On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:27:29 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:38:14 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


This country was founded by and became the predominate home to Christian
following people. That's a matter of fact, not a statement of religious
intent. Sort of like saying that this is a English speaking country. The
predominate language is English. You can speak something else, but it's
not our problem if you can't follow the majority.

I don't buy it. You lump all Christians together like they are
homogenous, but that is not the case. While 52% of this country is
Protestant, they are not all the same religion. Roman Catholics are
another 24%, but according to this site, they are clearly not Christian.

Any religion which uses Christ as its centerpiece, IMHO is a
"Christian" faith. They may differ in subtle forms of biblical
interpretation, but they share the common element of Christ.

The divide and conquer strategy won't fly in this case.

http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm

Personally, I would think Catholics are Christian, but use the site to
show there isn't an easy way to lump religions together.

Anyone is entitled to have an opinion. Anyone can put up a website.
There are many people who have agendas. There are nutcases who are
claiming that aircraft were't responsible for the attacks on 9/11, and
that they were the result of missiles.

Dave

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:05:57 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:27:29 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:38:14 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


This country was founded by and became the predominate home to Christian
following people. That's a matter of fact, not a statement of religious
intent. Sort of like saying that this is a English speaking country. The
predominate language is English. You can speak something else, but it's
not our problem if you can't follow the majority.

I don't buy it. You lump all Christians together like they are
homogenous, but that is not the case. While 52% of this country is
Protestant, they are not all the same religion. Roman Catholics are
another 24%, but according to this site, they are clearly not Christian.

http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm

Personally, I would think Catholics are Christian, but use the site to
show there isn't an easy way to lump religions together.

I've never known a Catholic who considered himself a "born-again"
Christian. When I was a kid, I was taught that Christians encompassed
two main groups - Catholics and Protestants. Protestants were
Christians who had 'protested' against one or more teachings of the
Catholic Church and broken away to form their own.

That's pretty much the way I was taught as well.


As your site shows, some broke further away than others. Lutherans, as
an example, hold many of the same beliefs as Catholics, and their
services are much the same.

Episcopalians are even closer to Catholics. I jokingly refer to them
as "Catholic lite"......


Dave

On 12 Nov 2004 18:03:26 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

A couple of traits often exhibited by "fundies" can include:

1) insisting the the United States is a "Christian" nation........


This country was founded by and became the predominate home to
Christian following people.

Thanks for proving my point.

The point that you can't accept the reality of the truth in history?


Sort of like saying that this is a English
speaking country

No, it isn't. A common language is different than a common religion.

The principle is the same.

A common
language provides a means for sharing thoughts and ideas- a common religion
requires that all those thoughts and ideas will be essentially the same.

A common religion does not "require" any such thing. It does provide a
common point of reference in principles and morals.


Majority rules should apply in all public ceremonies or traditions
religious or otherwise. No town's traditions should be held hostage to
whims of the minority.


Damn that pesky Consitution, anyway.
What were the founders thinking? Just because the colonial immigrants to
America came here to *escape* a society where the majority assumed religious
dominance, formalized relationships between church and state, and informally or
formally persecuted dissenters, what made them think the exact same system
wouldn't be a rousing success in another society?

Nobody is advocating a "state mandated" religion (The whole point of
the establishment clause), only that IF the majority of a particular
town or community are of a certain religion, that they be allowed to
celebrate their religious traditions IN PUBLIC, without having to deal
with a few minorities who can't seem to exercise the same principle of
tolerance, that they want applied to them.


That is entirely a perception issue. So now you would have the strong
arm of government preventing the majority from practicing their faith,
so that the minority can avoid feeling "uncomfortable"?

Does your faith require you to begin every gathering with a formal prayer, and
does your faith require you to pressure those who don't agree with your
doctrine to join in- or be ostracized by their silence?

No.

When you conduct a
sales or board meeting in the workplace, do you lead your fellow employees or
managers in prayer?

No.


When you take your family out to dinner in a restaurant, do
you all bow heads and say "grace" aloud for other diners to hear?

No.

I wouldn't presume to know what sort of religion you personally observe, but
certain
Christian groups hold the personal teachings of Jesus to be just about the
final word in matters such as this. Were you a member of such a group, you
might be familiar with two passages from the sixth chapter of the book of
Matthew, where Jesus himself commented on "public" prayer. Here they are, in
case they are new to you:

"When you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, for they love to stand and
pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen
by men. Most certainly, I tell you, they have received their reward."

"But when you make your prayer, go into your private room, and, shutting the
door, say a prayer to your Father in secret, and your Father, who sees in
secret, will give you your reward."

Suppose Jesus meant to say go into "your public classroom", rather than "your
private room"? Did he misspeak?

Then there is the example of Jesus praying in the garden prior to his arrest.
Not only did he go to an empty garden, in the middle of the night with just a
few close followers, but withdrew even from them to be by himself during
prayer.

These passages may be meaningless to you, and I apologize if it was
presumtptive to bring them up. As you insist that this is a Christian nation
and that all citizens should accede to the will of the numerical majority in
spiritual matters, I believe you are recommending that our kids be coerced into
reciting Christian prayers rather than those of another religion. If that's the
case, then the opinion of your major religious figure, (as recorded in the
Bible), would have some relevance in this discussion, would it not?

I'm not a bible scholar. Trying to "interpret" what Christ was
"actually" saying is akin to trying to figure out which side of an
issue John Kerry was on at any given time. I'll leave that circular
and endless debate to those who have nothing else to accomplish.

My only point is that (right or wrong), whatever religious practices
or traditions (Christmas) are commonly observed by the majority of the
people, they should not be denied by the statistical minority.


Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
On 12 Nov 2004 18:03:26 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

A couple of traits often exhibited by "fundies" can include:

1) insisting the the United States is a "Christian" nation........


This country was founded by and became the predominate home to
Christian following people.

Thanks for proving my point.

The point that you can't accept the reality of the truth in history?


Sort of like saying that this is a English
speaking country

No, it isn't. A common language is different than a common religion.

The principle is the same.

A common
language provides a means for sharing thoughts and ideas- a common religion
requires that all those thoughts and ideas will be essentially the same.

A common religion does not "require" any such thing. It does provide a
common point of reference in principles and morals.


Majority rules should apply in all public ceremonies or traditions
religious or otherwise. No town's traditions should be held hostage to
whims of the minority.


Damn that pesky Consitution, anyway.
What were the founders thinking? Just because the colonial immigrants to
America came here to *escape* a society where the majority assumed religious
dominance, formalized relationships between church and state, and informally or
formally persecuted dissenters, what made them think the exact same system
wouldn't be a rousing success in another society?

Nobody is advocating a "state mandated" religion (The whole point of
the establishment clause), only that IF the majority of a particular
town or community are of a certain religion, that they be allowed to
celebrate their religious traditions IN PUBLIC, without having to deal
with a few minorities who can't seem to exercise the same principle of
tolerance, that they want applied to them.


That is entirely a perception issue. So now you would have the strong
arm of government preventing the majority from practicing their faith,
so that the minority can avoid feeling "uncomfortable"?

Does your faith require you to begin every gathering with a formal prayer, and
does your faith require you to pressure those who don't agree with your
doctrine to join in- or be ostracized by their silence?

No.

When you conduct a
sales or board meeting in the workplace, do you lead your fellow employees or
managers in prayer?

No.


When you take your family out to dinner in a restaurant, do
you all bow heads and say "grace" aloud for other diners to hear?

No.

I wouldn't presume to know what sort of religion you personally observe, but
certain
Christian groups hold the personal teachings of Jesus to be just about the
final word in matters such as this. Were you a member of such a group, you
might be familiar with two passages from the sixth chapter of the book of
Matthew, where Jesus himself commented on "public" prayer. Here they are, in
case they are new to you:

"When you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, for they love to stand and
pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen
by men. Most certainly, I tell you, they have received their reward."

"But when you make your prayer, go into your private room, and, shutting the
door, say a prayer to your Father in secret, and your Father, who sees in
secret, will give you your reward."

Suppose Jesus meant to say go into "your public classroom", rather than "your
private room"? Did he misspeak?

Then there is the example of Jesus praying in the garden prior to his arrest.
Not only did he go to an empty garden, in the middle of the night with just a
few close followers, but withdrew even from them to be by himself during
prayer.

These passages may be meaningless to you, and I apologize if it was
presumtptive to bring them up. As you insist that this is a Christian nation
and that all citizens should accede to the will of the numerical majority in
spiritual matters, I believe you are recommending that our kids be coerced into
reciting Christian prayers rather than those of another religion. If that's the
case, then the opinion of your major religious figure, (as recorded in the
Bible), would have some relevance in this discussion, would it not?

I'm not a bible scholar. Trying to "interpret" what Christ was
"actually" saying is akin to trying to figure out which side of an
issue John Kerry was on at any given time. I'll leave that circular
and endless debate to those who have nothing else to accomplish.

My only point is that (right or wrong), whatever religious practices
or traditions (Christmas) are commonly observed by the majority of the
people, they should not be denied by the statistical minority.


Dave


Why not?

--
A passing thought:

.... Dazed and confused...

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:55:18 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


I don't buy it. You lump all Christians together like they are
homogenous, but that is not the case. While 52% of this country is
Protestant, they are not all the same religion. Roman Catholics are
another 24%, but according to this site, they are clearly not Christian.

Any religion which uses Christ as its centerpiece, IMHO is a "Christian"
faith. They may differ in subtle forms of biblical interpretation, but
they share the common element of Christ.

The divide and conquer strategy won't fly in this case.

LOL, people were persecuted for those "subtle forms of biblical
interpretation". I am not trying to divide and conquer. Christians are
*not* an homogeneous group, never have been.

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:55:18 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


I don't buy it. You lump all Christians together like they are
homogenous, but that is not the case. While 52% of this country is
Protestant, they are not all the same religion. Roman Catholics are
another 24%, but according to this site, they are clearly not Christian.

Any religion which uses Christ as its centerpiece, IMHO is a "Christian"
faith. They may differ in subtle forms of biblical interpretation, but
they share the common element of Christ.

The divide and conquer strategy won't fly in this case.

LOL, people were persecuted for those "subtle forms of biblical
interpretation". I am not trying to divide and conquer. Christians are
*not* an homogeneous group, never have been.



Worry not...at some point in the not-too-distant future, various
Christian groups will declare war on each other, and start shooting each
other's followers for supremacy over the Divided States of Jesusville.
They are, after all, not much different from the Sunnis and the Shi'ites.

I plan to cheer on both sides.



--
A passing thought:

"The stone age was marked by man's clever use of crude tools; the
information age, to date, has been marked by man's crude use of clever
tools." -- Anon.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
LOL, people were persecuted for those "subtle forms of biblical
interpretation". I am not trying to divide and conquer. Christians are
*not* an homogeneous group, never have been.



Worry not...at some point in the not-too-distant future, various
Christian groups will declare war on each other, and start shooting each
other's followers for supremacy over the Divided States of Jesusville.
They are, after all, not much different from the Sunnis and the Shi'ites.

I plan to cheer on both sides.

Harry's extremist viewpoint is reflective of those who are the movers and
shakers in the democratic party. This is the reason their candidate lost,
and why they lost seats in the house and senate. The majority of those who
voted for Bush are not the right wing extremist Harry likes to talk about,
they would have loved to vote for a moderate presidential candidate. Kerry
was not that candidate.

Worry not...at some point in the not-too-distant future, various
Christian groups will declare war on each other, and start shooting each
other's followers for supremacy over the Divided States of Jesusville.
They are, after all, not much different from the Sunnis and the Shi'ites.

I plan to cheer on both sides.

If history can be considered a guide to human nature (something that changes
very little over time), that idea isn't oh so far out there. All the
intra-faith European wars and massacres aside, we've had a fair share of
similar incidents here in the US.


A not so distant cousin of mine founded a religion just under 200 years ago,
here in the United States. (His grandmother was a Gould from my Massachusetts
line....)

Seems that he and his followers ran into just a bit of trouble, expecially in
the early years:


From a source randmly selected from hundreds...


http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/stu/dcann/exterm.htm


"On October 27, 1838, Missouri Governor Lilburn W. Boggs issued an executive
order that condoned the killing of Mormons residing in Missouri. It stated that
"The Mormons must be treated as enemies and must be exterminated or driven from
the state, if necessary for the public good. Their outrages are beyond all
description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so, to
any extent you may think necessary." The execution of this order led to violent
conflict and the eventual migration of the Mormons from Missouri to Illinois,
where they stayed until their exodus to Utah."

Gould 0738 wrote:
Worry not...at some point in the not-too-distant future, various
Christian groups will declare war on each other, and start shooting each
other's followers for supremacy over the Divided States of Jesusville.
They are, after all, not much different from the Sunnis and the Shi'ites.

I plan to cheer on both sides.

If history can be considered a guide to human nature (something that changes
very little over time), that idea isn't oh so far out there. All the
intra-faith European wars and massacres aside, we've had a fair share of
similar incidents here in the US.


A not so distant cousin of mine founded a religion just under 200 years ago,
here in the United States. (His grandmother was a Gould from my Massachusetts
line....)

Seems that he and his followers ran into just a bit of trouble, expecially in
the early years:


From a source randmly selected from hundreds...


http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/stu/dcann/exterm.htm


"On October 27, 1838, Missouri Governor Lilburn W. Boggs issued an executive
order that condoned the killing of Mormons residing in Missouri. It stated that
"The Mormons must be treated as enemies and must be exterminated or driven from
the state, if necessary for the public good. Their outrages are beyond all
description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so, to
any extent you may think necessary." The execution of this order led to violent
conflict and the eventual migration of the Mormons from Missouri to Illinois,
where they stayed until their exodus to Utah."




Not far removed from some of the comments of the righties who post here
and who greet those who disagree with them with the "advice" that they
oought to leave the country. The gun-nutsies, of course, add their bit:
leave the country...or else.



--
A passing thought:

.... Batches? We don't need no stinkin' batches!
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

IF the majority of a particular
town or community are of a certain religion, that they be allowed to
celebrate their religious traditions IN PUBLIC, without having to deal
with a few minorities who can't seem to exercise the same principle of
tolerance, that they want applied to them.

We absolutely agree on this item. When a religious group wants to preach or
proselytize, they should be allowed to have a reasonable number of props on
display during the time they are actively preaching or proselytizing. Take Xmas
Decs, for example. This is always a contentious issue. I believe that Christian
groups who want to preach about a Virgin birth, etc etc, are absolutely
entitled to do so- and in public. While preaching, handing out tracts,
conducting a public prayer session, or what not in a public place such as a
city park, it could be appropriate to have plywood cutouts of angels, camels,
shepherds, etc on hand to "set the stage".
It is not appropriate to store these religious artifacts in public space or at
public expense between prayer sessions or speeches. It is not appropriate for
the city to condone a passive display of these items outside the active
exercise of free speech. It is not appropriate for the common purse of the
entire community to pay for religious icons for one particular sect or faith,
regardless of the number of adherents that faith might claim in the community.


I'm not a bible scholar. Trying to "interpret" what Christ was
"actually" saying is akin to trying to figure out which side of an
issue John Kerry was on at any given time. I'll leave that circular
and endless debate to those who have nothing else to accomplish.


Does your minister know that you consider Jesus as much a flip-flopper as John
Kerry? :-)

That was the wind-up, and here's the pitch:

If the teachings of Jesus are open to interpretation rather than absolute, how
can *any* nation, even one you fantasize to be a "Christian" nation, hope to
use those teachings as a foundation for secular law? Shouldn't the law exist
independently from any specific religious teaching, (Christian, Jewish, Muslim,
Hindu, Pagan, Wiccan, etc) and leave the spiritual aspects of life up to
individual conscience and interpretation?

How can we create laws and social structures based on Christian teachings, even
in a "Christian nation", when Christians have been killing one another almost
unceasingly for the last 2000 years over disagreements about what the teachings
of Jesus actually meant?

Even if 70, 80, 90, or even 99% of the people agree on a specific religious
interpratation, there's no reason to write that interpretation into the law.
Society will observe that premise, (whether it is that each student should
begin the school day by reciting the Lord's Prayer, or that no woman should
seek abortion for any reason, or that same sex persons should not couple), in
*exactly* the same proportion as percentage of people who hold that view.
Mission accomplished.