People I'm Afraid of

[quade 4]

Today there is an event going on called Justice Sunday II and while I don't really wanna go off on a rant about that, it seemed like today would be a good day to comment on a trend I've noticed in the last few years. It seems as if there are some people that believe that the heathens of this country are somehow out to "get" the Christians and change their way of life. That the Christians are somehow being persecuted and that their leadership now feels it necessary to fight back and recapture America and restore it to good old American family values.

Just look at the catch phrase of the event, "Justice Sunday II - God Save the United States and this Honorable Court"

Am I nuts or has every single President of the United States been a Christian? (Not that the two are mutually exclusive.)

Again, I might be nuts, but if there is a mandate in this country to separate church and state (meaning that the government should NOT interfere in the business of the church) then why don't Christians follow the word of Jesus and "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s" (Luke 20:25) and stay out of government?

OR is all this just another attemp to grab power by a few?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Greene 0]

You are a moderator, correct?

I consider your post one of the biggest TROLLS we have ever read on DZ.com

Jim and Lee West
mostly Lee

[waltappel 1]

clicky

Walt

[waltappel 1]

Quote

You are a moderator, correct?

I consider your post one of the biggest TROLLS we have ever read on DZ.com

Jim and Lee West
mostly Lee

I don't think so, and I have some experience trolling here. I think his question about religious affiliation of the Presidents of the US is a very interesting one that has some interesting answers.

Walt

[quade 4]

Quote

I consider your post one of the biggest TROLLS we have ever read on DZ.com

Believe what you will, but it's a serious question.

While there are some noteworthy members of Justice Sunday II, the main organizer of the group, Tony Perkins, seems to be simply another person that is trying to grab some power for himself.

Clearly Phyllis Schlafly is and so is Tom DeLay.

BTW, thank you so much for basically proving my point that there seem to be a few people out there that truly believe that any discussion of anything having to do with select Christians is somehow an attack upon the faith (their personal faith) rather than where the discussion was originally intended. Please look at the title of the thread.

Recently I was in a job interview with a company and was told that the company was a "Christian" company and that everyone there was expected to uphold "Christain" values of being ethical and moral (whatever the hell that meant). That struck me as being pretty damned insulting since the obvious implication is that if I'm not Christian I'm not moral enough to work for them. I was told by another employee that works at the facility that no swearing is allow, even the use of the word hell. Now, I could have understood the statement had this been for a job with a church, but this was an internet media company who's main product was programming about cars.

What really is going on here?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,085]

>That the Christians are somehow being persecuted and that their
> leadership now feels it necessary to fight back and recapture
> America and restore it to good old American family values.

Ironically, the opposite is true.

The beginnings of America saw a _lot_ of religious interference in government. In some colonies, only members of the church could hold public office. Indeed, the religious freedom some of the more extremist Puritans desired was freedom to create a government that enforced their religion.

Largely as a result of seeing this in action, the founding fathers were very careful to NOT incorporate religion into the government. They didn't just forget to mention it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; the omission was very deliberate. Indeed, early presidents (Jefferson and Madison) made it clear that there was to be a wall of separation (Jefferson's words) between religion and government. Madison proposed a national prayer day, but immediately reconsidered when he thought about what it said about the relationship between the US and religion. Such days are inappropriate, he said, because "they seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion."

For decades afterwards, the 'religious right' were frustrated by this. They saw religion as central to their lives; after all, most had come from England where the government and the church were heavily intertwined. Why couldn't they get this new goverment to do the same?

Then, around 1950, they won. Christians were suddenly the opposite of the godless Commies. The president started to have prayer breakfasts to prove he was as american as apple pie. Legislators added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. The National Day of Prayer was established by Congress.

Since then, they have made steady inroads in terms of combining religion and government. There is now an Office of Faith Based Initiatives. There are crosses put up as public monuments. School boards are actually considering teaching creationism.

Is all this contrary to the will of the founding fathers? Yes and no. Yes, in that they very specifically wanted no connection between government and religion. They hoped for a 'free market' of religion that allowed people to believe as they saw fit, free from government interference. No, in that the things they were trying to specifically exclude were religious tests for public office, legislating religious morality into secular law, and a fusion of church and state monies - and for the most part those things haven't happened.

But the idea that "christians are under attack!" is nonsense. They have been leading the attack for about 50 years now, and have been winning. It's hard to get support for your cause, though, if your rallying cry is "we're winning but not fast enough!"

[AlexCrowley 0]

US Christianity is an ugly militant beast. By playing the 'pity me' card its members remain radicalized and active, allowing a louder voice than the reality. By mobilizing such a force of politically active 'believers' through fear they have made companies like Disney crumble at the thought of losing money.

The utter BS about 'activist judges' completely ignores the background and reality of the current crop of Supreme Court Justices and their absolute lack of 'activism' and absolute adherence to the letter of the law. Hey, if you can't word a brief correctly or rationally thats no ones fault but your own. Almost as funny as watching Lawrence Lessig try to argue for common intellectual property rights.

By ignoring the details it's easier to believe that the Courts power be displaced to a position over which they, the believers, have more sway in controlling (votable politicians). Whereas the truth is that the Supreme Court protects the ideals that the country was founded on - and any time that goes against the 'god fearing folk' it's percieved as Satanic (which is the wonderful thing about such a myopic binary religous system of good/evil anyone not for you is obviously controlled by the adversary).

Playing victim is something the religous right have done extremely well and its a model that keeps working. Fear is the great motivator. Repeat the lie enough and it will be believed.

I'll be in the back dousing myself in gasoline.

Again.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

if there is a mandate in this country to separate church and state (meaning that the government should NOT interfere in the business of state) then why don't Christians follow the word of Jesus and "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s" (Luke 20:25) and stay out of government?

The governement is required to stay out of the church's business, but there is no such requirement going the other direction... and even if there was, it would not be binding because of the whole "shall make no law" thingy...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[quade 4]

Quote

The governement is required to stay out of the church's business, but there is no such requirement going the other direction...

Precisely. However, I would think that when given an clear example such as the one that I cited (Luke 20:25) specifically stating what Jesus did do (not mearly speculating what he would do) that they would follow the example.

Besides which, that's not my point. I'm not advocating that all religious people stay out of politics, but that rather that a few of those that do bring religion into politics do so disingenuously and seemingly only as a means to grab for themselves more power.

It really seems to me that to a certain extent that religion is being used more and more as a weapon of power rather than salvation and I see this trend not just in government and politics, but as I stated in my other example, the work place as well.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Then, around 1950, they won. Christians were suddenly the opposite of the godless Commies.

Christianity was a safe house to hide from Joe McCarthy in the 50's. The residual effects are still around.

jen

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[speedy 0]

Quote

meaning that the government should NOT interfere in the business of state

I thought the government was elected to run the state, or do you Americans do things differently?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Recently I was in a job interview with a company and was told that the company was a "Christian" company and that everyone there was expected to uphold "Christain" values of being ethical and moral (whatever the hell that meant). That struck me as being pretty damned insulting since the obvious implication is that if I'm not Christian I'm not moral enough to work for them. I was told by another employee that works at the facility that no swearing is allow, even the use of the word hell. Now, I could have understood the statement had this been for a job with a church, but this was an internet media company who's main product was programming about cars.

What really is going on here?

Isn´t that discrmination and therefore illegal? like if a company refuses to hire blacks, homosexual or skydivers?

I studied in a catholic college and i remember one teacher saying literally "An atheus person in theory can be a good person, but in practice, it is not possible", so it seems the religious right have the same (wrong) principles all over the world.

[mnealtx 0]

That's a VERY good explanation of the separation clause, Bill...thank you!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Opps! Brain running faster than fingers can type.

That sould read, "meaning that the government should NOT interfere in the business of the church"

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Recently I was in a job interview with a company and was told that the company was a "Christian" company and that everyone there was expected to uphold "Christain" values of being ethical and moral (whatever the hell that meant). That struck me as being pretty damned insulting since the obvious implication is that if I'm not Christian I'm not moral enough to work for them. I was told by another employee that works at the facility that no swearing is allow, even the use of the word hell. Now, I could have understood the statement had this been for a job with a church, but this was an internet media company who's main product was programming about cars.

Would you have taken issue with this had they not labled it "Christian"? If they had said that we expect all of our employees to uphold the highest moral and ethical standards, as laid out in our policy manual, would it have been more acceptable?

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It really seems to me that to a certain extent that religion is being used more and more as a weapon of power rather than salvation and I see this trend not just in government and politics, but as I stated in my other example, the work place as well.

To me that is what religion has always been. A get righ and powerful scheme for the few at the top of the organization. I don't see how that has now changed...that is exactly what religion still is.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Recently I was in a job interview with a company and was told that the company was a "Christian" company and that everyone there was expected to uphold "Christain" values of being ethical and moral (whatever the hell that meant). That struck me as being pretty damned insulting since the obvious implication is that if I'm not Christian I'm not moral enough to work for them. I was told by another employee that works at the facility that no swearing is allow, even the use of the word hell. Now, I could have understood the statement had this been for a job with a church, but this was an internet media company who's main product was programming about cars.

What really is going on here?

This would seem to me to be a very open invitation to discrimation lawsuits.

illegible usually

[wmw999 2,555]

Quote

Recently I was in a job interview with a company and was told that the company was a "Christian" company and that everyone there was expected to uphold "Christain" values of being ethical and moral (whatever the hell that meant). That struck me as being pretty damned insulting since the obvious implication is that if I'm not Christian I'm not moral enough to work for them.

Never ascribe to deliberate insult something which can be taken as cluelessness. It's much better for your blood pressure.

Quote

I was told by another employee that works at the facility that no swearing is allow, even the use of the word hell. Now, I could have understood the statement had this been for a job with a church, but this was an internet media company who's main product was programming about cars.

What really is going on here?

He knows what kind of corporate culture he wants in his company, and is willing to say so up front. It's his company (unless it's publicly-traded). Don't work there if you don't like that culture. Really.

If he said "you have to be Christian" he'd be more liable. But if he just says "no swearing -- AT ALL" he's probably within his rights. Unless he starts talking about "ragheads" or something like that.

Do you really want to work there?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

It really seems to me that to a certain extent that religion is being used more and more as a weapon of power rather than salvation and I see this trend not just in government and politics, but as I stated in my other example, the work place as well.

To me that is what religion has always been. A get rich and powerful scheme for the few at the top of the organization. I don't see how that has now changed...that is exactly what religion still is.

quade has a more reasoned approach - use cars (or guns, or airplanes, or skydiving) as the analogy

quade's point is the drivers misuse a vehicle and cause accidents

your point is vehicles are inherently sentient and bad and that causes accidents

The concept of religion is a good one - provide a moral framework, give comfort to those scared of death, establish a set of rules to coexist in a positive way - this is good whether or not one is a believer in some kind of deity. I mean really, take the last 7 commandments or their equivalents from other religions - don't kill or steal or lie or be jealous, be good to your parents. I mean, do you really have to be devout to 'honestly' believe these aren't good rules to hold dear?

The fact that religious power is sought out for abuse and personal gain just shows how effective this type of social framework could be if applied as intended rather than abused. That kind of power draws greedy people. But without it, more crooked religious leaders would just go into politics.

We don't need any more nuts in politics, the elevator is already full. And it's easier to recognize religious nuts for who they are - they are the ones saying one thing and doing the other. Politicians don't say anything at all.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

....Never ascribe to deliberate insult something which can be taken as cluelessness. It's much better for your blood pressure.
....
He knows what kind of corporate culture he wants in his company, and is willing to say so up front. It's his company (unless it's publicly-traded). Don't work there if you don't like that culture. Really.

very nicely stated both ways - but the first some people with agendas are always looking for a slight

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

quade has a more reasoned approach - use cars (or guns, or airplanes, or skydiving) as the analogy

quade's point is the drivers misuse a vehicle and cause accidents

your point is vehicles are inherently sentient and bad and that causes accidents

The concept of religion is a good one - provide a moral framework, give comfort to those scared of death, establish a set of rules to coexist in a positive way - this is good whether or not one is a believer in some kind of deity. I mean really, take the last 7 commandments or their equivalents from other religions - don't kill or steal or lie or be jealous, be good to your parents. I mean, do you really have to be devout to 'honestly' believe these aren't good rules to hold dear?

The fact that religious power is sought out for abuse and personal gain just shows how effective this type of social framework could be if applied as intended rather than abused. That kind of power draws greedy people. But without it, more crooked religious leaders would just go into politics.

We don't need any more nuts in politics, the elevator is already full. And it's easier to recognize religious nuts for who they are - they are the ones saying one thing and doing the other. Politicians don't say anything at all.

You obviously feel that first there was religion and then people started using it to control the masses.

I feel that the concept of religion was if not created for, specifically used to control the masses from the very early beginnings.

[Everon 0]

I don't think this is discriminatory, but rather he's telling you to uphold ethical values in the christian sense (like you said - whatever that meant). Using the word "christian," though, is inappropriate. "Ethical and moral" would be enough. I am an atheist, and I truly believe my ethics and standards are better than those taught by christianity. I, for example, would never discriminate against gays, atheists, Buddhists, or anyone at all. But, bottom line, like Wendy asks, do you really want to work there knowing this guy's attitude?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You obviously feel that first there was religion and then people started using it to control the masses.

I feel that the concept of religion was if not created for, specifically used to control the masses from the very early beginnings.

(I suspect it was relatively innocuous at first - used to drive positive behavior, explain the unknown, and then when that control structure was recognized and reached a certain size, both well meaning and not-so-well-meaning people would then covet that control structure.)

However, I don't really care what the original motive was for, just that it's now a very powerful force and we need to decide how to use it for 'good' (ohh, that's a subjective term isn't it?) or keep it positive - if that's even possible.

Edit: either way, you still make my point that the tool is nothing, it's the people that are bad (or potentially bad). Without religion, power hungry freaks would use something else - at least with religion, the keeps the unions, cartels, U.N., DFL, and GNC full of decent honest people.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

JFK = Irish Catholic.

Look up the history of that election - there was a huge uproar about putting a Catholic in the White House - that the Vatican would be running our country and forcing it's values on everyone in this country. I wonder who stirred up that muck?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

why don't Christians follow the word of Jesus and "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s" (Luke 20:25) and stay out of government?

OR is all this just another attemp to grab power by a few?

I think it's neither. I find it to be pretty evident that there is a strong movement to ban all reference to religion in any governmental or quasi-governmental activity. Simply due to the demographics, the big target will be Christianity.

Do I think Christianity is under attack? Yes, I do. Are Christians mounting a counterattack against atheism in government? I'd think so.

From my viewpoint I do nto have a problem with removing religious services from government institutions. For example, a daily Christian prayer in public school would, I think, be a bad thing.

However, my take is that the movement is seeking to eliminate all reference to religion in any governmental or quasi-governmental setting. Even discussion of religion from historical standpoints. To me it's looking, sounding and walking more and more like a duck, and that duck is the gradual phasing out of religion.

What is the best way to achieve a long-term goal of a secular society? Don't mention it. Don't talk about it. Don't read or write about it. history has demonstrated that if you eliminate all references to people and events, over time they are forgotten, and it is as if they never existed.

Personally, I would like to see atheism and secularism treated as religions. Religions are classified by belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, and institutions associated with such beliefs. I believe that lack of belief in the aforementioned, and the moral codes, practices, values and institutions associated with such a lack of belief is just as religious as any other religious belief.

I also think that the only way a middle ground can be reached is if atheism receives just such a treatment.

My wife is hotter than your wife.