore's case.

If a Christian has his way and puts prayer into school, you surely don;t think the prayer will acknowledge Allah do you?

I didn't imply a Christian would honor an idol.

Your argument is very messy and convoluted.

Or maybe you just need to re read what I wrote?

I am not "harping" that Christians are the majority -- they simply are the majority.

Yes you are, and whining too

Then you claim they don;t want to support pagaism in the same post where you insist that Christianity is being erased from society (only the people in power can do that. They have to rule in favor of such erasure). Please make some effort to make sense.

A Christian doesn't have to support other people's beliefs. I don't expect you to support mine. Don't be a goofball.

My point was it's not us disallowing any prayer. It was an atheist who tried to get prayer removed from school to being with.

Obviously.

What are you talking about? For one, most Americans are so poorly schooled in science they... well, they don't even realize the evidence for evolution is massive and overwhelming in scope. And you want these parents deciding what to teach in science class?

Oh gee. And they have only had how long to fix it? This sounds a lot like what John Kerry was saying after he lost.... "I just didn't get my message out". When in reality, the message was heard loud and clear... and rejected.

Over and over the mantra is chanted: PaernetsgetinvolvedParentsgetinvolvedParentsgetinvolved. So, like in Ohio, when they do, the school freaks out or like in PA the ACLU freaks out and overrules the desire of the school boards and parents.

Look, things were the way you want them about 50 years ago and prior. You know, the Scopes trial didn;t end successfully for evolution-- it was still outlawed across the land. Then, in 1957, the "atheistic Russians" orbited a satellite over our Dark-Ages heads and we went-- "Uh-oh. Maybe this here science is important."

Mmmhm...

And science scores weren't as abysmal then as they have become over the last 50 years either. Or history, or math, or reading....

But thanks for pointing out the evos have had a lock on science in the classroom for 50 years... how long do they need before they get their message out? Maybe Howard Dean can help them, too.

Overnight, the push to become more scientifically literate led to the greatest revolution in technology the world has ever seen. That machine you comminucate with the rest of the world is a direct result.

ROFL
Computers evolved from evolution!

It's funny... I can't even get evos to admit abiogenesis is a necessary part of evo and you want to give darwin credit for advances in electronics. Amazing.

Now you want to go back to that? Fine. Teach your kids that the earth is 6000 years old and that every other science is suspect because you need to have a creation myth take precedence over reality. Leave my kids alone however. I want my child schooled intelligently, not mythologically.

I wasn't aware I was stalking your children. Don't be a paranoid rube. How many times do I need to say, "I am only forced to pay for pullik skool, not required to use it."?

If you want you children to be "intelligent" you better get them out of the pullik skool. Do you even have any?

Nor do I. But if it is, it's their right.

Yep.

Eeesh. What a surprise. Try talkorigins, which presents both sides and references evidence. Wait. That won;t matter. Scripture overrides evidence, right?

Talk.origins is ubiased? :darwinsm:

Like I said, that's stupid and extreme. I'd join you in combatting such idiocy. But I didn;t miss the news. There were a few instances of this, but it's not a revolution. It's by far the exception, not the rule.

A few? After about 20 I got sick of posting them. Did you take a look at the link cattyfan gave you?

I see. Anyone who doesn't believe in the bible is a pagan.

No. Anyone who doesn't believe in the Creator God is pagan. To me, anyway.

And you consider them "silly", right?

From my experience here at TOL, quite a few are silly, yes.

You must be a fun neighbor.

I've never needed to have the cops called on me

 

[cattyfan]

Did JayHoover bother to read the article mentioned earlier?


Also, the movement to teach something along with (not instead of) evolution is growing. Both Kansas and Missouri now have legislators who are voicing a desire for schools to expand what knowledge they offer, instead of only teaching one theory.

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by cattyfan

Did JayHoover bother to read the article mentioned earlier?


Also, the movement to teach something along with (not instead of) evolution is growing. Both Kansas and Missouri now have legislators who are voicing a desire for schools to expand what knowledge they offer, instead of only teaching one theory.

No, I haven't had a chance yet. I will, and will reply.

 

[JayHoover]

Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Originally posted by Nineveh

Sorry you feel that way. But I don't feel "oppressed". I think the folks who try to remove God from the public square are doing more to show their hypocrisy than anything else.

What hypocrisy? Government should remain neutral on issues of religion. Period. Not just Christianity, but all rleigion. Sounds consistent to me.

Like I said, odd politicians are only assumed to be telling the truth when it comes to their religion, huh?

I am going to have to ask you this alot:

What are you talking about?

I think politicians are human beings who both tell the truth and lie. Overwhelmingly, politicians identify themselves and god-fearing Christians.

If you believe they lie-- then... what does that say about these Christians?

No, not at all. But just calling myself the Mayor doesn't make it so either. A tree is known by it's fruit.

What are you talking about? You get to be caled Mayor when you are elected Mayor.

There are a lot of folks right here at TOL who say that too. But weighing what they believe against what Christ said sort of gives one a different impression.

In other words, "Christans who don't subscribe to my interpretation of Christianity are not really Christians." This is what I have consistently said you are saying. Glad you agree.

No, but I could be sued if a witch is offended. Happend in GA around last spring, if I'm not mistaken.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. What was the outcome of this lawsuit? References, please.

See what I mean about showing hypocrisy when trying to remove God from the public square? One offended witch can try to make everyone bend to her singular will.

No, you are twisting it around. Here's the starting point: Government shall remain neutral on isues of religion.

Now if Christians wish to violate that starting point, then a witch or an atheist or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindo can sue for them violating it. Let's make sure we understand this goes both ways:

If Hindus violate the foundation, Christians can sue as well and "bend the others to her will" -- as long as what results is

THE NEUTRAL PLAYING FIELD

It's simple. Chrsitans should pray whenever and wherever they want-- but all they need do is stop insisting it be mandated by government bodies.

For someone who "chooses thier battles" -- you choose one that could be one by simply obeying the law.

(I guess I shouldn't point out the US Congress starts with a prayer... )

Thank you for citing two things: More "oppression of Christianty by other Chrisitans" and Christians are hypocrites.

The starting of Congress with a prayer is a violation of the intent of separation of church and state (which I know is not a Constitutional amendment, but it is what is intended by the constitutional first Amendment). The example you cite is a violation of that principle. Government and religion both are best served by government remaining neutral on issues of religion.

LOL

That's funny

How old do you think I am that I started the whole thing way back when Congress was first formed? If the majority of folks want to pray before they start spending my money, more power to them. I don't require folks to check their faith at the door when they take a certain job.

Sigh. Are you guys boiler plates of one another?

I mean the "general you" -- not you personally. Sheesh.

The motive of Christians for these things is for the goverment to acknowledge their god. Sorry. Go start a theocracy for that somewhere. We're a democratic republic here.

And I prefer they don't waste time praying as part of the ritual of their convening. So here's the solution:

Before you go in, pray your buttz off. After you go in, do not enforce prayer as part of the proceedings.

The US Congress has no power to establish a religion. According to the 1st amendment I am free to excersize my faith. And so are my Congressmen.

I agree 100%. Do so.

Stop insisting the proceedings (whatever they are) must start off with your right to pray being expected of the general assembly. Simply pray -- and those who wish to join you may, and those who do not will not. We don;t ned a man with a gavel telling us, "Okay, now let's all give praise to our god".

Let me know if any of this is sinking in.

Pardon?

Public property is what?

Silly me... and here all this time I was thinking the public pays for it and has access to it and it was well... public. And if the public of a town wants to decorate they have that right. It's their town, not yours, Mr. ACLU. A Christmas display is not establishing a religion. Quit being paranoid.

Personally, I have nothing against them at all.

Public property is managed by government agencies-- this is accepted by us all. "The public" doesn't manage the property, the public pays into the maintenence of the property, and it is used equally by the same public. I didn't design it that way, that is the way it works in this country. As such, goverment needs to be NEUTRAL of issues of religion.

Why not simpl do it on private proerty? Why the insistence of government run (not owned) property? What is the real motivation?

Until some pagan makes a case he is "offended", prolly another ACLU lawyer like in Roy Moore's case.

"Prolly". Good argument. I would side with the owner of the private property in a moment.

I didn't imply a Christian would honor an idol.

No, just the idols of the manger, LOL. What is an idol to you is an icon to someone else which is what my point was. Go ahead, my friend: Dissolve the separation of church and state. Then don;t come crying to me if the majority belief system changes and your butt is left out in the cold and your money says "Allah hu Ackbar". I will shurg and say, "You got exactly what you wanted, didn't you?"

Or maybe you just need to re read what I wrote?

No, it was convoluted.

Yes you are, and whining too

Ad hominens will lead to a swift end to the discussion. Refrain from them please.

A Christian doesn't have to support other people's beliefs. I don't expect you to support mine. Don't be a goofball.

You like calling me names don't you? Well, I'll avoid the level of the Christian mind if you don't mind.

the difference between you and me (and another reason I shun Christianity) is that I believe in the plurality of the nation. I think our first, true motto: "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many, one) is the perfect motto for our great nation and the great experiment in tolerance for diverse beliefs.

You on the other hand, seem to want that motto erased in favor of "In God We Trust" -- which hacks at the very foundation of what this country stands for.

You should be actively protecting the neutrality of your government in religious affairs. It's in your best interest. You should champion competitive views -- and the public airing of them, even if you do disagree with them.

but I think this is all pretty much lost on you, isn't it? Because frankly, you're broken in some manner. You categorize people in three groups: Jews, Christians, and Pagans.

That's a pity.

My point was it's not us disallowing any prayer. It was an atheist who tried to get prayer removed from school to being with.

you are completely off base. you think it was Madalyn Murray O'Hair, but it was Curtlett, who was NOT an atheist who was the primary petitioner inthe case. Read some history. the fight between the Catholics (Pagans to you?) and the Prostestants is what led to the ending of school prayer, and rightly so. The public school is run by government, and therefore government needs to remain neutral on issues of rleigion-- and don;t forget, this is to benefit religion-- not to hurt it. Religion thrives best in frredom from goverment interference.

But that really conflicts with your desire to enforce your beliefs on everyone.

Oh gee. And they have only had how long to fix it? This sounds a lot like what John Kerry was saying after he lost.... "I just didn't get my message out". When in reality, the message was heard loud and clear... and rejected.

I know the mssage is being rejected. that doesn't mean the message is wrng. Christians would love for us to all embrace blind faith.

Well: No. Not going to do it. Too much at stake. You think praying is going to work when North Korea throws a nuke at us? I'll go with technology thank you.

Over and over the mantra is chanted: PaernetsgetinvolvedParentsgetinvolvedParentsgetinvolved. So, like in Ohio, when they do, the school freaks out or like in PA the ACLU freaks out and overrules the desire of the school boards and parents.

The key word is literate parents get involved. We do not want Creationists insisting our children be taught that all the sciences are wrong to our kids when they will have to compete in a technological world of Chinese and Russians who focus on science.

Look, you may not realize it, but my way saves both out buttz.

Mmmhm...

And science scores weren't as abysmal then as they have become over the last 50 years either. Or history, or math, or reading....

It got far better in the 60's and 70s, and now it's on the decline again. That's precisely the point. How is teaching a mythology in a sicence class going to fix that? Two words: It ain't.

But thanks for pointing out the evos have had a lock on science in the classroom for 50 years... how long do they need before they get their message out? Maybe Howard Dean can help them, too.

Of course science has a lock on science classes for 50 years. what a relief! you on the other hand would prefer that religion have a lock on sciene classes. No. that's a fight to the death becaue you would sell out the entire country to raise illiterate non-competitive theists in a world that is oincreasingly technologica. I understand that your worldview includes god saving us all at the 11th hour but let's pretend that it won't happen so you and I don't have to deal with a citizenry that stares mutely at its own technology and tries to fix its ICBMs by kneeling in suppliation, okay?

ROFL
Computers evolved from evolution!

It's funny... I can't even get evos to admit abiogenesis is a necessary part of evo and you want to give darwin credit for advances in electronics. Amazing.

your obvious barrier results from an intrinsic inability to understand how evolution ties in with all the other sciences. If evolution is wrong, and creationism is literally true, then the earth is young. This means astronomy is wrong completely. It means biology is wrong. It means phyics is wrong. It means chemistry is wrong-- completely. It means geology is wrong. It means we cannot calculate anything correctly-- yet we are able to create technology -- like computers -- that work accordsing to all theorectical and practical expctations.

Yes, evolution ties into all the sciences, and yes, there is a connection between the science of evolution and the science of computer technology.

I wasn't aware I was stalking your children. Don't be a paranoid rube. How many times do I need to say, "I am only forced to pay for pullik skool, not required to use it."?

You also seem to advocate changing the neutrality of government with regards to religion. That seems to be part of your social agenda. I won't bother playing your game of irrelevancies with the ad hominien cracks and what not. At a certain ;point, you'll simply lose all credibility and I'll stop any discourse with you.

If you want you children to be "intelligent" you better get them out of the pullik skool. Do you even have any?

Talk.origins is ubiased? :darwinsm:

Show me where I said talk origins is unbiased. Show me.

what I said was that it showed both sides and presented references to the evidence.

Talk origins is not unbiased: It is a site that supports evolution and collates the data for those who wish to examine the issue with all the relevant evience.

A few? After about 20 I got sick of posting them. Did you take a look at the link cattyfan gave you?

No, but I will and I'll reply. Let me say this: I'll be happy to be a voice for reasonable neutrality as well--without even having read the link. If this is getting out of hand, it needs to be curtailed.

No. Anyone who doesn't believe in the Creator God is pagan. To me, anyway.

Okay, so then why didn't you include Moslems? They are an Abramhic religion just as much as Jews or Christians.

From my experience here at TOL, quite a few are silly, yes.

Ok.

I've never needed to have the cops called on me

So far, so good.

 

[JayHoover]

Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Originally posted by BillyBob

Is that a problem?

No, not necessarily -- that's the way it is now and we're a great, dynamic country.

Go past the upper layer to the crux of what I'm saying. If Christians dismantle the wall of separation between church and state, they'd better hope to always be in the majority.

If they are not one day -- if, for example, Moslems come to outnumber the Christians, then the present day government favortism towards Christianity would switch to a belief most Christians would not be able to accept.

People in general are pretty short sighted. They think about immediate benefit and not long-term cost. Christians today who want the government to no longer remain neutral are asking for trouble, and the trouble will be of their own engineering.

Keep government neutral on religious issues, and everyone benefits (no one is permitted to take any individual's right to pray away). Embrace intrusion now, and tomorrow the majority may change and then you'll wish the wall was strong.

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by cattyfan

I refer you to here for a lengthy discourse on how Christians are increasingly being oppressed in virtually every arena when it comes to the holidays.

How is this "oppression"? You want oppression, go read up on Nazi Germany and the Jews. That's oppression.

These are minor extremisms for the most part, but it's not oppression -- the charge is patently ridiculous.

For instance, Macy's is a private business. they can set a policy of "Happy Holidays" for their employees dealing with customers, and that's not "oppressive". Given a plurality, a generic greeting is perfectly reasonable store policy.

On the other hand, the banning of saying "Merry Christmas" by school children is patently illegal. The children are protected in the free excercise clause of the 1st amendment to say "Merry Christmas" if they want to. Now the school insisting everyone say "Merry Christmas" is a different story entirely.

I have been absolutely clear on this issue in, I believe, a fair way. Individuals are free to excercise their beliefs, and agencies of the government are to remain mute on all religious issues. That means they are not permitted to encourage or even allow a school run prayer, but they also canot stop any individuals from doing so.

If I were at a high school football game and, unannounced, the entire stadium bent its head in prayer, I would have no complaint.

If, however, a team captain stood up, went to a microphone, and instructed the stadium's populace to bow their heads to recite a prayer led by that person, then I would have a huge complaint.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Why can't you just keep your head up and refuse to participate? It's not like he's going to send a linebacker after you if you don't. No, you have to make a big deal out of nothing, and that's what whiners do.

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by JayHoover

For instance, Macy's is a private business. they can set a policy of "Happy Holidays" for their employees dealing with customers, and that's not "oppressive". Given a plurality, a generic greeting is perfectly reasonable store policy.

Yes, Macy's is a private business and should be able to run their company any way they desire. They should not be subjected to any anti-discrimination laws such as Affirmative Action. If they choose to hire only caucasion males for management positions, women for certain sales and blacks for janatorial positions, the government should have absolutely no say in their decision. Likewise, activists such as Jesse Jackson should not be allowed to protest there and disrupt Macy's flow of business.

 

[BillyBob]

Re: Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Re: Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Originally posted by JayHoover

No, not necessarily -- that's the way it is now and we're a great, dynamic country.

Go past the upper layer to the crux of what I'm saying. If Christians dismantle the wall of separation between church and state, they'd better hope to always be in the majority.

If they are not one day -- if, for example, Moslems come to outnumber the Christians, then the present day government favortism towards Christianity would switch to a belief most Christians would not be able to accept.

People in general are pretty short sighted. They think about immediate benefit and not long-term cost. Christians today who want the government to no longer remain neutral are asking for trouble, and the trouble will be of their own engineering.

Keep government neutral on religious issues, and everyone benefits (no one is permitted to take any individual's right to pray away). Embrace intrusion now, and tomorrow the majority may change and then you'll wish the wall was strong.

I don't know any Christian who supports the US becoming a theocracy. However, this country was founded on Christian morals and it's laws reflect that. [I imagine that most Muslims would recognize those same original morals, by the way.] But the current political climate among liberals is to shun morality by claiming that it's basis is religious and therefor innapropriate. By doing so, they are inadvertently and even purposefully discriminating against Christians.

 

[Nineveh]

Jay,
I want to give your post more time than I have today. I'll reply tomorrow afternoon Have a nice weekend

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Why can't you just keep your head up and refuse to participate? It's not like he's going to send a linebacker after you if you don't. No, you have to make a big deal out of nothing, and that's what whiners do.

I certainly can.

You are missing the point however.

The point is not whether I personally am offended or not. In the greater argument, that's a drop in the ocean. The whole point of free speech in fact is to protect the airing of views that do offend us (non-offensive speech needs no protection).

No, I reject the idea that there is a goverment entity favoring any religion. Just mentioning "God" for example violates some religions who believe you cannot utter the word "God" (or spell it out).

Neutrality. Keep saying it over and over until it sinks in: Neutrality. That's the most beneficial to all concerned. that means the guy next to me can bow his head in prayer, and I don't have to. I don't have to be put into a position of "refusing to participate", and you aren't in a position to not be allowed to pray.

Simply pray!

You guys are the whiners:

Waaaaah, we can't have the Mayor insist we all get up and praaaay to Jesus --- waaaaah! :baby:

Please, lol!

 

[JayHoover]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Originally posted by BillyBob

I don't know any Christian who supports the US becoming a theocracy. However, this country was founded on Christian morals and it's laws reflect that. [I imagine that most Muslims would recognize those same original morals, by the way.] But the current political climate among liberals is to shun morality by claiming that it's basis is religious and therefor innapropriate. By doing so, they are inadvertently and even purposefully discriminating against Christians.

Christians don't own morality, Billybob, you know that. the collective human experience includes moralities that existed long before 1 BCE.

And democracy was a pagan Greek invention.

Frankly, I refuse to get into this argument. It's patently ridiculous. We have the writings of Franklin, Jefferson, Paine -- the influence of Deism is obvious, clear, and inarguable. Sure, there's Christinaity as well. There's also Masonry clearly involved. But to blanket insist that this country was "founded on Christian morals" simply reduces what were complex issues into one's personal preference to declare their religious belief a victory it doesn't earn. This country was founded upon a lot of different views, and this is why the verbiage of our most fundamental documents eschew the words "Jesus" and "God". That the Declaration of Independence mentions a "Creator" and "Nature's God" (the cornerstone words of the Deists of the time) should say a lot to those who argue this otherwise.

By the way-- I sure see a lot of demoracy in the philosophy of Jesus, especially when he insists that to not believe in him warrants eternal torture. Sounds more like a facism to me.

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Yes, Macy's is a private business and should be able to run their company any way they desire. They should not be subjected to any anti-discrimination laws such as Affirmative Action. If they choose to hire only caucasion males for management positions, women for certain sales and blacks for janatorial positions, the government should have absolutely no say in their decision. Likewise, activists such as Jesse Jackson should not be allowed to protest there and disrupt Macy's flow of business.

Do you really care to reduce this to exclusive black-and-white arguments?

Obviously, there are areas that do not adhere to the black-and-white you are suggesting. But you also mis-apply the illustration.

The anti-discrimination laws are in place to keep prejudices in check, and that protects Christians and Jews (and all religions and lack of religions) equally.

Just like a blind "majority rules" stance doesn't mean all rules are noble and right and fair, all businesses will not behave fair and honestly without some regulations.

Now I never said that Macy's can be run any way it wants. I said it can set reasonable store policies. Once upon a time, saying "Merry Christmas" to any and all was not an issue. today it is and they can change their policy accordingly.

How that compares to your example about hiring practices is this: It doesn't.

Macy's can't refuse to hire someone because they are or aren't a specific religion. But once hired, they can say, "Our policy is to say 'Happy Holidays' to our customers." You can either agree to that, or not. I used to work for a techical support company and they had a script I needed to say upon answering a call. If I didn't answer it properly, I was not doing the job I had agreed to do.

They have a right to dismiss me if I don't do the job I agreed to do.

So I don't see the point you're trying to make. It's not a case of rampant unregulated freedom for businesses, and it's not a case of "Do whatever you want" for employees. It's (reasonably so) somewhere in between. Color or creed or religion or sex are categorized as irrelevant to the hiring practices providing the job can be done, and store policies for day to day business are within the rights of the business itself.

Oh, and as long as Jesse Jackson remains off Macy's property, he can protest to his heart's content. If he breaks the law though, he should be held accountable.

 

[Lighthouse]

Hoovers are really good at sucking up trash, but this is the first time I've seen one spew so much.:nono:

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Hoovers are really good at sucking up trash, but this is the first time I've seen one spew so much.:nono:

Clever.

Now that your insult is out of the way, are you able to address the issues?

 

[Nineveh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Re: Re: Re: Re: JayHoover

Originally posted by JayHoover

What hypocrisy? Government should remain neutral on issues of religion. Period. Not just Christianity, but all rleigion. Sounds consistent to me.

"Congress shall make no law..." has been taken waaaay out of context.

I am going to have to ask you this alot:

What are you talking about?

Follow along and you won't have to ask so often

I think politicians are human beings who both tell the truth and lie. Overwhelmingly, politicians identify themselves and god-fearing Christians.

How many times are you going to say the same thing? You and I just aren't going to agree here. Firstly, because I seldom hear the religious bent of a politician, secondly, I seldom believe anything thay say. Most people I know think politicians seldom tell the truth. It's been that way for as long as I can remember.

If you believe they lie-- then... what does that say about these Christians?

If they say/i] they are Christians but are notorious for lying...... you figure it out.

What are you talking about? You get to be caled Mayor when you are elected Mayor.

:doh:

Follow along....

I can say anything I like, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get it yet?

In other words, "Christans who don't subscribe to my interpretation of Christianity are not really Christians." This is what I have consistently said you are saying. Glad you agree.

Except you missed one great bit thing here.

It has nothing to do with "interpretation". If Christ says one thing and someone else is saying different, it's not about interpretation whether they are speaking in His Name or not.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. What was the outcome of this lawsuit? References, please.

Look it up, try Google: "witch, Georgia, prayer" might get it for ya.

No, you are twisting it around. Here's the starting point: Government shall remain neutral on isues of religion.

No, that's what happened. One witch tried to use the courts to force her will on everyone else. So it comes down to "freedom of religion, if the witches don't get offended".

Now if Christians wish to violate that starting point, then a witch or an atheist or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindo can sue for them violating it. Let's make sure we understand this goes both ways:

If Hindus violate the foundation, Christians can sue as well and "bend the others to her will" -- as long as what results is

If anyone wants to start their day with prayer, what's your problem? It's their right.

THE NEUTRAL PLAYING FIELD

Does not mean CHECK YOUR RELIGION AT THE DOOR.

It's simple. Chrsitans should pray whenever and wherever they want-- but all they need do is stop insisting it be mandated by government bodies.

Did you just miss all this or are you not following along?

No one is instisting anything. The ACLU has tried to stiffle some. Along with the pullik skool this last Christmas. But I haven't heard where Christians are mandating anyone do anything.

In the case of GA it was a witch making demands. With public school and prayer it was an atheist. (I'm waiting to see your evidence to change my opinion on this point)

For someone who "chooses thier battles" -- you choose one that could be one by simply obeying the law.

It's not breaking the law to offend a pagan with one's religious practices. Even if one is an elected official.

Thank you for citing two things: More "oppression of Christianty by other Chrisitans" and Christians are hypocrites.

Huh? Oppression of Christians by Christians because the US Congress has always opened with prayer?

How are they being hypocrites?

The starting of Congress with a prayer is a violation of the intent of separation of church and state (which I know is not a Constitutional amendment, but it is what is intended by the constitutional first Amendment). The example you cite is a violation of that principle. Government and religion both are best served by government remaining neutral on issues of religion.

You might feel that way, but the ones who hammered out the Constitution and Bill of Rights were the first to offer the prayers in the newly formed Congress.

Sigh. Are you guys boiler plates of one another?

I mean the "general you" -- not you personally. Sheesh.

The motive of Christians for these things is for the goverment to acknowledge their god. Sorry. Go start a theocracy for that somewhere. We're a democratic republic here.

LOL

It was a majority of Christians who founded this country and it's documents. Yes, I have done the homework to back up the statement. It's pagans who refuse to allow the freedom of worship, like the witch and the atheist I've already sited a few times. It's pagans who want people to check their faith at the door to hold office. The founders never had that in mind, nor practiced such a thing.

And I prefer they don't waste time praying as part of the ritual of their convening. So here's the solution:

Too bad you are over 200 years too late to make your opinion known to the people who did want it that way.

Before you go in, pray your buttz off. After you go in, do not enforce prayer as part of the proceedings.

NO ONE IS FORCING IT. Are you just thick or don't you get that yet?

Stop insisting the proceedings (whatever they are) must start off with your right to pray being expected of the general assembly. Simply pray -- and those who wish to join you may, and those who do not will not. We don;t ned a man with a gavel telling us, "Okay, now let's all give praise to our god".

Congress has been operating longer than both of us combined. I'm sorry you have a problem with how they do business. So either A. Run for office and try to change it or B. Because it obviously bothers you so badly, don't run for office so you won't be offended.

It's pagans who use the court to force their will on the people IE: Roy Moore. Homo "marriage. Abortion. To name just a few.

Let me know if any of this is sinking in.

You know what they say about pointing fingers.

Personally, I have nothing against them at all.

Public property is managed by government agencies-- this is accepted by us all. "The public" doesn't manage the property, the public pays into the maintenence of the property, and it is used equally by the same public. I didn't design it that way, that is the way it works in this country. As such, goverment needs to be NEUTRAL of issues of religion.

Why not simpl do it on private proerty? Why the insistence of government run (not owned) property? What is the real motivation?

The people are the folks in charge, remember? If that's what they want, why are you so dead set against people running their own towns as they see fit?

"Prolly". Good argument. I would side with the owner of the private property in a moment.

We'll see.

No, just the idols of the manger, LOL. What is an idol to you is an icon to someone else which is what my point was. Go ahead, my friend: Dissolve the separation of church and state. Then don;t come crying to me if the majority belief system changes and your butt is left out in the cold and your money says "Allah hu Ackbar". I will shurg and say, "You got exactly what you wanted, didn't you?"

I've never seen anyone pray to a manger scene.

You have not been following along. Either that, or you are just being thick cuz it fun.

No, it was convoluted.

Right. You not following along couldn't possibly be your fault, so sorry LOL

Ad hominens will lead to a swift end to the discussion. Refrain from them please.

You get as you give here, "friend". You made the first post to me and that set the tone. Besides, I call it like I see it.

You like calling me names don't you? Well, I'll avoid the level of the Christian mind if you don't mind.

If you don't like being called a whiner, quit whining.

the difference between you and me (and another reason I shun Christianity) is that I believe in the plurality of the nation. I think our first, true motto: "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many, one) is the perfect motto for our great nation and the great experiment in tolerance for diverse beliefs.

Good for you.

You on the other hand, seem to want that motto erased in favor of "In God We Trust" -- which hacks at the very foundation of what this country stands for.

Rather...

You have no clue what I believe because you are to busy making it up to argue against. It helps to try to at least read what's written and follow along.

You should be actively protecting the neutrality of your government in religious affairs. It's in your best interest. You should champion competitive views -- and the public airing of them, even if you do disagree with them.

I have not witnessed the Congress trying to make any laws esablishing a religion. I have witnessed pagans getitng "offended" and using the courts to force their wills, though.

And no, I don't agree people should have to check their faith at the door when they take a job... deja vu...

but I think this is all pretty much lost on you, isn't it? Because frankly, you're broken in some manner. You categorize people in three groups: Jews, Christians, and Pagans.

I'm broken because I don't see things like you do? Perhaps it's exatly the opposite

That's a pity.

I know, but I have hope for you

you are completely off base. you think it was Madalyn Murray O'Hair, but it was Curtlett, who was NOT an atheist who was the primary petitioner inthe case. Read some history. the fight between the Catholics (Pagans to you?) and the Prostestants is what led to the ending of school prayer, and rightly so. The public school is run by government, and therefore government needs to remain neutral on issues of rleigion-- and don;t forget, this is to benefit religion-- not to hurt it. Religion thrives best in frredom from goverment interference.

Cite please.

But that really conflicts with your desire to enforce your beliefs on everyone.

I haven't demanded anything from anyone. You've been the one whining and crying about the state you see things in, not me. I think folks have a right to pray, even when a witch gets offended. I think folks have a right to display religious items in their towns as they see fit, even f it offends the ACLU.

Why you keep trying to make me into something I'm not seems to underscore that either you have no clue what I believe, you haven't been following along, or you have a weak stance and need to make things up to strenghten it.

I know the mssage is being rejected. that doesn't mean the message is wrng. Christians would love for us to all embrace blind faith.

Once again:

Either parents are to be involved or they aren't. Either the schools will be allowed to teach both, or the ACLU will force the courts to stop them.

Well: No. Not going to do it. Too much at stake. You think praying is going to work when North Korea throws a nuke at us? I'll go with technology thank you.

Still assuming what I believe so you will have a point?

The key word is literate parents get involved. We do not want Creationists insisting our children be taught that all the sciences are wrong to our kids when they will have to compete in a technological world of Chinese and Russians who focus on science.

If I could have it my way, all of your so called "illiterate" parents would get their kids out of pullik skool. Then maybe "wise and wonderful" would foot their own bill to support pullik skool instead of making us ALL pay for it.

It's funny not even 50 years is enough time to make people believe evo, though LOL

Look, you may not realize it, but my way saves both out buttz.

And no one is stpping you from using the fed shools, are they? Go for it, after all it's paid for.

It got far better in the 60's and 70s, and now it's on the decline again. That's precisely the point. How is teaching a mythology in a sicence class going to fix that? Two words: It ain't.

You mean the myths of ernst haeckel? Doesn't look it's doing much good either

Of course science has a lock on science classes for 50 years. what a relief!

LOL!!!!

"What a relief" it's made so many "literate parents"?

LOL

you on the other hand would prefer that religion have a lock on sciene classes. No. that's a fight to the death becaue you would sell out the entire country to raise illiterate non-competitive theists in a world that is oincreasingly technologica. I understand that your worldview includes god saving us all at the 11th hour but let's pretend that it won't happen so you and I don't have to deal with a citizenry that stares mutely at its own technology and tries to fix its ICBMs by kneeling in suppliation, okay?

I quit reading this diatribe-y paragraph after the first sentence. What to know why? Because I have told you how many times I could care less what pullik skool does. I'm only forced to pay for it. I'm not forced to uses it. Now. If you can't get that through your head this time, or you can drop the subject.

your obvious barrier results from an intrinsic inability to understand how evolution ties in with all the other sciences. If evolution is wrong, and creationism is literally true, then the earth is young. This means astronomy is wrong completely. It means biology is wrong. It means phyics is wrong. It means chemistry is wrong-- completely. It means geology is wrong. It means we cannot calculate anything correctly-- yet we are able to create technology -- like computers -- that work accordsing to all theorectical and practical expctations.

"I just couldn't get my message out!" - John F. Kerry

Yes, evolution ties into all the sciences, and yes, there is a connection between the science of evolution and the science of computer technology.

:darwinsm:

You also seem to advocate changing the neutrality of government with regards to religion. That seems to be part of your social agenda. I won't bother playing your game of irrelevancies with the ad hominien cracks and what not. At a certain ;point, you'll simply lose all credibility and I'll stop any discourse with you.

I don't have an agenda. I have a faith. When it offends someone, too bad.

No one is forcing you to talk to me anymore than Christians are trying to force you to pray LOL

BTW: Do you have any kids? You forgot to answer that one.

Show me where I said talk origins is unbiased. Show me.

what I said was that it showed both sides and presented references to the evidence.

Talk origins is not unbiased: It is a site that supports evolution and collates the data for those who wish to examine the issue with all the relevant evience.

In other words it's an evo site. I wouldn't go to an evo site for ID anymore than ID for evo. But have at it

No, but I will and I'll reply. Let me say this: I'll be happy to be a voice for reasonable neutrality as well--without even having read the link. If this is getting out of hand, it needs to be curtailed.

How? You want government to remain neutral, remember?

Okay, so then why didn't you include Moslems? They are an Abramhic religion just as much as Jews or Christians.

Whatever you wanna believe.