On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:08:07 +0700, Y-Not:: wrote
(in message <191220040406027604%$7+-Y-Not@here.com>):
> In article <e3n9s0hvsiv87j7k0k939ot77e9dh7kf9l@4ax.com>, Unforgiven
> <u@u.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:02:50 GMT, rich <noyb@some.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You know who you are, you owe me and another gentleman an apology.
>>> If you are clergy, and I don't believe that, clergy doesn't nor
>>> wouldn't speak or act as you have. You are as sick as Adolf was.
>>> Fortunately, you're not in the same authority position as he was.
>>> I lived thro some of Adolf, saw the results of him and lost some
>>> family to his war. The supreme sacrifice, made by many, so you
>>> can spout off your BS, tear down the country & destroy all that
>>> is good. Well, understand this: I will NEVER bow to the likes
>>> of you...NEVER!!! God will be in my house, Christ in my Christmas,
>>> and "In God We Trust" my motto. If you don't like the USA, get
>>> the hell out..NOW! The sooner the better. BTW, I voted for
>>> George W. Bush and am proud of it, Kerry is not my choice, now
>>> or ever. You see, I'm not afraid to say what I stand up for.
>>> I'd do it in public, in fact I already have, If you disagree,
>>> ok, that's your business. It's your way of attacking others that
>>> I find sick & disgusting..spreading lies. Remember, NEVER is a
>>> long time, a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.
>>>
>>> Merry Christmas
>>
>
>> Hi Rich,
>> Thank you for your wise words of wisdom here.
>> I am in agreement that both you and AA are owed an apology, however I
>> wouldn't hold my breath waiting on it if I were you.
>> I also love Jesus and this great country of America.
>> I believe if those who would take the side of the people who attacked
>> us on 9/11 could spend a little while in Iraq then maybe they would
>> learn to appreciate this great country instead of trying to run it
>> down for the sake of causing some frivolous arguments in these groups.
>> I just read an interesting article that I am going to paste in here
>> concerning the banning of Christmas trees in a town in Florida and the
>> decision to reverse the ban.
>> ===============================================================
>> Florida county reverses Christmas tree ban
>> Saturday, December 18, 2004 Posted: 11:32 AM EST (1632 GMT)
>>
>>
>> NEW PORT RICHEY, Florida (AP) -- Christmas tree decorations were being
>> rehung at Pasco County buildings after the reversal of a county
>> attorney's finding that the trees were unacceptable religious symbols.
>>
>> Trees had been removed from county buildings Wednesday after the
>> initial decision, which allowed them only in "semiprivate" areas such
>> as personal offices.
>>
>> That decision drew angry reactions from residents and the American
>> Center for Law & Justice, a law firm founded by televangelist Pat
>> Robertson.
>>
>> "People should respect the religious views of others; people should
>> broaden their perspective, their intelligence, stop being so
>> narrow-minded," said dry-cleaning clerk Marijane Graham. "What's next,
>> banning Santa Claus?"
>>
>> In a revised decision Friday, the attorney said that a Christmas tree
>> is a purely secular symbol, along with Santa Claus and candy canes.
>>
>> "Whether through misunderstanding or miscommunication, the actions and
>> statements of this office ... have been taken to the extreme," wrote
>> Kristi Wooden, an assistant county attorney.
>>
>> The initial decision had been in response to a man who wanted to
>> display a menorah at a county building.
>>
>> Wooden said a menorah could be displayed with a Christmas tree if a
>> sign was added to the display reading: "Salute to Liberty. During this
>> holiday season, the (government entity) salutes liberty. Let these
>> festive lights remind us that we are the keepers of the flame of
>> liberty and our legacy of freedom."
>>
>> ==================================================================
>>
>> May you have a Merry Christmas and may God Bless you and everyone.
>>
>> Take Care:)
>> U
>
>> It's A Great Day To Be A Boy !
>>
>
> There are many apologies that are owed in this series of threads. For
> all the derogatory name calling. How significant is it that the posters
> who are expressing the supremacy of Christianity, have done this the
> most? Is this what the Christian faith is all about? This is not
> setting a good example for others to see of your religion in action.
> And THIS is why I'm posting these things. I have been a full member of
> three religions. I'm outraged when someone trashes their own religion
> out of ignorance, when they are trying to push it on others. Your faith
> deserves better from you.
>
> Other religions are beautiful. Read their holy writings, then you'll
> see. They all promote healthy and wise values. The same ones that
> Christianity does. They just take slightly different paths to the same
> goal: to live a virtuous life, and to be one with God.
> Unfortunately, very few people give more than lip service to the ideals
> of their religion, as evidenced by some of the posts here. This applies
> to ALL religions. I explained why this is, in another post. So, this
> being the case, one should NOT judge a religion solely on the basis of
> what it's more aggressive members do and say. Especially with what we
> see here.
>
> Some time ago, you interfered in a life and death counseling session
> that I was conducting with someone who is of the Islamic faith, over
> the content of one of the standard prayers that is most often expressed
> in his religious experience. You took exception to it out of ignorance,
> assuming that it was meant to denigrate Christianity. It had absolutely
> NOTHING to do with you or your faith. He was praying for his LIFE, not
> against yours. It was very intolerant and unChristian of you to do
> this. Was this what you wanted him to to see of what Christianity was
> all about? That your exclusive Christian comfort was more important to
> you than his life?
> Fortunately, he is still with us, after having gone through a
> succession of nics. Did your action and attitude turn him against
> Christians? It might have, were he a lesser man. Maybe the fact that
> his family is comprised of Moslems, Christians and Jews, that has
> contributed to his remarkable understanding and tolerance. We should
> all learn from him.
>
> How ironic is it, that just after I come down on a poster, who happens
> to be a friend of mine (it wasn't difficult to figure out who he is),
> for calling someone an unjustified derogatory name, to then have that
> very name applied to ME?
> You know me and what I stand for. Do YOU think that I'm an "Adolf"?
> Really? Yet you give support and praise for the "wisdom" of someone who
> just called me that. Is this what a TRUE Christian does?
> I live by and promote the basic Christian values. These values are also
> Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, and many other religions.
> Now I ask YOU:
> What do *you* promote by how you live your life, and by what you
> express, your RELIGION, or it's VALUES?
>
> You don't have to give me an answer. It's your God who will demand it
> of you, when you meet him. And He only accepts the Truth.
>
>
> May your God bless you with the compassion and understanding to enable
> you to appreciate ALL of humanity, for we are ALL equally of God,
> whether we know it or not.
>
>
> Y Not
>
>
> Appendix (no, not the organ)
> Some web sites of interest for you:
> http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/
> Take the test to see what religion your beliefs are most in accordance
> with.
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/
> Learn about other religions. And your own.
>
>
> PS.
> Hitler considered himself to be a Christian. So did the Serb who did
> that "ethnic cleansing" genocide in Europe. EVERY religion has it's
> share of monsters.
>
>
> "Wisdom can come from many sources,
> but will we have the wisdom to recognize it?"
Hello Y-Not:
I'm not sure if I'm one of those who you think should be apologizing. I did
call (and do think of) many of the extreme religious people as crazy. Crazy
meaning (to me) not normal. I see this in the sense that they are distanced
from reality, have what appear to be pursecutory delusions and also have a
tendancy to spew anger and hate around rather freely. I don't think of those
as the characteristics of normative behavior. I agree that the 'frothing at
the mouth' remark was probably uncalled for. My bad. I'll try harder.
My advice to Victim was just that he's essentially wasting his breath if he
thinks using reasoned arguments with a person such as Rich (and there are
many versions of Rich in many religions around the world) will change his
thinking. In fact, he probably just re-inforces the 'them against us'
attitutde that seems to prevail.
Unforgiven adds more heat and no light. He wishes those who '...take the
side of the people who attacked us on 9/11...' referring, I guess to anyone
who doesn't "...love Jesus...". Is any American on the side of those who
attacked us on 9/11? I'm not on their side, but I disagree with much of what
Rich said. Just because one disagrees with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Et Al,
doesn't make one unpatriotic or bad. Stop demonizing people! That's what
people do to boylovers!
But interestingly Unforgiven then goes on the run an apparent AP article
about some rulings regarding the displays of religious symbols on public
property. He mis-states the facts saying that the article is about the
"...banning of Christmas trees in a town in Florida..." That is not the
issue at all. The article clearly states that what was in question was the
appropriateness of having Christmas decorations hung at a county (government)
office building. The constitutional question is whether this could be
interpreted as the government advocating a given religion. If so, this is
clearly constitutionally banned. It is much more narrow an issue that the
religious right makes it when they weave their 'them against us' web.
A woman is quoted in the article going on about respecting the religious
views of others and then ends by saying, "What's next? Banning Santa Claus?"
Santa Claus a religious figure? geeeeze.
Perhaps if Unforgiven went to Kazakistan he'd learn that the constitution is
a package. You can't only "...love Jesus and America..." when the America in
question is the part you happen to agreee with. That's not the way it works.
Also this relgious freedom stuff is in the Bill of Rights. Another favorite
ploy of the 'lovers of America' is to claim constituional sanctity for the
parts of the constitution (Right to bear arms) with which they agree and
blame the parts they don't like on 'activist judges'.
The simple fact is that this kind of thinking is destroying the constituion,
letter by letter, puncuation mark by punctuation mark and people who want to
make America a theocracy are not terribly different than Taliban with regard
to tolerance. The methods here aren't quite as savage yet. Of course, don't
tell that to a Native American.... the pagans.
I don't have to go to Iraq to appreciate American freedom. I can find all
the hate and intolerance right here at home. BTW I've done my duty and spent
18 months of my life in combat for American Freedom. I think I love America
just as much as anyone, I don't agree with everyone on what's the best way to
run it. I thought freedom meant that I was free to do that and express that
disagreement without having my character and patriotism questioned. I guess
Kerry found out that up against the right, patriotism means nothing. Talk
about low down. Talk about cynical. It's embarassing to be an American
when the President won't condemn that kind of gutter politics.
With regard to religion, I think it is important to distinguish religion from
spirituality. Jesus was no doubt a deeply spiritual man and much of his
message is prfoundly spiritual too. So, also The Prophet, Siddhartha, Ghandi
and others. Around the teachings of some deeply spiritual people religious
organizations have sprung up.
The spiritual teachings are one thing. Man's attempt to define and control
the teachings (for whatever end) have characterized the religions. For
example what we think of now as the Bible is the result of a lot of decisions
made by humans about what ought or ought not to be included. Many of these
decsions were essentially political.
Most spiritual matters are ephemeral. "If one knows, one cannot say, and he
who says, does not know" they trascend definition and control. Yet
religions dictate content, behavior, etc. They are social/political/economic
organizations in the main. Is there a better example of this than the Roman
Church? The one ongoing theme they've maintained over the centuries is
guilt.
Now that's my four cents worth!!
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is
that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them
together is certain death. - George Carlin
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 |
|