← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · madrussian
Thread ID: 12266 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2004-02-10
2004-02-10 20:23 | User Profile
Axis of evil:
wintermute/il ragno/NN vs. Okie/Walter
2004-02-10 21:00 | User Profile
MadRush, I got no animus in me - certainly not towards Walter, and not even for Okie, who by now sees Alex Linder in cloud formations (and shakes his fist at them).
But one thing that's gonna have to stop is the sneaky way that the God Squad tries to claim for themselves (under the umbrella-title of Western Christian Civilization) every visionary who advanced mankind while being, if not branded a heretic, at least initially scoffed at and derided by the Faithful. Galileo's the obvious one, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that every icon of WC at one point or another got the Hairy Eyeball from a True Believer who felt personally threatened by the 'blasphemer' in question. Even the guy who yelled "Get a horse!" at Henry Ford was doubtless an elder of the church in good standing.
I mean, if we're gonna play this game, we're gonna play it by the rulebook, or not at all.
2004-02-10 21:15 | User Profile
Of course, I meant "axis of evil" in its modern sense that it acquired after the "Smash the zhid enemies in the Middle East, episode II".
2004-02-11 02:26 | User Profile
Not to get off topic, but just a quick comment about "speaking in tongues": My understanding is that the Biblical story of Pentecost describes Jesus' disciples as simply speaking normally while each person listening to them heard them speaking in the listener's native language. That is what is said to have happened, is it not? Why, then, all this spouting of nonsensical gibberish? :wacko:
I wish those people would handle snakes more often. Also, isn't there something in the Bible about drinking poison without being harmed? Hmmm...maybe there's a way to make the Christian Zionist loony problem solve itself?
Anyway...although I now consider myself a skeptic with respect to revealed religions, I have nothing against those with religious convictions and do not see any need for a wall of separation between church and society. There should be, and IS, legal separation of church and state: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion...." So, when Congress makes laws authorizing taxpayer aid to Israel due to pressure from religious lobbyists, the First Amendment is clearly being violated. Sending taxpayer money to a self-described religious state like Israel is exactly like sending that money to the Vatican. It's illegal, it's theft, and it needs to stop.
2004-02-11 07:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]There should be, and IS, legal separation of church and state: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion...."
Which has now 'progressed' into government now acting to prosecute any slight mention of (Christian) religion because of the much touted myth of separation of Church and state. In fact, one is hard pressed to find any founding document, building or monument here in America that does not mention or in some way give stark example to the fact that this country was founded as a Christian republic.
So, when Congress makes laws authorizing taxpayer aid to Israel due to pressure from religious lobbyists, the First Amendment is clearly being violated.
Are you implying that religious people don't have the same rights as the non-religous, if the latter can be said to truly exist?
Sending taxpayer money to a self-described religious state like Israel is exactly like sending that money to the Vatican. It's illegal, it's theft, and it needs to stop.[/QUOTE]
Well, it is theft and does need to stop, but I would assert that same position for all foreign aid to any country. Period. That would seem to be the most logical and consistent approach to the matter.
2004-02-11 09:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]Makes you wonder what the roots of our republic really were . . . [/QUOTE]
No need to wonder at all, my friend. The conclusive evidence is literally overwhelming:
[url=http://www.alliance4lifemin.org/amchristi.html]American Christian Heritage Part 1[/url]
[url=http://www.alliance4lifemin.org/amchristii.html]And Part 2[/url]
I assume they threw in the few examples you mention because they appreciated the aesthetic beauty. Nothing ultimately wrong with that really. We are not jews, after all.
2004-02-11 10:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Which has now 'progressed' into government now acting to prosecute any slight mention of (Christian) religion because of the much touted myth of separation of Church and state. I agree that the whole "separation of Church and State" thing has been carried to ridiculous extremes. People have every right to practice whatever religion they see fit, either publicly or privately, as long as they aren't preventing other people from living their lives as they want to. That's why, in my prior post, I made a distinction between "separation of Church and state" and "separation of Church and society." Contrary to what some Jews and atheists think, no one has a right to demand to be able to drive down the street without looking at Nativity scenes or Christmas decorations. I'd even go so far as to say that public officials have the right to publicly express their religious views -- e.g., a judge should be allowed to put the 10 Commandments on his courtroom wall. However...
In fact, one is hard pressed to find any founding document, building or monument here in America that does not mention or in some way give stark example to the fact that this country was founded as a Christian republic. The settlers who came here from Europe were certainly Christians. They were Puritans fleeing religious persecution; hence, one of this nation's founding principles is religious freedom. The Founding Fathers -- particularly Jefferson, Franklin, et al -- generally were not. They were Deists. While I don't think a single one of the Founding Fathers was an atheist, believing in a Creator does not imply belief in Christ.
As for founding documents that don't support your assertion, I have two: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Neither makes any reference to Christianity whatsoever. And the first amendment of said Constitution does legally separate Church and state. People have an absolute, inalienable right to practice whatever religion they choose (if any), and the Founders recognized this. That right comes from the simple fact that a contravening right to forcibly interfere with someone else's religious beliefs does not exist. As Jefferson once wrote, "[Even] God will not save men against their wills."
Today, the clear majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian. Does that make America a "Christian nation"? I'd say yes -- but only in an unofficial sense. Do non-Christians have a right to be insulated from the public practice of Christianity by others? Not at all. But neither do Christians or anyone else have the right to persecute people for not believing as they do. (It's not like Christians are unified in their beliefs, anyway.)
Are you implying that religious people don't have the same rights as the non-religous, if the latter can be said to truly exist? Of course not. My point is that no lobby should have the power to nullify the Bill of Rights. Those ten amendments were not meant to be subject to popular opinion or vote. This nation was founded on the concept of inalienable rights, and the Bill of Rights is merely the enumeration of some of those.
BTW: Why do you question whether non-religious people have rights or not? If the religious have rights, then so do the non-religious. If God grants rights to some, then He grants them to all. He makes the sun shine and the rain fall on both the good and the wicked, right? (Not that all religious people are good or that all secular people are wicked.)
Well, it is theft and does need to stop, but I would assert that same position for all foreign aid to any country. Period. That would seem to be the most logical and consistent approach to the matter.[/QUOTE]I agree completely. All foreign aid should be privately funded. I believe that tax revenue should be used only for legitimate domestic services that benefit or protect all citizens.
2004-02-11 10:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]Jews will scream bloody murder, but it's perfectly fair to turn their own game against them. These are the same rules that have been used to cripple any move towards vouchers, as well as denuding the public square of religion entirely.
Since the weight of law is now on the side of no religious use of federal monies, why not use it to dock Israel's pay?[/QUOTE]Exactly -- that's the idea.
2004-02-11 22:37 | User Profile
MadRussian,
I think an easy case can be made that America's roots are both Hellenic and Christian, since Christianity itself underwent a process of "Hellenization." This is not a matter of opinion and should cause no gnashing of teeth. Only if the question becomes one of judging the influences on America of non-Christian Hellenism and non-Hellenic Christianity might conflict occur (not the least cause of which would be defining what of Christianity is wholly non-Hellenic, and the hierarchy of importance). But even then, the waters are murkey, since Christianity didn't cease morphing into new forms at Paul's death. The obelisk, for instance, is a feature of many Christian cemeteries (though perhaps most erections are not of recent vintage).