Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash
Thank you for so excellently making my point. Some Christians see this country as theirs and their faith under attack. They don't see the 10 commandments as religious just some nice set of 10 rules to live by. Like "have no other god" clearly not religious. Like remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, not a religious thought there. Like don't worship idols or I'll smite you and your offspring for four generations.. Nothing religious there. And of course the "not take the name of the lord in vain" nothing religious there either. That's 4 of the 10 already. You see the 10 commandments are not a non-religious set of rules for everyone. So for anyone to state as a given that the 10 are "excellent guidelines for a people to follow and emulate." suggests you haven't read them all or considered how a non-Christian might see my government supporting posting of a threat to smite me and my children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren for not believing in your god as antithetical to the idea of no government promotion of any religion.
There is no attack on Christianity. There is an attack on the idea that Christians can have freedom to push their gods and their stories as the ones to get special government protection from that unenlightened Hell bound satan worshipping group of Americans who apparently were not sufficiently kicked in the pants as children to become good Christians.
And your understanding that the Founders were establishing rules for freedom of religion not freedom from religion is a cute phrase but the Constitution is very clear that there is not to be any religious test for governing thus the Founders clearly understood that a nation ruled by atheists or other non-Christians was entirely permissible. The oath of office does not include so help me god, that has been a voluntary addition by some Presidents. When some fundamental Christians objected to postmasters having to work on the sabbath (see commandment #3 or #4 depending on your particular religion) in the 1810's they asked the Congress to change the law to give postmasters the sabbath free from work. Instead the Congress, with its historical proximity much closer to mine to what the Founders meant when they wrote the Constitution responded by writing a law requiring postmasters to work on Sunday. This was reinforced several times in the 1800's despite petitions from Christians to enforce their sabbath. Not until President Taft was the mail week changed to eliminate Sunday deliveries in part due to religious concerns but in greater measure the new labor laws limiting the number of hours an employee could work and the power of the Postal Workers Union asking for the day off.
Many Americans believe that public Christianity has always been the way it worked until now when mean people like me arrived. No, it was the other way around until the mid 20th century when Christianity went into stores, public squares, the beginning of super-churches and as the signs say, taking Christ out of Christianity to make it not holy but secular, Santa in the square. Religion used to be a private matter, kept private. When was the first official Xmas tree in the white house? When was god added to the pledge of allegiance?
I am not fighting Christianity and I agree it has done more good than harm, but plenty of harm. I think Islam has done more good than harm, I think Hinduism, Buddhism, Thor, Jupiter, Baal, and Zeus have done more good than harm too. I think faith (small f) is a positive influence for many many people. It provides a framework for dealing with the stresses in life and solace when bad things happen. Pastafarians look forward to a beer volcano in the afterlife. But my faith or yours belong in the privacy of my home, or my church, with my loved ones and my private community. I do not have any reason to expect the government to push my religion. I have every reason to expect the government to NOT take sides. And when the government says it is not taking a side, just opening the public space for free expression I then expect it to truly be open to all. If someone produces a statue of the tenets of a faith which positively asserts that no god exists or that Jesus was a gay black schizophrenic if it offends you, keep in mind that the Christian statue saying that Jesus is the one and only and that those who don't share that belief are incomplete and need to be saved and prayed over or they go to hell just might be offensive to me. All or nothing.
|
blueash: Once again this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beleifs. to suggest that they can be or should be practice only in private make my point clear that there is a continuing assault on Christians, Just ask the Coptic Christians. Still further if this thought of yours is that religion should only be private then why is it the Muslims in Minneapolis demand and are permitted to refuse airline passengers in their taxi's if this passenger is carrying liquor, or store clerks who refuse to checkout customers who purchased pork products, or are allowed more breaks to accommodate their demand for prayer time through out the work day. Yet, its capital St paul won't allow Easter bunnies or Christmas decorations because they view them as symbols of Christinaity. Still further pharmacist whose religious belief contradict the selling of contraceptives morning after pill are told to do their due diligence or get fired. Obamacare is in a lawsuit over this very issue. Clearly assaults on Christian religion only
You first mention the 10 commandments. Again let me remind you that I prefaced my remarks by stating irrespective of the progenitor. Perhaps you should view the 10 commandments in this manner. What is the opposite response to each of the 10 commandments? Haven't you noticed the mind set of people today. foul mouth disrespectful arrogant, ignorant, egocentric etc etc etc . Perhaps if they adhered to the 10 commandments this society might return to its civility.
You criticize a president that decides unilaterally to take an oath under God. I fear a man who refuses to take an oath under God for obvious and factual reasons. Or that we Pledge alliances under God. Isn't such a pledge reassuring that these are people of principal and lastly, you essentially are saying that Christians should not have the right to practice their religion in the way they so chose.
In summary blueash the Judeo-Chrisian belief is deeply imbedded in our society and its haters are making every attempt to remove it. and the irony is Christians will embrace these haters love them pray for them and support the good in them. finally my description of Jesus is love and those who want to argue Jesus's ethnicity, orientation, etc are deliberately attempting to place people to in a situation to address a negative and we know what games are played there
Personal Best Regards