My Politically Correct Seasons Greetings

[dr_bar]

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't advocate acts of force or butting into places where I'm not invited.

But in fact, this has been the status quo, for those professing to be of the Christian faith, for centuries...

Look at Africa or Mexico during the periods of exploration where good Christians raped, murdered and pillaged in the name of God.

[ronboskz650sr]

Exactly how does displaying the Ten Commandments harm someone when all the words in them are the foundation of our legal system? Go ahead and try, there is no way to show it does, regardless of what agency you place them in...government or civilian.

Easy as pie. I'll do it in one sentence.

A non-believer is tried for a crime in a courtroom with religious scripture on the wall -- can this person be sure he/she is going to receive a fair trial.. end of Spiff's partial qoute (I slipped, so it may not be in white, sorry.)



Not only did you not do it in one sentence, you didn't do it at all. A trial by jury is part of the judicial system Spiff. This arguement doesn't hold any credence whatsoever. The Ten commandments are followed in Judaism as part of the torah, BTW, and are a part of any good "scroll" a Jewish person would hang in a courthouse. In fact, they predate Judaism, and are not religious at all...just commandements from God. I believe that, you may not.

As for internet research...doing very much of this will reveal to you why nobody is responding to this offer. Potentially unpopular opinions by an organization with an agenda will be the last ones to make it onto their website. Things do leak out through people before they hit the news, you know. For an internet search to keep you busy, try to find out if Krylon interior/exterior paint is laquer or enamel. Probably the only place you'll find out is from my posts on the subject, based on an e-mail from a "talking head" at Krylon. That one should be pretty easy, but it wasn't. I challenge you to find out without my posts, and without e-mailing Krylon. Click, click. Maybe $100 dollars isn't enough money, Spiff. Do you care to raise it to $1000? Implying laziness is quite a slam on people you know nothing about, but most folks will require a reasonable return for their efforts. In fact, you are'nt researching any of the stuff you are throwing back at me, and you keep on responding. I'm not sure why. I think I may know, though. This isn't about winning an argument, as Zoo and I have both said. It's about information, and making sure people have it...and where they can find it for themselves, not just what they read on a forum. Clearly, what we believe is in stark contrast to most of the replies in this thread. We are clearly posting where it comes from, though. When people read it with an open heart, the results stand on their own.

I can tell you a "talking head" who works at the post office is pretty concerned about the new rule to say "seasons greetings" or "Happy Holidays"...anything BUT "merry Christmas." It's his job, and THIS IS WHAT HE WAS TOLD. No it's not the ACLU, but exactly where do you think this stuff is coming from?

The ACLU endorses the "right" to enough activities that violate Christian beliefs that it doesn't matter if they are "anti-Christian" as an organization. Shame on me? A wishy-washy semi-Christian stance, involving endorsment of the ACLU is more shameful in my eyes. I am not ashamed. What rights do Christians have that the ACLU protects? Please list them, after you research them. They seem more to stand for the total lack of accountabiblity Zoo and I have both mentioned. The things they endorse the loudest lead to excess without consequence. This eventually brings us back to removal of the right to pray out loud in public. What right did this give back to someone? If they were really serving everyone, they would outlaw the use of "Jesus Christ" as a cuss word in public schools too. How do Christians avoid hearing that when anyone, anywhere can pop it out anytime they get ticked off? If it were law, we wouldn't have to hear it. Our "right to" live in peace without being disturbed by the actions of others would be preserved. After all, why isn't your name a cuss word? Why shouldn't it be? Because it would offend you if people started doing it? Where would Jerusalem be if the ACLU were allowed over there?

I know we went off Wizz's topic, but he doesn't seem to mind, and has also contributed to his own thread on this new line. The post count and number of people reading it show extreme interest in it, so It seems okay if he isn't upset about it. He's tolerating it, in other words. Spiff, I am going to Pm you with a question you haven't answered here, even though you have alluded to it. Check your PMs.

As for photo speeding tickets, what friend do you have who would borrow your car, get a ticket, and not go to traffic court with you to pay their fine? The cameras have already been proven to help enforce the speed limits because people do what's right, according to the bible, and slow down. They may have a wrong motive of avoiding a ticket, but the end result is the authorities are complied with. The bible says to subject yourselves to authourity. So, the ACLU is in contrast to the bible on that one too.


Yoga is a physical activity designed specifically to improve the overall healthy state of the body. The resulting state of euphoria, or any other name you give it can also be achived by hauling garbage. The body releases endorphins during both of these activities. I have injured myself many times over the past ten years while feeling just fine at work. After a couple of hours of rest, I've found myself unable to put weight on my sprained ankle, unable to lift a coffee cup with my sprained wrist, inable to even move my sprained finger...etc. The body can release powerful pain relief in response to targeted physical stimulation. This should not be confused with a spiritual state, as the chemicals can be found in the blood when sampled at the right time.

Richard correctly pointed out the diversity of all the different eastern "religions", and I admit my brush was too broad...let's say "many of them" regarding the attributes I named...perhaps not all. It was an example, intended to simply show some variations on the religion theme. Mostly I wanted to clearly state the bible position on what the Christian church should be, and often isn't. Clearly, many religions help others less fortunate. Others detatch from the world completely. That was what I meant to convey, vs the broad sweep I wrote by leaving out some important words.

The church of Christ, under any denominational name, has to follow the whole bible, from old testament to new, to have any credibility. The old testament lays the groundwork with minute details of geneologies, history,and prophecies that become critical 400 years after the last old testament book was written. There is no room for idolatry of any kind, worship of any other person or thing, or behaviors that violate God's plan for humanity. When those behaviors arise, due to the fallen nature of man as described in Genesis, there have to be consequences. There is judgement, and the judgement is conditional on what you believe of God and his message to us. That's what we believe.

It has been twisted many ways. A common way is to simply do as you please, confess it every few days, live until you die, then burn off the rest of your transgressions in a kind of "instead of Hell" that cleans you up from anything you didn't get to confess before the car ran you over. Then everyone outside your church goes to Hell. This, too removes any accountability, because nothing you do matters in your final judgement. As though you could commit murder, and then go free because you were basically good before that. Does that sound familiar? You see how easy it is to mix it all together? That's why we use the one book. Some organized "Christian" religion doesn't even believe the bible is really the word of God. Even some factions of the Baptist church do this. Surprizing, isn't it? And yes, the bible warns specifically about this, a couple of Millenia ago.

Careful study of the new testament shows that Christians are DIRECTED to subject themselves to authority, in the form of the current government. It wasn't a political movement. The bible says so, and the "movement" is based on the bible. Even Jesus said "give to Ceasar what is Caeser's." Knowing how people value their money, why would he advocate paying taxes, if he could get that money for his movement instead? Why would a tax collector be one of his disciples and leave the life of corruption and tax-payer gouging that made him wealthy? And, no he wasn't the money bag keeper. Judas was that guy. The very one who betrayed him. There was no political insurrection headed up by Jesus or Christians, or the Jewish historian Josephus would have recorded it, thereby discrediting him as the Messiah, and the whole movement with him.

[ZooTech]

You can speed if you so choose, but don't wave a fist or tailgate to intimidate the law abider.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I do speed, but I don't do anything to intimidate the people in front of me. I may mumble to myself or roll my eyes when someone is running in the fast lane and not overtaking anyone, but I don't flash my lights, shake my fist, or flip them the bird or anything. In fact, nine times outta ten they make gestures or flash their brights at me just for passing them.

[blues2cruise]

You can speed if you so choose, but don't wave a fist or tailgate to intimidate the law abider.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I do speed, but I don't do anything to intimidate the people in front of me. I may mumble to myself or roll my eyes when someone is running in the fast lane and not overtaking anyone, but I don't flash my lights, shake my fist, or flip them the bird or anything. In fact, nine times outta ten they make gestures or flash their brights at me just for passing them.

Then I apologize. I misinterpreted in the other thread. It's so easy to do when you only read print and don't discuss face to face.

[ZooTech]

Then I apologize. I misinterpreted in the other thread. It's so easy to do when you only read print and don't discuss face to face.

No biggie. I do it, too, along with confusing people's posts with someone else's, especially when holding several concurrent conversations.

[Wizzard]

ACLU's Defense of Religious Liberty (3/2/2005)

The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Constitution's framers understood very well that religious liberty can flourish only if the government leaves religion alone.

The American Civil Liberties Union has a long history of working to ensure that religious liberty is protected. From the famous 1920 Scopes trial-in which the ACLU challenged a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in schools-to the current Ten Commandments case before the Supreme Court, the ACLU remains committed to keeping the government out of the religion business and protecting every American's right to believe as he or she wishes.

Recent ACLU involvement in religious liberty cases include:

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

December 14, 2004: ACLU joins Pennsylvania parents in filing first-ever challenge to "Intelligent Design" instruction in public schools.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 12, 2004: ACLU of Georgia files a lawsuit on behalf of parents challenging evolution disclaimers in science textbooks.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.

[Wizzard]

Dr. Jeremy Gunn, Expert on Religious Freedom, To Lead New ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief (7/14/2005)


NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union today announced that Dr. Jeremy Gunn has joined its national staff as Director of the ACLU's new Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

The program was founded earlier this year to help promote the American Constitutional value of freedom of religious opinion. "I could not be more pleased to have Jeremy joining our team at the ACLU," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "His globally recognized work on religious freedom, his expertise on the establishment clause and his deep commitment to civil liberties will further the ACLU's vital mission -- to protect the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution."

Dr. Gunn comes to the ACLU from Emory Law School in Atlanta where for the past five years he has been a Senior Fellow for Religion and Human Rights and a Senior Associate at the Washington-based Institute for Global Engagement. He is a member of the Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion and Belief of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, working on behalf of evangelical Christians and other religious minorities.

Before his work in Atlanta, Dr. Gunn was Director of Research at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. He has also served as a Senior Advisor for the U.S. Ambassador for International Religious Freedom at the Department of State and as a Senior Fellow at the U.S. Institute for Peace. Dr. Gunn spent four years at the JFK Assassination Records Review Board as General Counsel and Executive Director.

"Religious freedom is an essential element of our democracy -- indeed it is the very reason America is the most religiously diverse nation in the world," said Dr. Gunn. "The two critical components of religion are the free exercise and the establishment clauses in the First Amendment of the Constitution and neither should be overlooked. The ACLU has been at the forefront in defending our religious freedom, and I look forward to engaging in the ongoing debate about the need for government neutrality in matters of religious opinion."

Dr. Gunn received his Ph.D. in Religion and Society from Harvard University in 1991, and he holds a J.D. from Boston University, where he graduated magna come laude in 1987. He earned his M.A. in Humanities at the University of Chicago and his B.A. in International Relations and Humanities at Brigham Young University, where he received high honors with distinction.

[sv-wolf]

Yoga is a physical activity designed specifically to improve the overall healthy state of the body. The resulting state of euphoria, or any other name you give it can also be achived by hauling garbage. The body releases endorphins during both of these activities. I have injured myself many times over the past ten years while feeling just fine at work. After a couple of hours of rest, I've found myself unable to put weight on my sprained ankle, unable to lift a coffee cup with my sprained wrist, inable to even move my sprained finger...etc. The body can release powerful pain relief in response to targeted physical stimulation. This should not be confused with a spiritual state, as the chemicals can be found in the blood when sampled at the right time.

Ron, once more you have a very partial understanding of the purpose of Yoga or of various medititive practices and the results they produce. Some very crude versions of Eastern Yoga practices are used in the West as relaxation techniques or as methods to gain fitness or restore health. In the East, where they originated a number of religions use yoga as a means of stilling the mind so that union with the Godhead can be achieved. They have nothing to do with inducing 'euporia' or pain relief, at least when practiced by informed seekers. The idea that some kind of 'euphoria' is the state being sought in these practices is a very old bit of Western ignorance and bigotry.

And again, many forms of Christian prayer are no different to similar forms of Eastern meditation technique.

Can I suggest that you should be more careful with comments of this kind. Your lack of understanding of these non-Christian practices merely highlights that your belief in the superiority of Christian practices is based on the ignorance and preconception of the committed.

Careful study of the new testament shows that Christians are DIRECTED to subject themselves to authority, in the form of the current government. It wasn't a political movement. The bible says so, and the "movement" is based on the bible. Even Jesus said "give to Ceasar what is Caeser's." Knowing how people value their money, why would he advocate paying taxes, if he could get that money for his movement instead?

This is another circular argument, Ron. If early Christianity were a political movement, the New Testament could be seen as a political tract designed to further an aim rather than state a truth. If that is so, the fact that the Bible says it isn't a political movement (or the fact that you interpret the Bible as saying it isn't)is neigher here nor there. You have to assume the Bible is stating an absolute truth before anything it says can be accepted as such.

There was no political insurrection headed up by Jesus or Christians, or the Jewish historian Josephus would have recorded it, thereby discrediting him as the Messiah, and the whole movement with him.

You need to be careful about that one Ron! Citing Josephus can be tricky for a Christian. Yes, if it had happened that a gung-ho insurrection had taken place headed by Jesus, Josephus would certainly have mentioned it. Josephus was a real old tittle tattler. But if there had been someone who resembled the Jesus Christ of the New Testament, and who created all the commotion he was supposed to have done in Judea and especially at the time of his entry into Jerusalem, you would also think that Josephus would have mentioned it. He doesn't. Not a word. Silence.

While there are plenty of references to Christians in Josephus there are only two mentions of Christ. It's a long time since I studied this history but I seem to remember they are in the eighteenth and twentieth books of the Jewish Antiquities. And these two references are almost certainly interpolations by later Christian copyists. We know this because both Origen and Eusabius listed all the Christian references in Josephus. These two references to Christ occur in the later list but are very noticeably absent in the former.

No such insurrection took place - that isn't what I was suggesting. Political movement do not have to be either successful or dramatic to be political movements. Over the three centuries after Christ, there is strong evidence of a pacifist resistance movement to the Roman state - at least until Christianity became incorporated as the state religion of the Roman Empire in an attempt by Constantine to unify the diverse factions that were currently tearing it apart.

I have a queston for you which has always puzzled me about what Zoo has described as a literalist interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is a highly metaphorical text, and it is very obvious to anyone who manages even a superficial reading of 'literalist' interpretations of it that they are not literal at all. Take the 'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are God's' that you quote in your recent post.

The fact is that there have been no Caesars for... what is it? fifteen, sixteen hundred years. A literal interpretation of the Bible would not be able to find any current relevance in this remark as the political role it refers to no longer exists. So you clearly give this passage a metaphorical interpretation instead. You interpret 'Caesar' as a symbol of the state, and not just the Roman State of the time, but any state of any kind, no matter how different it might be in structure, or legitimacy. So here, even at this very simple level, the Bible text is being interpreted, and a particular meaning is being projected into it. Your assumption that Christ's reference is equally applicable to the modern capitalist state as opposed to the Roman slave-owining one is not explained.

Now, you cannot pin a literal reading of a text down to a single meaning, so you certainly can't do it for a metaphorical one. Let's just investigate this in the spirit of working out some of the variant readings possible. Yes, you could choose a simple emblematic reading and assert that Christ is here stating that you should pay your taxes to the state. You could also argue that it means you should render obedience to the laws of the state. But neither of these ideas are unambiguously present in the text. They require interpretation.

If you look elsewhere you will find Christ flouting his own rule by being not very friendly to the money changers going about their lawful business in the temple.

But you could ask the question whether Christ, as a practicing Jew, was not being ironic. From a Jewish perspective, the recent Roman invasion of Judea gave questionable authority to Caesar as political head of the Roman occupying force. What, in fact, was legitimately due to Caesar from a Jewish perspective? The answer might indeed be 'nothing'. What was legitimately due to Caesar is not necessarily the same as what was demanded by him.

Christ pointedly does not demand that one should render unto the Sanhedrin or the Jewish state in general what belonged to it. So, on this interpretation, if the United States were invaded tomorrow, we might conclude on Biblical authority that you should collaborate with the invading force and abandon your alliegence to the legitimate government. That is a perfectly possible 'literalist' reading.

You might object that all these ramifications are rather silly, and I would agree, but no sillier, from my perspective, than trying to interpret the Bible in this way.

Something else that puzzles me, Ron. I asked Zoo this, in an earlier post. What is it that makes 'literalists' believe that a so-called 'literal' interpretation of the Bible (their 'literal' interpretation) superior to more obviously metaphorical or anagogical ones or any other consistent interpretive methodology come to that. I've never really received a coherent answer from any of the fundamentalist Christians I've spoken to. They usually resort to circular arguments if they have any idea at all.

Now I understand that you may well claim divine guidance in the interpretations that you make, but in my experience so do many others whose interpretations differ one from the other. So here is another thing that puzzles me. If you believe the Bible to be the unambiguous word of God, you can't all be right. How do you explain this to yourself? or how would you explain it to someone else.

[ZooTech]

I have a queston for you which has always puzzled me about what Zoo has described as a literalist interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is a highly metaphorical text, and it is very obvious to anyone who manages even a superficial reading of 'literalist' interpretations of it that they are not literal at all. Take the 'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are God's' that you quote in your recent post.

The fact is that there have been no Caesars for... what is it? fifteen, sixteen hundred years. A literal interpretation of the Bible would not be able to find any current relevance in this remark as the political role it refers to no longer exists.

Now, you cannot pin a literal reading of a text down to a single meaning, so you certainly can't do it for a metaphorical one. Let's just investigate this in the spirit of working out some of the variant readings possible. Yes, you could choose a simple emblematic reading and assert that Christ is here stating that you should pay your taxes to the state. You could also argue that it means you should render obedience to the laws of the state. But neither of these ideas are unambiguously present in the text. They require interpretation.

So Jesus used metaphors and broad statements to get His point across, or so the King James translation would appear to show. The point is to take the underlying message literally, and not dismiss the whole thing entirely simply because He didn't come right out and say, "Pay taxes". Too many choose to dismiss the Bible entirely simply because the statements are not blunt enough. Your point that Caesar is now dead and there are none currently in power is an excellent example. The disciple was asking Jesus, "What about this tax Caesar has imposed on us?", and Jesus basically said, "Pay the tax. His face is on the money, so abide by the laws of the government as you abide by the laws of God". There is a literal message to be taken from that, despite the fact that it is arrived at through metaphor. And even though we have to get all three brain cells working together to make the leap from "Caesar" to "Government", I don't think it qualifies as a full-blown interpretation.

Something else that puzzles me, Ron. I asked Zoo this, in an earlier post. What is it that makes 'literalists' believe that a so-called 'literal' interpretation of the Bible (their 'literal' interpretation) superior to more obviously metaphorical or anagogical ones or any other consistent interpretive methodology come to that.

The problem with treating it like a huge book of metaphors is that the people who do so then claim the Bible is open to interpretation, and that leads to using it as a means to an end. You'll find that a lot of wacko denominations, like the Catholics, like to take verses out of context and base their entire belief structure on them. Just look at how Spiff, I believe it was, threw those verses from Exodus and Leviticus at me regarding slavery. To the uneducated and uninformed, it would appear as though the Bible does support slavery. Thing is, those verses were from the Old Testament and were from a time when slavery was more prominent, and as Ron pointed out, it wasn't a four-letter-word at that time period. A master/slave relationship wasn't too far off from a modern day employer/employee, or home-owner/house-keeper relationship. Some slaves were sentenced into the slave trade to repay a defaulted debt, since bankruptcy was not an option in those times. In any case, the point I'm trying to make is that you have to read the whole Bible, have a good understanding of the time period, and be aware of the context in which every verse is being used before arriving at the literal meaning of it. Picking and choosing verses out of context and with no understanding of the laws of the time can lead to some pretty off-the-wall interpretations, especially if your whole purpose is to use the Bible as leverage for your own agenda.

[Spiff]

As for internet research...doing very much of this will reveal to you why nobody is responding to this offer. Potentially unpopular opinions by an organization with an agenda will be the last ones to make it onto their website.

(Bolding added by me.)

Exactly. But please remember that Google searches the entire Web and the Internet, not just the ACLU Web site.

Look, how do you suppose the ACLU would intimidate retailers? The ACLU is a bunch of skinny attorneys ... who don't go around slashing car tires or popping kneecaps.

No ... THEY WRITE LETTERS!

If the ACLU had ever written a letter to the CEO of Wal-Mart (or Target, or Sears, etc.) trying to intimidate them into adopting a company policy of "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" -- what do you think would happen?

Why, these CEOs would have had their lawyers tell the ACLU to go stuff themselves! In addition, they would have cried bloody murder in several strongly worded press releases telling the ACLU to go stuff themselves!

If that had happened, every major media outfit would have carried the story! (Yes, Fox News included, probably as a lead story.)

Yet, such stories are not out there. One cannot find them with a 20 frickin' second Internet search. I used the word lazy before, and I stand by it.

But, I guess the ACLU's "Anti-Merry Christmas Campaign" must be so super top secret that even the CEOs of major American coprorations don't even know about it!

Either that or some people are so anti-ACLU that they will just believe what they want to about it, regardless of the facts.

P.S. I wonder if any of the folks in this thread who think the ACLU is anti-Christian will respond to Wizzard's excellent post outlining just some of the many, many cases where the ACLU has gone to bat for Christians.

I would hope someone would do so, but I'm not holding my breath...