The Religious Desire to Dominate

Church State,

Kennedy was certainly not alone in his philosophy.  Part of the problem is, as you stated, many people in this country agreed with him and still do.  Another part is that most moderates, Christian or others, have not taken the time to investigate various  religious right leaders or have chosen to ignore the subject.

Possibly the best example of the danger of what you describe was the pandering to the religious right by George Bush.  Even though it was well reported before, during and after elections, little was done about it.  Bush & his administration were joined at the hip with people like Kennedy, Falwell & Dobson, among others, as was shown in documented reports of meetings, phone calls, etc.

People, for whatever reason have not taken the time to look on the web sites of the religious right, a few mentioned above.  If they had they would have found, along with the respective news letters, the same philosophy.  As usual, their philosophies, along with various accusations of things temporal with which they do not agree, are supported by the distortion of history, facts, misinformation campaigns and conclusions drawn from nothing more than their own imaginations.  Unfortunately, they have a ready made audience only too willing to listen, accept & accomplish without ever thinking to investigate for themselves.  A very sad, a very dangerous situation for this country, considering the number of voters involved and what they have accomplished so far.

To make matters worse, it now seems that pandering to the religious right is no longer in the sole domain of Christian evangelicals or Republicans.  Current presidential candidates are willing to jump on the same destructive bandwagon or are being coerced into making public their religious views.  Ironically, no one out there seems to recognise this as an informal/public religious test for public office, something that is supposed to be against the law.  Once again, the slippery slope of ignorance and apathy is drawing us lower & lower.  JATFUR.

Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.  Acquiring knowledge is the next step to a higher intellect.

RichK

I have always resisted debating or arguing Religion, no good ever comes of it.  It just ignites everything opposite of the real and true message that is very simple.

"For God so Loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."  John 3:16

I have never heard of Rev Kennedy, am not a follower of his.  Neither have I been an avid follower of any other Religious Leaders that become involved in the Political Arena, many are just not strong enough resist the temptation of evil that goes along with it.

I do know that when I hear Billy Graham speak my heart and my spirit soars, yet he is just a man, an imperfect man who has been forgiven. 

It's not my job as a Christain to police all other Christains or investigate them, or pass judgement on their motives.  It is only my job to witness to the Glory of God in my own life in order that maybe, just maybe something I say will touch a heart that will turn towards Salvation.  It is not my job to judge who or who is not saved. 

I do not believe that any of us has the right to judge the heart of another, something about removing the log out of your own eye before you try to remove the speck in your neighbors eye.  You can hate the sin, but you're supposed to love the sinner.

I believe this country was based upon "Freedom OF Religion" even if that Religion is to believe in nothing or question everything. 

I believe that God gave us all free will, and free choice, and we will be held accountable on judgement day for those choices. 

I don't believe that I fall into any of the categories above, and I believe there are many out there just like me. 

I consider myself to be above no one, and I struggle daily against the evil that is just waiting to get a foot in the door.  Forgiveness, Compassion, and Love must be sought and tended daily, it is not a one time choice.

God grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the Courage to change the things that I can, and the Wisdom to know the difference. 

Not all of us are zealots who have lost their way.

 "Judge not, that you be not judged.  For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.  Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?  Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.  "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.  "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.  For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.  Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone?  Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?  If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.  For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.  "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.  You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?  So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.  A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.  On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'  And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Marsha,

Once again, you have stated, in a rather eloquent manner, what a person of faith, any faith, can be justifiably proud of saying, being a representative of their particular faith.  But you are not the type of person the blog was aimed at, pure & simple.

Since you have participated in our group, you know by now that I am not an admirer of organized religion, especially considering what they have done in the past ten years & more.  If you want to know more @ Kennedy, you can easily google him on the net.  If you are not aware of the threat that the religious right poses to this country, I would suggest that you go on their web sites.  I have about seven or eight on my favorites list & receive newsletters from them on a regular basis.

As an agnostic, I am against organised religion & personally have no use for it.  I find it much more destructive than beneficial.  But as an agnostic & a law abiding citizen, I advocate the right of every person to express their opinion and practice their religious beliefs within the framework of the law.  I may not agree with them, but that's tough nuggies on me.  The law trumps my personal wants.

What the subject matter of the blog is, is the fact, and I emphasis fact, that the Christian evangelical right has, for years, a well documented agenda of attempting to turn  our country into what amounts to a Christian theocracy.  On the surface, for public consumption, they deny it, of course.  But their own communications, their own quotes, their own actions, reveal a totally different action. 

For example, a couple of years ago, I e mailed @ 5 or 6 organisations asking them that very question.  I said that I formed my opinion on what I read in various news reports.  They were prompt & courteous in replying that it was a matter of "being misquoted," having statements, "taken out of context," or being the targets of the "godless, left wing, liberal press."  I must admit, at this point, that I had baited them.  I emailed them back with quotes from Christian right leaders such as Falwell, Robertson, Kennedy, Dobson & more, supporting my claim.  I gave them the dates, places & web sites.  Their reply?  Abslutely nothing.  They ceased communication with no explanation whatsoever.  That is a damning statement against them in & of itself.

So I thank you again for your input.  It is always welcomed & well considered.  By the way, I doubt if anyone who has read your blogs/replies, would consider you a zealot in any way shape or form.  JATFUR.

Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.  Acquiring knowledge is the next step to a higher intellect.

RichK

Well, Rich, looks like Danny just did an exorcism on you. I suppose I'm next.

I'm fully in step with you on your dislike of organized religion. I don't see the religious right as on a par with the Taliban although some in that group might like to be when it comes to complete intolerance of dissenting views. I have always despised Billy Graham but if some take comfort in his words and it doesn't result in the public execution of those who disagree, enjoy. Personally anyone pretending to be living the Word of The Lord has no business wearing thousand dollar suits and having a fully fenced 300 acre estate in North Carolina. I think he belongs in a prison but I suppose I'm in the minority. Ask not what you can do for your God, ask what your God can do for you, right Billy?

I think old Billy lives by my motto although you'll never see it admitted to in public. Quid Lucrum Istic Mihi Est?  (I have noticed that when one uses Latin phrases it seems to be a law that they be italicised.) :>)

"He is a self-made man and worships his creator."
John Bright

Danny,

While we all appreciate the fact that you consider this blog site your, "ministry," & have the right, under law to preach whatever you want, you undoubtedly have read that what we all seek is the honest & open opinion of the individuals who care enough to comment.  That said, you must also know that we have had discussions stating our  disdain for nothing more than a "copy & paste," reply.

While you certainly have the right to quote extensively from your scriptures, and here, I must state that I am speaking only for myself,  the whole idea of this blog site is the free & open exchange of events, ideas & opinions from the people who wish to participate & contribute to the community.

If you have nothing more to contribute than your personal religious views by quoting scripture, chapter & verse, you are surely welcome.  I am sure that we will give it all the attention it is worth.  But on the other hand, we also welcome individual thoughts & opinions on a variety of subjects as I'm sure you have seen reading these blogs.

While your quotes from your scriptures ar welcome, we hope that you would contribute your own comments on the subject at hand. 

Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.  Acquiring knowledge is the next step to a higher intellect. 

Your friend in blogging,

RichK 

Lily,

Excorsise Moi?  Not hardly.  Proof?  I'm still here & not a drop of split pea soup in sight.  No, I'm sorry to say that Danny probably means well, but is using his "copy & paste," scripture quoting "ministry," in a rather benign manner to express his religious views.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  At least he has not taken the route of most televangelists whose main purpose seems to be separating the gullible from their hard earned money.  Some of them are, indeed, very good at it.  Maybe Danny did not read my blog titled, I'm Offended...So What?"  Part of my answer is in it.

I have never "despised," Billy Graham.  I have considered him only one in a long line  of those who tried to spread their religious ideas & found an outlet with the rich & shameless.  I honestly don't know much @ his personal history & don't have the interest to pursue.

If one were to use the verb transative, despise, I would reserve that for the Falwells, Robertsons, Kennedys, Dobsons, Scarboroughs, Wildmons & the like.  They, & others like them, are the real enemies of democracy and a free people.  They are the ones who want nothing more than outright control under a Christian flag of their own interpretation.

As far as your Latin goes, it's been over 40 years since I've taken Latin.  What does it mean?  I think I have part of it, but the rest escapes me.

Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.  Acquiring knowledge is the next step to a higher intellect.

RichK

I wasn't implying anyone else should despise Billy graham, I was merely offerring my unsolicited opinion about him. I would put him in the same category as the Falwells, Wildmons and other hate filled Christians out there. This morning I saw a young kid named Joel somebody or other preaching cheek turning. This is a major reason I could never be a True Christian. I don't believe in forgiving anyone who does me wrong. They deserve whatever vengeance I can wreak upon their heads. I would also venture a guess in that I don't believe there are very many True Christians so much as there are millions of Pantomime Christians. (Sidebar: Many decades ago, a cousin who metamorphised from a normal human being into a Jehova Witness attempted to convince me on Rapture Day only 144,000 would be lifted into Heaven. I thought this an arrogantly small number. My agnosticism aside, looking at the world and its denizens today, I now believe he was overly optimistic.) 

As to my personal motto, Quid Lucrum Istic Mihi Est? roughly translated means "What's in it for me"? I adopted it for myself. It's from a character created by Donald E. Westlake named John Dortmunder who is a professional thief. Naturally, Dortmunder stole it for himself. As you are no doubt painfuilly aware by now, I take almost nothing entirely seriously. ;>)

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

..sayth the lord. 

Hmmm..Lily, I consider myself a "practicing Christian"  I am not sure that equates with a True Christian, I try to work and walk my faith every day and a know I fall short. I did apprecaite the "Pantomime" Christians.  Ah, if it were only true--then those folks would not make a sound. Think of how pleasant that would be. People who spend a great deal of time TELLING me how Christian they are make me very, very uneasy! 

Back to vengeneance, I hope you were kidding.  Religious or not, that kind of stuff eats away at your heart. 

"Joel"  is Joel Osteen, I have read one of his books, he talks about the positive side and the joy that faith brings to your life.  Don't know his heart or his sincerity but he sure preaches a positive message.

And lastly--who is Jim Steinman?  Musician? Poet?  Very interesting quote, I would like to know more!

I remain....cluesless in clay!

RichK,

I always look forward to your comments and appreciate your honesty. As for the cut and paste I must say that I am guilty. Most of my blogs were written months ago so rather than retype them I cut and paste. " You caught me".   I thank MYCLAYSUN for the opportunity to share my beliefs with others. I know that not everybody wants to buy what I am selling, but that shouldn't stop me from putting it out there. As a matter of fact I am commanded to. Having said that, let me tell you what bothers me about being labeled a "Christian". There are so many who claim to be "Christians" but are far from it. That is why I copied and pasted the scripture above. Jesus said that many will come to him and say LORD, LORD, but they never really knew him. I got to be honest with you, there are some over zealous religious people out there! I'll give you that one. Some even claim the title of Christian! However, there are some of us out here that have been so blessed by God, who's lives have been radically changed by God, that they want to share it with others. I'm sorry I don't get into the politics but I know that there are some Pastors that do. I'm sorry RichK, I can't compete with you in the political arena, but I'm glad you are keeping your eyes open and bringing thier lack of morals to the forefront. We need people like you on this site. I meant no disrespect for the scripture above...I was merely doing what Jesus did when he was confronted with a question. He answered it with scripture. That is why it wasn't my words. It was His. I figured that would be enough. Like you, I write what I am passionate about and that is what makes this site so great.

Thank you for all the blogs that you do I know that it is time consuming and difficult at times but you are a educated man with a unique perspective on life. Keep up the  good work.

Danny Legge

Sorry, I couldn't resist.  I promised myself I wouldn't, but my fingers have been possessed.

Just this morning, driving to the Jaguars game, my wife and I were talking about the "history" of religion.  Specifically, how weird it is, or rather how natural it is, that the 3 major religions - Jewish, Islamic, and Christian - all started with Abraham, and are now so different.

What I was pondering is how over the course of human history, like from caveman days, religion has evolved into what it is today.  It is ironic that something that is supposed to provide hope and peace and forgiveness is twisted by humans into something that often erases hope, causes war, and death instead of forgiveness.

To me, the spirituality of the world is hard to deny, but I can't buy into any human explanation of it.  I choose to worship, occassionaly, at a Catholic church, and always feel better afterwards.  I say grace before meals, and thank my lucky stars for the many blessings I have.  But when someone says, "This is the way, the ONLY way", they have lost me.  A Christian theocracy is just as bad as an Islamic theocracy.  It's pretty obvious, countries that are governed by theocracies are hard on human rights, unless you happen to be part of the ruling party, and male.

I'm with Marsha - this subject is a tough one.  My Dad, a Vietnam Vet, hated him, but I think John Lennon's song "Imagine" is a masterpiece, and sums up how I feel about religion.

How 'bout them Jags!?! 

To Lily,

I can find it in me to forgive most anything, but not everything.  Is that Christian?  No.  It's human nature, at least my version of it.  There have been a couple times when, like Rambo, I became someone's worst night mare.  Not too proud of what I did, but it did prevent that person from doing a bad thing again.  Nuff said.  I'm with you on serious.  I've long lived by the dictum that life is much too short to be taken too seriously.

To Clueless,

I agree with you @ vengeance, up to a point.  It's a matter of degree & practicality.

To Danny,

You are not the first, nor will you be the last to copy & paste. (C&P)  I use it myself, but in a different manner.  If I find that my blog or reply will tend to run long, I'll put it on "WORD," first so I can correct or put it down & continue later.  I don't remember who brought it up first, but some people had a tendency to use C&P extensively & to be honest, it bored the heck out of most people.  As stated, one of the best things about this venue is the opportunity to get our ideas into the community while having a chance to view others & exchange the ideas.  You are not alone in singing the praises of MCS for this opportunity.

Except for some rules of common sense & common courtesy, nothing should stop you, or anyone from contributing anything you want.  You're right, not everybody is going to buy what you are saying, but so what?  We all have different opinions, different points of interest.  I'm an agnostic but I not only read your blogs, but as I mentioned to Marsha, I have 7 or 8 Christian right web sites on my favorites on the computer & monitor them  on a regular basis.  It helps to know what the opposition is saying & doing.  It also helps in being accurate when speaking @ them. 

I don't consider anyone competing with anyone on this site.  We contribute different things in different ways to those who find interest in them.  Some do, some don't & that's OK.  I wish that I were as educated as you imply.  Fact is I never finished college.  Good in some ways, not in others.  But I do consider myself knowledgeable in some areas.  Self education should never stop.

To Bax,

Great statement @ the 3 religions all starting with Abraham.  It gives more credence to the old saying that there is absolutely no evidence that god created man.  That is why people must believe. But there is an over abundance of evidence that man created god (s)

As far as Christian theocracy v. Islamic theocracy, I see very little difference except that for now, I consider Christian theocracy a "lite" version.  The reason I say that is because while the Christian evangelicals & fundamentalists in this country have not YET turned us into a complete Christian theocracy, should that ever happen, they will be no better than what we have seen from Islamic theocracy.  Reason?  They have history on their side & while they may call themselves Christians, they are still very human, if not humane.  There are many similarities.  They both rely on nothing more than belief. They both base their respective orthodoxies on what is in a book, both of which were produced for no other reason than supporting orthodoxy.  Kind of tubular reasoning there if any one notices.  They are both exclusive rather than inclusive.  They both relegate second class status to women.  They both have shown no hesitance to use unbelievably inhuman physical torture & more, to those who dare defy them.  As I said, history is on the side of Christians & Muslims.

I agree @ "Imagine."  Way back, I used it in one of my blogs.

Enough for now.  I have to get some real work done.  When momma's happy, everyone is happy.  I'm sure I don't have to tell you men @ that one.  Have a great day & watch out for the rain.  JATFUR.

Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.  Acquiring knowledge is the next step to a higher intellect.

RichK 

Baxley, Way to go! I have always been curious as to why the three major religions, all descended from Abraham, are able to revile one another so completely. Is this the ultimate case of Sibling Rivalry ever documented or what?

RichK, yes, I'm with you on theHuman Nature front. I am pretty much the same way but I will never be able to offer a blanket pardon to anyone depending on what grievous harm is visited upon me at whoever's hand.

Clueless, as to the term True Christian I have tossed out, I mean it to be representative of the literal words enunciated by Jesus, not what anyone else in any sub sect of Christianity defines. In that, for example, one should take the blow and turn and offer the other cheek. Anyone who wants to do that would be a True Christian. Me? I'm returning the favor in a logarithmic measure. And those who use the sacrament of Reconciliation week after week to get in good with their Lord rather than simply follow his Law, sorry. I don't buy that as real repentance. It's like they use it as a Get Out Of Hell Free card. Sure, people can slip and ask forgiveness on occasion, but I am referring those who don't adjust their behavior after they "slip".

Moving on to Jim Steinman, I gave an essay like explanation months ago, probably more than anyone wanted to know so I won't go into so much detail now to spare the other readers. In a nutshell, Jim Steinman is the genius behind many great songs, most notably the 2 Bat Out Of Hell albums sung by Meat Loaf, Holding Out For A Hero and Total Eclipse Of The Heart by Bonnie Tyler, Making Love Out Of Nothing At All by Air Supply, It's All Coming Back To Me Now as covered by Celine Dion. (The original version, 9 years earlier, was done by Pandora's Box.) Currently his collaboration with Andrew Lloyd Webber, Whistle Down The Wind, has begun a national tour in Houston. In Europe, his music was the basis for the biggest Musical Theater success ever called Tanz der Vampire. (Dance of the Vampires.) The phrase I use most often came from one of his songs featured in his only solo LP called Dance In My Pants. The album, Bad For Good was pretty much a mirror of Bat Out Of Hell and followed the same layout so that "Dance" was the "Paradise By The Dashboard Light" track. 

For the record, I enjoy the irony in your blog name. I think you are anything but "clueless".

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Baxley-

I enjoy history. Some like football, some like golf, I like history. I have never found anything that states Islam was started by Abraham. If my memory serves me correctly (and it may not!) Islam was started by Mohammed, a prophet. Before I posted this comment, I typed 'Islam beginnings' into a search engine and got this website: http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/beginnings/ that seems to verify what I remember being taught. Again, this was just a cursory glance, so if you have different information, I would love to see/read about it.

RichK-

I believe Jesus elevated women from 'second class' status when He dealt with them personally, rather than brush them aside. See Matthew 15:22-28, Luke 8:43-48, and John 4:6-29 for more. Men and women are co-laborers in the cause of Christ.

I don't understand your statement "They both have shown no hesitance to use unbelievably inhuman physical torture & more, to those who dare defy them." Where did you get that? Again, just curious of facts, since all I have ever read from my Bible says we are to live in peace with one another. Romans 12:18 "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (NIV)

How can a person say that Jesus preached violence? In His own words: Matthew 20:25-28 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Seems like a peaceable man to me.

Religion is man's attempt to reach God. Jesus is God's reaching out to man.

KC, I think you have to read Rich and Bax a little more closely and alot more carefully. Bax stated that all three religions started with Abraham. He means that all three came from his descendants of which were Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. It's the family tree of religion. Or the Family Burning Bush, if you will. Abraham did not start any religions. It was a pretty sorry day when his descendants did but that's just my opinion.

As to Rich's claims, he is referring mostly to alleged Chrsitians like Torquemada who tortured and killed Jews to switch their religion to the "peace and love" filled cult of Jesus Christ. (And I'm sure he is also referring to the Crusades after that.) Jesus never preached anything like what the Church imposed on humanity but when the corrupt bureaucracy of the Vatican was run by the Medicis, and their descendamts, what could one expect? Yes, Jesus had no problem with treating women as equals but the misogynists running the church to this day will not accept women as equals.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Thanks for clearing that up. Genealogy and all.

I would still debate that just because a family tree includes a famous artist years down the line, that doesn't mean that person's great-great-great-great-grandfather 'started' the art form. But I digress.

I think you correctly stated "alleged Christians", and I agree that there are radicals in every avenue of life. Which is the point of RichK's comments, and, history aside I do get that.

I simply wanted to expound on the fact that not all of the people who claim to be Christians consent to the use of violence by said radicals. And we don't necessarily want to be lumped together with them either.

Thanks, as always, for a great reply. I think perhaps we should start a religious debate blog and see where it goes. Anyone?

KC,

Lily gives it in a nutshell.  Although Tomas de Torquemada was the most famous, or should I say, infamous, he was by no means alone.  Most people think the Spanish Inquisition as being in the upper middle ages, when in fact, it started much earlier.  There are many fine academic history books on the subject.  Personally, I find the writings of Karen Armstrong to be the best, but that's me.

On the subject of the treatment of women.  Once again, Lily nailed it.  Whether one is giving an example of certain Islamists requiring women to wear that outfit (so that men will not be enticed because they can't keep their hands off so it must be the woman's fault) or Roman Catholicism steadfastly refusing to bring their mentality forward from the 4th century, to southern Baptists who say that wives should, "graciously submit," they have shown the world one aspect of certain stupidity in that they are not utilising half of their respective populations.  America did the same thing politically up until the 1920's.  If it offends any one, tough nuggies, but that is just plain stupid.  That's like saying I'm going to be a successful business, I demand that people respect me, but I'm not going to hire any person who is left handed because it's the sign of the devil.  Or, as Gomer from Mayberry would say, "Stupid, stupid, stupid,"

I would venture to say that if more people would emulate & put into practice the teachings of Jesus, rather than spewing forth memorized chapter & verse of the bible, we would have close to half of the problems solved when it comes to religion.  He had some darn good ideas.  Too many people started "Interpreting," & now we have this.  As Riley might say, "What a revoltin' developement!"

I wish I could agree with the first sentance of your last line, but in all honesty, I can't.  JATFUR.

Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.  Acquiring knowledge is the next step to a higher intellect.

RichK

Thanks-

I had forgotten about the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. Guess I let my zeal get the better of me. I'll definitely read up on something before I comment, lest I end up with athlete's foot of the mouth!

Never been accused of spewing before though, and I gotta say that hurt a bit. Not trying to spew and spewing apparently have a fine line which I crossed.

Yes, He does have some good ideas, and I don't think we should be adding to them.

Thanks, as always, for a great reply. I do enjoy reading the blogs & thoughts of all.

:o)

KC,

With all of the talk of violence & extremism, one sentance in your reply titled AHHH, broached a subject we haven't touched on yet.  Perhaps you might not have realised it, but your sentance, "And we don't necessarily want to be lumped together with them either," shows yet another side of the problem. 

In any group or organisation, you have those who are moderate through those who are extreme.  How are we to tell the difference.  If one has a friend or neighbor, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Mormon or anything else, how do we tell into which category they fit?  Can we condemn a whole group or organisation merely because a small fraction of them are violent extremists.  As a global society, we have already done just that.  I can't see anything good coming from that mindset.  JATFUR.

RichK

I don't propose to have all the answers, but the question begs to be asked.

How can we overcome the extremist mindset when the view of Americans and Christians is so unfavorable? If we turn the other cheek as we are commanded to do, then the world will always view Christians as weak and ineffective. If we take a stand on any issue at all, we are viewed as radical right wing conservatives, who should be silenced at all cost.

I ask, where is the middle ground? The simplest answer is that there can be none.

KC,

I wish I had the answer to your question.  There is a middle ground, but we have to work to find it. With the people we have on these blogs, we may get a satisfactory answer, but it's a toss up.

In my view, & it is only my view, the majority of Christians in the US are pretty much like any other group.  They are concerned @ taxes, health care, the war, the economy & a myriad of other mundane but crucial topics that affect their daily lives.  Those are not the Christians we have been talking @.  We are talking @ the Falwells, Robertsons, Kennedys & a few other rabid types, The kind who have openly advocated turning the US into a Christian theocracy.  Let me state without ambiguity, that can not happen.  We can't allow history to repeat in this most foul manner.  

We have the results of the impact on humanity when this has happened, not only in the past, but the present.  Repeating past mistakes is surely the quickest path to our own self destruction. Once again, check into any academic historical account.

It is only my impression, but you seem to be an average, middle class person who, like the rest of us are trying to raise a family, improve your lot in life & enjoy that life when possible.  A noble goal. But if you are to attain that goal, you have to question how it might be attained if you are under a government guided by nothing more than a religious concept of their own design, their own interpretation.  Not a pretty picture, especially if you value your opinions, your intellect and your contribution to society.  People  like I mentioned above will not allow you to acheive your goals and they will do that under the auspices of government backed legislation.  Gives one time to think, doesn't it?  Hope you do.  JATFUR.

RichK

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO Orange Park | Green Cove Springs munsey13@comcast.net

Oh my.  What else can be said.  Thanks for the memories?  Thanks for the confusion?  Thanks for nothing to contribute? 

After reading the thoughtful contributions given by the various people on these blogs, one would have thought that after other blogs, you might have received the message.  Apparently, that isn't the case. 

May you live in interesting times.

RichK

I don't know about you but after pondering Munseys musings, I can see now that the Institute of Helping People With Abnormal Mental Problems will be securing a really impressive amount of funding to explore and document a serious new disease known as On Line Dementia.

I could be wrong. :>)

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Not sure what that means, smunsey, so I looked it up. One definition given in the Urban Dictionary (I know, a very reliable source) was "Can be used when someone has nothing else to say, or to break an awkward silence."

Perhaps that is what you meant........ 

 I finally have gotten to the last of the comments on religion.  Whew, I am mentally whooped--y'all are smart and thought provoking.

 Lily, many thanks for the musical trip down memory lane and the education about Jim S. it makes me want to get out the old L.P.'s! Alas, no turntable.  And I love irony--but I must protest. My screen name really isn't ironic.  There are some things I know A LOT about, there are some things I know SOME about but there are many things I know NUTTIN' about so......

I remain (mostly), Clueless in Clay.

KC - welcome, WELCOME, to the conversation.  We have beat this poor horse to death a couple of times, so it is nice to hear from a different source.

Rich - you're going to give poor Steve a complex.  But, if the shoe fits . . .

Lily - thanks for the help on Uncle Abe.  I do not claim to be a Biblical scholar - or any kind of scholar for that matter - but you cleared up what I was trying to say in my confusing way.

Simple, but prophetic: "Can't we all just get along?" Those immortal words from Mr. R. King were uttered immediately after, "Damn, man, that hurts!!"

Just kidding.

As a Christian, these posts have brought issues and topics to my attention I have never thought too deeply about. I would wager that a majority of church goers know little of church history and/or theology. The church I have belonged to for the past few years teaches the importance of doctrine, so I know more now about theology than I did previously. 

When discussing topics on religion, and Christianity in particular, I am finding it helpful to research the broader picture and understand the history behind a particular church movement. For example, this thread has caused me to try to understand Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism better (see Wikipedia). I hope to check out a book by Francis Schaeffer the next time I am at the library too. Oh where is the time for all this studying and reading? Why wasn't I more interested in these things in high school and college? ;) 

Joel Osteen, for example, is no example of orthodox Christianity. He is part of what is called the Word of Faith movement, a preacher of the "name it a claim it" prosperity gospel and holds up the power of positive thinking as more important than the effects of sin on souls. Sorry OSteen fans, no offense intended.  But, to be clear, from a man who has been quoted as saying so, little of his preaching comes from the Bible.

If we don't even know the basics of the issue, we are debating solely based on assumptions, talking points and spin, emotion and intuition. Not a very good foundation for a healthy, helpful discussion on a topic. 

As a Christian, I want to know what caused the Inqusitions, so that histrory does not repeat itself. Forced conversion is not true conversion - the Christian Bible says faith is a gift from God. 

I don't think James Kennedy was advocating forced conversions or a violent uprising. Did he ever call for an overt theocracy or overthrow of our Constitution? I don't think so. He wanted to achieve Christian influence in this country honestly - through elected officials. As a Christian, if our government is not being influenced, by a Christian worldview, it is being influenced by another worldview (and from my place, a false one).

For the Christian, "Christian dominance" in government is not the answer for an immoral culture by a long shot. Our elected government officials and policies are largely a reflection of the community and commly held mores in our society. Still, I think Kennedy recognized the influence government leaders and policy have in shaping our culture too. 

Hope this adds to the conversation. 

Geyser,

Thanks for the input.  This is what we mean when we say that we searn so much.  It's the contributors.

Church history/theology.  It has been said often & by many people that this is the most religiously diverse country in the world & has the most church (or whoud I say, house of worship) going people in the world.  It's true.  Another aspect was brought about this past year, a poll, news article, I don't remember, that said Americans know the least @ religion & theology of any industrialized nation.  As a majority, if I were a Christian, I would not be proud of that statement because it says volumes about us. 
Actually, people like you, Christians.

It is being ahead of the curve that you take the time to do some research.  However, I would forsake using wikipedia.  I've heard too much negative @ it & there are extrordinarily great sources out there, especially via the screen you're watching now.  The reason you, as with most of us, didn't get this in high school was that we were being taught the basics in order to make a living.  It's that simple.  I didn't start getting this interested in politics & religion until I was out of high school.

I caught Osteen a couple of times & just didn't like the fact that he's making a ton 'o $ playing Dr. Feelgood without the drugs.  Truth be told, the only religion I ever took a liking to was the Dutch Reformed church I went to for a while back in the early 70's.  They were the complete opposite of what you might see on tv or the news now.  If I weren't an agnostic, I'd go back there in a heartbeat.

You are absolutely right @ taking on an issue with only assumptions.  My suggestion?  Use the keyboard, Google a subject & go from there.  As I said, there are a ton of books on various subjects.  My caution?  When you do find a subject, such as the Inquistion,  make sure sure that you get a book by a recognised historical academic.  If you rely on someone with a sectarian bent, you will find out that they have too many agendas. A recognised academic and historian has only one big agenda.  That's his, or her reputation based on accuracy & neutrality.  Then go to some sectarian views & do your own comparisson & judge accordingly.

Your timing is great.  Speaking of the Inquisition, I'm reading a few chapters on it now in a book titled, "Ideas, a history of thought & invention, from fire to Freud," by Peter Watson.  It's a good read.

About Kennedy.  I think you might want to go back & read the original blog by church & state.  Then go on the web & start reading from the individual sites of the religious right.  Here, I'm talking @ Focus on the Family, AFA, the Liberty Council, Falwell, Robertson, Scarborough & more.  It will take some time.  Google in Justice Sunday & read the speeches.  No, I don't think you will find any person advocating forced conversion.  But one has to ask, If Christian evangelicals & fundamentalists are not satisfied with the name of their god on our money, or on our pledge, if they are not satisfied because they are illegally getting monies from taxpayers for faith based initiatives, if they are so incensed, especially in Jacksonville, that they got caught breaking the law with their "Day of prayer,"  combine that with their efforts in getting Bush elected, and their wishes to turn this into a "Christian," nation, as Kennedy said, & you will start to get a glimpse of their direction.  And as I've said before, Christianity has already had a taste of ultimate control.  They have that kind of history.  So if they do achieve their goals, what would be the next logical step?  They would have to enforce their Christian based laws.  What happens to non Christians or even the Christians who do not agree with their own narrow interpretation of scriptures?  It's a logical progression based on well documented history.  And it's scary as hell because they've done it once before. 

I would take some exceptions to your last paragraph, though.  When you say, "For the Christian, "Christian Dominance in government is not the answer,"  I would say, "For many Christians."  Just as I will not condemn all Christians with a broad brush for the rantings of some whom I would consider certifiable, I will not paint all Christians as benevolant, either.  I would also not paint our culture as "immoral," unless you can quantify the term & then try to explain away all of the good in society. It's that broad brush thing again.  Yes, you are right.  I can be a picky little booger at times.

I also call into question the concept of a government making policies that are reflections of the community and commonly held mores.  Once again, history has shown us the folly of that.  It also begs to be asked, since when are the reflections of the community and commonly held mores right &/or beneficial for society as a whole?  It's not always necessarily true, as the song goes.

I'm not sure what part of the "worldview," you consider false.  I wouldn't mind hearing your explanation.

Kennedy, & others mentioned above, certainly did recognize the influence government leaders and policy have in shaping our culture.  It is their history and their version of the future and how far they have progressed that scares the hell out of me.

I've yakked far too long, but it's been fun.  Looking forward to more of your contributions.  JATFUR.

Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.  Acquiring knowledge is the next step to a higher intellect.

RichK

I agree with you to an extent on Wikipedia. I don't know much about it but gather it's written by voluntary submission and requires references for entry? Not sure. I read everything with a grain of salt. Even the supposed neutral academic scholars have people to woo and impress with agendas, memberships, funding sources, family backgrounds, etc. Context is decisive. People can interpret the same set of facts very differently. Historical facts without context and application is at best irrelevant. Why weren't we that interested in these things in high school? We didn't know why we needed to learn them. We didn't know what was at stake. 

Since I have two busy kids, Wikipedia at least provides a quick overview from somebody's perspective. The entries about Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism were extremely negative and condemning, but I got the gist of the movements and the names and players involved. I have been trying for two weeks to get through a biography on Cicero. I am trying to start close to the beginning ;) 

I plan on home schooling my children, and one of my goals is to give them a Christian classical education by the end of high school that rivals a University education. Then they can pursue how to make a living by attending higher education :). A side note about home schooling and lack of socialization. A Monster.com webinar on hiring GenYers attributes lack of social skills to the cohort. Apparently there are lots of kids from public school settings who failed to learn their "please and thank yous". I hope to teach my children social skills without having them so-called socialized. I am not convinced a public education will provide them all the above. This is where most public school teachers gasp at my supposed arrogance. I've offended plenty when sharing this (so I really try to guard my words), but you seem a little tougher skinned than most ; ) 

Okay, now to address your specific questions.

I would probably agree with a lot of what is written on the web sites you referenced. Not everything but a lot. I believe you are wrong. I don't think the logical conclusion is forced conversions. I am guessing that when great atrocities occurred at the hands of Christians, they either were Christian in name only (like many of the corrupt Roman priests of the Middle Ages who loved the power), or the Christians were sinning against their Holy God and ignoring Scriptural commands. It wouldn't be the first time people of the Hebrew/Christian God royally screwed up (for a reference, read the entire Bible).  

When I refer to the our immoral culture, the idolization and glorification of Paris Hilton should be enough, but I'll try to get more specific. We have commonly accepted practices in our culture that are legal, sanctioned, and paid for by our government that absolutely grieve God. Abortion is probably the best example. God sets his rules for our good, not to simply infringe on our freedom.  

A culture that exalts immoral practices can be characterized as immoral. Have you ever watched primetime TV? Even if our culture is not "that bad" we seem to be in love with watching programming that is. What would you consider immoral? How do you decide what is immoral?

I will agree with you that a lot of good goes on in the world, but I would attribute that to the grace of God and his common grace. 

I never suggested it was a GOOD idea to have policies that reflect the whims of the populace. Do we want a leader who governs based on opinion polls and or whatever standard is popular at the moment?

The Jacksonville Day or Prayer was silly at best - probably done as a political move to court black pastors in Jax is my best guess. To my knowledge Mayor Peyton has not claimed to be a follower of Christ. I met him once and he seemed nice and very well spoken. Days of prayer should be orchestrated by churches. In that sense I am a proponent of separation of church and state. Can legislators pray? Absolutely. Can they legislate based on their religious convictions - I want one that does. Otherwise, they are unstable. Should the government hold a Day of Prayer. No. If a church wants to rent a public facility to host one, no problem.  

I may be wrong, but from what I understand, to get government monies, faith based orgs jump through a bunch of red tape. They receive money for the services they provide, not money to evangelize. For example, a Christian medical clinic receiving money for medical supplies for the poor. Work/rehab programs, etc. I don't know much about the whole deal, so I probably shouldn't comment too much.  

That's enough to chew on for now. 

An enjoyable, and thought provoking series of posts.

It's interesting the two things everyone warns you not to discuss in polite company, politics and religion, are the two subjects that get the most response by many of the bloggers.  It's also interesting to me to see how the presentation of the ideas has evolved over the past several months.  Early on in our blog, emotion would quickly overtake logic, and the tone would get nasty.  Reading the above, that approach has given way to a "Here's what I think, what do you think?" style.  Much more fun to read, and a heck of a lot more educational.

Good stuff, fun to read.

Geyser,

Your take on wikipedia is basically right.  From what little I've heard, it is a system that is based on "factual," contributions by the people who use it.  That is nowhere near reliable enough for me.

I agree with your comments on neutrality & agendas and context, to a point.  I think my point is still valid.  Can a historical academic have other agendas besides accuracy & professional reputaion?  Of Course.  But for the most part, they do not for another good reason.  There are far too many other "neutral" historians out there who would not hesitate to draw attention to a perceived flaw, either in "facts," or conclusions.  It keeps them honest.  Plus, they are not writing to any particular audience as a sectarian would do.

Good luck on Cicero.  Personally, I rather liked Marcus Aurelius and Seutonius.

I have no personal knowledge @ home schooling, just what I've heard & read.  Good arguments on both sides.  I wish you luck.  It's got to be a job & a half at best.  Are there any legal requirements to home school ones children?  And you are right.  I do have a thick skin.  Some might also say, a thick headed attitude.  But that's OK.

On progressions & forced conversions.  I had used the example of forced conversions because it is a matter of well documented historical fact.  As far as the progression is concerned, it is not limited to the subject of religion.  For example.  When a society has a movement or conern, they bring it to the attention of the law makers for legislative process.  From here, it can go one of two ways.  It will either get passed or not, or, it will be implemented by executive order.  If it is passed or put into effect by EO, the next step is to enforce it.  If someone deviates form it, punishment will follow.  That is the logical progression.

Since we were dealing with the subject of religion, I maintain that Christianity has a well documented history of imposing its views on society by whatever means it deemed necessary.  If you wish, google the name Conrad of Marburg.  I'm not sure if you'll find the name, but I'll bet you wont like what you find.

A small side bar, if you please.  Perhaps this can be better understood by the first time this was articulated formally.  In the late 13th, early 14th century, Lothario Conti, later know as Pope Innocent III, believed that "everything in the world is the province of the pope, " that St. Peter had been ordained by Jesus "to govern not only the universal church but all the secular world."  If that is not a statement of religious arrogance & domination, backed by fear, superstition, lack of and suppression of knowledge, to the utter degradation of society, I don't know what is.  It started to really go down hill from there.

Back to progression etc.  I only used the inquisition as one example.  There are more & curiously enough, they tied in with other subjects we discussed such as immoral behavior and making policy based on community & commonly held mores in society.

In order to be accurate, I consulted the great book, in this case, Merriam Webster's Collegiate, tenth edition, on the definition of the word, immoral.  To my surprise, it was one sentance long.  "not moral, conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles."  I read that as being subjective, according to whatever person or group of people are that perceive & define it at that time.  So what might be immoral to one person, might be merely in bad tase or discusting to another.  I agree with you on Paris Hilton.  Yes, we do have things in this country that SOME may consider immoral.  But as the definition shows, that does not MAKE them immoral.

On a smaller point.  I've mentioned in other blogs.  You may or may have not seen it.  I consider it offensive & insulting when one takes their beliefs, therebye their opinions, & tries to substantiate them by forming them as a statement of fact.  I don't know if you did by accident, on purpose or are just so used to hearing it it doesn't register.  It might be your belief &/or opinion that some god sets rules, but there is no evidence for it & attempting to bolster a point of view in this matter is, indeed insulting to the other person's intelligence.

Other examples of religious domination, immorality, commonly held mores.  At the time, all of these conditions were in place on the Eastern seaboard of our continent, especially in Massachussetts, (sp) when people were forced to confess, usually under torture, convert or go into exile.  Morality and accepted mores were in place in the beginning of our country when basic rights were denied to the people who were here first, the black people we, Christians, kidnapped & kept in slavery and half the population, women.  Morality & accepted mores were in place, aided by scripture, when slaves were bought, sold and tortured for seeking their freedom.  Whether we are talking @ the various inquisitions, yes, there were more than one, the crusades, religious wars in Europe, the Pilgrims, or my other two examples, these were not isolated incidents carried out by a few whack jobs with a religious bent.  Whole communities & countries were involved, back by the church.  They've done it before and they are very capable of doing it again.

We might have different ideas of what is moral or not moral, but I for one, do not want to be in the position of having some one elses narrow biblical interpretation of it, imposed on me by law by the types of people mentioned in the blog earlier.  Once again, given the well documented history of Christian domination in the past, given the words & actions of present leaders of the religious right, if they do become successful, nothing that has been shown would lead me to think they would act any differently than they have before when they attained control.

Am I reading you correctly in your statement @ legislators who pray?  You imply, in no uncertain terms, that any legislator who does not pray is UNSTABLE!  By that statement, the implication is that any person who does not pray is unstable.  You may want to think @ that one again.  I'm sure you will hear from others on that one.

On faith based initiatives.  Point is, it doesn't matter how many hoops an organization must jump through, They all do. It's against the principles of the First Amendment, they do evangelise, & got caught at it, & they are allowed to have discriminatory hiring practices. 

I'll take my cue from you & say that's enogh to chew on for now.  Looking forward to more of your contributions.  Keep them coming.  JATFUR.

Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.  Acquiring knowledge is the next step to a higher intellect.

RichK

The Religious Desire to Dominate (original title for those of you that lost track) is no different than the "Non-Religious Desire to Dominate" or the "Sports Desire ..." or "Hollywood's Desire..." etc, ad nauseum fill in the blanks.  It is just when organized religion expresses the desire, it is taken much differently than other groups.  Example is the ongoing and never-ending approval of certain groups by schools as officially recognized, but other groups "of faith" having trouble when trying to organize and receive sponsorship.  And this is just clearly not justified as the separation of Church and State, never was intended that way since nobody is being forced to attend any activity by any government agency.

Regarding the religious debate - bottom line (my tag line kind of like Uncle Ruch's 'tip') is that organized religion gives a person something to hold on to, a source of strength in tough times, a source of fulfillment when helping others - and usually a better quality of life. 

CCC,

Good to hear from you.  It's been a while. 

I can't equate your examples, sports & hollywood, as being on par with the current subject.  In fact, I'll save the both of us some time by not even going there.  I also hate to be the one who is breaking the bad news to you, but the non religious have no wish to dominate, you or any one else.  But that was a nice try.  If you call adherence to the principles of the Constitution & Bill of Rights and laws of our country a process of wanting to dominate, then you had better start with the people who wrote them.  If they were still alive, I'm sure they'd be interesting in hearing your side.

As far as "groups of Faith, being denied," I wish you would have provided an example or two.  Whenever cases like this are @ to come up, or have been decided by a court, should the need arise, I receive updating bulletins from various organizations on the outcome.  It's great & a free service.  FYI.  I know how interested you & others are @ FAB, so I should tell you that the orgs. I get the info from are on opposing sides.  So I do get both, sometimes more, sides of the story.

Funny thing, though.  Outside of the fact that both sides give their opinions & the usual propaganda in favor of their respective sides, they report exactly the same thing.  Ain't that a kick?

As far as the last sentance in your first paragraph, once again I hate to bust the balloon, but there are a whole bunch of people, including some judges & constitutional scholars, it would seem, who disagree with you.  But take heart.  Not every one agrees with everything but we still manage to get along relatively well.

Heck, people like me aren't as bad as people like you make us out to be.  We just want to make sure that a Christian version of the Taliban never, under any circumstances, gets a foot hold under our Constitution.  As I have said before, it's happened too many times.  In Europe & on our own shores.  That's why the writers of that document wrote what they did.

Now you had better sit down for this one.  Ready?  In general, I agree with your last sentance.  I have other thoughts on that, but why spoil the mood?

Have a great day.  Great hearing from you.  And please remember & don't ever forget.  A wet bird never flies at night.  G. Carlin.  JATFUR.

Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.  Acquiring knowledge is the next step to a higher intellect.

RichK

RichK

I always seem to bring out the best in you - and the defensive.  I thought my blog was fairly benign, no accusations, no blaming.  Not every religious group is bent on domination, just like not every non-religious group is bent on domination.

As far as evidence of troubles the religous groups have in just gaining access equal to that granted non-religious groups, do a quick 'google' of "Bible club" + "public school" and see what happens.  I've copied/pasted (sorry) only a few recent headlines at the end of this just as examples.  Not sure what happened to your updating bulletins, but as you can see - one of them out of Seattle is very recent.

And regarding your comment, "Heck, people like me aren't as bad as people like you make us out to be."  I really didn't think I made anybody out too bad.  I just don't understand why one side screams for equality, then when it involves Christianity - it screams "separation."  What is it afraid of?  Somebody would rather go to a Bible study than the Students for Peace meetings?  Why not let the students choose?  Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything - a free world full of choices. 

OK, bottom line - I just cannot for the life of me figure out how equality equates to making it so hard on one group (Christians) while giving others a free ride. 

***Copied/pasted starts here***

By The Associated Press
09.07.04 Editor's note: The full 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 7 declined to review the three-judge panel's Sept. 3 decision.SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — A federal appeals court ruling further clears the way for teacher Barbara Wigg to participate in an after-school children's Bible class held in public schools in Sioux Falls.High Court rules for after-school Bible club - Supreme Court on Good News, United States - Brief ArticleChristian Century,  June 20, 2001  The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that an after-school Christian club for elementary-age children has the constitutional right to meet in a public school. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that when the Milford Central School in upstate New York excluded the Good News Club, its action amounted to "unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination."The decision on June 11 over-turned an appellate court decision last year that prevented the club, an affiliate of an international group called Child Evangelism Fellowship, from holding meetings in the school.Court says Seattle-area school can deny charter to Bible clubBy Robert MarusPublished August 29, 2007 PORTLAND, Ore. (ABP) -- A federal appeals court said Aug. 24 that a Washington state high school is not required to charter a Bible club, since the club allows only Christians to be full members. In Truth v. Kent Public School District, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Oregon-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Kentridge High School in Kent, Wash., does not have to offer official recognition to the Truth Bible Club. The decision stems from a 2003 lawsuit filed on behalf of two then-students at Kentridge by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defense Fund. The students sued after the district refused to charter the Truth club because the club intended to limit full membership to Christians who have professed a “belief in the Bible and in Jesus Christ.” District officials said limiting membership in a club based on religion violated the district’s anti-discrimination policy. Attorneys for the students, meanwhile, contended that other student clubs the school had already recognized -- such as a gay-straight alliance -- limited membership on the basis of ideology. Therefore, they said, refusing to recognize Truth violated the students’ religious freedom under the First Amendment as well as a law that assures religious groups have access equal to that of other organizations in public schools.  

CCC,

I'm going to answer this out of order.  I'll do your article first.  I'm not sure if it's a typo, but I read the date as, 09.07.04, as in 2004.  If that is correct, no problem  Just wanted to be clear.

As concerns cases like this, as I already stated, I get updates from various orgs on the decisions.  Sometimes they are upheld, sometimes denied, sometimes appealed, sometimes overturned, sometimes not.  If you aren't aware, you would be surprised at the # of cases like this that happen around the country.  I was merely stating facts.  Because of the #, I don't remember this particular case but I doubt that is unique.

To the best of recall, I don't think I ever said or implied that, every religious group is bent on domination.  If you could provide me with where you saw that I said it, I will be more than happy to retract & apologise.  Considering that there are over 4,200 religions on earth, I just can't see that happening.

I will readily admit that I am confused (what else is new) about your statement of people screaming for equality & how it relates to separation.  If you could provide an example for me, I would appreciate it.  "What is it afraid of?"  I've already stated that in my last reply. Students should NOT be able to choose on matters like this unless they are well versed in constitutional law.  Should they be able to choose whether or not they should be allowed to drink?  Should they be able to be allowed to uphold the law while armed with a weapon, perform surgery or erect a building?  I think not.

Your last line before the article is a real killer, CCC.  The others get a free ride?  Please tell me how.

RichK

Rich

Some how we get in this tit for tat type thing.  I have one question for you, what is it about me that brings out your "defend your thesis" approach.  Others state their opinions and you politely and respectfully disagree yet acknowledge their comments, mine you attack like a thesis presentation board.  You are giving me a complex.

Sorry about the previous out of order cut and paste, didn't quite work like I wanted which is why I don't like cut and paste in the first place.  I was just trying to show you some examples of how religious groups are treated (which you asked for when challenging my thesis) when trying to do the same thing as non-religious groups, specifically in public schools.  Yes, there is law giving them the right but the religious groups are 'usually' forced to fight every step of the way.  

Why is that?

And to say students should NOT be able to choose between the Bible club and Students for Peace is just plain absurd.  And come on, comparing that choice to doing surgery, Rich - that is a stretch and suprises me coming from you who I picture as somebody who espouses independent thought and accountability.  I think (opinion inserted here) that what bothers the 'establishment' is that some students will WANT to choose the Bible club, or the Students for Christian thought, or whatever - over the Students for Alec Baldwin.  That ability to make the choice scares the crap out of most liberals, yes I said the 'L' word.

Now, for how other groups are getting a free ride - again, that is my opinion.  But, it is based on the lack of cases (or the amount of) where schools challenged other groups when they wanted to organize on campus compared to the enormous amount of challenges mounted against religous groups.

 CCC,

In your first paragraph, I think you might have left a few things out.  First, consider the number of blogs & replies on so many subjects.  Like others, there are subjects in which I am not interested.  Nothing wrong with that, but it cuts out a slew of possibilities.

Second, there are subjects of which I might have a minor interest, but not enough to comment.  Once again, it cuts out a lot of possibilities.

Third, no secret, I tend to gravitate on the subjects of politics & religion & that narrows the possibilities even more.

Fourth.  I think if you take the time, you will find that I do ask people to provide examples, or, as you put it, "defend your thesis."  In fact, if you take a second or two, you can scroll up to one of my replies to geyser.  I asked her to explain one of her comments.

Fifth.  It seems that you have not even considered the remote possibility that you produce provacative, thought compelling comments which are deserving more attention than usual.  Think @ it.

On my comparing high schoolers choosing, I'll allow that that was not the best example, but it was what I was thinking at the time.  But consider this.  On issues such as this, whether we are talking @ proponents or opponents, they each have a team & a half of legal beagle experts on their respective sides.  Some are specialists and are highly educated & have passed state bar exams.

Now, what would make you think that a high scool kid, some who have not even graduated yet, is anywhere remotely qualified to tackle Constitutional issues that it takes lawyers to handle?  If the kids were qualified, we wouldn't have need of  the lawyers.  Just a thought.

No, liberals aren't afraid of what you said.  What they are afraid of is what I covered in one of my replies on this subject.  It's worth scrolling back.

I was not commenting on YOU C&P' ing out of order.  I said that I was going to ANSWER out of order, nothing more. 

On being defensive or defending a thesis.  First, Since I have threatened no one, called anybody names or cast derogatory comments upon their parentage, it would seem that I treat everybody in an equal manner.  As long as I’m communicating with you, I’ll use you as an example though you are by no means alone in this. 

When it comes to using facts, evidence or documentation to substantiate my opinions, I am very defensive, and for a very good reason.  Perhaps you forgot way back, when in a blog, you blasted me for speaking negatively @ religion in ALMOST EVERY BLOG, or something along that line.  I researched it in past blogs & showed you that not only were you wrong, but you were unbelievably wrong.  Whether it was you or another blogger, it was then mentioned that I had way too much time on my hands.  There’s part of the problem.  I was damned by you, even though you were wrong, & then I was damned for taking the effort to seek & present the facts.  So what were my choices?  The two of us could have argued endlessly, irritating the hoositz out of every one, including ourselves.  I could have not addressed your claim at all, which would lead every one to assume that you were correct in your claim.  Or I could have done what I did & correct the mistake.  In any case, as shown, someone would have been, & was displeased.  That is no way to conduct an exchange of information.

Every one has the right to their opinions.  They usually express their opinions to be in agreement with, or in opposition to another opinion.  There are several ways to express that opinion.  One can just state it, without example & hope it sticks.  One can use hyperbole, & hope it sticks.  Or one can state their opinion in the form of a fact, & hope it sticks.  These are all used, sometimes very effectively because of human nature & it tends to be very appealing to the masses.  I must add that you have done some of these as in the example above, but you are not alone.

The other method is to do some research, state an opinion & then substantiate it by providing an example in the form of documentation, or facts.  There is an inherent problem with that, including charges of not being fair & balanced / consider the source.  If you look back, you might notice that when those charges were made, nothing was done to explain why something is not considered FAB, nothing was provided to show why the “source,” is suspect, & nothing had been provided to refute the original claim.  Maybe not in every situation, but I’ll bet a buck it has happened in most.

There are those who don’t like this method because it proves them wrong, goes against a belief, or, they claim that it offends them.  There isn’t much to be said or done @ this as I’m afraid no amount of evidence can sway them or keep them from being offended, even though I’ve yet to hear in what manner one is offended or what actual harm was done.  That is part of human nature also.

Now you claim that I’m being “defensive,” because I ask for examples when you offer no example or reference to your claim.

I will apologize to no one for NOT using a method of debate, expressing an opinion or exchanging ideas that employs a method that is basically intellectually inferior and insulting to the reader.  That may anger &/or offend some, but I will not lower my standards.  I will not cave into any person or group who will condemn me for not using their method of communication while condemning me for taking the effort to be accurate. 

I realize the former method can be very persuasive & makes people feel good.  But in the end, it adds absolutely nothing to solving problems, providing realistic solutions or giving hope to improving or understanding an issue

I will continue to use a system of providing evidence, facts or anything else that is factual for the purposes of substantiating my opinion & hopefully expanding the understanding of any subject.  When a claim is made by another, with no apparent proof, or I thinnk it unclear, I will ask for an example or some kind of evidence.  If people don’t care to be exposed to that kind of system I would suggest that they just skip my blogs & replies.  If they are offended by it, same solution.  If they wish to damn me for trying to be as factual as I can, or asking people to clarify or provide examples for their claim, well, frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. 

If that sounded a tad on the rough side, it was meant to be.  I have too much respect for the art & science of communication to start getting slovenly in my methods.  I does me no good.  It does no one any good.  That's my story & I'm sticking to it.  JATFUR.

Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.  Acquiring knowledge is the next step to a higher intellect.

RichK

I decided our real difference is only in how we interpret "opinion."  Mine is based more on faith, yours more on facts. 

I have a much more personal view of the word opinion, that each person has their own opinion - not right or wrong, not to be put to the test of the court of law or evidence.  The only test of their "opinion" is whether it is true to their own environment, beliefs, and background.

Your view of the word seems to be that it must be based on hard concrete evidence, quotes, pictures, etc... worthy of the debate team and a court of law.  (I'm guessing you have law in your background.)

The real rub comes when somebody with a "personal opinion" states it, and gets challenged to come up with hard concrete evidence as a basis for that opinion.  Is that challenge to come up with evidence wrong?  No, of course not - but opinions are not always directly linked to some exact happening. 

Opinions can just happen, thus the old saying "Opinions are like *&^%$#, everybody has one." 

To help you in this case (with evidence) - I looked up the words Opinion and Fact on Dictonary.com and Cut/Pasted the top 3 definitions of both below.  I only ask you pay particular attention to definitions #1 and #2 of opinion.

And in closing, I really do enjoy stating my opinion, and I enjoying hearing yours.  What I don't enjoy is being challenged to defend my opinion with chapter and verse in cases where it is just that, my personal opinion, and I am not trying to force it on anybody. 

I will continue to enjoy reading your opinions (with facts) and I will continue to provide mine (not always with facts).

OPINION

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion. 

FACT

something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

CCC, 

I naturaly agree with the definitions. On a higher plane, your quote about opinions succinctly says what I have, perhaps in a pussyfooted (Did I just invent a new word?) manner, have tried to explain in some of my blogs.  It is a huge point even though it might not have been noticed.

But 'nuff said.  Onwards, upwards, EXELSIOR!

RichK

I never meant to imply that legislators who don't pray are unstable -- only that I believe the Bible would say those legislators who don't vote on their convictions are unstable or double-minded. There are several examples I've read of recently who say they are against abortion but publically support a woman's "right" to choose. In my opinion, they are double-minded. Definition of double-minded is (from the Free Dictionary online): 

Having different minds at different times; unsettled; undetermined.
A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.James 1: 8.

Hopefully I'll have time to comment more later. Thanks for taking time to better understand my comment.

Geyser,

Sorry to say, I'm still confused.  I re-read your original comment a few times, just to make sure I had it right.  "Can they legislate based on their religious convictions - I want one that does.  OTHERWISE, THEY ARE UNSTABLE."  To me that is rather cut & dried.  A legislator who prays is stable.  Conversely, a legislator who does not pray must be unstable.  By extension, we could say the same thing @ any person. 

Then in your reply, you really threw me for a loop, when, trying to explain, you said, "only I believe the Bible would say those legislators who don't vote on their convictions are UNSTABLE or double minded."  I hope you can see my confusion, especially when you contradict yourself.  I'm too tired to pursue this, so I'm jujst going to chalk it up & shelve it.

On the definition & your quote @ "double minded," there are also other possible definitions.  One might be the ability to properly function while compartmentalizing.  Another is the ability to effectively multi task.  The other is to fulfill one's oath of office to legislate for the benefit of the constituents who hired you.  After all, there is a job to be done. 

While I personally find abortion repugnant, I can envision that there might be times when it is necessary.  I'm not saying that there are no other alternatives, but unlike some, I have the common sense & compassion for the victim to know that I am not even remotely qualified or authorised to tell a young girl or adult woman what to do in the case of incest or rape.  Neither of which would have been their fault.  That decision should be the sole domain of the victim, her parents or spouse & their medical advisor.  Looking forward to more comments.

Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.  Acquiring knowledge is the next step to a higher intellect.

RichK