[Note: This is one of several threads from which Jnyusa removed some or all of her posts. We regret that the integrity of these discussions has been disrupted in this way. While we support the right of our members to edit their posts if they have second thoughts about them, we believe this type of wholesale removal of posts goes beyond that, and is damaging to the community.
Voronwë_the_Faithful, Primula Baggins, Whistler, nerdanel]
[removed]
[topic regretted] (was Jews against anti-Christian ...)
[topic regretted] (was Jews against anti-Christian ...)
Last edited by Jnyusa on Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Glad you visited the site, Jn!
Yes, there is a bit of a political slant there that goes beyond the simple anti-defamation theme; but I think that slant is very much secondary.
I am delighted that, as a Jew, you had the honesty to point out that Hitler was not a Christian and hated Christianity: he even ordered the removal of crosses from churches! It is extremely common today for anti-Christian elements to claim that Hitler was in fact a Christian, and to shout “Nazi!” every time Christians dare to appear in any public forum, as though we can’t wait for the chance to throw somebody into a gas chamber.
Yes, there is a bit of a political slant there that goes beyond the simple anti-defamation theme; but I think that slant is very much secondary.
I am delighted that, as a Jew, you had the honesty to point out that Hitler was not a Christian and hated Christianity: he even ordered the removal of crosses from churches! It is extremely common today for anti-Christian elements to claim that Hitler was in fact a Christian, and to shout “Nazi!” every time Christians dare to appear in any public forum, as though we can’t wait for the chance to throw somebody into a gas chamber.
-
nerdanel
- This is Rome
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
- Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
Jn,
Persecution is a very, very strong term. Could you please give examples of the persecution of religious people, or of religion more generally, that you are referring to?
As far as the secularization of the holiday, I want to make one point about which I feel very strongly: there has been a trend in recent years towards recognizing that not everyone celebrates Christmas, and thus towards providing more generic greetings such as "Happy Holidays" until one knows whether the person in question celebrates any holiday at all, and if so, which one. I have seen some people confuse this mere sensitivity towards the existence of multiple religions (not to mention agnosticism and atheism) with anti-Christian sentiment.
Similarly, I have seen people confuse the desire not to have the government promote or endorse any religious belief, view, or holiday - and yes, that includes Christmas - with anti-Christian sentiment. This is not anti-Christian, and it is not anti-religion.
I wasn't going to respond to this until later, but your use of the term "Secular Persecution of All Religion" caused my fingers to itch uncontrollably, almost literally, because I feel highly, highly skeptical that the non-religious minority in this country (ten percent or less) could possibly be persecuting the religious majority. Certainly, the minority may feel that lack of religion is superior to religion. However, this is merely the flip-side of the view of the many religious people who believe that it is superior (or even required to escape subsequent damnation) to hold (a particular set of) religious beliefs. Do these individually held views constitute forms of persecution?
For the record, I have never once heard the word "Nazi!" shouted at a Christian who appeared in a public forum - not literally, not impliedly, nothing. Neither have my parents, who are practicing Christians. I am shocked and ashamed to learn this is a common practice for any "element" within our country.
Persecution is a very, very strong term. Could you please give examples of the persecution of religious people, or of religion more generally, that you are referring to?
As far as the secularization of the holiday, I want to make one point about which I feel very strongly: there has been a trend in recent years towards recognizing that not everyone celebrates Christmas, and thus towards providing more generic greetings such as "Happy Holidays" until one knows whether the person in question celebrates any holiday at all, and if so, which one. I have seen some people confuse this mere sensitivity towards the existence of multiple religions (not to mention agnosticism and atheism) with anti-Christian sentiment.
Similarly, I have seen people confuse the desire not to have the government promote or endorse any religious belief, view, or holiday - and yes, that includes Christmas - with anti-Christian sentiment. This is not anti-Christian, and it is not anti-religion.
I wasn't going to respond to this until later, but your use of the term "Secular Persecution of All Religion" caused my fingers to itch uncontrollably, almost literally, because I feel highly, highly skeptical that the non-religious minority in this country (ten percent or less) could possibly be persecuting the religious majority. Certainly, the minority may feel that lack of religion is superior to religion. However, this is merely the flip-side of the view of the many religious people who believe that it is superior (or even required to escape subsequent damnation) to hold (a particular set of) religious beliefs. Do these individually held views constitute forms of persecution?
For the record, I have never once heard the word "Nazi!" shouted at a Christian who appeared in a public forum - not literally, not impliedly, nothing. Neither have my parents, who are practicing Christians. I am shocked and ashamed to learn this is a common practice for any "element" within our country.
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
I typed up a long post on the subject, but then I decided to wait until TP had a chance to reply. 
Seriously, though, Jnyusa raises two points in this thread. One is the "secularization" of Christmas, and by extension of Hanukah (my preferred spelling, as it contains approximately the right number of consonants).
The other is this website, which is dedicated to support, not of the values of love, forgiveness and good works that are shared by the two religions - by most religions - but to a political agenda of the religious conservatives. It defines Christians rather narrowly as "devout Catholics and evengalicals", and basically casts Democrats in the role of Grinch.
Edited to prove that I know the difference between a vowel and a consonant.
Seriously, though, Jnyusa raises two points in this thread. One is the "secularization" of Christmas, and by extension of Hanukah (my preferred spelling, as it contains approximately the right number of consonants).
The other is this website, which is dedicated to support, not of the values of love, forgiveness and good works that are shared by the two religions - by most religions - but to a political agenda of the religious conservatives. It defines Christians rather narrowly as "devout Catholics and evengalicals", and basically casts Democrats in the role of Grinch.
Now, the topic of secularization of religious holidays is one that I think deserves a serious exploration. But I would not connect that topic with this particular website, because its slant is political rather than spiritual.It’s because devout Catholics -- and evangelicals -- are opposed to abortion on demand, euthanasia, gay marriage and the panoply of social positions embraced by the National Democratic Party, academia, the judiciary and much of the media, that they have incurred the establishment’s wrath.
Edited to prove that I know the difference between a vowel and a consonant.
Last edited by Frelga on Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
nerdanel
- This is Rome
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
- Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
Frelga -- good point, on the two discussions. Indeed, I have not yet had a chance to look at the site (as I said, itchy, itchy fingers ).
Jn - should we have a separate thread for the discussion of the secularization/persecution issue? If so, perhaps we might have that discussion in the "Lasto Beth Lammen" forum, as this forum seems dedicated to the joys of all things religious and spiritual, rather than vigorous debate. I don't want to mess up the feel of this forum.
). Jn - should we have a separate thread for the discussion of the secularization/persecution issue? If so, perhaps we might have that discussion in the "Lasto Beth Lammen" forum, as this forum seems dedicated to the joys of all things religious and spiritual, rather than vigorous debate.
I don't want to mess up the feel of this forum.I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
I agree that the trend of secularization of the Christmas/Channukah is overwhelmingly bad for all holidays. I strongly feel that Valentines day is a mere ploy from business to drum up more business. I often wonder, since I am in a different part of the world and don't know, if Moslems have the same problem with Rhamadan (sp). Or if any other religions face this problem.
Most of you probably wouldn't read a book by somebody named Limbaugh, but there is a book called "Persecution" by David (not Rush!) Limbaugh that details hundreds of specific examples of anti-Christian persecution. On the cover, there's an approaching lion.
Another book, written along the same lines, has just been published. I can't recall the name, unfortunately.
And Jn is very correct about minorities. Ninety percent of any culture is comprised of sheep who simply watch what's happening and hope they won't be bothered. All it takes is a small group to turn a whole culture on its ear.
Another book, written along the same lines, has just been published. I can't recall the name, unfortunately.
And Jn is very correct about minorities. Ninety percent of any culture is comprised of sheep who simply watch what's happening and hope they won't be bothered. All it takes is a small group to turn a whole culture on its ear.
Well, now! Guess what was just on the news? A report that many CHURCHES intend to shut down for Christmas this year, despite the fact that the holiday occurs on a Sunday.
One clergyman explained: "It's a secular holiday, not a sacred one."
Anti-religionists may now direct their efforts elsewhere: Christians can eradicate Christmas without their assistance, it seems.
One clergyman explained: "It's a secular holiday, not a sacred one."
Anti-religionists may now direct their efforts elsewhere: Christians can eradicate Christmas without their assistance, it seems.
I so badly want to type 'typical'. I find Irony of this sort amazing.
"well we won't be going to Church this Sunday because its Christmas"
It's also one of my pet peeves about many christian churches (not Christians, I don't need to be lynched yet), that they profess to follow the teachings of Christ, yet don't.
"well we won't be going to Church this Sunday because its Christmas"
It's also one of my pet peeves about many christian churches (not Christians, I don't need to be lynched yet), that they profess to follow the teachings of Christ, yet don't.
Whistler said: "All it takes is a small group to turn a whole culture on its ear."
Well, that's true. And that's how I feel about the sort of people who call themselves "Christians" while longing for the future depicted in the "Left Behind" books.
As a Canadian, when I look at the US, I see a vocal and extremely powerful religious minority wielding enormous power. It seems nearly in defiance of the provision in your constitution separating church from state.
I DO understand, believe me, that many sincere and devotedly religious people feel that religious and spiritual values are under attack in America. But are they under attack from a secular minority? Not as far as I can see.
American popular culture is now overwhelmingly "secular". I say "American popular culture" not to BLAME America, but simply to recognize the truth. This culture is not "persecuting" Christianity, it often simply overpowers it. It is a juggernaut that has seemed unstoppable.
It is distressing to think that any person of any faith feels that faith to be under attack. But I think the perceived attack on Christianity in the US is more or less accidental, a by-product of the secularization of society, rather than a planned persecution. Or even unplanned.
Furthermore, I think that tide is turning, since I see the exact opposite: an attack by certain religious groups on ALL secularity, even that which is healthy, wholesome, and necessary for your country to survive.
Jnyusa asks: "When does tolerance of all religions end, and secular persecution of religion begin?"
Jnyusa, with the best will in the world, I cannot see that question really making much sense. Granted, if people CHOOSE secular values, if they turn from religion, the effect is the same as if there was a campaign to persecute or eliminate religions. In the "marketplace of ideas", one kind of philosophy may be more "popular" or "attractive" than the other.
Without wishing at all to offend anyone, I think that it is up to "religion" to fight for itself and gain back its ground (assuming it has lost any) by making its product more desirable. And in the US, I believe it is succeeding. I'm not fond of this new product of fundamentalism, myself, but many people are.
Well, that's true. And that's how I feel about the sort of people who call themselves "Christians" while longing for the future depicted in the "Left Behind" books.
As a Canadian, when I look at the US, I see a vocal and extremely powerful religious minority wielding enormous power. It seems nearly in defiance of the provision in your constitution separating church from state.
I DO understand, believe me, that many sincere and devotedly religious people feel that religious and spiritual values are under attack in America. But are they under attack from a secular minority? Not as far as I can see.
American popular culture is now overwhelmingly "secular". I say "American popular culture" not to BLAME America, but simply to recognize the truth. This culture is not "persecuting" Christianity, it often simply overpowers it. It is a juggernaut that has seemed unstoppable.
It is distressing to think that any person of any faith feels that faith to be under attack. But I think the perceived attack on Christianity in the US is more or less accidental, a by-product of the secularization of society, rather than a planned persecution. Or even unplanned.
Furthermore, I think that tide is turning, since I see the exact opposite: an attack by certain religious groups on ALL secularity, even that which is healthy, wholesome, and necessary for your country to survive.
Jnyusa asks: "When does tolerance of all religions end, and secular persecution of religion begin?"
Jnyusa, with the best will in the world, I cannot see that question really making much sense. Granted, if people CHOOSE secular values, if they turn from religion, the effect is the same as if there was a campaign to persecute or eliminate religions. In the "marketplace of ideas", one kind of philosophy may be more "popular" or "attractive" than the other.
Without wishing at all to offend anyone, I think that it is up to "religion" to fight for itself and gain back its ground (assuming it has lost any) by making its product more desirable. And in the US, I believe it is succeeding. I'm not fond of this new product of fundamentalism, myself, but many people are.
Dig deeper.
Jny, not being either TP or V, I can't hope to achieve much coherence on the subject, but in my mind the difference is clear.
Tolerance is letting everybody worship in the way they desire - in their houses of worship, their homes, or not at all.
What goes on on public property, paid for by public money is entirely separate matter, and one into which I will not enter.
Intolerance I am worried about is bombed churches, swastika-splattered synagogues, torched mosques, women attacked for not wearing proper headgear, gay men beaten to death.
Tolerance is letting everybody worship in the way they desire - in their houses of worship, their homes, or not at all.
What goes on on public property, paid for by public money is entirely separate matter, and one into which I will not enter.
Intolerance I am worried about is bombed churches, swastika-splattered synagogues, torched mosques, women attacked for not wearing proper headgear, gay men beaten to death.
The word "God" was not included in the pledge of allegiance until when, 1954? It seems more a case of religion interfering, than religion being interfered with, to have put the words "under God" in the pledge in the first place.
As for the words "In God We Trust" on your coinage, well, to be honest I've never understood what they were doing on the coins in the first place. I'm not being flip or sarcastic, either. What has trust in God got to do with money?
I don't quite think the word "God" is a generic term, Jnyusa. God implies religion, if not a specific denomination or sect.
But I'm not an American, so I suppose it's all beside the point what I think.
My own heart and sympathies lie with those who think that the governments of Canada should not bring God into any public discourse. We hear, these days, a lot of nattering from some folks that Canada is a "Christian" country, founded specifically and directly with and from Christian principles.
Even if that was true, and I'm not sure it is or was, the reality is now that there are many different religions in Canada and many non-religious people as well. We don't have that constitutional separation of Church and State, but I wish we did. It would make things simpler.
Still, I think the current folly of not calling Christmas Trees by their proper name IS folly. I don't know that it is the business of any level of government to erect and display ANY seasonal icon, though. But, I love to go into my little town and see all the stores alight with Christmas lights and Diwali strands and menorahs here and there: the more the merrier, I say, if they are displayed by merchants and citizens, but not by City Hall.
As for the words "In God We Trust" on your coinage, well, to be honest I've never understood what they were doing on the coins in the first place. I'm not being flip or sarcastic, either. What has trust in God got to do with money?
I don't quite think the word "God" is a generic term, Jnyusa. God implies religion, if not a specific denomination or sect.
But I'm not an American, so I suppose it's all beside the point what I think.
My own heart and sympathies lie with those who think that the governments of Canada should not bring God into any public discourse. We hear, these days, a lot of nattering from some folks that Canada is a "Christian" country, founded specifically and directly with and from Christian principles.
Even if that was true, and I'm not sure it is or was, the reality is now that there are many different religions in Canada and many non-religious people as well. We don't have that constitutional separation of Church and State, but I wish we did. It would make things simpler.
Still, I think the current folly of not calling Christmas Trees by their proper name IS folly. I don't know that it is the business of any level of government to erect and display ANY seasonal icon, though. But, I love to go into my little town and see all the stores alight with Christmas lights and Diwali strands and menorahs here and there: the more the merrier, I say, if they are displayed by merchants and citizens, but not by City Hall.
Dig deeper.
Ah, Frelga!
But it never starts that way. It starts with a joke, a snub, a cold remark that is allowed to go unanswered. An eyebrow arched significantly during a news broadcast, just at the appropriate moment.
Those hook-nosed Jewish caricatures never hurt anybody, did they? No, not until they paved the way for something else, and something else, and something else.
And then we have something we can all worry about.
But it never starts that way. It starts with a joke, a snub, a cold remark that is allowed to go unanswered. An eyebrow arched significantly during a news broadcast, just at the appropriate moment.
Those hook-nosed Jewish caricatures never hurt anybody, did they? No, not until they paved the way for something else, and something else, and something else.
And then we have something we can all worry about.
-
Impenitent
- Throw me a rope.
- Posts: 7273
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:13 am
- Location: Deep in Oz
I would venture that political correctness (ie the horror of even the slightest possiblity of perpetrating an offence against any minority) is being confused for intolerance.
I can read both the examples Jn gave above as precisely this: "goodness, people who have trouble with the God-word have to handle money/give the pledge of allegiance all the time and they may well be offended or uncomfortable by it - so let's remove it."
I consider that kind of impulse silly, but not necessarily an expression of intolerance against religious belief.
Whistler, I am completely taken aback that any group would equate christianity with nazism. What an extraordinary idea! I've never heard of it before - and am very sorry indeed that you have experiences such a thing.
I can read both the examples Jn gave above as precisely this: "goodness, people who have trouble with the God-word have to handle money/give the pledge of allegiance all the time and they may well be offended or uncomfortable by it - so let's remove it."
I consider that kind of impulse silly, but not necessarily an expression of intolerance against religious belief.
Whistler, I am completely taken aback that any group would equate christianity with nazism. What an extraordinary idea! I've never heard of it before - and am very sorry indeed that you have experiences such a thing.
Impenitent, that was to some degree a bit of hyperbole; though I have indeed seen as much, many times (I have searched!) on assorted crackpot message boards and websites. We are also the Taliban, depending on where you search.
A few kooks? Yes. But Hitler was ONE kook who happened to find himself in an environment ready for exploitation.
A few kooks? Yes. But Hitler was ONE kook who happened to find himself in an environment ready for exploitation.
-
Impenitent
- Throw me a rope.
- Posts: 7273
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:13 am
- Location: Deep in Oz
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 47800
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Here is an excerpt from the opinion of Justice Goodwin of the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, ruling that the pledge of allegiance as it currently exists and as it was applied in the particular school district involved in the case violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Goodwin, by the way, was a Nixon appointee. Just as a bit of background, there are three tests that the Supreme Court has devised for determining whether the Establishment Clause has been violated. Justice Goodwin found that it violates all three tests. I agree, but I only quote his reasoning under one of the tests - the endorsement test
Here is the link to the full opinion:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopin ... penelement
We first consider whether the 1954 Act and the EGUSD's
policy of teacher-led Pledge recitation survive the endorsement
test. The magistrate judge found that "the ceremonial reference to God in the pledge does not convey endorsement of particular religious beliefs." Supreme Court precedent does not support that conclusion.
In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation "under God" is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation "under God" is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans
believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase "one nation under God" in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and -- since 1954 -- monotheism.
The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation "under God" is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation "under Jesus," a nation "under Vishnu," a nation"under Zeus," or a nation "under no god," because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. "[T]he government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion." Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60.
Furthermore, the school district's practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsement of these ideals. Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the
Pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the Pledge. The Supreme Court recognized the normative and ideological nature of the Pledge in Barnette, 319 U.S. 624. There, the Court held unconstitutional a school district's wartime policy of punishing students who refused to recite the Pledge and salute the flag. Id. at 642. The Court noted that the school district was compelling the students "to declare a belief," id. at 631, and "requir[ing] the individual to communicate by word and sign his acceptance of the political ideas [the flag] . . . bespeaks," id. at 633. "[T]he compulsory flag salute and pledge requires affirmation of a belief and an attitude of mind." Id. The Court emphasized that the political concepts
articulated in the Pledge6 were idealistic, not descriptive: " `[L]iberty and justice for all,' if it must be accepted as descriptive of the present order rather than an ideal, might to some seem an overstatement." Id. at 634 n.14. The Court concluded that: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe
what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." Id. at 642.
The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (O'Connor, J., concurring). Justice Kennedy, in his dissent in Allegheny, agreed:
y statute, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag describes the United States as `one nation under God.' To be sure, no one is obligated to recite this phrase, . . . but it borders on sophistry to suggest that
the reasonable atheist would not feel less than a full member of the political community every time his fellow Americans recited, as part of their expression of patriotism and love for country, a phrase he
believed to be false. Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 672 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Consequently, the policy
and the Act fail the endorsement test.
Here is the link to the full opinion:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopin ... penelement
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."