County hot over ACLU prayer lawsuit

[UberLutheran]

You claim that some nonchristians should be kicked out of the country because of their religion and that other nonchristians should only be allowed to stay in the US out of the generosity of their christian overlords. A system like that would be incredibly unjust and morally wrong.

...what is going to pass as the definition of "Christian" (or "sufficiently Christian") is going to be very, VERY narrowly defined -- enough so that mainline Protestants, liberal Protestants, moderate and liberal Catholics wouldn't make the official "cut".

 

[UberLutheran]

History is evidence enough. We don't have to prove anything to infidels or heretics to achieve a Christian nation.

Exactly who are the "heretics"?

 

[MaryS]

For less volatile non-Christian religions, they may stay provided they don't interfere with the Christian order, but venomous Christ-hating ideologies like those of the Mohammedans or Jews cannot be tolerated.

Christ-hating ideologies? I think most of the Muslims acknowledge Christ in addition to Muhammed and I've never heard of a Jew who hates Christ even though their religion doesn't acknowledge Him.

Some of our Jewish politicians are doing some good things to point out how wrong we've been to allow radical Muslim to spread in the USA. Senator Schumer has been working with others to address the problem of radical Muslim Imams spreading their doctrines in the military and prisons.

June, 2003
SCHUMER: GROWING INFLUENCE OF WAHHABI ISLAM OVER MILITARY AND PRISONS POSE THREAT
http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01819.html

September, 2003 SFChronicle article:
"The people who believe in Islam should have a right to a chaplain of their own religion," Schumer said in an interview. "But what the military has done is taken a narrow, fundamentalist and extreme band of the spectrum and said those groups have a monopoly on who becomes an imam in the military."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/28/MN98830.DTL

Schumer sounds almost moderate, though, compared to Senator Dianne Feinstein.

July, 2004 AFP-
"I think until the mosques in the Muslim world and the imams in the Muslim world in a major way issue fatwa after fatwa denouncing jihad and denouncing terror that we're not going to make any progress," the California Democrat told CNN.
"I don't see many, if any, major imams throughout all of the Muslim countries coming together and saying: Enough of this. Stop. This is not Islam. You know, we object to it," she said.

"Until there is something like an excommunication that would take place in the Catholic Church where, if you are going to engage in this thing, do not frequent our mosques, you don't see this," Feinstein said.

She added: "What you see in many places is that the mosque becomes an enabler one way or another."

 

[HisEagle]

well, uh, no, you didn't. i did

i thought your comment was in response to some of the beliefs held by defensor fidei.

Nope....just commenting that a member shouldn't insult another member, because it's a violation of the rules. But anyway....it doesn't matter. Who am I anyway, right?

 

[invisible trousers]

...what is going to pass as the definition of "Christian" (or "sufficiently Christian") is going to be very, VERY narrowly defined -- enough so that mainline Protestants, liberal Protestants, moderate and liberal Catholics wouldn't make the official "cut".

dude i don't even think any sort of moderate christians would make the cut

Who am I anyway, right?

the basis for an enjoyable movie starring bill murray?

 

[HisEagle]

the basis for an enjoyable movie starring bill murray?

Cute. Very cute. Here, you deserve a big ole wet sloppy kiss for that one...

 

[Nightson]

Defensor Fidei,

John 18:36
36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Luke 17:20-21
20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

God does not want an earthly throne, he already has a heavenly one.

 

[Ozymandius]

I didn't say he was. I'm talking about Ozymandius' insulting reference to Defensor Fidei.

I didn't say anthing insulting. I realize that doing so would be much less effective than letting someone like Fidi rant.

 

[crazyfingers]

Since its obvious we have very different perceptions of "evidence," I'm not going to argue any further on that point. Church doctrines are in themselves, evidence of God's will.

In other words, you are unable to provide evidence. It's not that we have different perceptions of what evidence is, it's that you have not even tried because you know that the claim that your god intended the US to be christian can't be supported with evidence.

Mankind is naturally religious and this is impossible to overcome. All men adhere to some form of dogmatic beliefs. You are only kidding yourself if you think you are some totally objective and "enlightened" being.

Claiming that I have a religion doesn't make it so.

No such "right" exists. That is heresy.

I can only shake my head at the claim that human rights, specifically freedom of religion, freedom to live in a society free of persecution on account of religious belief, don't or should not exist.

Human rights derive from the principle of reciprocity, the Golden Rule - empathy for others and the understanding that freedom of conscience are basic human needs.

A society that does not accept basic human rights is one that equates with barbarism. A society that denies human liberty and freedom of conscience on account of religion would be equally barbarous.

 

[crazyfingers]

And, yet that didn't stop the practice of the government having a Chaplain to guide them and lead them in prayers. The Senate begins every session by being led in prayer by their Chaplain and follows it with the pledge of allegiance to the flag with the words "under God".

http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm
(excerpt:
Throughout the years, the United States Senate has honored the historic separation of Church and State, but not the separation of God and State. The first Senate, meeting in New York City on April 25, 1789, elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provost, the Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first Chaplain.

During the past two hundred and seven years, all sessions of the Senate have been opened with prayer, strongly affirming the Senate's faith in God as Sovereign Lord of our Nation. The role of the Chaplain as spiritual advisor and counselor has expanded over the years from a part-time position to a full-time job as one of the Officers of the Senate. The Office of the Chaplain is nonpartisan, nonpolitical, and nonsectarian.

In addition to opening the Senate each day in prayer, Chaplain Black’s duties include counseling and spiritual care for the Senators, their families and their staffs, a combined constituency of six thousand people. Chaplain Black’s days are filled with meeting Senators about spiritual and moral issues, assisting Senators’ staffs with research on theological and biblical questions, teaching Senate Bible study groups, encouraging such groups as the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, and facilitating discussion and reflection small groups among Senators and staff.

------------
By the way, if your response to this is that just because they've been doing it for over two hundred years....doesn't make it right - - - I've already heard that and even our liberal Supreme Court has never bothered with that issue.

And you'll note that my earlier post, #24, provided a detailed explanation by James Madison on why such practice was contrary to the constitution. James Madison is called the father of the constitution. He was chairman of the committee who wrote the First Amendment. I think that he can be regarded as the authority on the subject.

As it is, that they did it is not evidence that it was right to do. The Senate passes unconstitutonal laws all the time. The Senate recently passed a resolution about God in the pledge. That they did is does not mean that it's right. All it means is that they have the power and the desire to impose their religious will onto others. That doesn't make it right.

 

[AirPo]

The words "separation", "church", and "state" do appear in the first amendment.

So what?

 

[MadeInOz]

Is anyone actually complaining about these things, or are the ACLU just whingeing to justify their existence, such as it is.

 

[crazyfingers]

Is anyone actually complaining about these things, or are the ACLU just whingeing to justify their existence, such as it is.

These things pretty much always come about because an individual or several individuals in the community approach the ACLU with the problem. And ususally it's the ACLU simply representing those people in their lawsuit.

It works the same for any of the other organizations out there that fight these battles in court.

 

[MadeInOz]

These things pretty much always come about because an individual or several individuals in the community approach the ACLU with the problem. And ususally it's the ACLU simply representing those people in their lawsuit.

It works the same for any of the other organizations out there that fight these battles in court.

Well, in that case, I pray that Australia never falls that far that people actually worry about such things.

 

[Ozymandius]

Well, in that case, I pray that Australia never falls that far that people actually worry about such things.

Like I said before, the problem isn't that people are deeply offended by this, it's a fear that if we let this go, pretty soon kids will be learning in science class that noah road a pterodactyl and pi=3 because the bible says so.

 

[crazyfingers]

I am still waiting for Voegelin and molder to answer the question:

The principle of separation between church and state is that government can not promote one religious idea over another religious idea or promote religion over non-religion or vice versa. Is that a just or an unjust principle?

To me it's very just. It guarantees equal freedom for all. Without it, the result would be something less than equal freedom of religion for all.

 

[Polycarp1]

Just in passing, Crazyfingers (and others who may be interested), under Mme. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's "neutrality" reading of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses (which is a revival with justification spelled out of the 19th Century understanding of how those clauses were to be interpreted), the idea of the government paying for and providing chaplains is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. Rather, it's the government facilitating free exercise by those of religious faith without giving preference to any one person's belief system ("establishing" it). The idea that a devout, believing Congressman or Senator may need spiritual guidance, and the idea that believing servicemen may need clergy accompanying them into the field, is not the government setting up religious belief, but providing for people on whom it has placed duties (whether being a legislator or a serviceman) to freely exercise their own belief systems. There's a significant difference between that policy and legislated prayer, favoritism towards one denominational ethical system, etc. Granted, under the strictest of "wall of separation" interpretations this would not be permissible. But Justice O'Connor's understanding (which was a very common one in the past) is that government is honorbound not to show favoritism towards any one religious group over another, or over those with no religious affiliation, but may coordinate its acts with religious groups where either the intent is to facilitate free exercise by those otherwise finding it difficult to exercise that right (a serviceman on active duty cannot simply take off for the nearest church of his denomination, for example) or where a government secular purpose and a religious purpose coincide (as in disaster aid, charitable programs, etc.).

A good example is the interfaith urban mission I once served on the board of. It had several explicitly religious outreach programs funded by the member churches, but also a food pantry which did not discriminate in its provision of aid to those needing help, and which received government surplus food, and a tutorial program for highschool dropouts now in adulthood to help them get highschool equivalency diplomas. which was completely underwritten by a state aid-to-education grant. We were required not to conmingle the money and not to have any overtly religious activities undertaken in connection with the programs that got government help, but that was easy to do, and the helping of the poor is both a legitimate government activity and a commanded Christian duty.

 

[crazyfingers]

* snip*

At this point I'm not sure what I think about the military providing chaplains for men who are actually in combat or stuck on a ship or something. I probably wouldn't complain too much about it.

However, I don't believe that there is any need or justification for them at bases that are "at home" provided there are opportunities for military personnel to go off-base to regular civilian churches. There is certainly no justification for having a chaplain for the House and Senate. There are ample opportunities for Reps and Senators to go to any church or other house or worship in the DC area. No one who works at any regular office park or factory expects the company to provide chaplain services.

And as a side note, this was an interesting story.

Until very recently, this was in the Air Force Chaplain Service code of ethics manual.

Air Force withdraws evangelizing policy

''I will not actively proselytize from other religious bodies. However, I retain the right to instruct and/or evangelize those who are not affiliated."

That is not neutrality at all.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

The Jews accept Jesus as a great prophet, even if they don't consider Him to be the Messiah;

What do the Jews think of Jesus?

He was a "sorcerer" and "enticer" worthy of death two thousand years ago, but now, he is safely taken care of by the rather perverted Jewish god:

He then went and raised Yeshu the Nazarean by incantations. He asked him: Who is in repute in the other world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He replied: Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever. He then asked: What is your punishment? He replied: With boiling hot sperm....since a Master has said: Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot sperm. (Gittin 57a)

His mother was also a harlot, sayeth the Jew.

"Miriam the hairdresser... who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters."
(Sanhedrin 106a)

and the Muslims accept Jesus as the second greatest of their prophets (behind Muhammad).

Jesus the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!
...They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
(Surah 5:73)

This is obviously somebody else, since I am talking about the Jesus who is the Son of God, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

They are not "venemous Christ-hating ideologies" --

Oh yes, the public burnings of the New Testament and the ban on the usage of the + sign in mathematics (for resembling the Cross of Christ) are both friendly gestures by our oh-so-loving Zionist friends in Palestine.

nor is God the exclusive property of the neoconservative movement in America or Opus Dei.

Good, take them with you.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

Exactly who are the "heretics"?

Anyone who adheres to the evils of liberalism against the Almighty.