Church and State

[DRMIZER]

Remember a certain former Speaker of the House whose initials are N. G? ( If you can’t remember his name and think NG is usually understood to mean “No Good” that’s ok with me)! When NG was Speaker he often denounced Bill Clinton’s fling with Monica and piously brayed for a return to “family values.” All the while, NG was having an affair with his employee who sang in her church choir on Sundays. My! how devout of NG and friend to so strictly keep Jesus’ command to “love one another.”

Lately NG has been pretending that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. He knows very well (he is a historian) that one of the things that made the Revolution so revolutionary was the fact that our Constitution was and still is an intentionally secular document. There is no mention of God, Jesus, the bible, or the word Christian in the Constitution. NG knows full well that Jefferson was a Deist who agreed with Bolingbroke’s assertion that there is a “tacit alliance between priests and atheists against true religion.” (Here “true religion” refers to Deism or natural religion ).

Besides that, NG knows that Jefferson wrote the following statement:

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own.”

It is urgently important for every reader to understand what Jefferson was saying in that profound statement of truth. The key concept is that the clergy and the government work in collusion, covering up each others exploitation of the people.

Have you heard any Christian leader denounce the administration for lying us into war? People are dying in a needless war...gee, how important is that compared to the fact that the Ten Commandants might be removed from the lawn of the Texas capitol? Or, God forbid, what if they take “under God” out of the pledge, or “In God We Trust” off our money?!

Ever wonder why the flames of religious fervor and patriotism are being fanned simultaneously? Go back and read Jefferson’s statement. Then become a real American and know that now is the time for all good citizens to come to the aid of our country. Speak up about what is going on. Go to school board meetings and advocate for keeping science in and superstition out of our schools. Remind people that Science brought about the Enlightenment—religious superstition brought about the Dark Ages. Let your voice
be heard.

It’s natural to be concerned about your individual security, but our collective security as thinking people is in our heritage-- our Greco-Roman heritage. With reason at its foundation, our ancestors built Western Civilization.  What was the real impact of Christianity on civilization? Here is how Jefferson’s favorite historian Edward Gibbon described it (as told by Will Durant).

"THE GREATEST OF HISTORIANS [Edward Gibbon] HELD THAT CHRISTIANITY WAS THE CHIEF CAUSE OF ROME’S FALL. FOR THIS RELIGION....HAD DESTROYED THE OLD FAITH THAT HAD GIVEN MORAL CHARACTER TO THE ROMAN SOUL AND STABILITY TO THE ROMAN STATE. IT [Christianity] HAD DECLARED WAR UPON CLASSIC CULTURE ----UPON SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, LITERATURE AND ART. IT HAD BROUGHT AN ENFEEBLING ORIENTAL MYSTICISM INTO THE REALISTIC STOICISM OF ROMAN LIFE; IT [Christianity] HAD TURNED MEN’S THOUGHTS FROM THE TASKS OF THIS WORLD TO AN ENERVATING PREPARATION FOR SOME COSMIC CATASTROPHE, AND HAD LURED THEM INTO SEEKING INDIVIDUAL SALVATION THROUGH ASCETICISM AND PRAYER, RATHER THAN COLLECTIVE SALVATION THROUGH DEVOTION TO THE STATE" [the homeland]
(Durant 667) emphasis added.

It is your duty to defend your heritage, which is under assault as it was 2000 years ago. Remember, hubris never wins out in the long run, but Nature always does. That’s Good News for us.

[dhirschp]

Many figures of the religious right have not read the Constitution, if they did then they would be very respectful of seperation of CHurch and State.

[Churlant]

Many figures of the religious right have not read the Constitution, if they did then they would be very respectful of seperation of CHurch and State.

They've read it... but they've also read the Bible. Guess which one trumps the other? ;)

-JC

[heel31ok]

Remember a certain former Speaker of the House whose initials are N. G? ( If you can’t remember his name and think NG is usually understood to mean “No Good” that’s ok with me)! When NG was Speaker he often denounced Bill Clinton’s fling with Monica and piously brayed for a return to “family values.” All the while, NG was having an affair with his employee who sang in her church choir on Sundays. My! how devout of NG and friend to so strictly keep Jesus’ command to “love one another.”

Lately NG has been pretending that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. He knows very well (he is a historian) that one of the things that made the Revolution so revolutionary was the fact that our Constitution was and still is an intentionally secular document. There is no mention of God, Jesus, the bible, or the word Christian in the Constitution. NG knows full well that Jefferson was a Deist who agreed with Bolingbroke’s assertion that there is a “tacit alliance between priests and atheists against true religion.” (Here “true religion” refers to Deism or natural religion ).

Besides that, NG knows that Jefferson wrote the following statement:

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own.”

It is urgently important for every reader to understand what Jefferson was saying in that profound statement of truth. The key concept is that the clergy and the government work in collusion, covering up each others exploitation of the people.

Have you heard any Christian leader denounce the administration for lying us into war? People are dying in a needless war...gee, how important is that compared to the fact that the Ten Commandants might be removed from the lawn of the Texas capitol? Or, God forbid, what if they take “under God” out of the pledge, or “In God We Trust” off our money?!

Ever wonder why the flames of religious fervor and patriotism are being fanned simultaneously? Go back and read Jefferson’s statement. Then become a real American and know that now is the time for all good citizens to come to the aid of our country. Speak up about what is going on. Go to school board meetings and advocate for keeping science in and superstition out of our schools. Remind people that Science brought about the Enlightenment—religious superstition brought about the Dark Ages. Let your voice
be heard.

It’s natural to be concerned about your individual security, but our collective security as thinking people is in our heritage-- our Greco-Roman heritage. With reason at its foundation, our ancestors built Western Civilization.  What was the real impact of Christianity on civilization? Here is how Jefferson’s favorite historian Edward Gibbon described it (as told by Will Durant).

"THE GREATEST OF HISTORIANS [Edward Gibbon] HELD THAT CHRISTIANITY WAS THE CHIEF CAUSE OF ROME’S FALL. FOR THIS RELIGION....HAD DESTROYED THE OLD FAITH THAT HAD GIVEN MORAL CHARACTER TO THE ROMAN SOUL AND STABILITY TO THE ROMAN STATE. IT [Christianity] HAD DECLARED WAR UPON CLASSIC CULTURE ----UPON SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, LITERATURE AND ART. IT HAD BROUGHT AN ENFEEBLING ORIENTAL MYSTICISM INTO THE REALISTIC STOICISM OF ROMAN LIFE; IT [Christianity] HAD TURNED MEN’S THOUGHTS FROM THE TASKS OF THIS WORLD TO AN ENERVATING PREPARATION FOR SOME COSMIC CATASTROPHE, AND HAD LURED THEM INTO SEEKING INDIVIDUAL SALVATION THROUGH ASCETICISM AND PRAYER, RATHER THAN COLLECTIVE SALVATION THROUGH DEVOTION TO THE STATE" [the homeland]
(Durant 667) emphasis added.

It is your duty to defend your heritage, which is under assault as it was 2000 years ago. Remember, hubris never wins out in the long run, but Nature always does. That’s Good News for us.
Bull hockey! The fall of Rome was because of the deterioration of morals and an attitude of ' if it feels good do it!'' Also the quote by jefferson referring to priests was aimed towards a representative of the government in a religious capacity which was the crux of the point to separate church and state . You go off the track when you try to jump from there to an assertion that all religious leaders are pawns in the hands of the gov. That is not a stretch but an immeasurable casm.I do not believe even jeferson himself would align deceptive line of unreasoning.With this proof texting of His writings I now see why other writings are also mis interpreted.

[heel31ok]

Many figures of the religious right have not read the Constitution, if they did then they would be very respectful of seperation of CHurch and State.
I think the lack of respect comes from the other side!

[eugene40]

I think the lack of respect comes from the other side!


Don't dilute yourself in thinking the other side has lack of respect.... The religious right has no respect for anyone but themselves and their cause.

[heel31ok]

Don't dilute yourself in thinking the other side has lack of respect.... The religious right has no respect for anyone but themselves and their cause.
Thanks for making my point. You out of disrespect make a judgement based only on you personal dislike for a group of people. Generalities do not become you. How have I diluted myself? Can one drink too much water? How does that apply here?

[eugene40]

Thanks for making my point. You out of disrespect make a judgement based only on you personal dislike for a group of people. Generalities do not become you. How have I diluted myself? Can one drink too much water? How does that apply here?


DELUDE my bad...


And how is my generalizing any different from yours. You said the lack of respect comes from the other side.. I said the side of the religious right has just the same amount of lack of respect if not more so.... I don't respect the people that have no respect for others besides their ilk. And yea I personally have a disdain for those types of people. And more to the point I didn't generalize,, I said the religious right,, that is a specific fringe group of christians that have no respect for anything other then their cause. that is an opinion not a generalization.. The post of yours that I responded to was a generalization.. And I would say that generalizatins don't beomce you but then again... ha

[eugene40]

Duplicate post

[jamesrage]

Lately NG has been pretending that the United States was founded as a Christian nation.

Pretended?What a load of crap,this country was founded as a christain nation.
Seperation of church and state?It isn't just a issue of church and state with liberals they want wipe christianity off the face of the earth.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21598-2005Mar9.html Why else would scum bag city councilmen vote to not sell the land that the cross resides on?It is a blatent attempt wipe out christiany.Because if it was just a issue of a religious symbol on city owned land why not sell the land that the cross sits on?Why do these scumbags got to block every attempt to remove
iit from the tax payers pockets and let some one else deal with it?What next is some pissed off atheist or fake christian going to sue to have the crosses removed from Arlington national cemetary?

[Larani]

Pretended?What a load of crap,this country was founded as a christain nation.
Seperation of church and state?It isn't just a issue of church and state with liberals they want wipe christianity off the face of the earth.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21598-2005Mar9.html Why else would scum bag city councilmen vote to not sell the land that the cross resides on?It is a blatent attempt wipe out christiany.Because if it was just a issue of a religious symbol on city owned land why not sell the land that the cross sits on?Why do these scumbags got to block every attempt to remove
iit from the tax payers pockets and let some one else deal with it?What next is some pissed off atheist or fake christian going to sue to have the crosses removed from Arlington national cemetary?

Jamesrage consider for a moment these words and apply them to the following statements above


"When the Virginia bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."

Now also tell me do you think it would be just and right if the atheist, The Jew the Gentile, the Mahometan, the Hindoo and the infidel would have a cross over their gravestone just to appease Christains living in the here and now.

Would your faith be weaker for it? Will your faith be weaker if the cross is removed from the building? How do these symbolic representations effect or influence your faith? As a fellow Christian this is one area I have yet been able to fathom from my brethren and something I have been most intrigued to understand.

[eugene40]

Jamesrage consider for a moment these words and apply them to the following statements above



Now also tell me do you think it would be just and right if the atheist, The Jew the Gentile, the Mahometan, the Hindoo and the infidel would have a cross over their gravestone just to appease Christains living in the here and now.

Would your faith be weaker for it? Will your faith be weaker if the cross is removed from the building? How do these symbolic representations effect or influence your faith? As a fellow Christian this is one area I have yet been able to fathom from my brethren and something I have been most intrigued to understand.


Ahhh its good to have you back larani.... I missed ya.

[jamesrage]

Would your faith be weaker for it? Will your faith be weaker if the cross is removed from the building? How do these symbolic representations effect or influence your faith? As a fellow Christian this is one area I have yet been able to fathom from my brethren and something I have been most intrigued to understand..

I understand perfectly that the cross is nothing more than just a symbol and somehow is rooted in idolotry.It is the principal of the fact that the Atheist and the fake christains are blatently trying to exterminate Christianity and trying to remove the christian roots of this country that angers me.How can I expect the fake Christians(apostates) to understand principals,they have none they just pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to beleave and dismiss the rest.

[Larani]

Ahhh its good to have you back larani.... I missed ya.

And I you my friend. As I told Blueangel ealier I was suffering from what I call the Captain Kirk Syndrom. You know how Kirk use to blow up computers by introducing illogical arguements into their programming setting them up into explosive loops that would cause their destruction.

I get enough of it helping out in the domestic violence therapy center I volunteer at you know the term Eugene its called "Crazy Making" :lol:

[Larani]

I understand perfectly that the cross is nothing more than just a symbol and somehow is rooted in idolotry.It is the principal of the fact that the Atheist and the fake christains are blatently trying to exterminate Christianity and trying to remove the christian roots of this country that angers me.How can I expect the fake Christians(apostates) to understand principals,they have none they just pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to beleave and dismiss the rest.

While James I can understand your passions have you ever considered the problem may stem from the way in which you freely choose to think about other people even apostates as you call them? Forgive me but it seems to me this reality in which your choosing to create for yourself where everybody is the enemy trying to destroy this and that is at the heart of your frustrations.

And am I to understand you that you honestly think these people have zero principals? Would not entertaining such thoughts of people drive you mad, When dealing with them? Is it possible for you to entertain (ok I know its possible) but would you be willing to consider that other people don't pick and choose but maybe they have ascertained a certain degree of knowledge that you as yet have not or if you prefer you have gain a certain degree of knowledge that they at this present time have not? And is this so bad? Do you frail about so thinking such terrible things of Children that have yet to grasp the meaning of certain truths? or do you love them without condition and give them the proper time and your energies to help them gain such knowledge?

[Seth928]

Bull hockey! The fall of Rome was because of the deterioration of morals and an attitude of ' if it feels good do it!'' Also the quote by jefferson referring to priests was aimed towards a representative of the government in a religious capacity which was the crux of the point to separate church and state . You go off the track when you try to jump from there to an assertion that all religious leaders are pawns in the hands of the gov. That is not a stretch but an immeasurable casm.I do not believe even jeferson himself would align deceptive line of unreasoning.With this proof texting of His writings I now see why other writings are also mis interpreted.

BULL HOCKEY TO THAT! Of course even if you take out the splintering of the empire, the complete exhaustion of natural resources, increasing barbarian pressure from the north, failing trade relations and the complete lack of a decently trained army near Rome you're still out in left field. The fall of Rome would more accurately coincide with the rise of Christianity. This attitude of 'if it feels good do it!' was largely prevalent during the Pax Romana, the period in which Rome saw the greatest growth and prosperity.....Check your facts before you make posts like this.

[Seth928]

One of the interesting things I notice is that this whole idea that we are a Christian nation largely ignores more than half the original colonies. This country was founded mainly as an economic battery that could feed England precious Cotton (later on) and Tabacco. The only colonies that really were founded on a religious basis were the New England colonies. Even many of those held provisions to remove religion from politics and vice versa. The Southern colonies were created as charter colonies to bring wealth to England. After I go to sleep for the night I'll sit down with my old US history book and outline each of the thirteen original colonie's stances on religion for you.

[cpwill]

Many figures of the religious right have not read the Constitution, if they did then they would be very respectful of seperation of CHurch and State.

interesting; perhaps you could point me to the section in the constitution where it states there is a seperation between church and state?
:confused: because i'm looking, and all i can find is a law stating that the Congress of the US is not allowed to establish a National Church.

[cpwill]

Don't dilute yourself in thinking the other side has lack of respect.... The religious right has no respect for anyone but themselves and their cause.

an insultive generalization if ever i heard one.

[cpwill]

Would your faith be weaker for it? Will your faith be weaker if the cross is removed from the building?

my faith? no, but my nation.

however, the question is too easily flipped: how is someone's faith (or lack thereof) forced to change by viewing a cross on public property? does it cause someone to question their beliefs and accept Christ on the spot? will their faith somehow be weaker due to it's presence?

[Larani]

my faith? no, but my nation.

however, the question is too easily flipped: how is someone's faith (or lack thereof) forced to change by viewing a cross on public property? does it cause someone to question their beliefs and accept Christ on the spot? will their faith somehow be weaker due to it's presence?

No it wouldn't but it most definatly would send a message that the building and or property doesn't belong to them unless they were a part of that faith if fact truth be told one would have to stop calling it a public building or public property as it would then take on a whole new visual outlook one of a religious building or a religious piece of property.

Most non-christians I know don't consider walking into churches becuase they know their faith is different and thus they don't see Christian churches as appropriate places for them to go now this to me seems both reasonable and logical thus when applied to public lands or buildings again it seems just as reasonable and logical.

Now since you did the flipping cpwill would you care to point out how the above is neither reasonable nor logical? That way I might then be able to actually gain some insight into the need to display all this symbolism on other buildings and such. Is it like gangland graffiti? Or would it be more like a dog pissing on things to mark its territory? Is it Vanity? I guess I am trying to understand the physcology behind the motive more then anything else.

[jamesrage]

No it wouldn't but it most definatly would send a message that the building and or property doesn't belong to them unless they were a part of that faith if fact truth be told one would have to stop calling it a public building or public property as it would then take on a whole new visual outlook one of a religious building or a religious piece of property.

That is the biggest load of crap.Because if these anti-Christian liberal and fake christian scum really were that concerned about religious symbols on public property why not just sell the land that religious symbol sits on?If my *** was a rich as Bill Gates and bought a piece of property in the middle of their downtown
and built a hundred story cross these people would be up in arms trying to get it down,these people would be trying to sue stating that even visual displays of religios symbols on private property for every one to see violates seperation of church and state because they in their own minds are forced to see it every day.

[heel31ok]

BULL HOCKEY TO THAT! Of course even if you take out the splintering of the empire, the complete exhaustion of natural resources, increasing barbarian pressure from the north, failing trade relations and the complete lack of a decently trained army near Rome you're still out in left field. The fall of Rome would more accurately coincide with the rise of Christianity. This attitude of 'if it feels good do it!' was largely prevalent during the Pax Romana, the period in which Rome saw the greatest growth and prosperity.....Check your facts before you make posts like this.
I do believe you are right about the fall of Rome and the rise of Christianity because the two were diametrically opposed to one another. the fall of the Roman empire can be traced directly to a lack of moral influence and standards. The fact is that it decayed from the inside out because of the decadence and lack of self -control that permeated the infra -structure of the govt and civic leaders. The barbarian pressure,trade relations and lack of trained Army speaks directly to my point. I think the misconception you are portraying is that Christianity was responsible for this. It was not because Christianity teaches the opposite of what brought down the Empire.

[Cedars]

I do believe you are right about the fall of Rome and the rise of Christianity because the two were diametrically opposed to one another. the fall of the Roman empire can be traced directly to a lack of moral influence and standards. The fact is that it decayed from the inside out because of the decadence and lack of self -control that permeated the infra -structure of the govt and civic leaders. The barbarian pressure,trade relations and lack of trained Army speaks directly to my point. I think the misconception you are portraying is that Christianity was responsible for this. It was not because Christianity teaches the opposite of what brought down the Empire.
I think St. Augustine would agree with you. He answered this very charge (the charge that the fall of the Roman Empire was due to Christianity) in his book (actually, several volumes) "City of Angels." Very interesting read (fully unabridged it would be about three modern volumes today). St. Augustine started addressing this issue, I believe, around 410 AD (or thereabouts).

[Cedars]

...That way I might then be able to actually gain some insight into the need to display all this symbolism on other buildings and such. Is it like gangland graffiti? Or would it be more like a dog pissing on things to mark its territory? Is it Vanity? I guess I am trying to understand the physcology behind the motive more then anything else.
I've never actually asked, but I would imagine the cross is displayed atop churches to denote it is Christian so anyone desiring to go to a Christian church would know where to find it. As to crosses inside a church or other Christian symbols, they are just that, symbols. If you can understand the psychology behind persons displaying photos, for instance, in their houses to remind them of loved ones or special occasions or places, then I'm sure you can understand the display of crosses, statues, etc. It is no different. Just a reminder of something or someONE they feel strongly about. Like a photo, it is not necessary to be there but just being there can remind us of love, hope, remembrance, whatever the case may be.

[cpwill]

No it wouldn't but it most definatly would send a message that the building and or property doesn't belong to them unless they were a part of that faith

it sends no such message; public property is, by definition; public. that such a building might be more reflective of that faith is an entirely different story; and one in which the american system would hold true: government is expected to be reflective of the people.

if fact truth be told one would have to stop calling it a public building or public property as it would then take on a whole new visual outlook one of a religious building or a religious piece of property.

:confused: the ownership of such a building would change hands due to the visual outlook of an individual?

Most non-christians I know don't consider walking into churches becuase they know their faith is different and thus they don't see Christian churches as appropriate places for them to go now this to me seems both reasonable and logical thus when applied to public lands or buildings again it seems just as reasonable and logical.

:) such public lands and buildings as, say, cemetaries, which i understand, are literally covered in religious symbols.

Is it like gangland graffiti? Or would it be more like a dog pissing on things to mark its territory? Is it Vanity? I guess I am trying to understand the physcology behind the motive more then anything else.

it is a desire to have my nation recognize God, as our founders wanted, as it should if it wishes to truly claim to be a representative government, and as is necessary (in my firm opinion) if we are to continue to prosper. why do i want my country's government to recognize religion? because i love my country.

[Larani]

it is a desire to have my nation recognize God, as our founders wanted, as it should if it wishes to truly claim to be a representative government, and as is necessary (in my firm opinion) if we are to continue to prosper. why do i want my country's government to recognize religion? because i love my country.

Ah and this is why I never understood. Countries Nations hell even Governments cannot recognize anything they are material constructs that only do what the eye of the beholder sees them doing which is in reality nothing it is the beholder that is doing the doing.

I think the above would be classified as simple projection of self onto a material construct. Do you do the same thing with tennis balls, plungers and washers and dryers? Again I am just simply curious and trying to understand your psychology. So that I can understand you better but I do believe I am indeed getting closer in knowing you better.

[cpwill]

Ah and this is why I never understood. Countries Nations hell even Governments cannot recognize anything they are material constructs that only do what the eye of the beholder sees them doing which is in reality nothing it is the beholder that is doing the doing.

oh, you would argue, then, that government has no business claiming to recognize your right to free speech? :)

government is just as much a growing, living thing as the population it serves, and is hardly merely a material construct.

[Seth928]

I do believe you are right about the fall of Rome and the rise of Christianity because the two were diametrically opposed to one another. the fall of the Roman empire can be traced directly to a lack of moral influence and standards. The fact is that it decayed from the inside out because of the decadence and lack of self -control that permeated the infra -structure of the govt and civic leaders. The barbarian pressure,trade relations and lack of trained Army speaks directly to my point. I think the misconception you are portraying is that Christianity was responsible for this. It was not because Christianity teaches the opposite of what brought down the Empire.

I was not making the charge that Christianity had anything to do with the fall of the empire I was just saying that it was more closely related than their moral attitude. The charge that the moral attitude of the Romans related directly to their downfall can't be further from the truth. Like I said this attitude was prevalant during the Pax Romana which was a two century period of ever increasing properity for the Roman people. This ideal existed on all levels of society and being as how this attitude existed well before this 200 year period I highly doubt that it would have taken that long to find its way into politics. To the contrary the Patricians were rife with this kind of attitude. The rise of Christianity served somewhat to splinter Romans on views of right and wrong but over all did little to cause the decay of the empire. In fact the biggest impact between this moral attitude and the christiantiy would have to be The Great Schism of 1054 when essentially the west and the east became two completely seperate empires who weren't exactly on friendly terms.

I will agree with you on the idea that the Roman Empire decayed from the inside out but it wasn't a result of a lack of morality. Many of the last emperors were in fact christians themselves. Christianity had been made the official Roman religion by Constantine and was very well entrenched by the end of the empire. In fact many of the Pagan religions had been driven out of Rome by the time of it's fall (we're talking western empire here). This "lack of moral standards" didn't even really exist in the twilight years of the empire.

Again the only remark I am making about Christianity and it's influence in the fall of Rome is that if morality had anything to do with it Christianty was what dictated Roman morality by the fall. That and the whole Great Schism thing but I still don't view that as one of the major factors leading to Rome's demise.

Onto your post. Make some kind of connection. You make all these claims but don't back them up with fact or even logic.

the fall of the Roman empire can be traced directly to a lack of moral influence and standards. The fact is that it decayed from the inside out because of the decadence and lack of self -control that permeated the infra -structure of the govt and civic leaders. The barbarian pressure,trade relations and lack of trained Army speaks directly to my point.

Support this with something!!! There is nothing here other than a thesis with no legs to stand on. Give me specific leaders instances anything to say that your thesis (however misguided) could possibly be true. Also, the use of sarcasm through written language is pretty hard to pick up on.

[Larani]

I've never actually asked, but I would imagine the cross is displayed atop churches to denote it is Christian so anyone desiring to go to a Christian church would know where to find it. As to crosses inside a church or other Christian symbols, they are just that, symbols. If you can understand the psychology behind persons displaying photos, for instance, in their houses to remind them of loved ones or special occasions or places, then I'm sure you can understand the display of crosses, statues, etc. It is no different. Just a reminder of something or someONE they feel strongly about. Like a photo, it is not necessary to be there but just being there can remind us of love, hope, remembrance, whatever the case may be.

Strange but it seem to me that cpwill thinks that crosses on buildings do nothing to proclaim them as visually belonging to any particular religion. I beg to differ I wouldn't expect a non native Say buddists American to feel unwelcome or even uninvited into a public works area if the public building was adored with Crossess I would interpret such display as making such buildings Christain as you noted about churches (which your onbservations and conclusions seem competely rational and logical I might add). Thus I would be inclined to look elsewhere until someone actually said em no that is actually a public building not a religious instituation of any kind.

I guess maybe my issue is more about a false sense of advertisement or a misleading statement in a way that I take issue with. Yeah that is it I don't think such displays efforsts are right against innoccent and niave people.

[Larani]

oh, you would argue, then, that government has no business claiming to recognize your right to free speech? :)

No I wouldn't argue. The Government doesn't recognise my right to free speech for it cannot. But individuals working for the Government can. Articles can be drafted explaing the how too. But Governement Nah it can do nothing because it really is nothing.


government is just as much a growing, living thing as the population it serves, and is hardly merely a material construct.

Mmm excuse me but it is the population from which Government gets whatever bogus life you seem to want to give it. Take away the breath from the people and Government ceases to exist because it is nothing more then a material or more so a mental construct. of the people it serves and who serve it.

[cpwill]

just as a country is most fundamentally made up of the people in it, so a government is made up of the people in it. we don't claim that "America" is a house any more than we claim that "government" is a building.

[Larani]

just as a country is most fundamentally made up of the people in it, so a government is made up of the people in it. we don't claim that "America" is a house any more than we claim that "government" is a building.

Actually many people claim a lot of things that make no sense whatsover.

I would tend to say a country is a place or more precisly a geographical location on a map created by man to serve man like an address. Within its function it contains sets of ideals that people within said country hold within themselves of their own free choosing.

Government on the other hand is a Authoritarian Construct with neither a set geographical place ( though even countries can be moved thus even they don't neccesarliy have a permenant geographical location.) Governments function is to Govern people by placing other people in charge of adminstering those people that are to be Goverened. As a construct it serves a function either to the Governors or the Goverend or both with equal measure and mutality, but it sheer existance relies upon the man who thinks it into being and who freely chooses to maintain its existance. thus it is not real in and of itself. and thus to refer to it as if it was a person or a man or any other living thing is preposterous if not slightly irrational in my opinion.

[heel31ok]

I was not making the charge that Christianity had anything to do with the fall of the empire I was just saying that it was more closely related than their moral attitude. The charge that the moral attitude of the Romans related directly to their downfall can't be further from the truth. Like I said this attitude was prevalant during the Pax Romana which was a two century period of ever increasing properity for the Roman people. This ideal existed on all levels of society and being as how this attitude existed well before this 200 year period I highly doubt that it would have taken that long to find its way into politics. To the contrary the Patricians were rife with this kind of attitude. The rise of Christianity served somewhat to splinter Romans on views of right and wrong but over all did little to cause the decay of the empire. In fact the biggest impact between this moral attitude and the christiantiy would have to be The Great Schism of 1054 when essentially the west and the east became two completely seperate empires who weren't exactly on friendly terms.

I will agree with you on the idea that the Roman Empire decayed from the inside out but it wasn't a result of a lack of morality. Many of the last emperors were in fact christians themselves. Christianity had been made the official Roman religion by Constantine and was very well entrenched by the end of the empire. In fact many of the Pagan religions had been driven out of Rome by the time of it's fall (we're talking western empire here). This "lack of moral standards" didn't even really exist in the twilight years of the empire.

Again the only remark I am making about Christianity and it's influence in the fall of Rome is that if morality had anything to do with it Christianty was what dictated Roman morality by the fall. That and the whole Great Schism thing but I still don't view that as one of the major factors leading to Rome's demise.

Onto your post. Make some kind of connection. You make all these claims but don't back them up with fact or even logic.



Support this with something!!! There is nothing here other than a thesis with no legs to stand on. Give me specific leaders instances anything to say that your thesis (however misguided) could possibly be true. Also, the use of sarcasm through written language is pretty hard to pick up on. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Seth928]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Pretty much exactly what I was talking about. No argument, no reason; aparently you think what I said was laughable. Why? Please go ahead and deconstruct it; let us in on the joke. Or maybe you just can't come up with anything so you're going to laugh?

[historyteach]

CP:
"interesting; perhaps you could point me to the section in the constitution where it states there is a seperation between church and state?
because i'm looking, and all i can find is a law stating that the Congress of the US is not allowed to establish a National Church."

Disingenious, my friend. You have already been told of Jefferson's letter to his friend, in which he specifically stated that the religious clause of the 1st Amendment was intended to mean the seperation of church and state!
I understand that you are a devout Christian; but, do be honest!

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Larani
Would your faith be weaker for it? Will your faith be weaker if the cross is removed from the building?
my faith? no, but my nation."

Sorry, buddy; but the USA is OUR nation - not yours!

"however, the question is too easily flipped: how is someone's faith (or lack thereof) forced to change by viewing a cross on public property? does it cause someone to question their beliefs and accept Christ on the spot? will their faith somehow be weaker due to it's presence?"
No, but, our pocket is less full when we are forced to pay for a religious belief that we do NOT adhere to. And, we do not HAVE to be forced to pay, as a result of the above INTENT of the Constitutional Amendment.
In law, INTENT is an important concept. The Constitution is our highest law. Therefore, this intent is of the highest import.


"it sends no such message; public property is, by definition; public. that such a building might be more reflective of that faith is an entirely different story; and one in which the american system would hold true: government is expected to be reflective of the people."
Disingenious again, CP! IF it is expected to be "reflective" of the people, that would mean ALL the people...not just a select group.
However, in political science there is and has been a controversy on this very issue. The other side of the "reflective" philosophy is that government is supposed to LEAD the people!
Either way, your statement does not hold...

And "governments" are not living at all. What an illogical statement!
The people ELECTED into government positions are living. It is through those people that we get involved into arguements which are clearly AGAINST the intent of the Constitution, as clearly stated by Jefferson - one of the founders and constructionists of this document by which our country is run - or supposed to be, anyway.

No, I can assure you that this particular living person; believer in G*D; and Jew by choice would NOT see a government building surrounded by crosses as being user friendly to me! Nor a court with the Ten Commandments!
The wall of seperation must stay if our country is to flourish. The last thing we need in this country is religious warfare. Europe floundered in that state for hundreds of years. Our founders understood the devestation caused by that destruction. That's exactly WHY the seperation was built into the Constitution!
Oh, and by the way, I happen to love my country too.
As evidence of that love, I teach history to middle school children. Yes, the history of that Constitution and of its INTENT!
Shalom!

[heel31ok]

Pretty much exactly what I was talking about. No argument, no reason; aparently you think what I said was laughable. Why? Please go ahead and deconstruct it; let us in on the joke. Or maybe you just can't come up with anything so you're going to laugh?
I laugh because you are funny! A normal response.

[heel31ok]

Pretty much exactly what I was talking about. No argument, no reason; aparently you think what I said was laughable. Why? Please go ahead and deconstruct it; let us in on the joke. Or maybe you just can't come up with anything so you're going to laugh?
The moral decay that began as you point out, during the Pax Romana certainly was a factor that never went away and was the root of the decline. It set into motiona mindset of of superiority and god-like complexes among the elite of the Roman hierarchy and even transcended to Constantine. He may have favored the christian religion in giving a form of power and rights to it.Yet it is common knowledge he did this not for the sake of creating a righteous nation or a nation built on morality but as a matter of expediency to control this sector of the population and gain political ground . He still retained the position of Pontifex Maximus, the Chief Priest of the Pagan state religion. This move toward Christianity was also an attempt to let it serve as a new center of unity.Constantine realized what his predecessors did not. That he could not wipe out christianity so he tried use it to rebuild an empire that had waited too long to be saved. The revolts and anarchy exprienced earlier had weakened Rome to the point of no return, and yet Constantine thought that embracing christianity may help preserve the classical culture of Rome. I think we can see here how the mix of church and state became a dangerous thing and yet it was when the church was used as a pawn by the state that the danger emerged .It is in the hands of the state, not the people that spoils and perverts christianity . Thus the argument becomes a little different than portraying christianity and it's followers as the problem when in fact it is the state itself which is the culprit and cannot be trusted to weld such a great power as to control a religion. Having said that I still believe that the difference in this subject is that the emphasis in this movement by certain christian groups originates from them and not from the govt. , which is within the guidelines of their rights to pursue a certain standard and promote what they believe. I believe in a separation of church and state in that the state is not controlling the church or a church , but I do not hold to the view that a religious reason for a certain agenda by the people is not allowed.

[heel31ok]

CP:
"interesting; perhaps you could point me to the section in the constitution where it states there is a seperation between church and state?
because i'm looking, and all i can find is a law stating that the Congress of the US is not allowed to establish a National Church."

Disingenious, my friend. You have already been told of Jefferson's letter to his friend, in which he specifically stated that the religious clause of the 1st Amendment was intended to mean the seperation of church and state!
I understand that you are a devout Christian; but, do be honest!

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Larani
Would your faith be weaker for it? Will your faith be weaker if the cross is removed from the building?
my faith? no, but my nation."

Sorry, buddy; but the USA is OUR nation - not yours!

"however, the question is too easily flipped: how is someone's faith (or lack thereof) forced to change by viewing a cross on public property? does it cause someone to question their beliefs and accept Christ on the spot? will their faith somehow be weaker due to it's presence?"
No, but, our pocket is less full when we are forced to pay for a religious belief that we do NOT adhere to. And, we do not HAVE to be forced to pay, as a result of the above INTENT of the Constitutional Amendment.
In law, INTENT is an important concept. The Constitution is our highest law. Therefore, this intent is of the highest import.


"it sends no such message; public property is, by definition; public. that such a building might be more reflective of that faith is an entirely different story; and one in which the american system would hold true: government is expected to be reflective of the people."
Disingenious again, CP! IF it is expected to be "reflective" of the people, that would mean ALL the people...not just a select group.
However, in political science there is and has been a controversy on this very issue. The other side of the "reflective" philosophy is that government is supposed to LEAD the people!
Either way, your statement does not hold...

And "governments" are not living at all. What an illogical statement!
The people ELECTED into government positions are living. It is through those people that we get involved into arguements which are clearly AGAINST the intent of the Constitution, as clearly stated by Jefferson - one of the founders and constructionists of this document by which our country is run - or supposed to be, anyway.

No, I can assure you that this particular living person; believer in G*D; and Jew by choice would NOT see a government building surrounded by crosses as being user friendly to me! Nor a court with the Ten Commandments!
The wall of seperation must stay if our country is to flourish. The last thing we need in this country is religious warfare. Europe floundered in that state for hundreds of years. Our founders understood the devestation caused by that destruction. That's exactly WHY the seperation was built into the Constitution!
Oh, and by the way, I happen to love my country too.
As evidence of that love, I teach history to middle school children. Yes, the history of that Constitution and of its INTENT!
Shalom!
Yes the separation of chuch and state does exist but only to the point of the govt not taking over a religion, having a state religion. This is not to say that relgious people or ideas are not allowed to exist in the govt. The notion that anything religious in the govt is strictly prohibited is far from Jeffersons intent. The peoples right to freedom of religion shall not be a bridged even in the confines of govt service. The rights of the citizen are not void when they become a public servant and the ideas that stem from a religious view do not constitute a violation of this separation. When the govt tells you you are going to hell unless you obet them then is the intrusion enough to enforce this separation. the enacting of laws that stem from the desire of the "people" to live in a certain way and standard does not qualify as an establishment of a state religion. Even Jefferson did not intend that. Standards of conduct are in the realm and scope of the authority of the govt and cannot be twisted to the point that it becomes a state religion.I do not believe Cp is disingenious I think that he just does not believe this separation mention by Jefferson goes as far as many now try to take it. I may be wrong about what Cp thinks and certainly do not want to put words in his mouth. I would agree on your point about the funding of certain symbols by the whole population when only some adhere or subcribe to the meaning of such a symbol. If all do not agree it should not be forced on all. This is the very argument used to show why a school voucher system is a more fairway to distrbute funds for education of our children. :sorry: I got off the trail for moment. If ,and I say if, the objection to these things from the separation of chuch and state crowd is genuine I have less problem with that than the objectors who do it merely on the basis tht they have an axe to grind against organized religion and would carry this smokescreen to the nth degree in an attempt to totally shut religion and religious people from any say in our govt or public expression. This is certainly not the intent of this clause. I say that the intent was to protect religion from the govt not the govt from religion.

[julierep]

CP:
"interesting; perhaps you could point me to the section in the constitution where it states there is a seperation between church and state?
because i'm looking, and all i can find is a law stating that the Congress of the US is not allowed to establish a National Church."

Disingenious, my friend. You have already been told of Jefferson's letter to his friend, in which he specifically stated that the religious clause of the 1st Amendment was intended to mean the seperation of church and state!
I understand that you are a devout Christian; but, do be honest!

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Larani
Would your faith be weaker for it? Will your faith be weaker if the cross is removed from the building?
my faith? no, but my nation."

Sorry, buddy; but the USA is OUR nation - not yours!

"however, the question is too easily flipped: how is someone's faith (or lack thereof) forced to change by viewing a cross on public property? does it cause someone to question their beliefs and accept Christ on the spot? will their faith somehow be weaker due to it's presence?"
No, but, our pocket is less full when we are forced to pay for a religious belief that we do NOT adhere to. And, we do not HAVE to be forced to pay, as a result of the above INTENT of the Constitutional Amendment.
In law, INTENT is an important concept. The Constitution is our highest law. Therefore, this intent is of the highest import.


"it sends no such message; public property is, by definition; public. that such a building might be more reflective of that faith is an entirely different story; and one in which the american system would hold true: government is expected to be reflective of the people."
Disingenious again, CP! IF it is expected to be "reflective" of the people, that would mean ALL the people...not just a select group.
However, in political science there is and has been a controversy on this very issue. The other side of the "reflective" philosophy is that government is supposed to LEAD the people!
Either way, your statement does not hold...

And "governments" are not living at all. What an illogical statement!
The people ELECTED into government positions are living. It is through those people that we get involved into arguements which are clearly AGAINST the intent of the Constitution, as clearly stated by Jefferson - one of the founders and constructionists of this document by which our country is run - or supposed to be, anyway.

No, I can assure you that this particular living person; believer in G*D; and Jew by choice would NOT see a government building surrounded by crosses as being user friendly to me! Nor a court with the Ten Commandments!
The wall of seperation must stay if our country is to flourish. The last thing we need in this country is religious warfare. Europe floundered in that state for hundreds of years. Our founders understood the devestation caused by that destruction. That's exactly WHY the seperation was built into the Constitution!
Oh, and by the way, I happen to love my country too.
As evidence of that love, I teach history to middle school children. Yes, the history of that Constitution and of its INTENT!
Shalom!

Would you be ok with,then, the removal of the star of David from any public property?

[Cedars]

Strange but it seem to me that cpwill thinks that crosses on buildings do nothing to proclaim them as visually belonging to any particular religion. I beg to differ I wouldn't expect a non native Say buddists American to feel unwelcome or even uninvited into a public works area if the public building was adored with Crossess I would interpret such display as making such buildings Christain as you noted about churches (which your onbservations and conclusions seem competely rational and logical I might add). Thus I would be inclined to look elsewhere until someone actually said em no that is actually a public building not a religious instituation of any kind.

I guess maybe my issue is more about a false sense of advertisement or a misleading statement in a way that I take issue with. Yeah that is it I don't think such displays efforsts are right against innoccent and niave people.
Government buildings are not churches -- that is to say, government buildings are not places of worship but government buildings ARE reflections of the people it represents -- at least it has been this way in the USA. It is ridiculous for those to think that just because they see a cross in a government building that the very presence of that cross is meant to exclude them. There are other symbols in government buildings that are NOT Christian and are certainly not taken by Christians that it is meant to exclude us. The Los Angeles seal, of recent issue, had the Star of David and a goddess on it, as well as a cross, and I forget what else. And the "Angeles" (in Los Angeles) means angels, essentially the City of Los Angeles is the City of Angels -- does that also mean that the city should change its name because some people don't believe in angels?

[Larani]

Government buildings are not churches -- that is to say, government buildings are not places of worship but government buildings ARE reflections of the people it represents -- at least it has been this way in the USA. It is ridiculous for those to think that just because they see a cross in a government building that the very presence of that cross is meant to exclude them.

Maybe because you choose to believe it is ridiculous at to why you would think the likelyhood is zero. Is this a Possiblility?


There are other symbols in government buildings that are NOT Christian and are certainly not taken by Christians that it is meant to exclude us. The Los Angeles seal, of recent issue, had the Star of David and a goddess on it, as well as a cross, and I forget what else. And the "Angeles" (in Los Angeles) means angels, essentially the City of Los Angeles is the City of Angels -- does that also mean that the city should change its name because some people don't believe in angels?

No I do indeed believe we ought to let history stand. Southern California is ripe with examples of the takeover by Spanish Catholics and they stand as a shiny example what happens when one does not seperate Church and State as the Spanish indeed did not.

[historyteach]

Julie;
"Would you be ok with,then, the removal of the star of David from any public property?"
Yes...100%
My religious beliefs do not have to be part of the public domain...I am far more confident in them than to force them down anyone's throat... :D

But, could you tell me, exactly WHERE are there any Stars of David on PUBLIC buildings...like we see creches every December??? And the concomitant law suits that I am continuously forced to pay for - by the way - AGAINST my wishes and so very, very many State Superiour and US Supreme Court cases have already said this is extra Constitutional??? EVERY YEAR! Give me a break. I would rather spend my tax dollars helping hungry kids...homeless people...schools...so very many other USEFUL ways to spend limited resources. Cuz the reality is, we are overtaxed! And this is a total WASTE of my money, tyvm!

"No I do indeed believe we ought to let history stand. Southern California is ripe with examples of the takeover by Spanish Catholics and they stand as a shiny example what happens when one does not seperate Church and State as the Spanish indeed did not."
Bravo, Larani!!! :D
Heel, I have to get back to you; someone here at the door, and there is soooo much to discuss! :D
Shalom!

[Knightman]

May I ask, why should a open minded individual should have issues with any symbols or signage regardless of the purpose. It seems that the problem is with the precieved implications of the intrusion of others life styles, beliefs or opinions that is the issue.

If you simply look at an object, even in the art world, your opinion of what that object means to you can be very different from anothers point of view. Other than that it imposes nothing on you to channel your life in a new direction.

The real problem is when others feel the need to convert people to their way of thinking, acting, living and so on and do so by using a display of their symbolism as part of their expansionist endeavours, we can all think of excellent examples of that excercise throughout history.

Commercial advertising does this continuously, we tolarate their billboard, flyer and other media advertising and accept it as a normal part of bussiness yet that intrudes on our lives, probably even more so...

I would not argue that some groups are much more aggressive in thier activities and that may be what we have a problem with..........

[Larani]

May I ask, why should a open minded individual should have issues with any symbols or signage regardless of the purpose. It seems that the problem is with the precieved implications of the intrusion of others life styles, beliefs or opinions that is the issue.

If you simply look at an object, even in the art world, your opinion of what that object means to you can be very different from anothers point of view. Other than that it imposes nothing on you to channel your life in a new direction.

The real problem is when others feel the need to convert people to their way of thinking, acting, living and so on and do so by using a display of their symbolism as part of their expansionist endeavours, we can all think of excellent examples of that excercise throughout history.

Commercial advertising does this continuously, we tolarate their billboard, flyer and other media advertising and accept it as a normal part of bussiness yet that intrudes on our lives, probably even more so...

I would not argue that some groups are much more aggressive in thier activities and that may be what we have a problem with..........


Knightman well said. I think the issue really is about aggressivenss. As a Christian myself I abhor the actions of my fellow Christians in their aggressivness, like Historyteach I would be more inclined to see such meaningfull resources going to help humanity then being wasted so that some symbol of vanity could be displayed upon some wall.

To take Historyteach's example further. How can one justify the adorning of structures with Gold and Silver while a child sits at the base of such constructs hungry and homeless. Such constructs do nothing in their attempt to Glorify our own vanity, but our actions to ignore the plight of the child is the true symbol of who and what we are.

[julierep]

May I ask, why should a open minded individual should have issues with any symbols or signage regardless of the purpose. It seems that the problem is with the precieved implications of the intrusion of others life styles, beliefs or opinions that is the issue.

If you simply look at an object, even in the art world, your opinion of what that object means to you can be very different from anothers point of view. Other than that it imposes nothing on you to channel your life in a new direction.

The real problem is when others feel the need to convert people to their way of thinking, acting, living and so on and do so by using a display of their symbolism as part of their expansionist endeavours, we can all think of excellent examples of that excercise throughout history.

Commercial advertising does this continuously, we tolarate their billboard, flyer and other media advertising and accept it as a normal part of bussiness yet that intrudes on our lives, probably even more so...

I would not argue that some groups are much more aggressive in thier activities and that may be what we have a problem with..........

Wow, I find myself agreeing with you here. As a christian, I like having my religious symbols (cross, etc) on public property. To me it says something. Not just for others, but mainly for me. But, I also dont mind if the star of david was somewhere displayed in a public building, or some other religious ornament. For I know it is there because it means something to someone else, just as mine means something to me. I say, why fight anyones right to have a symbol on public property. Save the money. Is it really hurting anyone?

[Larani]

Wow, I find myself agreeing with you here. As a christian, I like having my religious symbols (cross, etc) on public property. To me it says something. Not just for others, but mainly for me. But, I also dont mind if the star of david was somewhere displayed in a public building, or some other religious ornament. For I know it is there because it means something to someone else, just as mine means something to me. I say, why fight anyones right to have a symbol on public property. Save the money. Is it really hurting anyone?

Julierep Hurting? NO we must be realistic No pain or suffering is being inflicted by doing this. Are resources being used up Yes. Could those Resources be used in better ways I surely think so.

Now with reagrds to public buildings to me it all boils down to sharing. A public building is just that a public building and thus it purpose is to be shared not owned by anyone group. To me one of America's greatest assest or ideals if you will is its inclusivness. Bring us your poor your tired your hungry and we will include them and give them a home. In its perfection their races wouldn't matter, their sex wouldn't matter their religion wouldn't matter that they are human and poor and tired and hungry is all that matters. To me that is What made America Great not symbols on buildings because as I said earlier that said more about us then any idol stuck to the side of a building.

[julierep]

Julierep Hurting? NO we must be realistic No pain or suffering is being inflicted by doing this. Are resources being used up Yes. Could those Resources be used in better ways I surely think so.

Now with reagrds to public buildings to me it all boils down to sharing. A public building is just that a public building and thus it purpose is to be shared not owned by anyone group. To me one of America's greatest assest or ideals if you will is its inclusivness. Bring us your poor your tired your hungry and we will include them and give them a home. In its perfection their races wouldn't matter, their sex wouldn't matter their religion wouldn't matter that they are human and poor and tired and hungry is all that matters. To me that is What made America Great not symbols on buildings because as I said earlier that said more about us then any idol stuck to the side of a building.

I say, why not just share? Couldnt we do that instead of fighting over whose right it is to put their symbol there? I say, If it means something to somebody, let it be. Regardless if it is my faith or someone elses faith.

[Larani]

I say, why not just share? Couldnt we do that instead of fighting over whose right it is to put their symbol there? I say, If it means something to somebody, let it be. Regardless if it is my faith or someone elses faith.

The problem is historically speaking history proves to us that sharing is not the true ideal behind such motives. Would you deny this? Historically speaking such actions are about diminishing others while at the same time elevating ones own. Thus if we use History as our guide and our physical evidence to lead us to the truth, Then what is the likelyhood that the present is no different.

[julierep]

The problem is historically speaking history proves to us that sharing is not the true ideal behind such motives. Would you deny this? Historically speaking such actions are about diminishing others while at the same time elevating ones own. Thus if we use History as our guide and our physical evidence to lead us to the truth, Then what is the likelyhood that the present is no different.

Yes, I do understand this, but dont you think that it is possible that we can change the course of our history? I know that the reality is that there are too many people who are concerned with their own ideals, I guess I just keep wishing this would change.

[Larani]

Yes, I do understand this, but dont you think that it is possible that we can change the course of our history? I know that the reality is that there are too many people who are concerned with their own ideals, I guess I just keep wishing this would change.

While I do indeed believe we can change the course of our history (for to choose to not maintain such belief would be willingly surrendering to hopelessness) I do indeed believe we can hinder or help the process with our own choices.

If historically Christianity has proven that it attempts to diminish others while elevating its own self. And there is indeed plenty of evidence to prove this true. Then indeed any change would have to come from Christians not from the others.

Juelierep How much do you know of Christian History? I noticed in a number of threads you admitting to not knowing about the Crusades. I also noticed that you dismissed Christianities influence in the KKK and in the battles in the south during the Civil Rights Era.

Personally I prefer the late 1600’s in American History with regard to Christianity. The Salem Witch Trials and a host of other situations then were perfect examples of just how far some Christians could and would go if they chose to allow themselves too.

[julierep]

While I do indeed believe we can change the course of our history (for to choose to not maintain such belief would be willingly surrendering to hopelessness) I do indeed believe we can hinder or help the process with our own choices.

If historically Christianity has proven that it attempts to diminish others while elevating its own self. And there is indeed plenty of evidence to prove this true. Then indeed any change would have to come from Christians not from the others.

Juelierep How much do you know of Christian History? I noticed in a number of threads you admitting to not knowing about the Crusades. I also noticed that you dismissed Christianities influence in the KKK and in the battles in the south during the Civil Rights Era.

Personally I prefer the late 1600’s in American History with regard to Christianity. The Salem Witch Trials and a host of other situations then were perfect examples of just how far some Christians could and would go if they chose to allow themselves too.

I know of these practices, and Im not at all saying that these people werent claiming Christianity. My problem is this, if these people were actually christian and understood what Jesus' message to his people was, then they would not have committed these heiness crimes against humanity. I just doubt their so called Chrisitianity was of substance. Anyone can claim to be whatever they want to claim, but just because they claim it so, doesnt neccesarily mean that it is so. I have hard time believeing that these people were of the true christian faith. That is why I think people should not put the blame of these acts on christians, rather put the blame on the cowards who claimed they were so.

[Larani]

I know of these practices, and Im not at all saying that these people werent claiming Christianity. My problem is this, if these people were actually christian and understood what Jesus' message to his people was, then they would not have committed these heiness crimes against humanity. I just doubt their so called Chrisitianity was of substance. Anyone can claim to be whatever they want to claim, but just because they claim it so, doesnt neccesarily mean that it is so. I have hard time believeing that these people were of the true christian faith. That is why I think people should not put the blame of these acts on christians, rather put the blame on the cowards who claimed they were so.

Julierep my dear we all claim to be christains if you deny these people the right to claim themselves Christians then by default you would deny your right to claim yourself as one. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you remember?"

Now we would agree that they clearly were not acting as we would, they clearly were inflicting upon people what we would not want inflicted upon us and so obviously we wouldn't agree with their practices and would claim such practices as against the golden rule and hence by that yardstick alone would not make it right, but they were our brethren to deny them simply because we don't agree with them doesn't make them anyless our brethren. Misguided maybe, Well intentioned I am sure they chose to think so.

[julierep]

Julierep my dear we all claim to be christains if you deny these people the right to claim themselves Christians then by default you would deny your right to claim yourself as one. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you remember?"

Now we would agree that they clearly were not acting as we would, they clearly were inflicting upon people what we would not want inflicted upon us and so obviously we wouldn't agree with their practices and would claim such practices as against the golden rule and hence by that yardstick alone would not make it right, but they were our brethren to deny them simply because we don't agree with them doesn't make them anyless our brethren. Misguided maybe, Well intentioned I am sure they chose to think so.

Oh I not denying them, for that is not my right. What I am doing is going by what Jesus said...."you will know them by their fruits" and also the thing about a wolf in sheeps clothing. Jesus said to be wise in knowing the difference. To me, they show a big difference in what Jesus taught. Therefore, I can say that by their deeds, I should be wise and know that they do not have the spirit dwelling within them.

[Larani]

Oh I not denying them, for that is not my right. What I am doing is going by what Jesus said...."you will know them by their fruits" and also the thing about a wolf in sheeps clothing. Jesus said to be wise in knowing the difference. To me, they show a big difference in what Jesus taught. Therefore, I can say that by their deeds, I should be wise and know that they do not have the spirit dwelling within them.

Ah yes to know the differnce as it was since the day's of Adam and Eve. For you will know the difference. :)

[Seth928]

The moral decay that began as you point out, during the Pax Romana certainly was a factor that never went away and was the root of the decline. It set into motiona mindset of of superiority and god-like complexes among the elite of the Roman hierarchy and even transcended to Constantine. He may have favored the christian religion in giving a form of power and rights to it.Yet it is common knowledge he did this not for the sake of creating a righteous nation or a nation built on morality but as a matter of expediency to control this sector of the population and gain political ground . He still retained the position of Pontifex Maximus, the Chief Priest of the Pagan state religion. This move toward Christianity was also an attempt to let it serve as a new center of unity.Constantine realized what his predecessors did not. That he could not wipe out christianity so he tried use it to rebuild an empire that had waited too long to be saved. The revolts and anarchy exprienced earlier had weakened Rome to the point of no return, and yet Constantine thought that embracing christianity may help preserve the classical culture of Rome. I think we can see here how the mix of church and state became a dangerous thing and yet it was when the church was used as a pawn by the state that the danger emerged .It is in the hands of the state, not the people that spoils and perverts christianity . Thus the argument becomes a little different than portraying christianity and it's followers as the problem when in fact it is the state itself which is the culprit and cannot be trusted to weld such a great power as to control a religion. Having said that I still believe that the difference in this subject is that the emphasis in this movement by certain christian groups originates from them and not from the govt. , which is within the guidelines of their rights to pursue a certain standard and promote what they believe. I believe in a separation of church and state in that the state is not controlling the church or a church , but I do not hold to the view that a religious reason for a certain agenda by the people is not allowed.


Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thats exactly what I wanted.

I stated that free flowing moral attitude existed well before the period known as the Pax Romana and thus discredits the idea that the moral attitude the Romas had caused their downfall. Based on your thesis the Roman Empire should have never arisen because this "lack of morality" existed before the begining.

Constantine's stance on religion isn't very clear. While it is true Constantine was originally a sun worshiper his reign greatly benifited the Christian minority and even harmed the Pagan religions. Consantine not only legalized Christianity (I was wrong earlier when I said he made it the official religion of the empire) but he also cut taxes on Christians and helped to build Churches around the Empire. He is even responsible for building the Vatican Basilica but more important to our understanding of him is the stance he took on paganism. He outlawed Pagan sacrafices and took treasures from many Pagan temples and handed them over to Christians. He even tried to avoid divisions within Christianity by helping to develop and enforce the idea of herecy and he recognized the divinity of the Holy Trinity. All of this points to a true support of the Christian faith rather than just manipulation of it to gain power. His sons also helped to further the cause of Christianity. Their imediate successor, Julian, tried to stem the spread of Christianity and reinstate Paganism but his reign only lasted 2 years and he failed at his goal.

Only a generation later the dual emperors Thesedonius and Glatian made Christianity the official religion of the empire and defered the title of Pontifex Maximus (head preist, head of the Christian church not the pagan) to the Archbishop of Rome thus creating the first Pope. Paganism virtually died out after this and the Roman Church became an entirely seperate entity from the empire. This all happened around 390-400 AD well before the fall almost a century later.

Christianity rested in the hands of the state for a very short period of time before becoming its own power house. As I said before Christianity and it's moral influenence was firmly entrenched by the end of the empire so the end can not be blamed on the pagan moral attitude.

[Knightman]

A person or group can believe anything they wish, that is their right. Be it the Jewish, Hindu, Buddhism, Muslim, Christians and all its variations, Wiccan, Druid, it matters not. What does matter is to not tell someone else they have to be that. That is where the rights of religion end.

The Klu Klux Klan still exist.
http://www.kkk.bz/index1.htm
and the history behind them
http://users.crocker.com/~acacia/kol_cult.html

Notice the symbolism.

[Larani]

A person or group can believe anything they wish, that is their right. Be it the Jewish, Hindu, Buddhism, Muslim, Christians and all its variations, Wiccan, Druid, it matters not. What does matter is to not tell someone else they have to be that. That is where the rights of religion end.

The Klu Klux Klan still exist.
http://www.kkk.bz/index1.htm
and the history behind them
http://users.crocker.com/~acacia/kol_cult.html

Notice the symbolism.

I don't know if I would say its a right its a choice nothing more, and there are choices we make that are indeed internal and not privy to the actions of men in the outer world. Now actions based upon those choices do indeed come under the privy of the outer world. For our actions will be witnessed and either they will have nothing to do with any other person and thus one ought to be left alone and most likely will (example I pray) because of my chosen beliefs and such actions do not effect the outer world. Or I pray in the street during rush hour. my actions do indeed effect the outer world. Once a person actions affect the outer world I do indeed believe that the outer world will chooses to speak up and if necessary take action itself. This is the law of cause and effect, or as I prefer to call it the Rippling Effect.

Now you bring up a good point to choose to tell. Again a action obviously based upon a chosen set of beliefs. I see nothing wrong with telling anyone anything due to the fact that when you’re telling someone something you’re expressing yourself and your chosen beliefs, not the other person, even though people do deceptively try to make others believe they are defining them they are in fact defining themselves to those others.

Personally I think such expression is indeed good as an action. For how can we know each other without expressing ourselves to others? Thus this action I deem as Good. And is a normal and functional Ripple.

Where I do believe lines are crossed however is when one chooses to believe that actions goes beyond personal expression, of said chosen beliefs and such out of bounds expressing such as praying in the street while obviously choosing to also believe I expect all others to tolerate my being there. :D

[Knightman]

It is the right of anyone to choose what to believe and how that guides their lives, No problem there. The only problem I have with people and their beliefs is how it affects someone else that is not and does not want to get involved with it. The level of persuasion I believe is the point, a passive role is fine. an aggressive role is unacceptable. That seems to be the real issue.

If we take our notorius example of the KKK. it became a massive organization during its time and place. It began innocently enough according to the history I pointed to earlier and then fanatical factions crept in to the organization. But it had an aggressive recruiting doctrine that eventually attracted the worst kind of right wing believers..

The christian mind in theory could not allow that to happen, but it was so called christian's that made it happen the same as the christian mindset tore its way through many nations and many civilations in our past history. How can one justify that action coming from a group that preaches love, peace, global harmony.

It is almost to the point that many have a distrust of religious organizations for they may have other agenda's than the initial greetings and gestures would imply.

But yes, if person or group goes along its way practicing its beliefs and keeps to themselves. I do not think there is an issue. it is fine.......

[Cedars]

Maybe because you choose to believe it is ridiculous at to why you would think the likelyhood is zero. Is this a Possiblility?



No I do indeed believe we ought to let history stand. Southern California is ripe with examples of the takeover by Spanish Catholics and they stand as a shiny example what happens when one does not seperate Church and State as the Spanish indeed did not.
I did not say the likelihood is zero. There are always people who will be offended by SOMETHING that others are not. Surely you realize that you cannot appease all the people all the time, including on government buildings. There will always be someone dissatisfied about something and who objects.

I'm not sure what you are referring to in Southern California. Are the religious leaders dictating political policy to the government or, vice versa, is the government dictating religious beliefs to the religious leaders? How is church and state not being separate there?

[Joao DaSilva]

Just a quick note: Read The Federalist Papers to see why our Founders wanted to seperate state and church.

[Larani]

I did not say the likelihood is zero. There are always people who will be offended by SOMETHING that others are not. Surely you realize that you cannot appease all the people all the time, including on government buildings. There will always be someone dissatisfied about something and who objects.

I'm not sure what you are referring to in Southern California. Are the religious leaders dictating political policy to the government or, vice versa, is the government dictating religious beliefs to the religious leaders? How is church and state not being separate there?

Know your History most of Southern California was invaded by the Spanish who indeed did not seperate Church and State at the Time but who held The Catholic Church as the State Religion (it was in their Consitution) Thus their Conquest for the Church and latter subjugation of the native peoples is why Southern Cali is littered which religious symbolism, and that is why I said no I wouldn't wipe it out I would leave it as a rememberance. Hell if left at least some might look at it and instead of admiring it might consider the Why's of it and actually studying the history of the Conquest.

Now on to the topic of offending someone. So am I to understand you that becuase someone will always be offended I then ought not care or curb my actions so that I don't? Seems like excuse making to me.


..... added I think the above needed a bit more. Ok while I recognise that offense is subjective in many ways and often is in reality more a problem for who is offended and thus their problem to fix. I do believe that a mutal aspect if taken between the parties ought to be considerd again offense being subjective. If you hit me I will take offense of that (because I don't think hitting someone is right. If I change my mind and thinks its OK I will have no problem with it.) but I wouldn't reccommed that course, because choosing to think its OK that someone hits you is not a very loving thing to do to oneself, and if your not loving yourself well your not loving the person hitting you well in the process either.

Now lets move this one to something more mundane say music. Lets say you listen to a type of Music I don't like Now as long as you keep it to yourself I would have no problem with it but if you turn the volume up so high I cannot even hear my own music then we got a problem. No can I solve my problem. Well I suppose I could make an attempt to listen to your music and find some way to appreciate it. Possible. Or Maybe I could move farther away and thus then not be able to hear it. Possible but the reality is the best course would be going and asking if you could turn yours down and we share the airspace.

Nw going back to you last comments about their will always be people who are offended. What do you suppose the person who thinks this is going to do with his radio after I ask?

[Larani]

Just a quick note: Read The Federalist Papers to see why our Founders wanted to seperate state and church.


Or better yet read the VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM as this was the basis for the 1st Ammendment

VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm)

[Cedars]

My comment about not being able to appease all the people all the time is not to say that we shouldn't TRY whenever possible. Basically, my point is that I believe it is ridiculous to try to erase Christian or other religious symbols from our public buildings. We are a democratic, free nation -- free to choose symbols. If we try to abolish every religious symbol (such as the Los Angeles seal -- where, I might add, the ONLY complaint was about the cross, and none of the other religious symbols), then we will abolish ourselves into no rights of expression lest we fear the least "offense" to anyone -- and there will always be those who choose to be offended by SOMETHING. As I said before, in the case of the Los Angeles seal, should we then also change the name of Los Angeles (the City of Angels) lest those who object to the existence of angels take offense?

[Larani]

My comment about not being able to appease all the people all the time is not to say that we shouldn't TRY whenever possible. Basically, my point is that I believe it is ridiculous to try to erase Christian or other religious symbols from our public buildings. We are a democratic, free nation -- free to choose symbols. If we try to abolish every religious symbol (such as the Los Angeles seal -- where, I might add, the ONLY complaint was about the cross, and none of the other religious symbols), then we will abolish ourselves into no rights of expression lest we fear the least "offense" to anyone -- and there will always be those who choose to be offended by SOMETHING. As I said before, in the case of the Los Angeles seal, should we then also change the name of Los Angeles (the City of Angels) lest those who object to the existence of angels take offense?

Ceders here is my take on this. Personally I think what you see is the simply Yang actions from the Ying Actions. Lately there has been a ever growing voice that this is a Christian Nation yada yada tada. I could go on siting many other things the Christain Coalition and similair Outfits have done but I think if your an honest individual you know what I mean.

America has 290 Million people in it, and their not all Christians As long as Christains continue to act and to do things that dimminsih their fellow Americans while the Majority for sure the Non-Christian Minority will continue to fight for it survival even over such tremendous odds.

Many Christians are notorious for looking at the actions of others but horrible in looking at themselves and their own Actions. I guess they never understood the whole plank in the eye bit.

Often I listen to many Christians and it seems to me they are completely devoid of listening to non-christian concerns all they seem to care about is themselves. This is not the Holy Spirit in my opinion.

I personally never have any problems with non-christian people becuase I trust the Holy Spirit to do its thing, in its own time, and in its own way, it need not be forced by me. Thy will be done not my will.

There is not any amoung us who can say that God's will cannot be carried out even through a Atheist. for what is in a lable. Maybe a sheep so lost so spurned by brutal Christians who never look to see a plank in their eye can be recovered by a Atheist who the spirit moves. Do you beleive that God loves only loves some of his children. I think not I think all our precious to him no matter how far out or how far down they have gone.

Tell me if you see a drowning person do you ask for his religious credentials? Do you ask if he supports the idea that America is a Christian Nation? I think not. Then Why do so many Christians feel the need to alienate and Dimminish their fellow man. They might as well be pushing their head under the water.

[Capn' Alec]

In response to the original post, my mom has an inner city church, and she's against the war in Iraq, and voted for Kerry. Sometimes Christians have to pick thier battles. A lot of people don't seem to realize that 100,000 civilians dead is a much larger crime than people being gay (IMO, anyway). Once you pull yourself out of the blackhole of the Christian Right, you realize that you can help society, and be a Christian at the same time (it sounds crazy, but it actually happens some times.)

I almost laughed when I read the stuff about Christians tearing down Roman society.
I guess things have changed a lot since then, because the church I attend is runs a food pantry, helps the homeless, provides financial aid for the needy, and holds community gatherings. We've only got a few months left in our budget, so the deacons and paster sometimes have to pitch in with thier own salaries to help people who just want some food to eat. Right now, we just got the heat turned on for some African immigrants who'd just been freezing the whole winter. Tax cuts put recently even more homeless people on the street, and now we just don't have any money to help them. It doesn't seem like we're tearing at the fabric of society, but maybe I'm wrong.

My point is, don't fight religion, fight idiots. You're post almost makes it seem like religion is the root of the problem, but I happen to think that the root of the problem is people who don't think clearly. There have always been people who mindlessly follow the leader, and unfortunatly this time it's Christians.

Check out this link, a whole group of socially concious Christians.
http://www.sojo.net/

[Seth928]

In response to the original post, my mom has an inner city church, and she's against the war in Iraq, and voted for Kerry. Sometimes Christians have to pick thier battles. A lot of people don't seem to realize that 100,000 civilians dead is a much larger crime than people being gay (IMO, anyway). Once you pull yourself out of the blackhole of the Christian Right, you realize that you can help society, and be a Christian at the same time (it sounds crazy, but it actually happens some times.)

I almost laughed when I read the stuff about Christians tearing down Roman society.
I guess things have changed a lot since then, because the church I attend is runs a food pantry, helps the homeless, provides financial aid for the needy, and holds community gatherings. We've only got a few months left in our budget, so the deacons and paster sometimes have to pitch in with thier own salaries to help people who just want some food to eat. Right now, we just got the heat turned on for some African immigrants who'd just been freezing the whole winter. Tax cuts put recently even more homeless people on the street, and now we just don't have any money to help them. It doesn't seem like we're tearing at the fabric of society, but maybe I'm wrong.

My point is, don't fight religion, fight idiots. You're post almost makes it seem like religion is the root of the problem, but I happen to think that the root of the problem is people who don't think clearly. There have always been people who mindlessly follow the leader, and unfortunatly this time it's Christians.

Check out this link, a whole group of socially concious Christians.
http://www.sojo.net/

Ugh! Again people aren't reading carefully. I said that the fall of the Roman Empire would have more to do with the rise in Christianity rather than the existing morally free attitude of the pagans. Even though christianity would be more related I don't think either are related to the fall of Rome. :mad:

[Strel]

Yes, I do understand this, but dont you think that it is possible that we can change the course of our history? I know that the reality is that there are too many people who are concerned with their own ideals, I guess I just keep wishing this would change.

Why julie, I had no idea you were a liberal!

[Cedars]

While I do not believe in shoving Christian values down others' throats, I see no reason to in effect "de-Christianize" our nation and remove all traces of Christianity from our public buildings -- just as I see no need to tear down the pagan temples in Greece, for example. I was in DC recently and saw many pagan gods/goddesses in some of the architecture and statues. I have no wish to tear them down either or erase their presence.

[DRMIZER]

While I do not believe in shoving Christian values down others' throats, I see no reason to in effect "de-Christianize" our nation and remove all traces of Christianity from our public buildings -- just as I see no need to tear down the pagan temples in Greece, for example. I was in DC recently and saw many pagan gods/goddesses in some of the architecture and statues. I have no wish to tear them down either or erase their presence.We do not worship the architecture and statues you saw in DC or in Greece. The Christian symbols here are a lead-in to worship.

[Cedars]

It's very interesting how some perceive as a threat the mere existence of a religious symbol -- public building or not.

[jamesrage]

Orginally posted DRMIZER
We do not worship the architecture and statues you saw in DC or in Greece. The Christian symbols here are a lead-in to worship.

So you feel compelled to worship whenever you see a cross or ten commandments on a public building?


Orginally posted Cedars
It's very interesting how some perceive as a threat the mere existence of a religious symbol -- public building or not.


It would seem as though they think a religious symbol on a building is the same thing as literally craming the bible down their thoat or a priest sprinkling holy water on them just to see if they start to smoke.

[DRMIZER]

So you feel compelled to worship whenever you see a cross or ten commandments on a public building?
No I don't but that isn't the point. . . . . .the relationship is the point.