Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Air Force Academy creates worship area for Pagans, Druids, and Wiccans
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 155 of 244 (556975)
04-22-2010 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Meldinoor
04-21-2010 11:50 PM


Re: Such as?
How have I dishonored someone else's creed by telling them what I believe? Do you feel disrespected when someone tells you what they believe? Do you feel that your beliefs are belittled whenever a Jehova's Witness knocks on your door?
No, of course not, but historically Christians do get persecuted for doing this and it is illegal in many countries. They are certainly persecuted in strict Muslim countries, and were outlawed in the Soviet Union, in Ceaucescu's Rumania and in Mao's China. I get information about persecutions all over the world, including the jailing of Christians for evangelizing or just being pastors of churches, but I'm ashamed to say I haven't been following them enough lately. Good reminder to start reading up on it all again.
Do you not know about this very common experience of Christians?
I've listened to the testimony of Rumanian pastor Tson who was interrogated periodically by the police and beaten for his Christian teaching, whose hard-won library was destroyed by them on one visit to his home. I read the book by Richard Wurmbrand, Tortured for Christ, also in Rumania, who was imprisoned for fourteen years for his faith, in a tiny dark undeground cell. Watchman Nee, a Chinese pastor whose writings I love spent the last twenty years of his life in prison for his faith. There's also the book The Persecutor by a young Russian whose name I've forgotten who was a member of the KGB assigned to beat up Christians meeting secretly in each other's houses. Oh, Sergei Kourdakov, just came to me. He then became a believer based on a tiny bit of the Bible he happened to read which was enough to show him that his government was lying about what the Christians believe. He plotted for a long time how to get to Canada and finally was able to swim ashore off a Russian ship and found Christians there to teach him. The KGB caught up with him and killed him only a couple years later.
I don't think Indian law prohibits Christians from evangelising, but if you have a source for this claim I'd be happy to look at it.
Just happened to post one below -- correction, above.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Meldinoor, posted 04-21-2010 11:50 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 156 of 244 (556977)
04-22-2010 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Meldinoor
04-21-2010 11:50 PM


Re: Such as?
Found some more about the laws against Christian evangelizing in India, but they are put in terms of "force, fraud or allurement" which means the charges, which are apparently numerous, are trumped up.
In the past, persecution was confined to specific regions of India. It has now spread nearly everywhere, as radical Hindus seek to purify India of all religions except Hinduism. Seven Indian states have anti-conversion laws in place. These laws impose prison terms and hefty fines on anyone who converts Indians by force, fraud or allurement.
VOM’s legal network stays busy fighting false arrests and accusations against Christians by radical Hindus. In late August and early September 2008, the worst anti-Christian violence since India’s independence occurred. Hindu militants burned homes, churches and belongings in Kandhamal, Orissa state, and outlying areas. More than 100 people were killed, and about 70,000 people were left homeless or in refugee camps. One year after the attacks, more than 50,000 people who fled to forests or took shelter in refugee camps have not returned home out of fear of the Hindu nationalist extremists. Only 24 people have been convicted for participating in the attacks 95 have been acquitted.
On March 24, the Jesus Prayer House church building in the village of Kuruvakalva, Andhra Pradesh, was burned by Hindu extremists. Bibles, hymnals and furniture, as well as the roof the church, were destroyed.
On April 5, Pastor Yadal was attacked in the village of Vadarpalaya, Karnataka. Police officers stopped Pastor Yadal while he was on his way to preach at the House of Salvation church. An officer beat the pastor and accused him of forcibly converting Hindus.
Hindu extremists then called two local pastors to the scene and warned them to stop holding church services. The extremists also went to two other churches in the same village and warned them against gathering for worship.
The resource cannot be found.
Edited by Faith, : to add link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Meldinoor, posted 04-21-2010 11:50 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 157 of 244 (556980)
04-22-2010 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Rahvin
04-21-2010 6:28 PM


Re: How America is/was Christian and how it is not
Columbus's motives were entirely Christian, basically to convert the world to Christ wherever he found anyone in need of conversion. Yes he was looking for a route to India but he understood that God led him to the New World instead.
http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/heritage/heritage2.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Rahvin, posted 04-21-2010 6:28 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Jaderis, posted 04-22-2010 4:27 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 173 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-22-2010 6:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 158 of 244 (556981)
04-22-2010 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Coyote
04-21-2010 9:48 PM


Re: Freedom of religion
Various clips from Wiki:
The Enlightenment is held to be the source of critical ideas, such as the centrality of freedom, democracy, and reason as primary values of society. This view argues that the establishment of a contractual basis of rights would lead to the market mechanism and capitalism, the scientific method, religious tolerance, and the organization of states into self-governing republics through democratic means. ...
Dorinda Outram provides a good example of a standard, intellectual definition of the Enlightenment:
Enlightenment was a desire for human affairs to be guided by rationality rather than by faith, superstition, or revelation; a belief in the power of human reason to change society and liberate the individual from the restraints of custom or arbitrary authority; all backed up by a world view increasingly validated by science rather than by religion or tradition.
It would seem that you are more comfortable with pre-Enlightenment thought.
How do you feel about a theocracy (with your guys in charge, of course)?
One thing I would never -- or almost ever -- trust Wikipedia with is anything having to do with Christianity.
America was not founded on Enlightenment principles in the sense you think it was, but Christian principles (which are timeless and not "pre-Enlightenment.")
Theocracy is impossible in a fallen world unless you're ancient Israel and America isn't.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2010 9:48 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Coyote, posted 04-22-2010 1:30 AM Faith has replied
 Message 165 by bluescat48, posted 04-22-2010 2:19 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 161 of 244 (556984)
04-22-2010 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Meldinoor
04-21-2010 11:36 PM


Re: Such as?
Well, but you do need the Christian version of religious freedom for the kind of religious freedom that we have. What they have is not the same freedom of religion, it's simply one pagan god honoring another, but not the true God. But the true God respects His human creation and their choices and honors them despite their religions.
I don't believe in pagan gods, and presumably, neither do you.
Actually I do. I believe they are real spiritual beings.
Laws are not about pagan gods doing anything, laws are for people. Our constitution requires that people allow each other the right to religious freedom. The constitution does not talk about what God does, or which is the true god. Not even the American constitution does that.
I'm talking about the meaning of the law of freedom of religion, simply saying that it's not about honoring other religions as the quote you gave showed that religion requiring, it's about toleration of different beliefs.
Faith writes:
Surely the will of Caesar counts in the place of a Constitution as far as Roman law goes. The Caesars would quite happily have tolerated all religions but not one that refused to worship Caesar.
Then it's not freedom of religion. Why'd you bring up the Romans now again?
Answering what you said about how they didn't have a Constitution outlawing the Christian religion. And yes it's not freedom of religion but it IS what passes for freedom of religion in pagan societies, that was the point.
Faith writes:
And the KKK is outlawed and subject to legal action against their criminal behavior.
Precisely. Just like religious persecution in India. So why is religion more free here?
???? Not getting your point, sorry.
Faith writes:
All pagan religions have a lot in common with each other.
Religions generally have a lot in common with each other, period.
Christianity is unique. ONLY the Biblical God became a man to die as a sacrifice for the sins of His people. (Yes I know there are some ridiculous pagan imitations, but none of them come close to the reality of Christ).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Meldinoor, posted 04-21-2010 11:36 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 162 of 244 (556985)
04-22-2010 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by DrJones*
04-22-2010 1:34 AM


Re: Such as?
OK my mistake, I thought they were outlawed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by DrJones*, posted 04-22-2010 1:34 AM DrJones* has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 163 of 244 (556986)
04-22-2010 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Coyote
04-22-2010 1:30 AM


Re: Freedom of religion
You wanted MY opinion about theocracy. My opinion is:
Theocracy is impossible in a fallen world unless you're ancient Israel and America isn't.
What YOU think is another subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Coyote, posted 04-22-2010 1:30 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Jaderis, posted 04-22-2010 6:03 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 166 of 244 (556994)
04-22-2010 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by bluescat48
04-22-2010 2:19 AM


Re: Freedom of religion
Well it appears that people like Palin, Huckabee, Dobson, Beck and Limbaugh would welcome a theocracy so thay could force their rightwing fascist christian values on the rest of us.
Beck is a Mormon, and I'm not even convinced Limbaugh is a Christian, but as far as any of them wanting a theocracy that's just being read into their upholding Christian principles as the best standards for the country. You argue for your own standards don't you? Why shouldn't they be allowed to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by bluescat48, posted 04-22-2010 2:19 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by bluescat48, posted 04-22-2010 3:05 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 176 by Taq, posted 04-22-2010 9:36 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 179 of 244 (557064)
04-22-2010 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Taq
04-22-2010 9:36 AM


Re: Freedom of religion
The original laws of the American government were based on the Bible. Read Blackstone. A hundred years later the Bible was thrown out and now we have a whole different set of legal ideas. But you are wrong. The Bible was woven into all our institutions at the beginning including our educational system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Taq, posted 04-22-2010 9:36 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Theodoric, posted 04-24-2010 12:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 183 of 244 (557076)
04-22-2010 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by subbie
04-22-2010 1:51 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
One of those rights is the free exercise of religion and the Constitution does not limit that free exercise in government buildings or functions. Exercising does not constitute establishment.
It all depends on who is exercising. If it's a government official in the exercise of his/her duties, then it is. If it's a person acting in their capacity as a private individual, then it's not.
So if you'd been at the first Congress when Benjamin Franklin stood up to recommend that they begin the custom of opening in prayer you'd have objected, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by subbie, posted 04-22-2010 1:51 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by subbie, posted 04-22-2010 2:19 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 185 of 244 (557078)
04-22-2010 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Rahvin
04-22-2010 1:16 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
Slavery, counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, and not allowing women to vote come immediately to mind.
These things were NOT written in the Constitution. They were part of the mindset of the day, yes, a universal mindset I should add, shared by the entire world at the time, and they influenced its interpretation, but thanks to the directives given by the Constitution itself for amending it to deal with such interpretive problems they were in fact dealt with as time went on.
The Constitution was designed by men who knew that human beings are fallible. You seem to want your human beings perfect and get very upset when you find out we're not. But a good government knows how to take that into account without having to line us all up and execute us when we commit injustices we don't know are injustices.
America has never been perfect, even in teh beginning. Even the Constitution in its original state was far from perfect. Fortunately, it had some really good ideas (like religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc) to outweigh the bad bits.
The Constitution is and was pretty near perfect for dealing realistically with the problems of fallible human beings IF it's understood in terms of its original intents. it's human beings who aren't perfect. That's the reason we need government at all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2010 1:16 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 04-22-2010 2:36 PM Faith has replied
 Message 189 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2010 3:02 PM Faith has replied
 Message 190 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2010 4:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 186 of 244 (557079)
04-22-2010 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by subbie
04-22-2010 2:19 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
Interesting. At least you're honest. And you'd have stood up and heckled George Washington when he gave his farewell address too I suppose, all those references to God, and Adams during his State of the Union addresses when he mentioned that thanks are due to a benevolent Providence. And you'd have written hate mail to Lincoln when he called for a national period of fasting and prayer, and I believe even Franklin Roosevelt did the same once, certainly others but I don't remember who all.
So what you want is Subbie for Totalitarian Tyrant.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by subbie, posted 04-22-2010 2:19 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by subbie, posted 04-22-2010 2:39 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 201 by Taq, posted 04-23-2010 10:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 191 of 244 (557123)
04-22-2010 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Rahvin
04-22-2010 3:02 PM


separation of church and state etc.
Thanks Rahvin, I didn't know that about the 3/5 of a person was actually written into the Constitution. But we did change it and that's because the founders had the wisdom to specify how it could be changed to keep with changing times.
The point is that all of those things should have been addressed in teh COnsistution from the beginning. The Constitution should have made requirements for equal rights in voting for all men and women, and banned discrimination by gender. The Constitution should have counted every person and outlawed slavery.
And where were they going to get the perspective to do such a thing in their time? As I said, you are asking for perfect human beings. Do you think you are perfect? Do you think the mentality today is so perfect that the current perspectives need no changing?
I don't worship the founders, I see them as fallible men -- men, however, that were steeped in the best of education of their day and really did know what they were doing. The American Constitution was admired all over the world for its distillation of the best thinking of all the history that had come before. The American Experiment was admired as the first government ever based simply on law and principle, a mere document, without a king or aristocratic class to lead it. It's sad to see it all treated so lightly these days and nobody caring about the history it embodied but so ready to let the first naive thought off the top of their heads define it based only on the prejudices they've imbibed in the last couple of decades or so.
Our government is based on a document and that means that document has to be taken very seriously. We have no right to alter it whimsically, especially when they made provision for it to be changed lawfully.
Separation of church and state is fine by me if understood as it was originally understood, not as a club to be wielded against religion. As Madison wrote, it was as much for the preservation of the purity of the church as for the state, as power so easily corrupts, which corruption had been seen too many times in Europe. But it doesn't mean the exclusion of religion from public life or the government either as you think it means, as I've gone to lengths to show on this thread.
In this I find the founders at fault myself, that they didn't realize that the first amendment could be used as a weapon against what they assumed was the natural place of religion in public life.
So, again, we have a strong disagreement about what the first amendment means, and I suggest proposing an amendment to the amendment as I outlined for Jazzns earlier on this thread. Submit it for fair consideration so we can see how many share your view of the first amendment. Or are you against majority rule which is also a foundational principle of this nation?
As the Cosntitution says, right at the beginning, it is we, the people of the United States who grant ourselves these rights and priveledges:
Yeah, but the "people" aren't just leftists and atheists, and it isn't something that just HAPPENS, it has to be in writing and submitted to ALL the people or whatever agencies are designated for the determination.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2010 3:02 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2010 8:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 195 by PsychMJC, posted 04-22-2010 10:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 202 by Taq, posted 04-23-2010 1:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 205 by bluescat48, posted 04-23-2010 11:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 192 of 244 (557124)
04-22-2010 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by subbie
04-22-2010 2:36 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
Good to know, Subbie, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 04-22-2010 2:36 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 194 of 244 (557128)
04-22-2010 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Rahvin
04-22-2010 8:01 PM


Re: separation of church and state etc.
Yet this contradicts what we've just agreed on. If the Founding Fathers were not perfect, and if the Constitution was always intended to change with the times, the "original understanding" of the separation of Church and State is irrelevant.
No, that way lies chaos, anarchy and madness. No. Absolutely not and I said the exact opposite. Changing it has to be a formal process that allows a voice to all interested parties. That's the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and not to know what was intended by its creators is to condemn ourselves to a solipsistic universe in which we all trust in our own kneejerk reactions or whatever philosophical fad has just come down the pike, throw the wisdom of centuries out the window. You are relegating the governing of the nation in the end to whoever has the physical might to subdue the rest, or the glibbest silveriest tongue, exactly what the Constitution was so wisely designed to avoid.
If I have time I'll look at the rest later.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2010 8:01 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by bluescat48, posted 04-22-2010 10:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024