Christian Nation

[Gem]

lolita,

He is not talking about you blatantly stating that you approve or disapprove of any religion or religious event. He is stating that by continually refusing or forgetting to capitalize the "C" in Christmas, Christians...while simultaenously making sure that the "K" in Kwanzaa WAS captialized....you may have revealed something about yourself to the readers here.

Due to the fact that your punctuation is proper and correct in the rest of your post, one could very easily be left with the conclusion that you deliberately refused to captialize the proper names of the holidays or religions that you wanted to marginalize or denegrate, while making sure to capitalize the minority holiday.

He never accused you of writing, "I hate Christmas and Christians!" (or, in your 'case' (pun intended) "I hate christmas and christians").

You state that if he"read anything you would know I was not saying any religon was bad, or I hated any religon" yet obviously you did not read his post either, because that is not what he said.

He was stating that what you demonstrated in your post was that you do not have the respect to capitalize words such as "Christmas," "Christian," or "Jewish," yet you made sure to capitalize "Kwanaa." Some here would view that as a deliberate action that shows us some of your true feelings on the issue.

Perhaps, it was just a mistake, Lolita...but if you are going to imply that you respect all religions and their respective holidays, you might want to consider starting by making sure you respect all holdiays and religions equally when you talk or write about them.

 

[Bullypulpit]

<blockquote> _A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom_



SECTION I. Well aware that the opinions and belief of men

depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence

proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind

free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by

making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that <b>all attempts to

influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil

incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness</b>,

and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion,

who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it

by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to

extend it by its influence on reason alone; that <b>the impious

presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as

ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired

men</b>, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their

own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible,

and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, <b>hath established

and maintained false religions</b> over the greatest part of the world

and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions

of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and

abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to

support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is

depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions

to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and

whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is

withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which

proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an

additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the

instruction of mankind; that <b>our civil rights have no dependance on

our religious opinions</b>, any more than our opinions in physics or

geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the

public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to

offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or

that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those

privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow

citizens, he has a natural right; that <b>it tends also to corrupt the

principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by

bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who

will externally profess and conform to it</b>; that though indeed these

are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are

those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of

men are not the object of civil government, nor under its

jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his

powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or

propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a

dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,

because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his

opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments

of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that

it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for

its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts

against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and

will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and

sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the

conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural

weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous

when it is permitted freely to contradict them.



SECT. II. WE the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no

man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship,

place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained,

molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise

suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all

men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their

opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise

diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.



SECT. III. AND though we well know that this Assembly, elected

by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no

power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with

powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act

irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare,

and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural

rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to

repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an

infringement of natural right.</blockquote> <i>(emphasis mine)</i>


This statute, penned by Thomas Jefferson in 1779, is a clear indication of his feeling towards the relationship between church and state. They were, indeed, to kept apart. By providing a religion with the priviledge inherent in government recognition of it, that religion can and does become corrupt. History has shown us this repeatedly.

This does not mean, however, that our elected officials must check their faith at the door. If they are truly devoted to the teachings of their religion, and strive to live by those beliefs in accordance with their conscience, then those beliefs will show in their every action. If it is otherwise, that they simply don the mantle of religion for mere political expediency, then too will their hypocrisy be revealed in their every action.

 

[Merlin1047]

This statute, penned by Thomas Jefferson in 1779, is a clear indication of his feeling towards the relationship between church and state. They were, indeed, to kept apart.

The main thing that this statute proves is that Thomas Jefferson was long-winded.

The only thing that this load of flowery prose does is that it prohibits requiring anyone to be an adherent of any faith in order to serve in an elected office. This is the only passage in the whole thing that packs any punch:

"that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; "


All the rest is window dressing.

 

[lolita715]

You all make me ill. Have you not heard of religious tolerance???

 

[freeandfun1]

You all make me ill. Have you not heard of religious tolerance???

are you drunk? Put down the bottle, all will be okay!

 

[hgevens]

How am I drunk?

 

[hgevens]

I think that everyone on this board needs to get a life, you hang out here all day everyday. Do you not have jobs, families, hobbies?? You are losers!

 

[freeandfun1]

How am I drunk?

well, you must be drunk since you responded to my post under another id, therefore you are in violation of the rules and both can be banned.....

damn, OCA, I sure hope you catch this. It will likely make your day!

 

[freeandfun1]

I think that everyone on this board needs to get a life, you hang out here all day everyday. Do you not have jobs, families, hobbies?? You are losers!

damn, where are the mods when you need one......

 

[insein]

You've hit on something very interesting here OCA, the majority in this country is Christian, and as such the music industry reflects that. You so smart =)

Unfortunately that has nothing to do with our government. Aaaahem:

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Ergo: A nation whose governing body prescribes to no religion, but has a population whose majority is Christian, a majority which respects the Bill of Rights and the government's right to prescribe to no established religion.

Show me the law that says christianity is the national religion and that all other religions be banned? Oh i guess congress never passed that law huh. You forget to mention the other part where it says no prohibtion of any religion from the government. That means ANY religion. The ACLU's lobbying for laws to ban christian symbols from public places is against the 1st amendment.

 

[hgevens]

Actually,
Lolita is my room mate and I just went on the web site and it automatically logged me in as her. But thanks for keeping track of that for me...loser.

 

[freeandfun1]

we'll see who the loser is....... :spank3:

 

[Gem]

lolita,

I feel like I say this a lot when talking with you: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!?!??!?!?!?

We are all TALKING about religious tolerance! About people in this country tolerating Christians celebrating Christmas without trying to persecute them for it.

Most here have expressed a strong interest in having all religions feeling comfortable with their holiday season, sharing it if they happen to overlap. No one here has expressed that they do not want people to be able to celebrate Chanukah, Kwanzaa, or the Winter Solstice if that is their choise. They have only asked for the right to enjoy the holiday which 96% of Americans celebrate at this time of year.

Take a breath, Lo.

 

[hgevens]

I think what Lolita was talking about is the fact that many of you aren't willing to accept the fact there are people who don't celebrate Christmas. I for one do, but I am a different religion. I have nothing against Christmas. I just get upset when people say that they are mad that they have to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". I have many friends who are Jewish and would be offended by the fact that everyone only says Merry Christmas.

 

[hgevens]

we'll see who the loser is....... :spank3:

Is that supposed to be some kind of threat?

 

[freeandfun1]

I think what Lolita was talking about is the fact that many of you aren't willing to accept the fact there are people who don't celebrate Christmas. I for one do, but I am a different religion. I have nothing against Christmas. I just get upset when people say that they are mad that they have to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". I have many friends who are Jewish and would be offended by the fact that everyone only says Merry Christmas.

lolita, you're an idiot.

I have many Jewish friends, and to them, I say "Happy Holidays" to me, they say, "Merry Christmas". Nobody has a problem with that. What we have a problem with is people trying to act like Christmas was never the reason we even have a CHRISTMAS holiday in this country. Do you really think that when the fist state passed Christmas as a holiday in 1836 did so to recogize the Winter Solstice, Hanuka, or Kwanza? Nope. They passed it as a holiday to recognize CHRISTMAS. DOH!

 

[Zhukov]

Actually,
Lolita is my room mate and I just went on the web site and it automatically logged me in as her.

Hey, is she hot?

There's nothing I like better than hyper-enticing vacuousness.

I'm shallow like that.

How about you?

I promise not to call you tomorrow.

Cheers!

 

[freeandfun1]

Is that supposed to be some kind of threat?

nope. but it is a promise.

 

[Gem]

hgevens,

I understand what you are saying, and I see where you are coming from. However, the part I have a problem with is your assumption about why people are mad about people saying "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas."

The feeling I get from MOST of the people here (there are always exceptions) is that they are not at all mad about someone saying "Happy Holidays" to them at the grocery store rather than "Merry Christmas." Most people here have expressed no problem with that at all...what they have expressed anger at is the grocery store FORCING its employees to say one instead of the other because the grocery store owner is so afraid of being sued, picketed, or the recipient of bad publicity...so even though they should be able to say whatever they want...they choose "Happy Holidays" because they are afraid of persecution from a vocal minority.

We are not talking about downplaying Chanukah or any other holiday...only that people should be given the choice to say or express what the want. If you want to say, "And Happy Chanukah to you." when someone wishes you a "Merry Christmas," then go for it. It would let them know that not everyone around them is celebrating that holiday and that you (hopefully) wish them well on YOUR holiday of choice.

Please read that last statement again...because your last statement was troubling to me.

Why are your friends offended that someone is wishing them well? When someone says "Merry Christmas," they are not trying to convert you...they are not mocking or demeaning your religion, they are not demanding that you respond in kind...they are showing you that this is one of the most important times of year to them and their faith...a time in which people reach out to others in the spirit of peace and love and the brotherhood of man....they give gifts to their loved ones to say, "thank you for being someone important to me." It is a wonderful time of year...and by saying "Merry Christmas," they are wishing you all the best of the time of year they are celebrating...

Whats wrong with that? Why should anyone feel offended at someone wishing them well? Sure, they are expressing joy at a holiday you don't celebrate...but they didn't say "Merry Christmas, unless you're one of the guys who killed my Lord!!!" They just made an incorrect assumption that you celebrated Christmas (like 96% of the country) and tried to be nice. Could they have said, "Happy Holidays?" Sure, and many people do...but should someone HAVE to say that? And should you really get offended if they slip and wish you good tidings in another way?

Why couldn't someone say, "and Happy Chanukah to you..." and rather than meaning, "I'm not a Christian you religiously intolerant a-hole"...but thanks for making me feel like you are forcing your religious beliefs on me," really mean, "Thanks...and I hope you enjoy this time of year as much as I do, celebrating a miraculous event of my faith with my family and friends."

 

[OCA]

Lolita and HG are banned for at least a week until we figure this shit out, i'm not having this crap, using two nics is my pet peeve.