Government-Christian Groups Lock Horns over Anti-Conversion Bill

[ajwps]

Right. And I'm saying I don't care. Most wouldn't. But I'm not terribly religious.

I guess all statements depend on how beliefs influence perspectives of reality. You're technically right by virtue of being immensely general; I guess I was hoping for a little more substantive criticism, if any. I can't tell what this is.

I understand.....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I understand.....

Why don't you clarify? Was it just additional interesting information? If so, that's fine. It's hard to tell with you. Are you inscrutable or is it me?

 

[musicman]

AJ:

"What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?"


What about them? They have nothing to do with what we were talking about.

"The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later."

*Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof* does not equal a secular United States of America.

"...wisely establishing the first government to separate church and state."

The phrase *separation of church and state* does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, because that's not what our founding fathers were doing. What they wisely established was the first system of government to protect the free exercise of religion FROM the state.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

AJ is still on his constant crusade to besmirch christianity as inherently exlusionary. Let's face it though, all ethnic groups have blood on their hands in one way or another.

 

[ajwps]

AJ:

"What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?"


What about them? They have nothing to do with what we were talking about.

"The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later."

*Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof* does not equal a secular United States of America.

"...wisely establishing the first government to separate church and state."

The phrase *separation of church and state* does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, because that's not what our founding fathers were doing. What they wisely established was the first system of government to protect the free exercise of religion FROM the state.

Three tests have been developed to decide the constitutionality of laws that have a religious component:

The Lemon test: This was defined in a Supreme Court ruling in 1971. To be constitutional, a law must: have a secular purpose, and be neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it, and not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion.

The Endorsement Test: Justice O'Connor created this criteria: a law is unconstitutional if it favors one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders.

The Coercion Test: Justice Kennedy proposed this criteria: a law is constitutional even if it recognizes or accomodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion.

This is particularly proposed among some Fundamentalist Christians that the absence of the words *separation of church and state* therefore give all the courts interpretations of the First Amendment incorrect. They feel that the Amendment should be interpreted literally to mean that the government may not raise any one denomination or religion to the status of an official or established religion of the country. Like you, they feel that the First Amendment contains no wording that prohibits the government from engaging in certain religious activities, like requiring prayer as part of the schedule at public schools, requiring schools, courts and government offices to post the Ten Commandments, allowing public schools to have organized prayers as an integral part of public school sports events, praying before board of education or municipal government meetings, etc.

Actually you are one of many who are re-interpreting the 'separation clause' as many Fundamentalists do. The following phrase "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof... is called the free exercise clause; it guarantees freedom of religion. This passage does not promise absolute freedom of religion. The courts have found that parents cannot deny their children badly needed medical attention and rely on prayer; the Amish can be compelled to wear slow vehicle reflectors on the backs of their buggies; a congregation cannot generate annoyingly excessive noise during a service. The limits of this clause are continually being tested in the courts on a case-by-case basis.

The US Constitution does give the US Supreme Court all the power they need to interpret the Framer's intent with respect to any controversial opinions. Ergo today's prohibition of establishing or promoting any religion in all taxpayer sites.

 

[ajwps]

AJ is still on his constant crusade to besmirch christianity as inherently exlusionary. Let's face it though, all ethnic groups have blood on their hands in one way or another.

Please define 'blood on their hands'?

If you kill a man about to murder your wife and children, is his BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS?

Please define 'all ethnic groups'? If the US Army kills the enemy who attacked America or were responsible for sending those suicide hijackers, does that make every American guilty of having "innocent blood" on their hands?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Please define 'blood on their hands'?

Sure. It's a colloquialism meaning roughly all parties are guilty of the act in discussion.

If you kill a man about to murder your wife and children, is his BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS?

It depends on how messy you were.

Please define 'all ethnic groups'?

I don't have the time or breadth of knowledge to define all ethnic groups right now. Though someday I would like to be able to rise to the challenge you have posed.

If the US Army kills the enemy who attacked America or were responsible for sending those suicide hijackers, does that make every American guilty of having "innocent blood" on their hands?

Again, it has to do with technique and neatness.

You know, I support the war on terror. And any confusion over the expression "blood on their hands", I sincerely apologize for.

I'm just still trying to understand the actual criticism of your seeming critical tone. Help me out, bro.

 

[ajwps]

Sure. It's a colloquialism meaning roughly all parties are guilty of the act in discussion.

It depends on how messy you were.

I don't have the time or breadth of knowledge to define all ethnic groups right now. Though someday I would like to be able to rise to the challenge you have posed.


Again, it has to do with technique and neatness.

You know, I support the war on terror. And any confusion over the expression "blood on their hands", I sincerely apologize for.

I'm just still trying to understand the actual criticism of your seeming critical tone. Help me out, bro.

I don't think you mean "all have blood on their hands" is a colloquialism but actually an analogy where some people killing for a good cause is as good as all ethnic groups being guilty of the 'blood on their hands' for the act of a few.

Is that like the 'blood libel' of the High Priest and his fellow appointees of the Roman Pintous Pilat putting Jesus on trial and insisting of Pilat that Jesus be crucified which squarely puts the responsibility of every generation of Jews from new born babies to the elderly held guilty for crucifying Jesus the Jew. (i.e., Mel Gibson's version of the Passion of Jesus).

As a Jew, I guess my hands are messy with the blood of Jesus. The same blood which freed you of your sins.

Is that what you are trying to get across?

 

[Hobbit]

i.e., Mel Gibson's version of the Passion of Jesus

Actually, that line was cut due to overwhelming pressure from some Jewish activists. It's actually a quote from the Bible where the people gathered there said, "Let his blood be on us and our children."

Well, I don't blame them. It had to happen that way, and hey, Jesus' blood washes away all sins, so I guess there aren't any more sins on their hands anymore, are there?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't think you mean "all have blood on their hands" is a colloquialism but actually an analogy where some people killing for a good cause is as good as all ethnic groups being guilty of the 'blood on their hands' for the act of a few.

Is that like the 'blood libel' of the High Priest and his fellow appointees of the Roman Pintous Pilat putting Jesus on trial and insisting of Pilat that Jesus be crucified which squarely puts the responsibility of every generation of Jews from new born babies to the elderly held guilty for crucifying Jesus the Jew. (i.e., Mel Gibson's version of the Passion of Jesus).

As a Jew, I guess my hands are messy with the blood of Jesus. The same blood which freed you of your sins.

Is that what you are trying to get across?

No. I see what you're saying and I really wasn't trying to convey that. Honest.

 

[ajwps]

Actually, that line was cut due to overwhelming pressure from some Jewish activists. It's actually a quote from the Bible where the people gathered there said, "Let his blood be on us and our children."

The few Roman appointed Jews killed Christ so that you could be free of all your sin and the Jews said, "we curse all our future generations throughout time to be guilty while the Roman Pilat simply washed his hands of the whole affair. Now we have a Roman Catholic Church, for as Jesus said to Peter, "you will be the rock of my church." The first Pope of Jesus Christ's church.

Well, I don't blame them. It had to happen that way, and hey, Jesus' blood washes away all sins, so I guess there aren't any more sins on their hands anymore, are there?

Hey Hobbit, you seem to somehow know that it just 'had to happen that way' so now with the blood on our hands, we are forgiven of our sins against G-d the Father and those sins we committed against our fellow man.

Thanks but no thanks. Give me that ole-time-religion, it is good enough for me.

http://members.tripod.com/~rosemck1/old-time-religion-jazzy.mid

 

[ajwps]

Well, I don't blame them. It had to happen that way, and hey, Jesus' blood washes away all sins, so I guess there aren't any more sins on their hands anymore, are there?

Just a little of blameless Christianity forgiven for their sins:

Emperor Alexius asked Pope Urban II for assistance. On 1095-NOV-27, the Pope called on Europeans to go on a crusade to liberate Jerusalem from its Muslim rulers. "The first and second wave of Crusaders murdered, raped and plundered their way up the Rhine and down the Danube as they headed for Jerusalem." The "army" was primarily composed of untrained peasants with their families, with a core of trained soldiers. On the way to the Middle East, they decided that only one of their goals was to wrest control of Jerusalem from the Muslims. A secondary task was to rid the world of as many non-Christians as possible - both Muslims and Jews. The Crusaders gave the Jews two choices in their slogan: "Christ-killers, embrace the Cross or die!" 12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley alone were killed as the first Crusade passed through. Some Jewish writers refer to these events as the "first holocaust." Once the army reached Jerusalem and broke through the city walls, they slaughtered all the inhabitants that they could find (men, women, children, newborns). After locating about 6,000 Jews holed up in the synagogue, they set the building on fire; the Jews were burned alive. The Crusaders found that about 30,000 Muslims had fled to the al Aqsa Mosque. The latter were also slaughtered without mercy.

The Roman Catholic church taught that going to war against the "Infidels" was an act of Christian penance. If a believer was killed during a crusade, he would bypass purgatory, and be taken directly to heaven. By eliminating what might be many millennia of torture in Purgatory, many Christians were strongly motivated to volunteer for the crusades. "After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church."

These mass killings were repeated during each of the 8 additional crusades until the final, 9th, crusade in 1272 CE. Both Christians and Muslims believed that they were fighting on God's side against Satan; they believed that if they died on the battlefield they would be given preferential treatment in Heaven. Battles were fought with a terrible fierceness and a massive loss of life. Over a 200 year period, perhaps 200,000 people were killed. The Muslim warrior Salah a-Din subsequently recaptured Jerusalem from the Christians.

By the end of the crusades, most European Christians believed the unfounded blood-libel myths -- the rumor that Jews engaged in human sacrifice of Christian children. A long series of Christian persecutions of the Jews continued in Europe and Russia into the 20th century. They laid the foundation for the Nazi Holocaust.

http://members.tripod.com/~rosemck1/onward-christian-soldiers.mid

 

[Hobbit]

I know of that massacre well, and it is one of the largest blemishes on the Roman Catholic church, right up there with the Inquisition (wherin many more Jews were needlessly persecuted). Nobody is innocent, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Sorry if I offended at anything. I was trying to be a little light-hearted about the whole thing. It's in the past, and I don't like to dwell so much on the crucifixion as I do the ressurection, anyway. Millions of people were crucified. Christ was the only one to come back.

As far as guilt is concerned, I know the scriptures and history, but I could care less who ordered and carried out the crucifixion of Jesus, because I killed him. I, along with everyone else who has ever been on this Earth, killed Jesus. If we didn't sin, Jesus wouldn't have had to die to save us. Guilt, however, is another thing I avoid. Placing blame, assigning guilt, and feeling guilt have their places, but not in the church. Christ died so we could be forgiven, so I'm thankful instead of guilty.

Anyway, all told, Pilate was a coward who was no less political than politicians today, except that it was his life instead of re-election on the line. The Sanhedrin were having their entire dogma dissected and countered by this prophet, and any of us would probably react the same way. Most of the Roman soldiers were sadistic. Jesus loved them all.

 

[ajwps]

I know of that massacre well, and it is one of the largest blemishes on the Roman Catholic church, right up there with the Inquisition (wherin many more Jews were needlessly persecuted). Nobody is innocent, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Sorry if I offended at anything. I was trying to be a little light-hearted about the whole thing. It's in the past, and I don't like to dwell so much on the crucifixion as I do the ressurection, anyway. Millions of people were crucified. Christ was the only one to come back.

As far as guilt is concerned, I know the scriptures and history, but I could care less who ordered and carried out the crucifixion of Jesus, because I killed him. I, along with everyone else who has ever been on this Earth, killed Jesus. If we didn't sin, Jesus wouldn't have had to die to save us. Guilt, however, is another thing I avoid. Placing blame, assigning guilt, and feeling guilt have their places, but not in the church. Christ died so we could be forgiven, so I'm thankful instead of guilty.

Anyway, all told, Pilate was a coward who was no less political than politicians today, except that it was his life instead of re-election on the line. The Sanhedrin were having their entire dogma dissected and countered by this prophet, and any of us would probably react the same way. Most of the Roman soldiers were sadistic. Jesus loved them all.

Hey you are right. You cannot be held responsible for the acts of previous Christian peoples throughout history. You say that you don't care who killed Christ for even you admit to being guilty of the deed.

You say that if mankind did not sin, Jesus would not have had to die. But I was under the impression that all men and women are born with original sin from Adam and Eve. So it becomes obvious that Jesus had to die for everybody's sin, unless of course you don't believe on him and you are not saved.

As far as I am concerned, your personal salvation through Jesus Christ is all that counts and I am glad for you. I hope that I have not offended you.

 

[Hobbit]

Not at all. Your examples are on point and it was clear from the beginning (to me, anyway) that it was somewhat of a misunderstanding. Unlike a few Nazis who claim to be Christians, I believe in the verse, "And the sins of the fathers shall not be revisited upon the children." After all, Jesus was a Jew, taught mainly the Jews, chose Jews as his apostles. I mean, he lived in Israel. I'm sure the events would have been similar regardless of locale or the nation he was dealing with. I think the whole thing started when I failed to elaborate that the reason I pointed out the verse I did was because it seemed to me that the quote was not actually said (I kinda thought you were implying that it was Mel Gibson's idea), and I was pointing that, indeed, it was. I still find it ironic that the priests that hated Jesus so much wanted his blood on them and their children because they thought he was an evil man who deserved to die, while Christians throughout the generations want the same thing because we believe it washes away sins.

 

[musicman]

AJ:

Re the Lemon test, the Endorsement test and the coercion test, I reiterate: the founding fathers established the first government system to protect the free exercise of religion FROM the state.That the Judiciary is now wildly overstepping it's Constitutional mandate - in this arena as well as others - is hardly news.

"Like you, [some Fundamentalist Christians] feel that the First Amendment contains no wording that prohibits the government from engaging in certain religious activities, like requiring prayer as part of the schedule at public schools, requiring schools, courts, and government offices to post the Ten Commandments...".

This is pure fantasy. The only ones I see doing any "requiring" are secular humanist social engineers, and their attack dogs - the ACLU and an out-of-whack judiciary.

"...allowing public schools to have organized prayers...praying before meetings...".

Ah - now we're getting back to reality. We are addressing ourselves to that which is VOLUNTARY. More to the point, we are discussing matters that the founding fathers knew to be the province of individual communities. The government that governs least governs best, allowing people to live in freedom, with a minimum of interference from the government on high. Simply put, the federal government has strictly defined powers, none of which include poking their noses into matters like this.

"The limits of [the separation clause] are continually being tested in the courts on a case-by-case basis."

Of course, in the courts - where else? Proponents of big-government tyranny have found the chink in freedom's armor - the judiciary - and they are diligent.

Finally, AJ, would you please stop trying to lay Catholicism's crimes at Christianity's doorstep? As Hobbit so rightly said, none of us are blameless. But, let's at least try to be factually correct.

 

[ajwps]

Not at all. Your examples are on point and it was clear from the beginning (to me, anyway) that it was somewhat of a misunderstanding. Unlike a few Nazis who claim to be Christians, I believe in the verse, "And the sins of the fathers shall not be revisited upon the children." After all, Jesus was a Jew, taught mainly the Jews, chose Jews as his apostles. I mean, he lived in Israel. I'm sure the events would have been similar regardless of locale or the nation he was dealing with. I think the whole thing started when I failed to elaborate that the reason I pointed out the verse I did was because it seemed to me that the quote was not actually said (I kinda thought you were implying that it was Mel Gibson's idea), and I was pointing that, indeed, it was. I still find it ironic that the priests that hated Jesus so much wanted his blood on them and their children because they thought he was an evil man who deserved to die, while Christians throughout the generations want the same thing because we believe it washes away sins.

Mel Gibson claimed that his version of the 'Passion of the Christ" was based on the real event from his bible. If you saw the movie you might have noticed that there were no Arabs anywhere to be seen. The Arabs claim that they have always had the land of Israel and I'm sure that there were Arabs present in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus Christ. But no evidence of hide or hair of any Arabs. So much for being the real thing.

Your finding irony in the Jewish priests hating Jesus so much that they thought him evil is truly ironic. For those times, the Jews under the Roman occupation were praying that the prophecied messiah would come and rid the Romans from oppressing and killing them and bring Israel back to the Jewish people. At the time of Jesus, there were many who claimed to be that promised messiah who would bring peace to the earth.

Why would they want to kill a Jew who claimed to be the messiah as he could have been the annointed one to save them. Ironic isn't it. The Jewish Sanhedrin (court of law) historically never turned any Jew over to the Romans for punishment as that was forbidden in the Old Testament. The Romans and Pilate were not nice people as they crucified (a particularly horrible death) thousands upon thousands of Jews, Jesus being only one of them. Pilate was the Roman governor of Israel at that time and would in no way honor the wishes of the Jewish people, the Sanhedrin or their lacky Jewish priests.

Pilate never crucified Jews for religious reasons but only murdered those whom he thought a threat to Rome and its occupation of this little corner of the Roman Empire. Jesus claiming messiahship or kingship of the Jews would have not been a threat to the Romans but if Christ claimed that he would himself be a political threat to overthrow Pilate and the Roman Empire, he would certainly have been a candidate for crucifixion and death.

Think about it for a minute. Why would any human beings accept responsibility for killing a god and then curse themselves, their children and their children's children throughtout all generations? Does this make any sense to you unless someone years later wrote a bible of a people condemning themselves throughout time. Is that reality?

Who has been pierced, scourged, stabbed and killed throughout the generations as stated in the Gospels? Those blamed for the death of Christ and his shed blood saving the gentile nations or was it G-d's claimed son Israel, his first born?

This is the reality for the Jewish people in every time and country since the time of Jesus Christ.

 

[ajwps]

AJ:

Re the Lemon test, the Endorsement test and the coercion test, I reiterate: the founding fathers established the first government system to protect the free exercise of religion FROM the state.That the Judiciary is now wildly overstepping it's Constitutional mandate - in this arena as well as others - is hardly news.

"Like you, [some Fundamentalist Christians] feel that the First Amendment contains no wording that prohibits the government from engaging in certain religious activities, like requiring prayer as part of the schedule at public schools, requiring schools, courts, and government offices to post the Ten Commandments...".

This is pure fantasy. The only ones I see doing any "requiring" are secular humanist social engineers, and their attack dogs - the ACLU and an out-of-whack judiciary.

"...allowing public schools to have organized prayers...praying before meetings...".

Ah - now we're getting back to reality. We are addressing ourselves to that which is VOLUNTARY. More to the point, we are discussing matters that the founding fathers knew to be the province of individual communities. The government that governs least governs best, allowing people to live in freedom, with a minimum of interference from the government on high. Simply put, the federal government has strictly defined powers, none of which include poking their noses into matters like this.

"The limits of [the separation clause] are continually being tested in the courts on a case-by-case basis."

Of course, in the courts - where else? Proponents of big-government tyranny have found the chink in freedom's armor - the judiciary - and they are diligent.

Finally, AJ, would you please stop trying to lay Catholicism's crimes at Christianity's doorstep? As Hobbit so rightly said, none of us are blameless. But, let's at least try to be factually correct.

Yes it is true that you reiterate the founding father's intents. You seem to find secular humanist social engineers, their attack dogs - the ACLU and an out-of-whack judiciary behind every tree when it comes to a Christian state of America.

Can you show us where in the founding father's Contitution that it says that they established a government system to protect the free exercise of religion FROM the state. Or is that too your own interpretation? Where else do you think the Framer's wanted individual cases to be decided, in the court of the Church or the Superme Court?

If you could produce this concept in the Framer's Constitution, we all would be very grateful.

Let me ask you if you believe that the Catholic Church is different from any other Protestant church that believes in the saving blood of Jesus Christ of Nazareth? Does the Catholic Church believe in a different Jesus Christ's sacrifical atonement for men's sins?

Can you give me any facts differentiating the Catholic Church's belief in Jesus Christ from Martin Luther's Protestant Churches?

 

[musicman]

Yes it is true that you reiterate the founding father's intents. You seem to find secular humanist social engineers, their attack dogs - the ACLU and an out-of-whack judiciary behind every tree when it comes to a Christian state of America.

Can you show us where in the founding father's Contitution that it says that they established a government system to protect the free exercise of religion FROM the state. Or is that too your own interpretation? Where else do you think the Framer's wanted individual cases to be decided, in the court of the Church or the Superme Court?

If you could produce this concept in the Framer's Constitution, we all would be very grateful.

Let me ask you if you believe that the Catholic Church is different from any other Protestant church that believes in the saving blood of Jesus Christ of Nazareth? Does the Catholic Church believe in a different Jesus Christ's sacrifical atonement for men's sins?

Can you give me any facts differentiating the Catholic Church's belief in Jesus Christ from Martin Luther's Protestant Churches?

(sigh) Once again, there can be no "Christian State of America" - no Christian theocracy, as you seem to find in your fevered, paranoid fantasies. Listen closely, now, and try to stay with me. Since the bedrock principle of Christianity revolves around man's free agency, Christianity through coercion would be meaningless and self-defeating.

"Can you show me where in the founding fathers' Constitution it says that they established a system of government to *protect the free exercise of religion from the state*?"

How about, *Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*?

"Where else do you think that the Framers wanted individual cases to be decided...?"

Precisely where they put it - in the hands of the people.

Finally, may I say that you've done a brilliant job of unmasking(gasp) the similarities between Catholicism and Christianity. There's just one small problem: I was talking about the DIFFERENCES!

 

[ajwps]

(sigh) Once again, there can be no "Christian State of America" - no Christian theocracy, as you seem to find in your fevered, paranoid fantasies. Listen closely, now, and try to stay with me. Since the bedrock principle of Christianity revolves around man's free agency, Christianity through coercion would be meaningless and self-defeating.

How about leaving out the psychiatric invectives in this discussion. It proves nothing. The main argument here is not whether adults pay any attention to religious symbols or bibles on publicly paid property, it is really the innocent children who see and comprehend a US government promoted majority religion as if it were the only one true faith. The young child is very vulnerable to subliminal suggestion just as they are to TV commercials designed to market products to them and their parents who wants to please their whims. How would you like to have your young children or maybe grandchildren to see statues of the God Visnu in many public buildings, parks, courthouses and other public facilities? Would that violate the Framers Contitutional intentions of freedom to display religious objects on taxpayer public properties?

"Can you show me where in the founding fathers' Constitution it says that they established a system of government to *protect the free exercise of religion from the state*?"

How about, *Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*?

I'm sorry but where do you find that in the latter Consitutional statement which gives Congress permission to make any laws protecting the right to use 'public taxpayer properties to display or promote a particular State majoirty religion? I just don't see it.....

"Where else do you think that the Framers wanted individual cases to be decided...?"

Precisely where they put it - in the hands of the people.

If that were correct, what did the Framers mean by giving the decision making intent of the Constitution solely in the hands of the US Supreme Court? Do you see a citizen votes for legal decisions or concerns enumerated anywhere in the Constitution? Please point it out.

Finally, may I say that you've done a brilliant job of unmasking(gasp) the similarities between Catholicism and Christianity. There's just one small problem: I was talking about the DIFFERENCES!

Really. Which differences are you referencing? The Communion, Eucharist, Confession, Mass or Transubstantiation? What about the Lutheran Church and their observing many of these same Christian observances and concepts enumerated in the Gospels? How valid are the Christian churches that believe in dancing with venomous snakes and drinkng poisons based on Jesus promises in the Gospels.

Does your church not find man made wooden cross of Jesus as valid as the concrete and gold crosses found in the Catholic church?