Badmovies.org Forum

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/deafening_silence.html

But that's all right. Who really needs the right to sing I Want My MTV by Dire Straits anyway?

What was it Pastor Niemoller said . . . . ?

"When they came for the Communists, I didn't speak up because I was not a Communist.
When the came for the Trade Unionists, I did not speak up because I was not a Trade Unionist.  When they came for the Jews, I did not speak up because I was not a Jew.  When they came for me, there was no one left to speak up at all."

If the least popular ideas cannot be freely expressed in a public forum, then ALL freedoms are in jeapordy.  POPULAR speech does not need constitutional protection!!

Think about that the next time you hear a liberal complain about "hate speech."

Quite frightening, but not really unexpected. I don't want to get into a liberal/conservative debate, but the political left has long held the monopoly on speech wars. Anything that doesn't fit into the accepted belief system is labelled "hate speech" and denounced. Now, apparently, it's begun being denounced before "human rights tribunals." I don't have time in my life to waste energy on hating anyone, yet I have been accused of being a "hater" because I disagreed with someone and was unwilling to give in.

Granted, any site named "Real Clear Politics" is probably a little suspect, so I'm not 100% convinced that this is actually happening, but as I said, I wouldn't be overly suprised if it was.

Canada once had free speech?

Then why is there no Canadian porn? 

I can't speak to the specific examples, but the columnist has a pretty good handle on the issue in general. Interestingly enough, the views getting people into trouble are not necessarily unpopular, but it is the super-sensitive politically correct minority causing all the trouble with the help of a flawed charter of rights and freedoms. Basically, charter rights in this country have been twisted to the point that protecting one person's freedom means taking away another person's freedom to disagree with them or engage in any activity that might make them uncomfortable.

Canada is a liberal country, but the term liberal and progresses is being bastardize to mean restrictive and oppressive, which is just a sickle and hammer alway from what they are becoming.
In America the liberals want this thing called the "Fairness Doctrine" which is not fair in the least, it regulated what can be said on the radio. If you speak a conservative view you have to allow equal time for a liberal view. Only the liberals want this law which flies in the face of the first amendment.
Here in America the liberals want to talk about fairness and freedom out one side of their mouth and tell what light bulbs to use and cars to drive, out the other. You can have gay marriage and your gay pride parade, but don't you dare have a Christmas party at a school ... it's a winter festival... whatever.
Sounds to me like Canada is turning into portions if the left coast, where you can parade up and down the street dressed like a transvestite freak with a dildo strapped on, but you'd better not say a prayer in school. Either I'm getting old or this world is going to hell in a hand basket because I just don't get it. We, both Canada and America allow every possible religious freedom there is, provided you're not a Christian. They'll run around saying war is murder but you'd best not put up a sign that says "Thou shall not kill".
Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Political correctness run a muck.
Freedom in exile.

Perhaps both countries need to research their history and figure out what principles each country was founded on.   

I'm gonna stop now ... I'm babbling because I'm annoyed.

That's about it in a nutshell. Interesting that you mentioned the values on which the country was founded. What really gets my goat is that folks on the left are constantly talking about Canadian values, but they don't seem to recognize any values that existed prior to the late 1960s. To some people, being Canadian means never taking sides and being the world's doormat. In this view, the only country we are allowed (expected) to criticize or oppose is the one directly to the south. Apparently, being a bunch of pussies is what the world respects us for. Hey, who doesn't like somebody they can walk all over. Sheesh.

One could justifiably make the argument that we in the US don't have "Free Speech" either.  Even if you throw out the social phenomenon of "Political Correctness" and the instances where that has been codified (Hate Speech), there are very real, freedom limiting powers of the Federal Government in place.

Specifically, I refer to Executive Order E.O. 10995 issued by Kennedy.  This order, never rescinded by a subsequent President, allows the president to take control of all media during a declared national emergency.  It can be argued that this includes all media: radio, television telephone and Internet.

The scary part of this is that "national emergency" as defined here is declared by the President (per the 1933 War and Emergency Powers Act), and has never been precisely defined by the courts.

Be careful who you put in the Office of the President of the United States.  It would make your blood run cold to know the things "they" can control quasi-legally by simply declaring "National Emergency."  And to make that declaration, the President does not have to justify it to ANYONE.

I'm at the point that I see all our freedoms as suspect.  If we only have any given freedom or set of freedoms at the "mercy" of the Government, they aren't really freedoms are they?

Sorry...what does forcing one's religion on everyone else have to do w/liberal vs conservative?  Or free speech for that matter?  I know a great many conservative atheists, for example.  Just because a guy I know is a fiscal conservative means he's gotta be a right-wing Christian?! Preposterious.

Why the persecution complex?  The whole "if you don't let my theological worldview dominate everyone then I'm being persecuted" thing?  Winter festivals are inclusive of many religions, not "instead of" geesh.  Saying "Happy Holidays" includes "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Hanaka(SP?) -it's just a polite way to say have a good holiday no matter what you might believe - it's not an attack on Christianity.  Hell Christmas was hijacked from Pagan Winter Solstice celebrations anyway -it was easier to convert the natives if you just renamed their holidays.  What about my Jewish friends? How're they supposed to feel about that?  Last I checked, most places have "Christmas" parties and everyone seems ok with that.  But you need to put yourself in other peoples shoes and not look at every little thing in a lib/cons viewpoint.  I know a great many very conservative totally republican Jewish folk.  Just because you're not Christian and don't want that viewpoint forced upon you doesn't make you a commie pinko socialist hippy-mouf demonized lib'rul.

And no one says you or any student cannot pray in school -it's only teachers can't force anyone to pray, which anyone of any religion (or lack of) should agree.  How would you like it if your children went to a public school and were forced by the teacher to pray to Islam?! I'll tell you this right now, no one better ever try to force my child to pray to anyone...that option should be up to each individual.  If you wanna force kids to pray, take 'em to private religious school.  Kids are allowed to pray on their own anytime they want, as long as it isn't interferring with class and or causing a disruption of course.  Last I remember, one could pray in school w/o anyone actually even knowing about it since it's usually a private communication anyway.  Bottom line, we're not trying to take away your kids' rights to pray in school -they can do that anytime they want.  The school's just not supposed to force or lead prayer of any kind (that includes to the other gods) as it makes those other kids (Jewish kids as one example) feel like total outsiders if they don't go along with it.  Having respect for other religions doesn't mean everyone hates Christianity.

If you want kids to learn about the bible and force them to pray to whichever god then keep it where it belongs: at home or in church.   I've never met or talked to a liberal in my life who wants to get prayer out of school -but no one, religious or not, conservative or liberal wants to be told how to worship and that's what that forced prayer is.  Not to mention not everyone prays the same way in Christianity either. 

And as far as posting the 10 commandments - it's not a monopoly on morality since most cultures and societies have a taboo on murder, just as one example.  What business does "worship me and no one else" have in a public school system or court system anyway? Last I checked we were free to worship who we chose if we choose at all.  Wasn't that part of the beloved 1st Am. too?

How would you like the Wiccan morality list posted at school next to the Ten Commandments? How about the tenats of the Satanic Bible (which if you ever read you'd realize most people actually follow, Christians included) -how would you like your children being forced to accept them as the "norm" for moral behavior?  Much as people don't like to accept it, our civilization/country was not based or founded on the 10 Commandments; it was based on Roman laws that just happen to coincide with some of those Commandments.  Religion does not have a monopoly on morality.  You can ask some Native Americans on how well this country was founded on "thou shall not kill or thou shall not steal."

"We, both Canada and America allow every possible religious freedom there is, provided you're not a Christian"

Bulls**t.  The majority of this country is of Christian denomination and you're telling me somehow the minority of non-Christians are persecuting you?  Hell you have no chance of being elected President unless you're a Christian as just one prime example.  Do you have non-Christians knocking on your door and trying to deconvert you?! I've actually had the opposite -some Jehovah's Witnesses just this last week.  They were polite enough I guess but no one came to cart them off to jail for prostylizing.  I see bumper stickers all the time praising the lord and Jesus but you can't bet your ass if there was a non-Christian bumper sticker on a car in my part of the country (a purple state) that car would get trashed so fast!

As for "the world is going to hell in a handbasket" -it's a common emotional response we all seem to feel as we get older ...it seems that way throughout all time -all generations feel this way about the newer generations.  It's that damned rock'n'roll music lol.  Heck, some religions are completely based on "the world's about to end" when in fact, lifespans have increased, medical technology is much more improved, people are fed more as a whole than say a 1000 years ago, and things like infant mortality rates aren't near what they used to be, at least in our part of the world.   

Sorry for the rant but it ruffles my feathers when I get told incorrectly what "we" supposedly believe and then torn down for it.  Maybe someday you might actually ask us how we feel rather than reading some sensationalist piece where some extremist viewpoint isn't touted and equivocated as the norm.  Mind telling me what else I supposedly believe?  I suppose if those concepts where parroted to you over and over, it's no wonder you don't like liberals.  I wasn't aware I had those opinions on radio stations, parades, and the like.  As far as I'm concerned Michael Weiner Savage can say whatever the hell he wants; I'll just find a different station or just turn it off.   And I had no idea that I felt that way about laws making people use certain light bulbs <shrugs> - I suppose I learn something everyday.

See, that's the problem with letting others define you.  You know, we could be not so nice too and equivocate a few out-there republicans and pigeon hole the whole group as those extremists? How would you like that?  Yeah Conservatives are all a bunch of incestious, country-music lovin, education-hating, soft-on-fascist, racist, wife-beating, war on the poor, totally sexist greedy bastards.  Yeah not very accurate is it?  Now how about I get a radio station and a lot of funding and just parrot that message over and over and over and over and offer no alternative viewpoint.  Think that might skew perceptions on just what an actual conservative stands for? 

I remember the last electon cycle, the local Christian radio stations were tirading against Kerry for being of the party of sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll -not any picture I had in my mind of John Kerry at all (I could picture John Kerry smokin a doobie at an Anthrax concert hahhaha).  Oh it went on and on how he was going to force gay marriage, nevermind the fact that he stated he was against gay marriage, but don't let that get in the way of some good ol' demonization.  I kept thinking, where are these people getting these ideas?! Who's paying for this stuff.  Who's listening to it? lol.  But they certaily have the right to say what they want.  Then I used my right to turn the station off.

Excellent rant, Clockwork!!!!

I could nit-pick a few things you said, however I would like to point out that the original link about the abolition of Free Speech in Canada dealt with ministers, Catholic and Protestant, being brutally censored and jailed for simply preaching what the  Bible really says about homosexuality IN THEIR CHURCHES and in those churches' newsletters.

That is censorship of the most frightening sort, and there are some on the left who would LOVE to do that here in the name of restricting "hate speech".

A long time ago in a land away ... there was a phrase "Freedom isn't FREE."

It meant that brave men and women fought to insure the freedoms of the populous, the freedom to choose, the freedom to speak, the freedom to worship, the freedom pursue happiness, the freedom to be free.

Then in the 1960 people started taking heavy doses of drugs, more so than in the past and freedom had lots of pretty colors.

Those people ages, their brain damage became apparent, freedom had a new definition. Freedom was indeed no longer free, and the original meaning was lost, now you were free to except what you were told to except, you were free to not say what you were told no to say, you were free to use the light bulb we tell we to use, the buy the product we deem safe for you, you are free to listen to us and believe all the bogus, unfounded, ineffectual, misleading BS we can muster ... and you are free not to believe it ... BUT if you don't, we'll label you a hater, antiquated and out of touch and the lemmings will be free to cheer.

Even this forum and many others is a microcosm of the absurdity of freedom, there are people that don't want political speech, religious speech, or anything else they don't agree with so instead of avoiding it they take there freedom to speak out to oppress the speech of others, by demanding it is banned. True hypocrisy ... you are free to say anything you want, as long as you are respectful and "I" agree with you is there motto. We even have a presidential canidate spending more time telling the populous and the media what they can talk about, then telling us were they stand on the issues.   


No I'm telling you that the courts are so afraid of religious extremist that they'll allow every minority religious freedom, but the majority Christian religion must be restricted so no to oppress the minority in some sort of twisted religious affirmative action.
Go ahead tell me I'm wrong.

As Indy said thanks for your rant, I'm glad you live in a country that allows it. The article in question was about religion this is why we're talking about that.


All we have to do is turn on the MSM media to do that, but to be fair ... how do you feel?

Yes that is frightening.  However, keep in mind, there are many on the right who would gladly agree with laws that executed homosexuals, but we both know the extremes on both sides are a minority and should not be equivocated to represent either side.

"No I'm telling you that the courts are so afraid of religious extremist that they'll allow every minority religious freedom, but the majority Christian religion must be restricted so no to oppress the minority in some sort of twisted religious affirmative action.  Go ahead tell me I'm wrong."

I can't tell you anything since I don't really understand the syntax of your sentece.  If you're saying what I think you are saying, you won't mind if I ask for some support for your assertion?  I have a hard time believing that the courts in the US are bending over backwards to appease Daoists/Muslims/Atheists in order to restrict Christians.  Just how are Christians restricted how other religions are not?  And besides, that's not what your original assertion insinuated; sounded more like poor Christians are being persecuted by some minority unknown evil.  I mean you're free to view the world in such a paranoid state but it doesn't really reflect reality with a church on every corner of every village in this country (and ironically a bar on the other corner).

You didn't comment on your misrepresentation on the "leftwing" stance of the prayers-in-school topic.  I gather you admit it was a misrepresentation or are you going to continue to parrot that lie that "we're taking prayer outta school" instead of the real stance "we're trying to prevent forced prayer in school."?  Do you not agree you don't want your children being told how or what to worship?  Do you not agree that it's totally up to parents and the children themselves as to how, what, and when they are to worship?

Buzzwords like freedom ...that's really funny.  The "good ol' days" when only white males were free.  Perhaps you forgot that "freedom" didn't apply to everyone back in the "good ol' days."  Freedom is a nice word and a great concept, but we're only really free to pay our taxes and die; that's about it.  Freedom becomes redefined just as many words do over time.  The current adminstration is great with the doublespeak, for example.  Patriot Act...yeah it's patriotic to accuse your own citizens of treason while Dick Cheney himself relocated his company headquarters offshore to get out of paying his fair share of taxes while you and I are being honest and paying ours. Question: do you think it's patriotic of Dick Cheney to do such a thing? 

And perhaps you're unfamiliar with the history of drug abuse.  People have been abusing drugs since civilization began and at all levels of society.  It didn't just start in the 60s with the hippies lol.  Actually, in my red rural area of this purple state where I reside, alcohol is quite popular of drugs that are heavily abused and has been for quite some time.  Mental disorders due to drug abuse have also been around just as long but of course, before the mid 1800s, before Psychology, one of those "evil" sciences was around, they were yet to be diagnosed and more often attributed to evil spirits, possession, or some other such nonsense.

So MSM is the only sensationalist media huh? Nevermind the constantly negative, bait n switch Fox News, or the radio programs that are oh-so-positive.  No they don't have a biased slant at all <sarcasm>.  I love how they have questions in their ticker most of the time "Is France going to Attack us?" pulling every persuasion tactic in the book, every strawman, and every negative paired stimuli.  No, they'd never have an agenda.  I'll tell you one thing: I don't watch either of them.  Some of us don't waste money on Cablevision which is just more channels of crap to flip through.  For the record, I get most of my news from PBS and NPR where they typically give a  viewpoint from all sides of the spectrum and not just parroting a canned response.  But I also consult periodicals from the library from time to time and/or select locations online, although one has to be careful when any hilljack can post whatever on a blog w/o any scrutiny, peer review, or credibility.

As for the Bible saying Homosexuality is bad; it does...and in the same book it also says mixing fabric is wrong, touching pig skin is bad, and it also describes how God wants you to properly sacrifice animals to him.  So why isn't there such a fuss over football games, nylon fabrics, and the lack of animal sacrifice?  Seems some folks have a fixation on other people's private sex lives hmmmm?  I have yet to hear you conservative Bible believers cry how football is an abomination ...especially when they air it on a more-than-weekly basis during some seasons!

And again I will reiterate: what does a religious stance have to do with liberal vs conservative when either party member could be of any religion?  What does denying speech have to do with political affiliation when both sides have some freak jobs who are guilty?  What's with this constant "blame the libruls" especially when they haven't even been in controll for the last 8 years.  I think I see -if you try to deny someone any freedom of speech, you are my enemy, whichever party that may be? In this case, it's leftists? 

I checked out that article and the author seems slightly biased with phrases like "as that great Leftist sage, Mao Tse-Tung" as if all of us leftist think this guy is "great" any more than rightests think "Adof Hitler" was great.  Do you see my point with the whole Fallacy of Equivocation I mentioned before?  These tactics lead me to believe the author in question is less than disengenious and therefor not worth taking seriously.  I kinda wonder if what he says about the situation is actually what actually happened in the way he said it happened.  The best thing to do is research the topic from multiple sources and find out how it really went down.  I mean, I'm not saying it didn't happen, just saying it's hard to trust someone when they come off like that.

You know, just because some of us are left of center doesn't mean we're socialist.  We're ethical capitalists -we love capitalism and a free market.  Like I've said to my Micheal-Weiner-Savage loving friend, you'll never actually meet the liberals he's defineing -they don't actually exist (or if they do, they're a very minute miniscule worldview that they don't represent the group as a whole in any honest way).  It's a phantom menace. 

But then, they have to have an enemy...have to have someone and something to blame, else they wouldn't get ratings and they wouldn't get people fired up.  If you run out of an enemy, create one or fire up an old one. When's the last time you listened to a radio show like that and felt good about anything.  Why must they resort to dishonest persuasion tactics (almost by the book from a psychological standpoint) if their case is so well supported?  Appeals to emotion, the clasic strawmans, the yes-yes-yes phenomena, the bait-n-switch.

Yes, there are nutjobs that think that.  And they are FREE to think all homosexual should be executed.  Not free to DO it.  Hopefully good men, no matter what political ideology is adopted, will draw the line and not let it be crossed.

There are also nutjobs on the Left or non-Christians that think all (a) Conservatives, (b) Christians and (c) Christian Conservatives believe this.

The big picture here is that this is NOT about the religious aspects of the discussion.  That's just the backdrop - who and what is under fire TODAY.  Beware of missing the forest for the beautiful row of trees.

This Post (http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,119621.msg199213.html#msg199213) exemplifies the point very clearly.

Let us learn from the history of Germany in the 1930's.

Exactly right, indiana. And it can also include religious scholars taking heat for making comparisons of different cultures and ideologies. But I think this thread has maybe gotten too focused on religion and on the whole liberal-conservative argument.

The interesting thing is that while these issues are often blamed on the various groups being "protected," the problem, in my experience, is more with over-sensitive bureaucrats and activists who belong to no such group. They take a very patronizing attitude, treating people as if they are incapable of dealing with their own differences.

One particularly good example was a guy who ran a diner in my hometown for many years. He was a Muslim from Cyprus running a business in a small town that was anything but cosmopolitan. But he was very friendly, community-minded, and well-liked. His biggest annual contribution was a free Christmas dinner on Dec. 25, open to anyone who wanted to come. He never tried to gloss it over by calling it anything other than a Christian holiday, but it was a gift to his Christian friends. One year, when Ramadan coincided with Christmas, his Muslim friends also came down from the city to break their fast.

That is a very real meeting of cultures, requiring no laws, no tribunals, no imposed restrictions.

Do we need some loosely-defined thing called a "hate crime?" Assault, uttering threats, vandalism, murder are already against the law, regardless of who does what to whom. Publishing false and defamatory statements about someone is already grounds for a lawsuit.

What I think of when I hear these things justified is some well-meaning person from an all-white neighbourhood carrying on a conversation with a black guy and never quite getting past noticing the difference. More than that, being careful not to say anything that would remind this fellow that there might be some difference between you and he, as if to acknowledge that he is black would somehow offend him. Might sound ridiculous, but it happens.

To me, these sorts of laws emphasize differences when we should be emphasizing what we have in common. And we are never going to work out those differences if someone is stifling real dialogue.

For those of you who think only the left is limiting free expression these days:  http://www.handelonthelaw.com/news_details.aspx?News=5640


Even though what the pastor and what Max Hardcore both do is disgusting, it must be protected.  Without the freedom to say what you want, all other freedoms are just an illusion.

Very Cool.  Here's hoping he stays in business, and is welcomed as part of the community, a LOOONG time.   :cheers:


Well, call me a cynic, but to me, that's the point.  I have come to believe that some folks don't want the problems solved.  The existence of the problems is the basis of their power - whether that's political power or social power is immaterial.

"The interesting thing is that while these issues are often blamed on the various groups being "protected," the problem, in my experience, is more with over-sensitive bureaucrats and activists who belong to no such group."

Exactly!

Part of that is acceptable:

Quoth the article:

"...jurors drew the line saying...the graphic and violent films of a Hollywood pornographer are unacceptable in their community."

(emphasis added)

The problem, as I see it, is we have come to believe, an accept, that what each community decides for itself has to be a one-size-fits-all for everyone in the whole country.

THAT's the problem, imo, and what sets self-rule apart from censorship.

I see nothing wrong with a system wherein this jury decides this for themselves, so long as they cannot impose that on anyone else.  But, since this was Federal Court, such a case will be used as precedent in other locations.

It's the federalization of EVERYTHING in our lives that causes all this conflict.

Soooo, as a commie hippy demonized totally sexist greedy bastard, where do I fit in? I'm confused???

Nah hehehe that's funny though! Maybe yer wanna dem dare extreme moderate fence sitters!

I'll address this one a little bit, since it's on-point to the rest of the thread.  That is, I'm not arguing "for" or "against" prayer in school, just showing an example of how he who "SEEMS" to be doing your bidding today may be your enemy tomorrow, and vice versa.  "Freedom" is MUCH bigger than the particulars of these specific issues.

From the www.atheists.org FAQ:


So...SOMEONE is trying completely do away with prayer in school - all prayer.  The argument seems to be that if teachers "allow" voluntary prayer, that is a form of coercion on those not volunteering.

Loud, vocal minority?  Probably.

Truly representative of all "liberals" on the issue of school prayer?  Not Likely.

But they ARE trying to limit Freedom to practice one's own religion, and since "no religion" IS their religion, they are attempting to impose their religion on everyone else.  On a side note, why is it acceptable for THAT group to push their beliefs on everyone, but no other religion can attempt to do so?

So, one COULD say that the Christian groups that are fighting to "keep prayer in schools" are fighting a good fight - to protect the right of ANYONE of ANY religion to voluntarily, privately worship in their own way - or not, as the case may be.

Well, he actually sold the place a couple of years ago. The hours were long, his wife just got through a prolonged illness, and he wanted to spend more time with his elderly mother in Cyprus. Kind of sad, but he had to keep up an insane pace to run that restaurant, and a long trip overseas was pretty much out of the question while he was doing it.

I don't have time to dig up every piece of case law or event at the moment. However there were some schools and allowed a Hanukkah, Ramadan, and Kwanzaa (a made up holiday by the way) celebrations, but disallowed a Christmas one. In another town they allowed and menorah on the courthouse lawn but not a nativity scene. On the left coast they'll allow Muslim students time to pray during school but not Christian based events. I read some time ago a school with a heavy Buddhist population having a Buddha in the school, but don't you dare have a cross in a heavily Christian school.

now for the record I'm not a very religious man, I just see the hypocrisy of it all and call it like I see it, have every religion represented, I don't care. Don't ban one at the fear of offending the others.

This country, like it or not was founded on religious freedom and also Christian principles. Several of the founders were Deitist and not Christian by definition at all.

I'd love to answer many parts of other post but work calls.


Try not to take what I said out of context ... I know it's hard. I said and I quote "more so than before." Yes I know and opium den, absinthe, mushrooms, etc dating back many, many years, centuries. The passage was a little tongue in cheek. 

First of all, being Atheist does not make you a Liberal at all.  Being Christian doesn't make you Conservative.   Why is Atheism considered as any political affiliation when it is no more than the lack of belief in gods.  Seems only Conservative Talking heads (who only act conservative -Rush, lookin right at ya buddy) try to fire people up by framing it in such a slant.

I personally don't think the Christian Coalition is fighting the good fight for anyone's prayers but their own since they believe a-priori that they believe in the one true god and everyone else is going to burn in hell fire.  Most folks on the 700 Club and power groups of the like make it a phantom menace issue.

Anyway, the question and answer you quoted doesn't necesarily represent all atheists since the "only" thing atheists have in common is the lack of belief in gods. 

But this part I found interesting:

"There are abundant opportunities for religious individuals, including students, to exercise their freedom of religion, and pray to the deity or deities of their choice. But remember, the public schools exist as secular, educational institutions, not as places for religious proselytizing and indoctrination."

First part answers "yes, religious kids can pray at school" but that proselytizing and indoctrination" is not welcome in a secular place, which is the whole part about "forcing" I was referring to earlier.

The second one about voluntary prayer:

"Just how "voluntary" is it? When school authorities, including teachers organize prayer or bible recitation as part of the activities of the school day, there is clearly an element of coercion involved for students who might not wish to pray -- for whatever reason."

This stance is referring to forced/led prayer and not really talking about self-voluntary.  Children can pray by themselves anytime they want.  We, or at least I, only have a problem with the coercive element. 

"The public schools are for everyone. Having a prayer divides children into the group that prays, and the often smaller group consisting of those who do not. Experience has shown that kids who do not participate are often victims of ostracism, threats and other exclusionary practices. Is this right?"

This is true - think about if it was a different religion than one you practice and your child was left out?  Kids can pray anytime they want during school but the whole led prayer should be left at home or in church with the family where it belongs.

I don't really find these answers given as against a child's option to pray on their own.  Group led prayer is another matter.  Do you see how a child could feel left out or ostracized for not going along.  The thing is religion is such a private matter and should stay that way in a public school.

And I beg to differ on atheism as a religion.  Atheism is no more a religion than baldness is a hair color.

"This country, like it or not was founded on religious freedom and also Christian principles. Several of the founders were Deitist and not Christian by definition at all."

Sorry Cheeze I beg to differ on those foundations.  True, there were a lot of Deists, but those principles you refer to don't belong exclusively to Christianity.  Again, you do not have the monopoly on morality.  This is stated a lot but it just doesn't reflect reality.  What principles was this country founded upon that are exclusive to Christianity and not any other religion? 

Whether you like to admit it or not, this country, land and resource-wise, was founded on conquest and genocide, which are certainly not Christian ideals.  Unless you meant, more specifically, this country's laws.  In that case, we're talking about the Constitution.

It's my understanding that the Constitution itself is based on the pushing and pulling of ideas from a great number of men who pulled ideas that worked from old Roman law while upgrading and updating some viewpoints while ditching anythign obsolete.  Sounds pretty reasonable to me.  Those things in the Constitution don't relfect Christian teachings, sorry.  Do they also reflect Jewish principles? 

Where in the Constitution does it say we must have a sabbath once a week? Where in the Constitution does it say we must worship god before any other (the first commandment, which I admit is just as much Jewish as it is Christian).  I could draw up a hundred maybe a thousand things on how the Constitution and the Bible differ.   Where in the Constitution does it say to never suffer a witch to live?

Clockwork:  "Yes that is frightening.  However, keep in mind, there are many on the right who would gladly agree with laws that executed homosexuals, but we both know the extremes on both sides are a minority and should not be equivocated to represent either side."

I think that is a ridiculous stereotype.  I regularly live, work, and interact with the "so-called" religious right - and there is not one in a hundred that holds that view.  What they resent is an entertainment and news media, and an educational system, that insists that sexual deviancy is a normal, morally neutral behavior.  Our philosophy is that consenting adults are free to do what they wish with each other - but we'd really rather not see sexual deviancy waved in front of our eyes as something good, normal, and fulfilling.

Most people who say things like what you just said have an opinion of us righties that is shaped more by pop culture than by actual acquaintance.

Karma for your post, Tars Tarkas!!!

However, the government does have a constitutional right to ban obscenity . . . that's been borne out by case law repeatedly.  As I understand it, the crime is not in producing the speech or media, but in commercially distributing it.

From what I hear, that guy is a real scumbag.

Clockwork again: "Sorry Cheeze I beg to differ on those foundations.  True, there were a lot of Deists, but those principles you refer to don't belong exclusively to Christianity.  Again, you do not have the monopoly on morality.  This is stated a lot but it just doesn't reflect reality.  What principles was this country founded upon that are exclusive to Christianity and not any other religion? 

Whether you like to admit it or not, this country, land and resource-wise, was founded on conquest and genocide, which are certainly not Christian ideals.  Unless you meant, more specifically, this country's laws.  In that case, we're talking about the Constitution."

The fact is that there were two primary ideological shaping factors that drove our founders as they met in Philadelphia in 1787: Calvinist Christian theology and Enlightenment natural rights philosophy.  The two ideas were blended together in a document that recognizes, simultaneously, the ability and right of mankind to govern himself, as well as the sinful impulses which drive him to acts of depravity when there is not some powerful restraint upon him.  The single most quoted document in THE FEDERALIST PAPERS is not Locke, Montesquieu, or Rousseau . . . it is the King James Bible.  Even though a few of the Founders were not practicing Christians (Jefferson, Franklin, etc.) all of them were shaped by a profoundly Christian world view that guided them in shaping our government.  There is a little book called NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY which outlines the Christian influences on our founding fathers.  It's not a bunch of right-wing propaganda and re-writing of history; about 60% of the text is primary source quotes from the founders of America.

I notice that the most extreme examples of bizarre "Christian" beliefs that you cite come from the Old Testament Levitical law, something which virtually all Christians believe was abolished by the Cross.  Those laws were only intended for the theocratically governened nation of Israel, some 3400 years ago.

As far as America's shameful legacies of genocide and racism, no one can deny that part of our heritage.  HOWEVER, it should be judged in the light of the 18th century, not the 21st century.


And to ALL posters, let me say . . .


THIS IS ONE GREAT THREAD!!!!!!!

Where did I say exclusively?

Somehow I remember there being a conjunction in what I said.

Well it was kinda the point that extreme examples don't reflect the mainstream opinion.  However, my statement about many on the right does not come from the media but comes straight outta the mouth of some very rightwing individuals I know personally.  Sorry, sad but true.  What I'm saying with my post is that I know they're not representative of the mainstream anymore than these extremist leftwing douches that get equivocated to the rest of us leftwing douches lol.

In actuality, I was once a rightwinger myself -very conservative, very very conservative.  I'm just glad people can change.

But now you bring up another discussion: is homosexuality deviant? You state that it is, yet it's been proven that it's normal in both humans and animals on the genetic level.  Now, I don't know what's worse; sexual repression that leads priests to abuse others or mutual consenting adults having feelings for one another <shrugs>. 

But I get your message: those homosexuals should be treated as second class citizens?  Am I understanding you correctly?

Interesting...now we see some goal posts moving...it was "based on" to now "influenced by" - maybe we're all splitting hairs here more than anything.

I know the people who wrote the Constitution were influenced by their world view but those same "principles" are not exclusive to your precious religion but are seen across many religions.  See what I'm trying to say.

"the ability and right of mankind to govern himself" -where is this in the Bible?! I remeber reading a whole lot about Kings in the Bible and a large portion describing how Christ was of the same bloodline as other Kings.  Also, I remember in the Christian-dominated Middle Ages, Kings were of divine right by God to rule. 

And if the word of god and the morals of the Bible are infallable and static, why should it make a difference which century we're in?  And again, if this country were founded on Christian principles, there would not have been the raping, pillaging, and theft of land of a culture (and cultures) that were already here.  Unless you're saying those are Christian principles.  I'm saying this land and these resources were founded upon conquest, plain and simple.  Our laws were developed over time and still develop today -if they were based on Christian Biblical laws, slavery would still be legal.  Tell us what the Christian teaching is on Slavery?  Something about not beating them, right?  I love this retro-tooling of an ancient book.  Amusing stuff.  If our Constitution was based on Calvanistic Moral Christian ideas and the right to self-govern, why did these laws only apply to white land owneers while excluding the natives already living here, women, and any non land owners?  Seems like freedom was being a bit selective even then.

And you can't be a cafeteria Christian, choosing and picking what to use and ignore in the Old Testament.  Explain how the Cross itself, a Roman device of capital punishment changed all those other things (no touching pigskin) but had no bearing on views of homosexuality?  Don't you think your god would be upset with you for making his book a cafeteria?

And if you don't mind my asking, what State do you teach in so I can ensure that I never enroll my children there?

This is what you said:

"This country, like it or not was founded on religious freedom and also Christian principles."

I'm quite familiar with grammar, thank you for your condescending attitude anyway. 
If you say "x was founded on y and z" and that "z" doesn't include any other worldview that kinda implies exlusion.  Again I'll ask how are these Christian princples any different than other tenats of other moral philosophies?

But, you're saying in addition to being founded on Christian principles (or is it now "influenced by"?), it was founded upon religious freedom?  I don't believe I had an argument with that part, which is why I didn't say anything, although I'm not certain people were actually free to practice non-Christian religions at the time.

But I do love how you skip over 99% of a response and nitpick that 1% w/o answering any of the serious questions I asked.  I'm actually quite used to that from Fundies on another board so I guess nothing's new there.  Oh that's right -you don't have time but you had time to lump all of us "libruls" together on a tanget that had less to do with the topic at hand than this post here does.  (You know, because anytime anything bad happens it's the libruls fault of course, even this economy in which the libruls haven't had much controll in the last 8 years).

So...

Do you agree your children shouldn't be forced to pray a certain way? Yeah I bet you would if it weren't "your' religion.
Do you think it's patriotic of Dick Cheney to relocate his headquarters offshore to avoid paying taxes (you know, because he is kinda poor and it would be too much to ask him)?

Personally, I think whether or not this nation was founded on "Christian" principles is irrelevant, as it was also founded on "Slaves are 3/5ths a person" principles and lots of other stuff.  Christianity is not the absolute answer on morality, just as many Christian leaders are not absolute answers on being upstanding citizens.  Morality is bigger than one religion, it existed before Jesus.  General "Do unto others" rules exist in most major religions and non-religious philosophies.  I am a Christian myself, and I am regularly disgusted by the Religious Right and their selective following of the bible.  If Jesus existed today, many TV preachers would have nothing to do with him and his hanging around the dredges of society. 

"If Jesus existed today, many TV preachers would have nothing to do with him and his hanging around the dredges of society. "

Indeed.  They'd be the first to crucify him.

Just like the religious leaders during his life were the ones to push his crucifixion then.

It's always hard on anyone who attacks cherished beliefs.  Some get bit worse than others.

I do have some issue with the idea that one must take the entire Bible at face value to be a good Christian.

The Bible is composed of texts written down by people, and selected for inclusion by other people (plenty of texts didn't make the cut). Taking the whole thing literally, as many try to do, is a pointless exercise. To be appreciated, the passages must be put into their proper context - time, place, major events. My wife has degrees in this stuff, and the Bible never made more sense to me than when she explains things in their proper context.

Depending on which Christian scholars you ask, you might hear that some parts of the bible are nothing more than rules pertaining to a specific culture, some are considered legends even by more liberal believers, some parts were written by people with a definite axe to grind or during a particularly troubled time. Some scholars would suggest books that don't belong in the Bible at all, and others that should have been included. They will probably also tell you that some translations are better than others.

I've always maintained that athiests and evangelical Christians have more beliefs in common than either would admit. Both interpret the Bible literally and out of context, and both believe that if it isn't the literal truth, it must be a lie. The only difference is which side of the fence they're on.

Really? Then I guess saying exclusively Christian was a typo. My bad.


The country was predominately Christian at the writing of the constitution and it still is.  Would you prefer it was founded on Islamic principles, or Toa or Buddhist or Judaism? Went the vast majority was Christian. I never said they were different, even though they are, it is based on the majority belief at the time.



Religious freedom also included freedom FROM religion. This country does not mandate that you belong to this or that religion, you can believe nothing or that God is a big purple fluffy rabbit and do so without fear. That can not be said for many countries around the world.


Correct I don't have time to respond to a lengthy post, I do work. Lumping liberals? From some of the stuff I read you wrote, talking about lumping and stereotyping ...  :lookingup:

It seems you forget who controls congress, the president can not unilaterally control the economy. I seem to recall the liberals running on the campaign promise of lower gas prices in 2006 ... well it's nearly doubled since they took control of congress but somehow that's Bush's fault. :lookingup: Yes blame the evil conservatives, it's easier than facing the truth. 


Do you know what my religion is? I believe I states rather clearly I'm not a religious person. Doesn't mean I want to ban religion and force my beliefs on you or anyone else.



Sorry, I don't keep tabs on Cheney.


I respect your views and what you have to say, doesn't mean I agree with it.

"Really? Then I guess saying exclusively Christian was a typo. My bad."
Maybe you missed the response to this?  You made the claim "founded on a Christian Nation" and sorry man, that sounds pretty exclusive.  I personally don't think laws should be founded on any barbaric tribal religion from the Middle East but on common sense, trial and error, and justice, not from an ancient text that doesn't reflect reality.

"The country was predominately Christian at the writing of the constitution and it still is."


But that's not what you said initially.  See what I mean about moving the goal posts?  This isn't the same as saying "founded on" - the Country was predominantly right-handers too at the time but saying we were founded on a "right-handed" principles is another matter.  I think we're actually arguing different points about the same subject; effectively splitting hairs.

"Religious freedom also included freedom FROM religion. This country does not mandate that you belong to this or that religion, you can believe nothing or that God is a big purple fluffy rabbit and do so without fear. That can not be said for many countries around the world. "

That's how we've retrofitted it to mean, but are you sure it meant the same thing back then?  Weren't people burnt to the stake for witchcraft or was that only before the Constitution.  None the less, it was during the founding of our country, which was predominantly Native American, in actuality.

"It seems you forget who controls congress, the president can not unilaterally control the economy."

Control? Democrats don't have 2/3 majority in either the House or the Senate so using terms like "control" is disengenious.  Influence? maybe.  But what they do have is a President with Veto power who knocks down every single thing nearly ...a President that's been on Vacation more than you and I in a lifetime perhaps.  Besides, what's your excuse for the 7 years before they regained this "control" in 2006?  Sorry, but when conservatives had control over 3 branches of government, they can't blame liberals, which was the point I was making and it still stands, regardless of the world games and number fudging.  Dems have 1 more person in the Senate and about 30-40 more in the House, which makes the available for the blame game of the last 7 years...ok if you say so.

And you didn't actually answer the question about Cheney.  You don't have to keep tabs on him to make a judgement call on whether that kinda act is patriotic or not. 

I find you to be a rather patriotic person (just as I am) so I would think an action such as this would bother you as much as it bothers me.  It's an easy fact to look up - don't take my word for it.   It's just one conservative; it's not like they're going to gome get us with the Patriot Act hehe.

"I respect your views and what you have to say, doesn't mean I agree with it."
That's cool - I'm not bothered with it either way.  That's the beauty of it actually.  Agreeing is boring.  Just know we're not all the same.  And I'll call out the Fallacy of Equivocation everytime I see it.

Let me respond point by point to some of the things Clockwork said:

"the ability and right of mankind to govern himself" -where is this in the Bible?! I remeber reading a whole lot about Kings in the Bible and a large portion describing how Christ was of the same bloodline as other Kings.  Also, I remember in the Christian-dominated Middle Ages, Kings were of divine right by God to rule.  

THAT concept comes from the "natural rights" view of the Enlightenment!!  You accuse me of cherry-picking, and then do the same to me!! Read the entire sentence I wrote, and you will see  I juxtaposed the Enlightenment concept of self-government  IN THE SAME SENTENCE with the Calvinist/Biblical view of the fallen, sinful nature of mankind that causes us to misuse and abuse our freedoms.  I'm not the only one who recognizes this dichotomy within the Constitution - many scholars acknowledge the influence of these two somewhat contradictory influences.

And if the word of god and the morals of the Bible are infallable and static, why should it make a difference which century we're in?  

Do you understand that difference between the Old and New Testament?  There was one covenant given, specifically to the descendants of Jacob known as the nation of Israel, so that they could serve as a "light to the Gentiles" and draw all men to God.  They failed, so God sent his only begotten son into the world to give his message in its pure and final form.  And, frankly, the century we are in makes a huge difference.  In the Middle Ages, 95% of the population was illiterate and the Scriptures were deliberately withheld from the common people.  Today the Word is available in virtually every language and multiple translations, so frankly we understand it much better than we did in an age where it was withheld and in many cases deliberately distorted.

And again, if this country were founded on Christian principles, there would not have been the raping, pillaging, and theft of land of a culture (and cultures) that were already here.  Unless you're saying those are Christian principles.  I'm saying this land and these resources were founded upon conquest, plain and simple.

That is where the Calvinistic view of mankind comes in - which, incidentally, is well-founded in Scripture.  The point is that we are a fallen people, irreparably stained by sin and prone to every sort of depravity imaginable unless restrained by SOME powerful moral force - ideally, a relationship with the Living God.  All societies have moral standards that they strongly believe in and fail to live up to - why should ours be any different.  And, the warlike nature and rampant cannibalism among Indian tribes made it easy to demonize them.

 Our laws were developed over time and still develop today -if they were based on Christian Biblical laws, slavery would still be legal.  Tell us what the Christian teaching is on Slavery?  Something about not beating them, right?  

Christ came to the world to save men's souls and teach them about righteousness, not to reform society.  However, hand in glove with that goes the idea that when enough people embrace the teachings of Christ, evil institutions like slavery can no longer exist, because they deny the fundamental scriptural truth that "God is no respecter of persons."  Who led the abolitionist movement in both England and America?  Evangelical Christians, for the  most part.  Yes, Southerners quoted heavily from Scripture to justify slavery, most often from the Old Testament - which was written at a time when slavery was universal.  But in Israel, accodring to the Levitical law, every seven years all slaves were to be liberated, unless they willingly chose to remain in captivity.  

I love this retro-tooling of an ancient book.  Amusing stuff.  If our Constitution was based on Calvanistic Moral Christian ideas and the right to self-govern, why did these laws only apply to white land owneers while excluding the natives already living here, women, and any non land owners?  Seems like freedom was being a bit selective even then.

Because it was written in the 18th century, when, for thousands of years in Anglo-Saxon and Roman law, most legal rights were held by men and men only.  It sucks by our 21st century standards, but it was the norm around most of the world at that time.  You can't realistically expect 18th century Americans - or ANY group of people, for that matter - to totally transcend the social conventions of their age and live up to a standard of behavior that isn't even invented yet.  However,   if you read IN ITS ENTIRETY what the New Testament says about the relationships between men and women and husbands and wives, you will find it to be REMARKABLY progressive for its time.  Compare what Paul writes about husbands and wives to what is in the Quran, or even the Old Testament.    And all that being said, our Founders also had sense enough to create a document that was flexible and capable of being changed to accommodate shifting sensibilities.  Many of them, especially Alexander Hamilton, denounced slavery as barbaric and looked forward to a  day when it would be completely abolished.


And you can't be a cafeteria Christian, choosing and picking what to use and ignore in the Old Testament.  Explain how the Cross itself, a Roman device of capital punishment changed all those other things (no touching pigskin) but had no bearing on views of homosexuality?  Don't you think your god would be upset with you for making his book a cafeteria?

Again, even a superficial understanding of basic Christian theology should enable you to recognize that we were liberated from the Old Testament Law by the sacrifice of Christ.  In the Old Testament you find laws that were given specifically to the theocratic nation of Israel - a "peculiar people" is how Yawheh God himself described them.  In the New Testament you find moral guidelines given by Christ Himself, and His disciples, on how believers are to live in a fallen world.  The New Testament describes homosexuality as a sinful behavior, along with adultery, theft, murder, lust, envy, and drunkenness.  It is not presented as being any worse than other sins.  Here is a cornerstone principle of Christian theology - the believer is NOT obliged to punish sin.  That is God's domain.  What we are called upon to do is to recognize sin for what it is and condemn it as such, while loving those who are trapped in it and recognizing that ALL men are sinners, saved by grace.  The Church has sadly gotten that concept WRONG more often than not, but that is the concept clearly presented in Scripture.

And if you don't mind my asking, what State do you teach in so I can ensure that I never enroll my children there?

Unless you plan to enroll your children in a private, Christian school, you need have no fear of them being "corrupted" by my radical right ideas.  Personally, I think that was a bit of a cheap shot - I have been nothing but respectful to you, and the comments I have made about our Constitution are not that radical, nor are they original to me.



Now, a quick reply to AndyC -

I have specialized for  years in the study of the writing and selection of the books that make up the New Testament.  Many of the statements that are being thrown around today about the canonization of the New Testament works are frankly false, especially some of the ideas dramatized in popular fiction like the DA VINCI CODE, etc.  I really don't want to retype the considerable amount that I have written, but you might check an old thread entitled MY ISSUES WITH THE DA VINCI CODE to see where I am coming from.  

I will say this - there is not an example of a single authentic, apostolic work that was excluded from the New Testament on doctrinal grounds.  The stuff that was excluded was excluded because it was written more than a century after Jesus' life, when all the eyewitnesses were dead.  Compare the bizarre theology and weird contradictions in the Gnostic gospels to the teachings of Jesus in the biblical Gospels, and you will see that those later authors simply had no clue what Jesus really taught.

That's all interesting but who gets to decide what's in the proper context, what's to be taken literal and what's just a metaphor or poem.  Seems to be quite a difference in the Christian community for one.  You don't have to be Atheist to wonder about that? Doesn't the mere fact that it's easily interpreted in multiple ways by just about anyone that it cannot be of divine origin?  Any god worth its salt would know written word is corruptable.    To me, it's used in the fundamental attribution error and used to justify preset beliefs.  Like dude said in Heathers, they believe it because they wanna believe it - an appeal to emotion.

At any rate, why is it that the whole pig skin thing can be brushed aside but he homosexual reference in the same book can't be? Seems to me that those upset about other people's private life says more about "themselves" than anything else.

And you can say what you want about Atheists but I think you're grouping those who are anti-christian with those who lack belief in all gods.  Some Atheists have never been introduced to religion of any sort -the best example is a child who has yet to develop a brain capable of learning about it or a person of a culture never introduced to it.

IMO, it makes sense to those who want to believe it made sense.  Back when I was religious, I believed it first no matter what, then I read it.  Then I thought about it.  Then I looked at the world around me and thought about that.  I ignored it for years.  Denied it.  Repressed it.  Then I read the other religious texts and cults of personilities.  Sorry, I'm just not capable of buying it anymore.  And it avoids the 400lb gorilla in the room - why is it my responsibility to prove this missing being who doesn't show up to speak for itself (among a million other proposed ones) actually exists, has contradictory properties, and wants stuff.  If he exists, he knows my phone number.  What's with the hide n seek? 

Why would a god want text to be written by unknown authors, tinkered with by others, and not exactly clear in other areas especially for a populace where the majority couldn't even read and even among them, only "special" people were allowed to read.  It was this way for years up until a few hundred years ago.

Anyway, this has gotten far far off topic.  Damn those Canadians being denied their free speech.  I'm all for anyone, especially people I don't agree with to be able to say anything.  I say push that microphone up to Pat Robertson because I have the right to make fun of it.  Denying people the right to speak puts more of a spotlight on what they said than anything else.

The fact that it can be easily interpreted in many ways is EXACTLY the point to many Christians serious about their study.

You have to understand something.  The Bible is not "book of answers" or a "book of rules."  It is full of mystery and uncertainty (to us) precisely because it is about something, God, which is beyond OUR full and complete understanding.  It is a whole, not a collection of parts.

The story in the Old Testament is very, very important to setting the underlying theology of the New Testament.  Without all the legalism of Leviticus and some other things that anti-Christians always wave their fists at, the New Testament would not have made ANY sense to those coming into the early church.

In a nutshell, these two Testaments set up the juxtaposition between "man's way" and "God's way."  The Bible is a story about how there is something else to follow than just what you see and hear around you, at least in terms of your own wants, desires and pleasures.

Said another way, it's about serving something larger than yourself.  A part of that "something" is the community in which you live, and that's one reason why the 600 some odd "laws" are presented in the Old Testament - to show the formation of community as a central idea.

Ah, context.  One can take individual sentences out of context and one can take entire books out of context. 

The laws in Leviticus (and elsewhere) in general, and the Ten Commandments in particular, came from a society that was just forming itself.  The people had been slaves in Egypt for a long time, and really did not know anything about setting up their own social framework without some overseer telling them how to live, what was okay, when to work, when to play, etc.  One day everything was decided for them, the next they were on their own.

When asked what was the most important of the laws, Jesus answered to first love God above all else and second to love your neighbor as yourself.  Those were the only two he mentioned, and he actually said of the first that it was the main law.

Incidentally, "Love God First above all else" appears in both Exodus and Deuteronomy.  This law is foundational and in the ordering of scripture, comes before the Leviticus laws so many rail against (or cling to).

So, to those of us that believe Jesus is divine, there is no ambiguity about the role the Old Testament laws play in our lives.

It's great that we can have discussions like this IN PUBLIC.  I propose we take a minute to thank those 18th Century Christians for the wisdom to include the First Amendment to the US Constitution, even though they, as men, were not wholly perfect in every way.

I understand it's a common apologetic that one must have some magic decoder ring to understand that which can't possibly be understood.  Maybe that explaination works for some but you can't expect it to work for all.

And just how are we supposed to take this passage in the proper context?

(and this is all under God's orders):

Numbers 31:15 
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.   
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. 

Now "that" is an abomination...but you guys apologize away.  No amount of a guy sacrificing himself to himself for us and having a real bad weekend explains how the old laws were any less barbaric.

Hey, a lot of scholarship has been devoted to the subject of interpreting the Bible, and a lot more is going on. Has less to do with interpreting it any way you want than simply getting to the meaning of the text and applying what wisdom it contains to the modern world. And yes, lots of ancient texts contain similar wisdom.

And I'm not sure why you keep going on about the bible being the divine word of God? I recall distinctly saying that the Bible was written by people, compiled by people and translated by people. It's an ancient book that happens to be central to a number of religions. People will claim to have a monopoly on the name Christian, and they will pick and choose passages to suit their purpose and say that it's the word of God. I, and many other Christians cringe at that.

I personally believe in a God, or something like that, because the universe makes more sense to me that way. I attend a mainline Christian church because that is how I was raised and what I'm comfortable with. I also like the sense of community. I view the Bible with an open but critical mind. I would never claim to know the exact nature of God or what God wants. You could almost call it a variety of agnostic deism. This is not an uncommon belief, it's just usually drowned out by the noisy evangelicals.

Am I imagining things, or are you arguing with somebody who isn't here? It appears you have a specific beef with somebody, but it seems somewhat disconnected from what's being said here.

Very odd, I have French-Canadian ancestry, and it's to my understanding that a lot of French immigrated to Canada to escape religious and political persecution and to farm and practice their Catholic faith in peace.

At least you can still toke up there LOL every country has it's ups and downs i guess!

I'm mostly responding to a few points here and there which mostly and gradually evolved out of other points from before.  Then I get a "lesson" on taking things out of context like I'm reading a passage that just isn't there when it's right there in black and white and I'm the one who's got issues?  I mean, it describes some rather bloodthirsty stuff and I am somehow taking that out of context?  It's missing some crucial moral messages in the NT and somehow that's out of context?  Never dare question anything in the Bible or your a Bible hater right?  I wonder if these scholars put as much effort into any other philisophical writings.

It's common knowledge that most Judo-Christians believe the Bible is the Divine Inspired Word of God...some border on worshiping the book more than Jesus themselves.  And you know it's the word of God; it says it is!  And for those of you who say the NT trumps the OT, well aren't you forgetting about the millions of Jewish people who believe in the OT.

And my question was and still is: who has the right to determine what's still relevant in the OT?

Yes yes, this has gotten far off topic.  Sorry about that.

Whoops, seems I missed something while I was typing.

Nobody is talking about a "magic decoder ring." We're talking about historical context.

And the New Testament does not trump the laws of the Old Testament because of the ressurection, it does so because Jesus advocated a different way of doing things from what the religious establishment followed - Old Testament law. But people have twisted things so that much of the tolerance gets lost. They take the Christian philosophy and the Old Testament laws as it suits them, regardless of contradiction. Those are your "cafeteria Christians."

Ack! It happened again! This thread moves too fast! I'm going to say from a Christian point of view, that the New Testament should override the Old whenever the two disagree, although not everyone sees it that way.

As to who has the right to decide such things, everybody does. And if somebody can convince enough people of their interpretation, you have a new religion. Been going on as long as religion itself.

But we are getting off topic. This is just so interesting.

Okay, I'm done with this discussion.

Clockwork,

I don't particularly like having insults flung at me for simply trying to offer my perspective - a perspective which you have challenged repeatedly as being invalid.  You don't just say it's not YOUR perspective, you say, in effect, no one should have it because you don't agree with it for various reasons.

I have not thrown sideways, barely hidden barbs at you for disagreeing with me.  Nowhere in this thread have I stated that you must believe what I believe or behave how I behave.  I recognize that as a choice you and you alone must make.

Your attitude of superiority on this topic has succeeded.  You have put me off trying to share with you my world view.  You are now free to cultivate the apparent belief you seem to have that Christians have a monopoly on  treating people with disrespect.

I don't believe that being courteous and respectful in discussions should be for Christians alone.  Whether you accept the Christian context of the phrase "Love your Neighbor as Yourself" or not is your business, but perhaps it's not such a bad message.

In other words, this is by "boo" message - not for disagreeing with me, but for the manner you've carried yourself toward 4 different people in the discussion.

Well I have no real argument there.  But there is no twisting of some of that scripture; it stands on its own as something rather disqusting.  Not something I would be brave enough to try to make sense of or apologize for.

I don't believe I have insulted you at all other than ask difficult questions - I seem to remember quoting a passage that I found rather vile.  Sorry if it's not easily explainable why a god would order Moses to behave in such a way.

-maybe I'm getting confrontational when I'm given halfass non-answers from some others or distractive answers to questions or details avoiding the actual questions I asked.  And carrying on a 4 person pile up should be my complaint but you don't hear me whining.  Just because a billion people believe something doesn't make it true.  At any rate, this is a touchy topic.

True I insulted Indian Smith but it wasn't meant to be mean.  Just because you aren't being persuasive doesn't make me disrespectful.  I just checked and all I responded to you with (unless i missed it) was a quote directly from the Bible that cannot be taken out of context and I am asking you how is it that I am taking such a putrid order from God Almighty and twisting it?  I'm reading it in black and white.  Are you trying to tell me it doesn't say what it says?!   I'm sorry you can't handle your beliefs being scrutinized. 

I don't recall stating anything about Christians being disrespectful.  I addressed mostly specific statements that don't make sense.  Bottom line, people came to this country and it was founded on conquest - those people were making exceptions to their Christian beliefs at the time (as they do now...for any belief).  Other philosophies (god belief or not) have just as sound morality too.

But have a good one anyway.

But in this case, the point is not that we can't understand the scriptures, but to fully understand them, we have to understand the people they were written by and for. Religious scholars spend careers doing just that.

Even some of the barbaric passages can at least be explained by knowing the circumstances behind them. What was going on in that time and place? That can tell you what to make of it, and whether it applies at all today.

Ok, I guess it's easy to get worked up talking about the classic touchy subjects of religion and politics.  Sorry if I offended anyone but some things just don't make sense and I never like to let things go. 

But I didn't mean to get so hostile; it's easy to get worked up the more and more things go on.  Indian, I take back what I said man; I'm sure you're a great teacher.  I do apologize for that.  I mean it's not like you're smackin kids in the face, gettin em in headlocks and saying "believe it b***hES!" hehehe.  But seriously, sorry guys.  Sorry to take an interesting discussion and get flared up - damn German blood in me I guess.

I'm gonna go drink a beer.  Anyone else with me?  Cheeze, AndyC, ulthor, Indian, any of ya? 

Okay, Clockwork, I'll try to be more specific.  I think I owe you that.

It's a matter of tone. Some examples from your last message:

"I don't believe I have insulted you at all other than ask difficult questions or getting confrontational when I'm given halfass non-answers "

Thanks for saying everything everyone else has said is half assed.  That's why I sorta see it as a "why bother" at this point.

"Just because a billion people believe something doesn't make it true."

No one is arguing "truth" but belief and viewpoint...your comments have been clearly aimed at invalidating my beliefs as stupid and illogical.

Just because you don't understand something (ie, why I believe what I believe) does not mean it is either stupid or illogical.

But there's another insult there as well.  By bringing this up, the size of Christian following, you insinuate that I am just a follower - a sheep.

I don't follow Christianity because anyone else does.  Believe it or not, I have a mind of my own and can make decisions for myself.  Believe it or not, my being Christian is a choice, and one made after many years of atheism.

"Just because you aren't being persuasive doesn't make me disrespectful.  "

That statement on it's face is true enough.

By telling me I'm not being persuasive is to be adopting a position that you are "right" and it is up to me to prove you wrong.  In adopting that attitude, you ARE in fact being disrespectful.

"I just checked and all I responded to you with (unless i missed it) was a quote directly from the Bible"

No, your quoting that passage did not bother me.  Your labeling my statements as "apologetic" along with the decoder ring allusion did.  Such labeling belies an attitude of superiority.  It's a debate tactic I associate with a person with his/her mind closed on the issue being debated.

As for that passage....I'm just done discussing it with you at this time.  I have a TON more I COULD say...but not today.  Maybe we can try again some other time.

"I'm sorry you can't handle your beliefs being scrutinized. "

Nice sideways apology.  I am the one with the problem.  This is akin to saying "I'm sorry you are an a***ole" or "I'm sorry your face is so ugly."

It's not the scrutinization that bothers me.  I love talking about this stuff.  In such debate, I'll probably learn something new.

Besides, I can handle for more stringent debate - and have with some true intellectual giants.  I've been in serious discussions on philosophy, physics and spirituality with Nobel Prize winners and contenders.  So I don't particularly like the assumption you seem to be making that I am too weak to debate this with you.

I have neither the time nor the energy to discuss something with someone who is not going to be convinced of ANY validity to ANYTHING I say.   I don't mean AGREE, I mean acknowledge as a valid viewpoint.  After all, we are talking about belief systems, faith, spirituality and interpretation here, not "what is the mass of that bottle of soda."

What would I waste my time?

I'll have one with you in spirit.   :cheers:

Yeah man, sorry - it's too easy to go into a mode ...jump to conclusions...all that jazz, especially getting worked up talking to so many people about such touchy subjects.  I'm used to talkign to other more unreasonable people and I often hear the same old stuff and I get to the point where I subconsciously expect those answers.  I was getting more and more upset the more I typed and said more and more stuff I didn't really mean. Again, I apologize, not just sideways this time.

Hell yeah...hope you wanna have more than one! heh  That's something conservs and libs all love right?  Beer?

Fair enough.

I give you a karma pop to with your beer.

HOLY SMOKES - I go inspect a foundation and truss system and come back and jeez I'll never catch up.

So in place of trying to respond to the entire thread at this time, I'll just say ...

Oh yeah, says who ... yeah right, whatever and I bet your momma does, but I did read something about a beer and that I'm game for.

Well try to read it all later, still have more work ... so I bid you ado for the time being.  :cheers:

Yeah Cheeze, I couldn't keep up and I was in the thing much of the time. A beer would be really good right about now. :cheers: And look, the smilies are even drinking draft. Mmmmmmm...draft beeeeer.

Hey Clockwork, apology accepted and no hard feelings.  One of my favorite quotes is from an atheist, actually -

"Any doctrine which will not bear investigation is an unworthy tenant in the mind of an honest man."

I have examined my faith pretty closely, even those "hard passages" from the OT where God comes across sounding pretty bloodthirsty.  They are more understandable if you know a little bit about the cultures the Israelites were conquering.  I will explain if anyone wants me to, however, I think tempers have flared badly enough on this issue for now.  But my point is this - I didn't turn my brain off when I became a Christian.  I have examined and continue to examine the claims of Scripture pretty closely, and for me it still makes sense.  I'm sorry it doesn't for you, but I wish you happiness and peace nonetheless.

I still think this is a great thread, and I'll say this much -

America has obviously not abolished freedom of speech yet!!! :cheers:

(i'm not a beer drinker, but after doing yard work all day, I'll think of you when I drain that next glass of iced tea!)

Wow! Good thing I read this thread first before trying another one: "Free speech abolished in Colorado." (It was severely curtailed, anyway. I trust you guys know some political sites for yourselves that can give you the details.)


This article was hardly the only one on the subject. As you can see if you check the root URL for that site, Real Clear Politics is sort of a political free-for-all site, a slightly more interactive version of the Drudge Report. I chose this article because some people would be more likely to read it there than if it were on Townhall.com, or WorldNetDaily.com, or Newsmax.com, etc. I probably could have posted another rather disturbing article from the New York Times criticizing the U.S. for not having as many repressive speech codes as the rest of the world, but that article said very little about Canada's most recent infringements.


What you say is true, but the President does have one restraint on him that these kangaroo courts in Canada don't: he still has to convince people there's a real emergency if he wants to seize control. Hollywood always likes to show the big bad villain in its dystopian films declaring martial law and seizing everything in one stroke, which is what an emergency order would be like, but most of the losses of freedom in the real world have been piece by piece.

If McCain or Obama were to declare Global Warming a national emergency and start seizing power, you can bet there'd be people screaming for impeachment within the hour and a bloody revolt within the week. The effective way to oppress us is the way it's already being done: with a steady stream of seemingly minor restrictions and the approval of a majority of Congress and the Supreme Court. Canada's "human rights" kangaroo courts arose by just such a process.

So pay attention to your other elected officials as well. And beware of anyone who talks about "human rights" without specifying just exactly what kind of "rights" he means. The Constitution doesn't include any "right" not to be offended... yet.

Ok I've read the entire thread ... I don't need a beer I need a Makers and Coke.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1016/1399601178_054c60ecf9.jpg?v=0)

The thread seems to have come to a agreeable stop so I'm not going to go through it and state point by point, I think the arguments have been made, replied to and made again in a generally mature and respectable way ... we all digress at times.

Now excuse me while I go fix a drink.   



I'll translate ... "I'm Baptist and if I drink alcohol it could lead to dancing which could lead to spooning, which could lead to ugly bumping which could lead to strip clubs and back room gambling which would lead to more drinking." and the cycle is complete.  :drink:
Of course that's a loose translation.   

Karma to my buddy Cheeze for that one!!!!

Just remember, dancing . . . .



could lead to dancing! :twirl:

karma karma karma... oh, can't gib no karma...

Well, we used to drink Maker's Mark straight but that does look mighty tastey!

I use to drink it straight from the bottle ... somewhere along the line I decided to keep my liver.

This being a thread about Canada, I think a Crown and coke would be appropriate.

Actually as odd as it sounds, Crown and Sun Drop is good.

Dangit, Cheeze, I've held my tongue long enough.  A man can have whatever political and religious beliefs he wants, that's none of my concern.  That's the essence of free speech, or most treasured right.

But when a man adds COCA COLA to his BOURBON... well, that crosses a line.  That's BLASPHEMY, and an ABOMINATION. 

(Just kidding.  My dad adds coke to his bourbon.  Kinda gross to me, though.  I like it over ice.) 

Yeah, I've always felt there are liquors you mix and liquors you don't. Rye, vodka, rum, schnapps, gin, etc. are all fine to mix, while bourbon, scotch, brandy and the like are meant to be enjoyed on their own, maybe over ice. But hey, if it tastes good, do it. That bourbon and coke does look delicious.

Where I come from, rye and coke is pretty much king, if you don't count beer. For me, mixing a good whiskey or rum with a sweet cola almost has a candy-like flavour. Very yummy. Also quite fond of Southern Comfort and ginger ale, and vodka tonics.

Alas, with the exception of maybe Christmas, I am a virtual teetotaler these days.

I know, I know ... I bounces between the rocks and with coke, depending on my mood.
Now there are a few scotches that I'll only do straight or on the rocks like Springbank or Bruichladdich. I finally got my paws on a bottle of Ladyburn Scotch the other day, never had it before it's rather hard to come by.