El Sitherino Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Originally posted by ZDawg I love it that every debate in this forum turns to an anti-Christian argument... Insanesith, please do not mistake the Old Catholic church of England, for the modern day Christian churches of America. The Catholics also burned anyone they thought was a witch, and many other ridiculous things. Interracial? please do read some of the old testament before you say that people would not marry out of race... try the story of Sampson for example. Among many other story’s, even before the old law was fulfilled ZDawg, I AM talking about the AMERICAN protestant churches in the 40's all the way to the 70's. In the south there is still the conservative denomination called Southern Baptist, They use the bible to claim interracial marriages are against god, just as many people say gay marriages are against god. If you lived in Texas you can still see this racial fiasco crap still going on. I can't even walk down the street talking and holding hands with my Japanese girlfriend without some people looking at me like I'm a traitor to some cause. You want proof of what I'm talking about? read some books on the 50's and the KKK's reign of terror age. Christians much like yourselves (not accusing you all of being racist, just saying was a mainstream thought of many christians that are much like you all) were supporting the KKK because they believed the bible said non-whites could not have the same freedoms of whites, nor could they marry whites. The sad truth is many people still hold that opinion today. Now, they seemed to have expanded it to gays cannot marry. Technically by not allowing gays to marry the organized religions and governments (state and federal) are reviving assimilation. PS: In the 50's a majority of all protestant denominations felt non-whites shouldn't have the same rights as whites, but after the civil rights movement people wisened up and went back to being the good people they were supposed to be, but the people that still felt segregation was the way of god, they became the Southern Baptist denomination of Christianity. Oh, one of my mom's friends (a devout christian, much like you lot here) was appointed to work at an abortion clinic, that was understaffed (the UTA rapes brought in A LOT of pregnant teens who were victims of rape), It was later attacked with bricks thrown in windows, gas bombs thrown in, 3 people died including my moms friend and a nurses baby was killed. People who say they are pro-life really piss me off when they say they want everyone to have an equal chance at life, yet they bomb, assault, and flat out murder staff members of abortion clinics, patients at abortion clinics (many who have not yet had the abortion, thus making the pro-lifers the abortionists!), they also kill innocent people who are just walking infront of the damn building. You probably won't hear about these stories unless you are a medical professional or have a parent or someone you know that is in the medical profession, many of these stories are actually kept quiet unless public awareness of the incedent is an absolute. Oh and for those who don't realize the racial hatred in America during the 50's and 60's I recommend Ghosts of Mississipi. Hell check out the Rodney King story, one of the officers who beat him said Blacks were against god and unnatural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 They use the bible to claim interracial marriages are against god, just as many people say gay marriages are against god. Whats your point? The bible says homosexuality is wronge like 3 or 4 times. the main times i can think of is in Leviticus, and Romans. It never says you cant marry a person of different color. I dont care what they say, I care what the bible says, and as far as I know it doesnt say I cant marry someone who is a different color. Also, you may be confused with the mormons (im really not sure if they consider themselves christians or not) but i *heard* (correct me if im wrong...) that they believe that blacks are "demonic" people or something.... and whites are pure... idk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Whats your point? The bible says homosexuality is wronge like 3 or 4 times. the main times i can think of is in Leviticus, and Romans. It never says you cant marry a person of different color. I dont care what they say, I care what the bible says, and as far as I know it doesnt say I cant marry someone who is a different color. Also, you may be confused with the mormons (im really not sure if they consider themselves christians or not) but i *heard* (correct me if im wrong...) that they believe that blacks are "demonic" people or something.... and whites are pure... idk. I'm not confused with mormons. And I'm not saying you should agree with them, I'm just stating the similarity of their believing non-whites shouldn't have the same rights as whites, with the claim of gays shouldn't have the ability to marry. It's from a book. I don't disagree that Christianity has helped a lot of people, but like anything else in this world it has also hurt a lot of people. I won't say Christianity is the worst religion because it's not, all religions are bad together. I'm just more prone to using Christianity as an example because I live in Texas, member of the bible belt. I have equal amounts of problems with all religions. It's just people who criticize are more likely to criticize what they are surrounded by. And my point is just because The Bible say something doesn't mean it should be law, it doesn't mean it's always black or white on the issue, there could have been a different intended meaning to the lying with men as one lies with a women thing. People make mistakes, it's called Misunderstanding, hell I'm a victim of it all the time and I misunderstand alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 True, and I doubt God ment for "christians" (keep in mind, i seriously doubt they are christians) to blow up abortion clinics, and murder doctors.[/b] Take a look at this Salon.Com. In this, the brother of Eric Rudolf (the abortion clinic, lesbian bar, & Olympic bomber) is quoted: Jamie attributed his brother's anti-government views to a period in the early 1980s when his mother hauled them off to a Missouri commune run by the "Christian Identity" movement, which espouses militant white-power views. It doesn't matter how much you don't agree that he's "christian," but he thinks he is. A christian is one who believes that god sent jesus christ to earth to do his work. Period. Simply disagreeing with one christian cult's perception of christianity doesn't invalidate them. THAT is the same fundamentalist bull that keeps occuring in the Middle East among Muslims. The Shiites don't think Sunni are legitimate, the Wassabi don't like either of them..., etc. The fact is, Christian Fundamentalism is a very dangerous movement in our country. Timothy McVeigh is a prime example of it. Eric Rudolf is another. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Rudolfs and McVeighs just waiting for the right stimuli to start their terror. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Actually, interesting. You say homosexuality is harmless, and theres nothing wrong with allowing it. But, the ten commandments statue wasnt exactly doing anything wrong. By that, I'm assuming you're referring to the stone idol of christianity in the Alabama courthouse? Perhaps they should have left it in place. But then every other religion represented in the state should have the opportunity to place their own idols there as well. How do you think the "moral majority" would have responded if each of the 15 or so major Hindu gods had an effigy in place there? I'm a bit partial to Shiva, the Destroyer myself. Add a Buddha statue, a stone effigy of the Koran for effect and round it off with a statue of Ba'al in case he has any worshipers left. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Remember, its not the bible's fault or God's fault that people do things. He commands, we can obey, or not obey. Hes not responsible for it. I've yet to hear even one command or request made by any god. I've read and heard a few people claim various god's have commanded various things.... Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 A christian cant use that to say you cant marry a black or white person. I'm in agreement. I can even show in the christian bible where that shouldn't. But I can also see the passages that are misrepresented by many christians (whether you agree with their flavor of christianity or not) to do so. What I was saying wasn't that "one could argue against interracial marriage," but rather there are those that do. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Yeah, think about how much we argue/debate online, and we dont even know each other. You think 2 people married together could live "peacefully" unless they both believe the same thing? Im not saying it couldnt happen, because it could, but it could also fail. Where do you draw the line on beliefs? One thing I'm sure about in this world, is that there are no two people who believe in the same things. They might agree more than disagree, particularly with regard to religious sect/denomination/faith, but there will be disagreements within these agreements as well. If you say, "true Christians all agree....." then you are being naive or hopeful. Or both. I've seen it within this very thread. Originally posted by ZDawg I love it that every debate in this forum turns to an anti-Christian argument... [personal opinion]Only because every debate ends up with someone quoting a biblical reason for a prohibition or taboo or other action. Ethics in modern society should be devoid of cult influances by christianity, islam, hindi, etc. Instead, the needs of the society should be considered above all else. If these needs create ethics and values that concur with one or more religious doctrines, then fine. If not.... throw the religion out.[/personal opinion] Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 The bible says homosexuality is wronge like 3 or 4 times. That quote is the reason for me trying out the new personal opinion tag. It doesn't seem to be working right.... And herein lies the cause of the fundamentalist movement within the United States. The so-called "moral majority" or "religious right" consists of christians who generally stop their accredited educations at the high school level but continue on with their anecdotal educations through bible studies, political functions, prayer breakfasts, Saturday morning hair-cuts, etc. There's certainly a lot to be said positively in regard to this kind of social education, but there is a lot to critique about it too. The result is a small percentage of the anecdotally educated population moving toward a fundamental christian perspective. Add to that the fact that the majority religion in the United States is Christian and you get a small population within the larger that can bend their ears and influance policy. In fact, policy makers are greatly influanced by this fundamentalist movement, particularly right-wing conservatives of the Republican Party, but also a limited number in the Democratic Party. There is evidence that President Bush (the current) is recently influanced in this way. He made comments in the past that were counter to the fundamentalist movement and caught a lot of flak over it. He has since done a 180 degree turn and mentions god and evil like a Prophet of the Law. He's even been quoted to say something (paraphrased) like, "I've learned my lesson about criticizing their agenda." This is dangerous for society as it will impede progress. Impediment of progress can greatly affect the nation's ecconomy. We are fast becoming a nation of limited progress and will be outpaced by Germany and Japan, both of which were greatly behind the United States in technology and ecconomy only 50 years ago. The newest innovations in technology are not largely American in nature. The future will include genetic technology, which is also frowned upon by the "religious right" and has it's own thread. As a society, we can't even let our baseless predjudices go regarding homosexuality. To me, homosexuality is counterintuitive. I don't practice and cannot understand why someone would. But I don't think that is a basis for restricting their equal access to the law and legal advantages if they want to form relational unions and even create families. In fact, I see it as an ecconomic advantage to the nation. More family units means higher spending on big-ticket items. More comprehensive insurance policies. So, yeah, ZDawg, this is a anti-christian argument. I'd rather it weren't, but christianity has proven throughout history that it needs to be forced into submission to society and to yield to progress. I personally see religious texts such as the christian bible as valuable sources of wisdom, history, and ancestory. But I also see them as obstacles to the progress of humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Not allowing Interracial marriage was a cultural thing, as was MANY aspects of the bible... My best friend is half white, half black, is he any less of a Christian than I am? no. Is he any less important in God’s eyes? No. Here’s how it is, Christians are divided into hundreds of denominations... I don’t represent any of them. I represent someone who has studied the bible, and made my own opinions. So frankly, I don’t care what the Christians of the 40's did back east, or what the Christians of the 21st century do... I am my own, and I believe what I believe, and I disagree with ALOT of Christians today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NileQueen Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Being the "Venusian" I am, I may be spinning off on a tangent here with my comments but... I'm a bit partial to Shiva, the Destroyer myself. I wonder what he has been destroying... Add a Buddha statue, a stone effigy of the Koran for effect and round it off with a statue of Ba'al in case he has any worshipers left. Oh sure, I guess fair is fair. I guess the courthouse is going to get a bit crowded. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Yeah, think about how much we argue/debate online, and we dont even know each other. You think 2 people married together could live "peacefully" unless they both believe the same thing? Im not saying it couldnt happen, because it could, but it could also fail. Well but we like to debate things of interest. Some couples do not engage in much discussion at all, which would be very dull. So long as they respect that the other party can differ, and it not be a personal attack, no problem. Where do you draw the line on beliefs? One thing I'm sure about in this world, is that there are no two people who believe in the same things. A curious statement. I disagree. Perhaps you meant that no two people believe in everything the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Excellant points Skin... A christian is one who believes that god sent jesus christ to earth to do his work. Yeah, thats a christian.. I should be more specific "born again christian" Timothy McVeigh is a prime example of it. Wasnt he responsable for the Oklahoma City Bombing (might have the name mixed up) and got the death sentense back in 2001? Well.. I think blowing up a building speaks for itself... he disobeyed God. He murdered people, and rebelled against the government (i think he did that right?) If he called himself a christian, then let him, but im just not quit sure how God planned for him to blow up a building... and if he did, im sure God would have "bailed him out" if it was really God's will. I've yet to hear even one command or request made by any god. I've read and heard a few people claim various god's have commanded various things.... Well, you dont believe in him (right?) Also, if you think the bible is true, then you will read several commands given by God. That quote is the reason for me trying out the new personal opinion tag. It doesn't seem to be working right.... New feature? Or just something you made up to say "its my opinion"? Either way, nice idea. Well but we like to debate things of interest. Some couples do not engage in much discussion at all, which would be very dull. So long as they respect that the other party can differ, and it not be a personal attack, no problem. Well, not talking a lot isnt healthy for a marraige anyways (ok ok, im not married, what do i know?) We are fast becoming a nation of limited progress and will be outpaced by Germany and Japan, both of which were greatly behind the United States in technology and ecconomy only 50 years ago. Well, I think they are kind of smarter and more motivated than us anyways. In fact, i view them as the smartest people on the planet... afterall, just look at what they accomplished. It was only about a couple hundred years ago Japan didnt have guns. Plus i view America as "spoiled" and i think a good deal of the people are lazy. Not all, just a lot. Could be wrong... By that, I'm assuming you're referring to the stone idol of christianity in the Alabama courthouse? Strange.. Idol? Im not sure, but if God viewed it as an idol, then maybe he would wanted it gone? But it wasnt worshiped... it was symbolic. Why did you use the word idol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Yes, that was the one he was referring to. Idol or not, it didn't belong... not in a country where religion is supposed to have no say in the creation and execution of laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathain Valtiel Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by ShockV1.89 Yes, that was the one he was referring to. Idol or not, it didn't belong... not in a country where religion is supposed to have no say in the creation and execution of laws. Ah ah ah. Hypocrisy. Then by default no law can be passed banning Christian Christmas symbols in New York high schools while leaving symbols of Islam and Judaism intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 *shrugs* all perspective shock. I got this in an email so i dont know how true it is: part of some email I got James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ". Thomas Jefferyson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law....an oligarchy...the rule of few over many. The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers." How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional? Yes, that was the one he was referring to. I knew what he was refering to, i wanted to know why he used the word.. if there was something historical behind that statue that would make it an "idol" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Don't call me a hypocrit for that. I don't think that any religious simbols should be displayed in such a manner that is representative of the school. Christian, Islam, Jewish, or any other kind. (Unless it's the artwork of another student, in which case it is not considered part of the administration or faculty itself). If the law you refer to makes such discriminations as the one you mentioned, then it is wrong. It should apply to all religious symbols, Christian or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." Yes, and the author of the Declaration of Independence and major contributor to the Consitution, Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist, not a Christian. The "natures god" he mentiones in "Declaration" was supposed to apply to the Gods of all religions. It was as broad as possible, so more people would take it seriously. Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ". Many of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. Thomas Jefferyson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law....an oligarchy...the rule of few over many. How does this apply to the debate at hand? The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers." Then he was wrong. Americans should select and prefer the best candidates for the job as their rulers. Religion should not be a factor. Ones status as a Christian cannot be any indicator of his qualifications, as history has shown Christians to be just as capable of gross error and wrongdoing as any non-christian. You can't simply quote someone who happened to be old and speak long ago and end it there. George Washington and John Jay have just as much the capability to be wrong as you and I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 i didnt call you a hypocrite... Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist, not a Christian. Well, i figured he wasnt.. he rewrote the bible, taking out and adding what he wanted. Its not used by anyone, i think its in a museam. Then he was wrong. Americans should select and prefer the best candidates for the job as their rulers. Religion should not be a factor. Ones status as a Christian cannot be any indicator of his qualifications, as history has shown Christians to be just as capable of gross error and wrongdoing as any non-christian. You can't simply quote someone who happened to be old and speak long ago and end it there. George Washington and John Jay have just as much the capability to be wrong as you and I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathain Valtiel Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by ShockV1.89 Don't call me a hypocrit for that. I don't think that any religious simbols should be displayed in such a manner that is representative of the school. Christian, Islam, Jewish, or any other kind. (Unless it's the artwork of another student, in which case it is not considered part of the administration or faculty itself). If the law you refer to makes such discriminations as the one you mentioned, then it is wrong. It should apply to all religious symbols, Christian or not. It is the last in the last paragraph, yes. Sorry, went a bit overboard, since I feel rather strongly about that law. A teacher can't even give out fuggin candy canes! ACLU: "OH SWEET BIN LADEN SAVE US! Candy canes favor Christianity! BAN THEM BY TIMING COMPLAINTS SO SECULARIST JUDGES GET IT! BAN THEM NOW!" Anyhow, your last post before this implicated that you were directing it solely at Christianity. Thus my response. I also can argue in a twist that secularism and atheism are religions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Yes, and you could also argue in a twist that jesus was gay. The last post of mine you referred to did, in fact, refer to Christian influence on the creation of laws. But I wouldn't feel any differently if someone tried to pass a law based on, say, the Quran. LS1, I was referring to to Lathain in my "hypocrit" statement. Not you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathain Valtiel Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 ...You do know that Canada is imposing Sharia Law in some cases? Hehe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Really? How odd.... I would have thought that Canada would be a bit more forward thinking than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NileQueen Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 ShockV1.89 Yes, that was the one he was referring to. Idol or not, it didn't belong... not in a country where religion is supposed to have no say in the creation and execution of laws. It is a curious thing, then, that our money reads, In God We Trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Strange.. Idol? Im not sure, but if God viewed it as an idol, then maybe he would wanted it gone? But it wasnt worshiped... it was symbolic. Why did you use the word idol? Have you not seen the news clips where people were infront of it praying and bowing? Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel Ah ah ah. Hypocrisy. Then by default no law can be passed banning Christian Christmas symbols in New York high schools while leaving symbols of Islam and Judaism intact. If they have any religious symbols it is against the law. Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel A teacher can't even give out fuggin candy canes! ACLU: "OH SWEET BIN LADEN SAVE US! Candy canes favor Christianity! BAN THEM BY TIMING COMPLAINTS SO SECULARIST JUDGES GET IT! BAN THEM NOW!" uhmm... how is a candy cane related to christianity? It was originally made just as a normal candy but eventually people used them to put on the Tree to count down the days until christmas. These tired traditions are what make me despise the holiday hub-bub. -_- People then end up associating freeish things with certain religions, I remember in the 80's when they made the Christmas marshmallows, and for a while (up until about 93') alot of people associated marshmallows with Christmas because it was frequently used in hot cocoa but then they kind of gave up that thought. Oh, and Christmas is more commercial than religious now anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by NileQueen ShockV1.89 It is a curious thing, then, that our money reads, In God We Trust. This we can trace back to the 50's when non-christian meant communist, atheistic (which wasn't very happily looked upon), and anti-american. Hypocracy is a mainstream flow in American government, and pretty much any other government for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 What he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 I say we ban Christmas, as the holiday is based off the birth of Jesus Christ himself. Have you not seen the news clips where people were infront of it praying and bowing? If they where bowing, they where in the wrong... as God commanded never to bow to anything, and have no idols before him. Praying? what’s so wrong with praying? They where praying that the monument wouldn’t be removed, they wernt praying TO it. And what’s this about, we shouldn’t base the law off of the Ten Commandments? You do realize that just about every major religion to date bases its morals and laws off of those Ten Commandments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Strange.. Idol? Im not sure, ... Why did you use the word idol? I was using most of these definitions. Still, this looks like a worshiper of an idol to me. She looks like a worshiper as well. You might argue that God is being worshiped, but how can you tell? Why have an effigy? Why care if it stays or goes? Originally posted by lukeskywalker1New feature? Or just something you made up to say "its my opinion"? Either way, nice idea. Made up? Me? Rumour has it that the personal opinion tag is a mouseover that creates a holographic image on computers with high-end video cards. If you're using a cheap graphics card, you should only see open/close tags: [personal opinion]...[/personal opinion]. On the subject of Founding Fathers: John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." Shaw, Peter (1976). The Character of John Adams, p. 17. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Peabody, James (1973).John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, p. 403. Newsweek James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise;" and: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." Moore,Virginia (1979). The Madisons, p. 43. McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY. Gardner, Joseph (1974).James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, p. 93. Newsweek Originally posted by NileQueen It is a curious thing, then, that our money reads, In God We Trust. A slogan that was started by Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950's. I've always suspected that it was a re-election strategy, but a professor recently told me that he thought Eisenhower was being sincere. This professor was a young man during that period and remembered the new addition to the coinage as well as the addition to the Pledge of Alliegance that Eisenhower created. Genuine or not, it's ironic that such slogans were purposely avoided during the Founding Era only to be added later. BTW, lukeskywalker1, beware the information you receive in "emails." They're often spurious at best. I've cited actual publications that you might find in your school library if interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathain Valtiel Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by InsaneSith Have you not seen the news clips where people were infront of it praying and bowing? If they have any religious symbols it is against the law. uhmm... how is a candy cane related to christianity? It was originally made just as a normal candy but eventually people used them to put on the Tree to count down the days until christmas. These tired traditions are what make me despise the holiday hub-bub. -_- People then end up associating freeish things with certain religions, I remember in the 80's when they made the Christmas marshmallows, and for a while (up until about 93') alot of people associated marshmallows with Christmas because it was frequently used in hot cocoa but then they kind of gave up that thought. Oh, and Christmas is more commercial than religious now anyways. [/b] I have no idea, but giving out candy canes in public schools is banned due to it's equation with Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by ZDawg I say we ban Christmas, as the holiday is based off the birth of Jesus Christ himself. I'm with you. Xmas is just a consumer capitalist opportunity for the manufacturers of goods and services. People and religious beliefs are exploited to sell products. On top of that, we lie to our children about Santa Claus, elves, flying reindeer, etc.... But the holiday itself isn't just the "birth of J.C." It also has it's roots in the pagan solistace celebrations and Christians merely appropriated these ceremonies and celebrations and offered a substitute to increase membership in the church. Many "christian holidays" have similar origins. Originally posted by ZDawg And what’s this about, we shouldn’t base the law off of the Ten Commandments? You do realize that just about every major religion to date bases its morals and laws off of those Ten Commandments? Actually, there's a strong argument that the 10 commandments are simply a reflection of basic human values. There are many common values and ethics represented in these "commandments" that found in religions and faiths that developed in ignorance of christianity and it's "Law." For instance, in most societies of the world and throughout history, it is considered taboo to kill indescriminately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.