Another Fool for Christ

Fair enough. The reason I compared Sunday church service to the 4 AM prayer is because I can't think of a Christian equivalent of the 4 AM Prayer. Point well taken.

 

I have to disagree with these assumptions.

1. "At a time where Christianity was ubiquitous there was limited controversy regarding the display of Christianity" you are purely making a personal assumption that Christianity being ubiquitous was the driving reason for acceptance of public and government Christian displays without considering that more important factors were possibilities. For instance, the lack of controversy could have also come from tradition, heritage, and historical precedent. Where their were non-Christians including native Indians, immigrants and others who had very little Christian identity they could easily be pleased to live with Christian symbolism because they lived in a time that the tradition, heritage and historical significance of Christian display was better understood. There was more than tolerance, even expectation, that the nation had Christian roots and culture stamped indelibly.

2. "because there was no one else pointing out that Christianity is getting preferred treatment" it seems to me you are assuming a bias without basis that in times past people saw Christian displays as preferential and biased and not just historical or traditional. For example saying a Christian prayer at a high school graduation could easily been seen in the past as American by diverse groups without feeling that there was an establishment of religion.

3. "Once we have more people of other religions in this country then its more obvious that one religion over others is getting preferential treatment. " Again you have made a stretch to assume that the inclusion of more people of other religions somehow changed the motives of Christian displays to be 'preferential' - by definition Preferential means to promote one against another. In other words you imply that instead of Christian displays being erected without controversy they were erected inspite of wishes of those of diverse viewpoint at the time as if to say that people of other religions resented or protested these displays. It's unfair to characterize those who held diverse beliefs in the 17th, 18th and 19th century in this way. They just as well could have been proud of America's Christian heritage from a purely moral judgment,- ie liberty, freedom, justice etc. It is not beyond reason to think that a Budhist who sought sanctuary in America in the 19th century would find a respect for scriptures and bibles placed in public places simply how a respect for a perceived moral virtue or benefit.

4. "The Founders understood this and which is why they wrote the First Ammendment forbidding government establishment of religion" The founders said this- The Congress shall pass no law as to the establishment of a religion or the free exercise thereof- And the founders made it clear that they were limiting the federal government with respect to establishing of a national church as they had in England, France etc.; while protecting the free exercise (expression) of religion in both public and private venues. That is why so many public places all over America had religious symbols, displays and expressions for so long in this nation's history. The removal of religious expressions from public display is a very recent issue. No founder gave any dissent to the scriptures placed on federal statues, buildings or the such in their life time. It was happening often with founder's blessing and in some cases direction.

5. "and why Jefferson wrote about "the wall of separation between church and state." This is incorrect Jefferson did not write to the Danbury Baptist concerning the Christian displays, or public expression of Christianity at all. He addressed their concern that the federal government was about to pass legislation in Congress that would be detrimental to the free expression of their faith and that is prohibited by the 2nd amendment. Jefferson said that a wall of separation will exist to keep Congress from passing laws legislating against any of the many religious sects in the nation. The 2nd amendment specifically address congressional legislation and that is its intended scope. Every thing which has followed has been place into law by judicial activism through loose and wrong interpretation of what is plaining stated in the Constitution. A fourth grader can understand what 'Congress shall pass no law' means.

6. "It wasn't that they wanted to ban religion but to allow the free practice of religion without governmental bias." The intent of the constitution and the founders was to allow the free practice of religion without Congress (the legislative branch) having any power to hinder or stop such free expression with laws. Religious laws were the scourge of Europe and the founders protected people of faith (be it Christian, Muslim or the rest) from such laws being passed in the legislature. The 2nd amendment is a restriction on Congress and it reads that plain and simple. It has nothing to do with the ten commandments being carved in the chambers of the Supreme Court or a display in the Alabama Courts. These legal challenges are unique to our day not American history.

7. "The difference is at the time when the Christianity was ubiquitous it was a concern about the different denominations of Christianity whereas now that Christianity isn't ubiquitous, though still a majority, its extended to all religions" I am not sure how you can be certain of this but I do know that original intent is better understood by a careful study of the original writings, traditions, texts and history of our nation. If we are preferential about anything and specific about most things let it be that there is nothing in the US Constitution that addresses Christian displays in public.

And Sishir I do greatly respect your views also, and so I made a fragile attempt at a lengthy response that has some logic.

 

I find that remarkable, considering that this was an article about an individual woman making an individual statement about her new found faith... and she is labeled another "fool for Christ" and then the Christian belief system is just bashed over and over again here in this thread. The non-Christians find it amazing that Christians don't stand down but shout louder when their belief systems are attacked... I guess we don't strap C4 and ball bearings to waists and try to prove our point that way? If anyone has a strong belief in their religion when you start out "bashing" their beliefs in a way they are going to be defensive and have an aggressive view on things. While I despise religious radicals who kill themselves and innocent people for their religion I understand where their faith comes from.

I make no distinction between my church and state and I have no regrets for that and of course I am going to praise a leader who has the same beliefs as me, it is only natural. My Bible tells me to put God above all others, and that includes the good ol' USA and even my family. Every decision I make, every vote I cast, every banner I carry is based on my religion first and foremost. If I didn't do so could I seriously consider myself a Christian? I don't think so although other Christians may disagree. I am fairly certain that if you ask the vast majority of organized religions (Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc) that they all would say their God comes before their governments and family, and by their beliefs that is exactly the way it should be.

I realize that many of the other religions may have the same beliefs or concerns for America as me (such as the ones I mentioned in previous posts) but I make my decisions based upon my beliefs, not theirs. While I respect the views of other religions and am friends with non-Christians my beliefs come first and foremost, and changing those beliefs simply so I don't offend anyone isn't an option. With that said, I'm not a conservative across the board on every issue, and I'm not a huge fan of organized religion, and I'm certainly not a Bible-thumper or preacher-man...

Regardless of what some may suspect I respect greatly the religions and beliefs of my fellow Americans, but embracing their beliefs cannot contradict my own on any level. If you don't worship a higher being I don't think this is something you can understand because faith isn't something you can describe, but I am sure there are some non-Christians out there that can relate to where the faith comes from.

 

Super, as one Christian to another, don't you also agree that we need to always be on the lookout for ways to spread God's message? I simply don't think creating political lobby group like the Christian Coalition is the way to go about it. If God intended for Christians to play a role in the politics of the government, Jesus would have just taken over Rome during his walk on Earth. His own disciples and other followers thought that's what his actual pupose on Earth was. Jesus knew though, that people would always resent those in power, and that if he did that he could only hope to make people fear him, but not love him. He wants both, and the only way to do that was to spread his message at the grassroots level.

There are many scholars and theology historians who will agree that the perversion of Christianity began when Rome incorporated it into the government. The deeds and abuses of the Catholic Church as it ruled the world through "Christianity" is wlel documented.

 

I honor Rice as a writer. My sister just got a book deal... the first really big deal in her 20 year struggle to be successful. (she's had a few things published, but not mainstream publishers) I respect just how much hard work is involved in "putting pen to paper," and actually creating something. That Rice has gone in a new direction is terrific. Clearly, she was due to try something different anyway, and if she has "found religion," and chooses to express it in fictional form, then more power to her.

I'm just glad giddy finally found the right descriptive term for himself.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Are you suggesting that this is a publicity stunt??

 

Almost every leader if not every leader in our lifetime has been a Christian.

 

i don't get that at all from his post.

 

As I stated in my topic above, I am far from a fan of "organized religion" and this includes some of the political movements of large Christian groups. Look, I'm not blind here I realize that many, many Christians aren't exactly doing things for others they are simply looking out for themselves. Spreading the word is obviously the highest calling in a Christian’s life. I don't think an "all Christian government" could ever be the answer to our prayers either... but with very religiously driven topics on the table I do think it is key to rally as many Christians to the cause as possible.

Romans 13 teaches me that whatever Government is in power is there for a reason and I should submit to their authority unless it rebukes the authority of God. This is why I believe when Democrats are in power there isn't quite as much "mud slinging" from the right to the left, although once again I'm not blind I know it still occurs but I don't think it is as intense (once again, my perception you'll probably see different). Along with Revelations, Romans is probably my most studied book and being a fan of history and government it is easy to see why.

There are just some topics that are not open for debate when it comes to me and my Christian faith. These "blind faith" topics are just that, I know in my heart that they are wrong and I will vote against them or do whatever I can within the law to change those wrongs to rights. I won't mention those wrongs here, but I'm sure it is easy enough to read between the lines on them. I would hope every American has those topics that they are willing to fight tooth and nail for, and my beliefs just happen to be the cornerstone to those topics… some people may draw their inspiration to fight for them from other places, mine is from my faith and beliefs.

 

Did you read the whole thread?

1) The title was intentionally inflammatory.
2) How is the "christian belief system" being bashed?

Where is your belief system being attacked? Where are christians being restricted unfairly?

I don't think anyone was "bashing" christianity until you played the "persecuted christian" card.

Whatever.

I don't care that you desire a theocracy - but the US is not supposed to be one. The "good ol' USA" allows for you to practice your religion without fear of retribution. But don't let that small detail sway you from fighting the good fight of faith and denying the same right to everyone else.

EDIT: Actually, I do care that you desire a theocracy. It's completely ridiculous. The hypocrisy of the above comments from a Bush supporter is sickening. I mean - I don't even know how to express the astonishment.

Of course, perhaps in America they might realize that secularism is what makes this country a wee bit better than afganistan - even if it means they have to tolerate other religions. Bummer.

You have it backwards. No one cares aout your beliefs or wants you to change them - I could care less what you do or think. But every one of the issues you mentioned as being "christian beliefs under attack" are the opposite - where christians are imposing their beliefs on others. Read my previous post. The "attacks" you mention are really just attempts by a modernized/diversified constituency to eliminate christian bias in the government. That's not an "attack" IMO, no one is restricting you from believing the way you do; however, it is an acknowlegment that not everyone believes the same way. That may not matter to you - but it does matter to the US bill of rights.

You don't have to embrace their beliefs. Just ignore them.

What a concept.

 

Being a Christian and saying one is a Christian is two entirely different things.

 

Exactly, just ask Jr.

 

Uh, no. Quite the opposite. I was sincere. If I were sensitive, this is where I would go ballistic. Luckily for you, I save that for special occasions.


You know what is really amusing to me? My sister's next two novels (it's a 2 book deal) are romances with the main characters being vampires. It's all the rage in romance novels. That, and science fiction themed romances. She never liked reading them (she's always enjoyed historical romances), but after a friend, who's very successful in the field, badgered her into giving this "sub-genre" a whirl, she found that she got a kick out of writing the stuff. Isn't that a riot?

(thanks, Max!)


Keep D&D Civil.

 

Holy moly! Max writes romance novels?

 

I really like the title. The double meaning is quite clever.

 

AggieRocket already addressed some of these but since they were directed at me I will you my MHO.

If a school were to ban Muslim females from wearing headscarves specifically in the US there would be an outcry but depending on which community there propably wouldn't be nearly as much as say as say if a school banned the wearing of crosses. If a school were to ban the wearing of headscarves specifically I'm willing to bet you would have as many politicians, and BBS posters, supporting it as there would be opposed to it on the basis that Muslim identity is threatening to US cultural stability, there is evidence for this considering that there were Americans who supported the French ban. If crosses were banned OTOH you would see a huge firestorm of criticism. I mean if Christians now percieve they are persecuted consider what the reaction there will be once there is actual persecution in the terms of banning individual display of Christian symbols.

As far as banning Muslim prayers there was a case in Minnesota a few years ago regarding workplaces not allowing Muslims to take prayer breaks. The courts sided with the Muslims eventually but the case garnered very little attention.

 

Rhester;

I've only had a chance to skim your post, interesting stuff as always, but will have to get back to you when I have more time.

 

I was just joking btw. I don't post in D&D much so you probably don't recognize my tone in my posts sometimes.

 

It is just funny because giddy is a conservative Christian. Some people are so quick to attack, though, it doesn't seem to matter.