|
|
| Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists (7522) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 14 |
||
|
| (8155) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 25 21:31:02 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Dec 25 19:08:21 2004.  If children do not learn it in school, where do they learn it? Religion is something that MUST be taught in public schools, otherwise how could they possibly educate anybody. That is to say Religion is too promanant a driving factor in the course of human history, that its omission, it being hidden under a bushel basket would not only be a revisionist history, but it would not touch on the facts and facets that drive the course of human events today. All of Western Civilization depends on an understanding of the impact of religion. And we can see this all to well in the events in the world today. 1) Unrest in Northern Ireland 2) Unrest in Eastern Europe 3) Interaction between Greeks and Turks. 4) Palestine and Israel 5) Iraq 6) Iran 7) India and Pakistan 8) India and Bangladesh 9) Indonesia 10) The Philipines If you are to be an educated person, you had better damn well understand something about religion. |
|
|
| (8156) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 21:46:44 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:21:44 2004. I fail to see the difference. If you are offended by a nativity scene in front of town hall then you should be offendd by it in front of your neighbor's house. If you are offended by religious symbols then you should be offended by the edifices that house the religion. Finally, I'm not trying to win any argument, nor do I feel the need to. I'm expressing my opinion. I really am not concerned if you agree or not. |
|
|
| (8157) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 21:48:12 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:29:51 2004. May the Seculiberals choke every time they hear "Merry Christmas"! |
|
|
| (8158) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:48:25 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 21:46:44 2004. I fail to see the differencePublic versus private establishment. |
|
|
| (8159) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:51:15 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 21:48:12 2004. Sure, if they exist.We've been hearing "Merry Christmas" over every communication medium for centuries upon end. It's only the Neocons that have made it such an issue by their backlash against "Happy Holidays". Reality. |
|
|
| (8160) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 21:51:29 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 25 21:31:02 2004. Nope, you are wrong. The seculiberalists would eliminate any mention in the history books and literature of anything that had to do with religion. If it has to do with religion, their kids don't need to know it. They seemed to have learned well from their communist counterparts who regularly purged history books. |
|
|
| (8161) | |
Re: No, It's the Stalinists?? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:53:08 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 21:51:29 2004. Again with the fictional "liberal secularists" and trying to create a menace, as though they were part of the Stalin Atheists and a real and present danger. |
|
|
| (8162) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 21:57:33 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:48:25 2004. The symbol is still the same. If there were a photo of a nativity scene on the side of a bus would it offend you? Would you demand that it be removed? If that photo were of a pre-teenage boy or girl scantilly clad in a Calvin Klein ad instead, would you really care? Of course not. |
|
|
| (8164) | |
Re: No, It's the Stalinists?? |
|
|
Posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 22:02:36 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Stalinists??, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:53:08 2004. They seculiberalists are a true danger. Through their attack dog demigogs, the ACLU, they threatened to bankrupt a small town in Califoria (through lawsuits) because of a tiny cricifix in the town emblam. No matter that the history of the state of California is deeply rooted in the Spanish Missions. They will impose their anti-religious hatred on all. If that is not a danger then I don't know what is. And, yes, the Secular liberals are at least as real as your neo-cons. |
|
|
| (8166) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sat Dec 25 22:09:43 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 21:57:33 2004. If the neocon movement isn't destroyed, america will not be restored. |
|
|
| (8167) | |
Re: No, It's the Fascists?? |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sat Dec 25 22:10:27 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Stalinists??, posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 22:02:36 2004. Like you. |
|
|
| (8168) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 22:12:26 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 21:46:44 2004. I fail to see the difference. If you are offended by a nativity scene in front of town hall then you should be offendd by it in front of your neighbor's house. If you are offended by religious symbols then you should be offended by the edifices that house the religion.We are offended by the appearance (and/or actuality) of our government publicly supporting religion, be it by permitting the display of the symbols of a religion on public property or by granting tax relief to a religious organization. We are not offended by the religious display itself, nor by the religious organizations themselves (indeed, many of us are deeply religious people who are members of an "organized" group of believers) - only by the failure on the part of our government to follow its own laws. Until next time... Anon_e_mouse |
|
|
| (8169) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 22:19:21 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Dec 25 21:15:57 2004. Yes, I did. The origin may not be religious, but by virtue of the teachings of certain religious groups it has become symbolic of religion. Remember, the cross wasn't originally a religious symbol either, but it certainly is now.Until next time... Anon_e_mouse |
|
|
| (8170) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 22:22:08 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 25 21:31:02 2004. If you are to be an educated person, you had better damn well understand something about religion.Agreed. Our schools should not teach religion, but they should teach about religion in the context of its impact on civilization and human history. Until next time... Anon_e_mouse |
|
|
| (8174) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat Dec 25 23:09:58 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by vengence on Fri Dec 24 17:07:43 2004. That's one Christian interpretation.It's certainly not supported by a plain reading of the text, and it's obviously not a Jewish interpretation. |
|
|
| (8175) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat Dec 25 23:12:51 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by vengence on Fri Dec 24 17:20:33 2004. No. God is often spoken of in human terms so that humans can have some hope of understanding. God does not actually have the physical form of a human. That passage is metaphoric. |
|
|
| (8176) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat Dec 25 23:16:53 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 12:44:15 2004. The menorah was relit as soon as the Temple was back in Jewish hands and the small jar of pure oil was found. They didn't wait until the days were short.Personally, I wish Chanukah were a few months earlier or later. It's difficult with modern schedules to light the menorah at its proper time. |
|
|
| (8177) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat Dec 25 23:19:43 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Dec 24 22:42:25 2004. Everyone? That's quite a stretch. |
|
|
| (8178) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat Dec 25 23:21:05 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 25 14:52:33 2004. At 8 days old, Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. |
|
|
| (8179) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat Dec 25 23:28:16 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 09:46:00 2004. Find me a single observant Jew who is happy that he has to use a vacation day for each of the Jewish holidays and is still required to take Christmas off, rather than being able to work on Christmas and save a vacation day for a vacation. |
|
|
| (8180) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat Dec 25 23:38:36 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Fri Dec 24 17:09:30 2004. Thomas Jefferson wasn't a founding father? |
|
|
| (8182) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 23:59:27 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 20:48:28 2004. Because if they had Christian exhibits only, that would be a clear establishment of religion. |
|
|
| (8183) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 26 00:01:10 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by David of Broadway on Sat Dec 25 23:28:16 2004. Those that work for the TA can use an AVA or Vacation day for Jewish Holidays. Then when Christmas comes, they can work and put the day back in the bank. |
|
|
| (8185) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Sun Dec 26 00:07:26 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 21:57:33 2004. There is a huge difference between such symbol displayed by a private organization and a public one. The government of the United States, or of any of the several states has no business placing religious symbols on their property. |
|
|
| (8188) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun Dec 26 00:30:38 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 26 00:01:10 2004. The TA is an obvious special case, since service operates every day of the year.I'm referring to a typical job that has Christmas as a forced holiday for everyone, while those who need different days off for their religious holidays have to take vacation days. |
|
|
| (8189) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Dec 26 00:40:46 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by monorail on Thu Dec 23 19:33:31 2004. I didn't know "X" was a characterI suppose you're trying to be tongue-in-cheek . . . but "character" is a term that also means a written number or letter. |
|
|
| (8191) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by vengence on Sun Dec 26 01:35:09 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by American Pig on Sat Dec 25 16:53:53 2004. But if they had an ad with a few naked women...or a few gay men posing in the nude..nobody would say a word...I really dislike you New Ageist.... Serving your master well..like some lap dogs... |
|
|
| (8192) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by vengence on Sun Dec 26 01:47:58 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by :: R33 9306 OWNS :: on Tue Dec 21 19:46:44 2004. Uber LOL... |
|
|
| (8194) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Sun Dec 26 03:34:19 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by David of Broadway on Sat Dec 25 23:21:05 2004. details, details..... |
|
|
| (8196) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Sun Dec 26 03:41:55 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Dec 26 00:40:46 2004. actually, i was trying to be a character myself!I suppose you're trying to be tongue-in-cheek all depends which tongue and which cheek? |
|
|
| (8197) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Dec 26 03:44:37 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 25 21:18:14 2004. If you wanna get non-secular, there's always Anno Domini . . . |
|
|
| (8203) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Dec 26 07:59:54 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sat Dec 25 22:19:21 2004. I don't caqre what the "southern fundamentalists" think. It is NOT a religious symbol. I am Catholic, and I have never heard of a cany cane being religious. My father is Presbeterian, and it's not religious in the the Protestant religions either. Just because one group of fundamentalists decide to give a piece of candy religious meaning, does not mean it has become symobolic of religion.A piece of candy is not a religious symbol to the cast majority of those that celebrate Christmas. |
|
|
| (8206) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Dec 26 08:15:59 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by David of Broadway on Sat Dec 25 23:21:05 2004. He was. I never said he wasn't a Jew. He was for most of his life, and at death he was still claimed to be a Jew. His teachings are not that anything that is Jewish is wrong. He taught a different understanding of God, the same God the people already knew.My point was that the Catholic Church would not be celebrating an event that is meaningless to the Church. It doesn't matter whether Jesus was circumcised or not, any more than it matters if any Christians had been circumcised or not. |
|
|
| (8207) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Dec 26 08:17:59 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by David of Broadway on Sat Dec 25 23:19:43 2004. So who in this country doesn't have some sort of connection to the new year, and the way the secular new year is set up? |
|
|
| (8208) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Dec 26 08:23:47 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Verbal Kent on Sat Dec 25 21:57:33 2004. I don't think anyone is arguing that the "sight" of a nativity scene in general is offending. That's silly. They are saying it shouldn't be on public tax-paying property.And as for the out of context mention of a half naked teenager on a Calvin Klein ad on public property, I don't believe that would be appropriate either on public property. But that has nothing to do with the arguement anyway. |
|
|
| (8209) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Dec 26 08:28:11 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by David of Broadway on Sun Dec 26 00:30:38 2004. For most employers, it would be bad business sense to try and remain open on Christmas, when the vast majority of workers would take off anyway, and business in general would be at a complete standstill, because the majority of customers/people they do business with are not going to be around that day. For most it's a business decision. |
|
|
| (8210) | |
Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Dec 26 08:42:24 2004, in response to Re: Media Taking Christmas out of Christmas, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Dec 23 16:11:59 2004. Christianity cannot possibly be a branch off of Judaism since Christianity directly rejects the basic principles of Judaism.Christianity is a direct offspring of Judism. Christianity holds the same Bible Jews hold. Jesus did not teach a backturning of the old law, instead it was a new understanding of the old law under the same God. Is it the correct "understanding"? Jews claim it isn't. Christians claim it is. The example of the Bobs don't hold up because God is not in two seperate places. There is only one. The differences are that there is a completely different understanding of the one and only God within the two religions. Each claims the other understanding is incorrect, it doesn't mean there are two different Gods just because two different religions claim a different understanding of God. There are different understandings even within the various Christian churches, that doesn't mean each church manufactured their own God, it's just a different understanding of the same God. Even Islam claims to be worshiping the same God that Jews and Christians worship, except their understanding is even more different than Jews and Christian understanding of Him. |
|
|
| (8211) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by BMT Dude on Sun Dec 26 08:51:29 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Dec 26 07:59:54 2004. Then what's happenning is that those in the 'Bible Belt' are teaching their young that candy canes ARE a religious symbol (why am I NOT surprised?). This is most surely a REGIONAL thing and not something that is common 'Up North'. |
|
|
| (8212) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 26 08:52:52 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Dec 26 08:23:47 2004. I don't believe that Verbal's question was as out of context as you seem to think. Such advertisements did create problems in bus depots because some objected to the sexual content of the ads while others argued "freedom of speech" of the advertiser. Since the busses are public property, the situations are alalogous.My question is a bit more basic. The ACLU has, in many cases, spearheaded this Liberal Secularist Jihad against religious symbolism on public property and in public schools. This is the same ACLU that fought on Long Island, Conneticuit and elsewhere for the KKK to hold rallies on public streets. Does the ACLU give added weight to freedom of speech and assembly on public property over freedom of religion on public property? |
|
|
| (8215) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Dec 26 09:03:40 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Sat Dec 25 09:46:00 2004. "Just as an aside, what did you do with your Christmas bonus when your boss gave you one?"I've never received a Christmas bonus from any boss, whether Christian or Jewish. Have you? |
|
|
| (8216) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 26 09:03:48 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by BMT Dude on Sun Dec 26 08:51:29 2004. For the same reason that some schools in the north-east banned the singing of "Jingle-Bells" at school holiday pageants as a Christmas Carol. In fact Jingle Bells has little or nothing to do with Christmas. During Christmas Santa rides in a sleigh pulled by 8 reindeer delivering gifts around the globe. In "Jingle Bells" it is a family that uses a one-horse open sleigh to go over the river and through the woods to grandmother's house for a family dinner. More of a Thanksgiving or typical Sunday than a Christmas message. It's just another knee-jerk liberal reaction that makes no sense. |
|
|
| (8217) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 26 09:05:11 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by AlM on Sun Dec 26 09:03:40 2004. TA pays no bonus' although I wish they would. |
|
|
| (8219) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sun Dec 26 09:09:59 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by BMT Dude on Sun Dec 26 08:51:29 2004. This is most surely a REGIONAL thing and not something that is common 'Up North'.Well, the fundamental Christian friend I cited lives about five miles from me in New Jersey... and the Southern Baptist denomination is one of the largest, if not the very largest, Protestant denominations in the US. Until next time... Anon_e_mouse |
|
|
| (8220) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by BMT Dude on Sun Dec 26 09:10:18 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 26 09:03:48 2004. Yeah, but we just hear YOU saying the ban was a 'knee-jerk' Liberal reation....where is the evidence that Jingle-bells was actually banned somewhere?[some schools in the north-east] As some here would say, where's the PROFF? |
|
|
| (8222) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Dec 26 09:12:41 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by David of Broadway on Sat Dec 25 23:28:16 2004. Find me a single observant Jew who is happy that he has to use a vacation day for each of the Jewish holidays and is still required to take Christmas off, rather than being able to work on Christmas and save a vacation day for a vacation.Don't most companies have a few "personal days" that can be used for purposes such as religious observance? Also, the reason most people don't get the option of working on Christmas is not because it's a religious holiday, but because it's a day on which most ordinary commerce doesn't occur. Even the 14th Street YM/YWHA tend to have shorter hours on December 25th (when it doesn't fall on a Saturday, in which case of course they're closed) just because much of their clientele is off visiting family and isn't using the facilities. Nothing to do with religion; just a practical method of reducing costs when there's little business going on. In fact, they always have shorter hours on Sunday than on Monday through Thursday. Again, it's not because Sunday is a religious day, but because it's a day of lower business volume. |
|
|
| (8223) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sun Dec 26 09:12:42 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 26 09:03:48 2004. ... Santa ...Saint Nicholas Until next time... Anon_e_mouse |
|
|
| (8224) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 26 09:12:51 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by BMT Dude on Sun Dec 26 09:10:18 2004. I suppose you could look up the Osgood Report for Wednesday or Thursday of this past week.. |
|
|
| (8226) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by BMT Dude on Sun Dec 26 09:13:24 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sun Dec 26 09:09:59 2004. True, but if I recall my history correctly, doesn't Southern Jersey traditionally aligned itself with 'Traditional Southern' (i.e., south of the Mason-Dixon Line) sensibilities. |
|
|
| (8228) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by Anon_e_mouse on Sun Dec 26 09:15:19 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by BMT Dude on Sun Dec 26 09:13:24 2004. Southern Jersey does... but I'm on the North Jersey Coast, only one-third of the way down the state. Our area is still a suburb of New York.Until next time... Anon_e_mouse |
|
|
| (8229) | |
Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists |
|
|
Posted by BMT Dude on Sun Dec 26 09:18:14 2004, in response to Re: No, It's the Liberal Secularists, posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 26 09:12:51 2004. I'll check that out later on....goning to enjoy a breakfast first...catch up with the board later today...BTW, I DO agree that if Jingle-Bells WAS banned from some school that's pretty damned stupid anyhow....so you'd get no argument out of this 'Liberal Scum'. ;-D |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 14 |
||