Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Driven to Pray | Main | New CDF Document! New CDF Document! »

December 12, 2007

Comments

David B.

Great post, Jimmy!

bill912

The "Great post, Jimmy!" stuff is getting a little old, Esau.

David B.

You aren't being a sport, SDG.

David B.

Seriouslt, this is a good post, Jimmy. ;-)

JoAnna

You know, whenever I used to read a news story on a message board about another group of atheists or what have you up in arms about a nativity scene, I used to say, "So, basically, you're saying that every idiot who goes about with 'Merry Christmas' on his lips should be boiled in his own pudding and buried with a stake of holly though his heart."

And then I quote the following:

"There are many things from which I might have derived good, by which I have not profited, I dare say," returned the nephew. "Christmas among the rest. But I am sure I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round -- apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that -- as a good time: a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time: the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!"
-- Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol
David B.

Good quote, JoAnna. Very good.

gurnygob

well said

Esau

Here's another good quote:

"BAH, HUMBUG!"

deusdonat

I lived in the UK at the hight of the PC ridiculousness: 2001 - 2004. While I was there, it was mandated that during Christmas, not only could there be no displays of Christianity (i.e. a nativity scene, a Bethlehem star, or even a sign saying "Merry Christmas") on public property, but not even in charitable organizations run by government boroughs (like Salvation Army shops). The straw that broke the camel's back was when the leftist extremists began removing crosses from chapels inside hospitals (many historic antiques) claiming this too would upset other religions who came to pray there. This FINALLY produced a backlash enough to slap a sanity check on the British, who have since awaken to the lunacy they had allowed to permeate.

DJ

There's a local radio station where I live that started playing Holiday Music since Thanksgiving. They're the only ones playing anything like that right now.

Hearing them say, 'Happy Holidays', doesn't bother me. I went to a high school where a very large portion of the students weren't Christian. There were a lot of Jews especially. So I understand the 'Happy Holidays' in a certain spirit, but not one of PCness.

What bothers me about this station is that they only play non-religious Christmas music. And there's not a lot of that out there, so its Lennon and Madonna twice an hour. One gets sick of that kind of knife twisting very quickly. I'd rather hear genuine Christmas music along with Hanukkah and Eid music than atheists trying to invent God's attributes without God. The music they play is absolutely dead and joyless, and I've heard people in mixed company (read: from not religious to agnostics) complain about how crappy the songs all are. Do they have any idea how turned off their audience is?

I guess I have a letter to write.

labrialumn

The forced education is already a reality: "sensitivity training"

There are so very many wonderful, little-known Christmas carols.

And Jingle Bells is neither Christmas, nor a carol (a round dance). Though it is a pleasant enough winter song.

LarryD

I've always liked "O Little Town of Bethlem" and "O Holy Night". Much much better than "Grandma Got Ran Over By A Reindeer".

Tim J.

"Hearing them say, 'Happy Holidays', doesn't bother me."

No, that doesn't bother me, either. I'm glad for anyone wishing me a happy anything.

What bugs me is the banning of the word "Christmas" or of nativity scenes, as if these things were genuinely offensive. So, say "happy holidays" if you prefer, but let your employees say "Merry Christmas" if they want. Play John Lennon's Christmas whine if you like it, but don't ban "Silent Night" from school Christmas programs. It is a tradition as American as apple pie.

Dan Hunter

Forgive me for changing the subject, but I have just learned of the passing of Alfons Cardinal Stickler at the age of 97.
His Eminence did much for the restoration of the Tridentine Mass to the exalted position that it deserves.
His Eminence loved the Tridentine Mass and offered it daily. He also offered a Pontifical High Mass at St Patricks Cathedral New York, in 1996.
Requeiscant in Pace Your Eminence.

Esau

Forgive me for changing the subject, but I have just learned of the passing of Alfons Cardinal Stickler at the age of 97.
His Eminence did much for the restoration of the Tridentine Mass to the exalted position that it deserves.
His Eminence loved the Tridentine Mass and offered it daily. He also offered a Pontifical High Mass at St Patricks Cathedral New York, in 1996.
Requeiscant in Pace Your Eminence.


WTF?


Would you PLEASE keep your friggin' hobby horse in your stall, please?

I even now regularly attend the Tridentine Rite, but am not the rad trad who seems bent on attacking the Catholic Church (yes, Dan, attacking the Catholic Church) constantly with his implied anti-VII, anti-JPII comments; which has consistently been your hobby horse here on this blog since time immemorial it seems!

Why don't you be a good little Protestant, Dan, and start your OWN church!

David B.

Ya know, Esau, I don't think mourning a Cardnial's death is 'hobby-horsing.'
I don't see the need to take offense from the above comments, whatever the beliefs of the man who posted them.

Esau

David B.,

The death of a Cardinal is indeed a tragedy -- such a tragedy that it should be treated with the utmost respect (as you would with any of one's dearly departed);

That gives all the more reason why one should RESPECT his passing away and not to SPIT on his memory by using it for one's own personal agenda.

Dan Hunter

Esau,
Where in my post did I say anything that is not true.
I said nothing against Vatican II. I said nothing against Pope John Paul II, in fact I indirectly complimented him, for he commisioned the group of prelates to examine the issue of the Tridentine Mass.If it was abrogated or not. He appointed Cardinal Stickler as one of the panel who came to the conclusion that the Tridentine had never been abrogated.
I did not attack the Catholic Church once, in my post. Yet you did in your childish diatribe, in insulting the Mystical Body of Christ calling me to be a heretic and break the first commandment.
I do apologize for changing the subject but I loved the Cardinal very much, for he was a great Catholic who loved Christ with his whole heart.
Thank you, Esau.
God bless you.
I will pray that God gently guides you through your depression and you come out on the other side a happier and holier man.
Eternal Rest Grant unto him O Lord.
Ut Prosim.

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

>>>Requeiscant in Pace Your Eminence.

I think "Requeiscant in Pace" means "May they rest in peace." The phrase you're looking for is probably "Requiescas in Pace".

Tough language, that Latin is. Wish I could say I've mastered it myself, but I haven't.

In Jesu et Maria,

JoAnna

Both of you, give it a rest. Offer up a Rosary for each other instead of exchanging snippy comments on a combox.

1John4:6

It's requiescat in pace, or requiescant in pace (plural).

1John4:6

I'm really impressed by this article.

That's exactly the problem of secularization. It seeks to relegate religion to the private sphere of the home, rather than be accepting and tolerating all religions (including public expression thereof, which is an essential part of many faiths—people shouldn't have to tuck away a crucifix, or take off an hijab, when stepping out the door in the morning).

A society free from religious symbolism is not a free society.

Charles Shurman

People who are offended at the mere sight of perfectly ordinary religious symbols or behaviors are the ones who have a problem with intolerance and bigotry

This is interesting. Are you saying you don't have a problem with intolerance and bigotry?

They are jerks, they are rude... This is just becoming more and more evident as these bitter, carping...

carping - adj. Naggingly critical or complaining.

Who could that be?

bill912

Irony.

Tim J.

"Are you saying you don't have a problem with intolerance and bigotry?"

Are you suggesting I do?

Charles Shurman

I'm suggesting you answer the question.

bill912

See?

Time to stop feeding the troll. Just pray for him.

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

>>>It's requiescat in pace, or requiescant in pace (plural).

In third person, yes. Yet Dan was speaking in second person, addressing the late Archbishop. He was in effect saying "May you (singular) rest in peace," which would be "Requiescas in Pace," IIRC.

In Jesu et Maria,

Tim J.

"carping - adj. Naggingly critical or complaining.

Who could that be?"

Oh, how about these guys?;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E1DB1239F937A15751C1A96F958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/H/Hanukkah

or this;

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/04/the_aclus_antireligious_hypocr.html

Charles Shurman

Oh, how about these guys?

"These guys" are the New York Times and the American Thinker. What are they carping about?

David B.

Are you saying you don't have a problem with intolerance and bigotry?

He's saying the atheists, etc, are the real bigots. But I bet you knew that.


carping - adj. Naggingly critical or complaining.

Who could that be?

In order to avoid confusion about possible accusations, I suggest you, Charles Shurman, answer your own question.

Tim J.

Try reading the articles, Charles. Shockingly, groups like the ACLU and American Atheists keeps cropping up when I Google "creche removed" and similar searches.

"I'm suggesting you answer the question."

As soon as you tell me whether you have stopped beating your wife.

Charles Shurman

He's saying the atheists, etc, are the real bigots.

That's what you're saying he's saying.

In order to avoid confusion about possible accusations, I suggest you, Charles Shurman, answer your own question.

David, your suggestion is appreciated like a gift, but I have no need for it. I return it to you with thanks. Likewise, my suggestion to Tim that he answer the question is a gift. And to avoid confusion, as with any gift I give, I'm not looking for anything in return. I have no need for any answer, any question, anything at all. If you have something to offer in return, it will be appreciated, but in due course, returned.

Try reading the articles, Charles. Shockingly, groups like the ACLU and American Atheists keeps cropping up when I Google "creche removed" and similar searches.

The ACLU also crops up in cases defending Catholics. I send them a check every year. Are you opposed to the law and exercise of the legal system?

As soon as you tell me whether you have stopped beating your wife.

I've never beaten my wife.

Esquire
Are you opposed to the law and exercise of the legal system?

No. I am opposed to the abuse of the legal system, however, which is why I am also opposed to the ACLU.

Charles Shurman

I support your right to your opinion, just as I support the right of everyone to hold a different opinion. It's not just the ACLU who sues over nativity scenes. It's Catholics too.

David B.

David, your suggestion is appreciated like a gift, but I have no need for it. I return it to you with thanks. Likewise, my suggestion to Tim that he answer the question is a gift. And to avoid confusion, as with any gift I give, I'm not looking for anything in return. I have no need for any answer, any question, anything at all. If you have something to offer in return, it will be appreciated, but in due course, returned.


Then why did you ask the question? Was it a childish rhetorical question? If so, what was you intention? Are you just here to get people angry, with no intention of contributing any rational, reasoned, thoughts to the discussion?

David B.

"It's not just the ACLU who sues over nativity scenes."

One can't sue an inanimate object. Don't waste your time. Now it comes to it, why are you posting here? You obviously don't care about our thoughts.

It's Catholics too.

Evidence that faithful, sincere Catholics do this would be appericated, but it may bt returned unopened...


David B.

Read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

Are you still gonna write checks?

David B.

"That's what you're saying he's saying."

Tim J., Was my disciption of your words correct?

(oh, thanks for the prayers. they helped.)

David B.

er, discription.

Charles Shurman

Are you just here to get people angry

No, I'm not here to get anything. But if you have any anger you'd like to give away, I always welcome it. Of course, I have no need for it, so I can hold it for you until you want to handle it yourself, or I can regift it to God / throw it away. Do you have a preference?

Then why did you ask the question?

Why, love, of course. As I said, it's a gift.

One can't sue an inanimate object.

I didn't say anyone was suing an inanimate object.

Evidence that faithful, sincere Catholics do this would be appericated, but it may bt returned unopened...

Here's a preview...

"A devout Roman Catholic, Henry Ritell offered to buy a creche to provide true balance for Briarcliff Manor's holiday display. But village officials said no thanks. So this month, Ritell sued the village in federal court. And late Friday, a federal judge ruled in Ritell's favor. But there will be no creche in a village park. The village took down its holiday display yesterday. 'I'm not anti-menorah,' said Ritell, 80, who works in international marketing and always finds a Catholic Mass in his travels. 'I don't want to see anything taken down. I just want equality. That's why I offered to buy the creche.'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1755251/posts

That was last year. But look what came of it this year:
"In a consent agreement reached this summer, the village vowed to use balanced symbols during the Christmas and Hanukkah seasons or forgo them. A committee was formed to recommend a new approach, and last week villagers got their first glimpse of the result. The tree was back, with its lights and star, but it featured large ornamental balls that made it recognizable as a Christmas tree during the day. The oversize dreidel, with Hebrew lettering on its sides, has been added along with a banner declaring, 'The Village of Briarcliff Manor Extends Holiday Greetings and Wishes for Peace to All.' Last week, Mr. Ritell said he still was not sure why the village would not put up a menorah and a crèche. But after viewing the display, all lighted, he was pleased."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/09holidaywe.html?ref=nyregionspecial2

Isn't that sweet.

Meanwhile, over in Maui, the ACLU was successful after merely sending a warning letter requesting that a holiday display of a Hanukkah menorah be balanced as well.
http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=26128

Read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp
Are you still gonna write checks?

Of course! You didn't stop giving to the Church did you?

Jeb Protestant

This seems to be a minor story to me. These leaders of false religions get credibility in the eyes of the media by parading their supposed tolerance. Yet their goal is the to advance their Satanics religions (Islam, Sikhism. Hindooism).

Jarnor23

Chucky boy, the only thing I see from your story about "Mr. Grumpy Bad Catholic" is that he didn't like the hypocrisy of his town allowing one religion's symbols, but not another's. Which is, after all, what the article is about.

Jarnor23

Jeb: Those leaders of "false religions" are following the pull of the heart towards the Lord, although in imperfect ways. With a better understanding, we can only hope they'd come to Christ, but I'd rather people have love in an imperfect way towards the kernel of the truth present in all religious searching that points to God, than to be a Phillip Pullman.

Charles Shurman

he didn't like the hypocrisy of his town allowing one religion's symbols, but not another's

Like the ACLU, the Catholic used the law to enforce the law.

Tim J.

"I've never beaten my wife."

So, then... you haven't stopped?

Sorry. Couldn't resist. Gnostics aren't the only ones who get to play word games.

Do I have a problem with intolerance and bigotry? Absolutely. I don't like them at all. The anti-religious types, though, nurture intolerance and bigotry, and for them, this is a bigger problem.

The ACLU likes to maintain some appearance of impartiality, and they find certain cases useful toward that end, but their real intentions are impossible to disguise, as are yours.

I, too, recommend we don't feed this troll any longer.

Charles Shurman

So, then... you haven't stopped?

Haven't started.

Do I have a problem with intolerance and bigotry? Absolutely.

So you admit to having a problem. Are you reaching out on this blog for help?

The ACLU likes to maintain some appearance of impartiality, and they find certain cases useful toward that end, but their real intentions are impossible to disguise

What are their "real intentions"? Would the Christian lawyers and workers of the ACLU agree?

I, too, recommend we don't feed this troll any longer.

If you get hungry, just holler. My wife fixes very good food.

Aristotle

"Likewise, my suggestion to Tim that he answer the question is a gift."

A gift like that of a bad penny?

Mary Kay

I, too, recommend we don't feed this troll any longer.

Didn't catch this thread in time. I'd really like to see Charles back this one up with a specific example or two:
The ACLU also crops up in cases defending Catholics.

Charles Shurman

A gift like that of a bad penny?

Bad Penny works in the parish accounting offices. She's blonde and quite pretty. Why they call her Bad Penny I don't know.

Didn't catch this thread in time. I'd really like to see Charles back this one up with a specific example or two:
The ACLU also crops up in cases defending Catholics.

November 30, 2007

DETROIT- A federal judge in Detroit ruled today that the constitutional rights a Catholic man were violated when he was sent to jail for asking a drug court judge to remove him from a drug rehabilitation program that coerced him into practicing the Pentecostal faith.

http://www.aclumich.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=554

DJ

Charles:

Alexander VI was a patron of the arts. A thing to be grateful for.

However, just like the ACLU, Alexander VI was generally a bad thing. If your problems are with absolutist statements that cast such organizations in harsh black and white lighting, your manner of pointing that out is a failure as you only trolled people and caused much annoyance.

If education people is not your purpose for being here, I'd be honestly curious to hear you explain what is intended by the nature of your statements throughout this thread.

DJ

replace 'education' with 'educating'

Charles Shurman

Alexander VI was a patron of the arts. A thing to be grateful for.

What's not to be grateful for?

Alexander VI was generally a bad thing.

That is interesting. How about you? Are you generally a "good thing" or are you generally a "bad thing"? Are you a better or worse "thing" than Alexander VI?

If your problems are with absolutist statements that cast such organizations in harsh black and white lighting, your manner of pointing that out is a failure as you only trolled people and caused much annoyance.

Who is pointing out problems? I ask who sees a problem. Where is it? Asking about problems is like asking about Bigfoot. Let's use full light on them and see how real they are. It doesn't matter to me if they're cast as absolutist, harsh, black, white, Hindu, Muslim, ACLU, atheist, polka dotted or as feelings of annoyance or as intolerance and bigotry. Problems are nothing more than, well, me and you.

If educating people is not your purpose for being here, I'd be honestly curious to hear you explain what is intended by the nature of your statements throughout this thread.

Say Chuck?
What is it, DJ?
Do me a favor?
What do you want, now?
Would you mind taking it, just one more time?
From the top?
No! From the ending!
Wonderful!

And while we are swinging, to mention a few
We'll drop in at Jimmy's, The Little Club too
But wind up at St. Peter's, whatever we do
Life is gonna be we-wow-whee!
(Wow!)
For my shadow and me!

Chuck?
Oh, forget it DJ.

DJ

OK.

Tim J.

My, this post seems to have hit a nerve.

Memphis Aggie

How odd it seemed so tame to me

Esau

Chucky boy, the only thing I see from your story about "Mr. Grumpy Bad Catholic" is that he didn't like the hypocrisy of his town allowing one religion's symbols, but not another's. Which is, after all, what the article is about.


Can't stand this "Child's Play" and how "Chucky" here seems to overlook other articles and news stories such as those I've heard over the news radio about a certain public school that wanted to be so inclusive of everybody else's religious holidays in December (so as to demonstrate "tolerance") that they did not include Christmas in it.

The question is: is this truly inclusive?

Or is it that the definition of tolerance these days is to be tolerant of everybody else's religion except Christian?

How about this nugget of a news story way back when:


St. Albans, West Virginia

"...And the nativity scene at the city park in Saint Albans, West Virginia has a star — some sheep and camels — and a manger. Everything but the baby Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

City officials say they have never used the main players in the Christmas story out of fear of complaints from the ACLU. The Charleston Daily Mail reports that this has some people upset. One woman called it one of the dumbest things she's ever seen in her life. The woman told the paper that when she complained, "I was told that it is a desert scene and to use my imagination."


--- It's interesting that this was happening in a place called Saint Albans!

I believe we should demonstrate our TOLERANCE of everybody else's religion (except Christianity, of course) and RENAME all those places with a "Saint" in it throughout the entire United States!

DJ

Here is a blatant example of double standard. Every New Mexican knows that the Zia symbol is specifically a religious symbol, but the ACLU is going after the rosary only (or is it just the cross on the rosary?)

Mary Kay

Charles, thanks for the Detroit story. What jumped out at me was the right to treatment, which of course is not supposed to prevent practicing one's religion.

I'm glad the ACLU stepped in. Still in all, I'll file this under the category that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Tim J.

The U.S. constitution guarantees freedom of religion. What the ACLU and others want (and will use the courts as a convenient lever) is freedom *from* religion.

The threat of a lawsuit is enough to achieve the desired result, in most cases. Small towns seldom have the budget for a protracted court battle. The ACLU knows this. And there are enough ideologically driven judges out there (who will twist, ignore or re-write the law as it suits them) to keep the whole scam going.

That's why there have sprung up organizations like this -

http://www.aclj.org/

- in an attempt to bring some balance. Think I'll send THEM a check.

David B.


"No, I'm not here to get anything."
Okay, mr grammer police :-) Make people angry. and no, I wasn't angry...

But if you have any anger you'd like to give away, I always welcome it. Of course, I have no need for it, so I can hold it for you until you want to handle it yourself, or I can regift it to God/ throw it away.

So you admit those angry with you received their righteous anger from God?


Why, love, of course. As I said, it's a gift.

You said this: "They are jerks, they are rude... This is just becoming more and more evident as these bitter, carping...

carping - adj. Naggingly critical or complaining.

Who could that be?"

The above statment, your own, was not loving. It was sarcastic.

"Read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp
Are you still gonna write checks?

Of course! You didn't stop giving to the Church did you?"

Now it comes out. Find me an official statement from the Church defending pedophilia, or else apologize for this slander of the faith of a billion.

Brian Walden

DJ, thanks for that story from New Mexico. Makes me wonder what the ACLU will go after next, maybe addition. Think about it, every day millions of schoolchildren are forced not only to look at crosses but to actually draw them repeatedly in math class. And while we're at it, multiplication often uses a St. Andrew's cross. Oh the tyranny of mathematics!

bill912

"The Anti-Christian Lawyers Union, the Jihad with a law degree"

Esquire

Isn't it odd that an organization self-titled the "American Civil Liberties Union" is anti-American and a champion of neither civility nor liberty?

bill912

They read "1984" and thought Newspeak was a good idea.

David B.

I love it when people make provocative statements, become Grammarians, tangling themselves with each word one uses in one's comments, and avoid addressing the statments of the people they dishonestly proposed to engage in thoughtful a conversation.

David B.

"in a thoughtful conversation."

ASimpleSinner

I rather loathe the way the ACLU goes after Nativity Scenes in the fashion they do...

But I am always left to wonder, is there no church or business or other private sector venue to display a Nativity scene in the towns where so much money and effort is spent to keep them in parks or courthouse lawns?

In every town the ACLU invades to "straighten out" the local churches and businesses should get together to turn the village into "Nativity Town" with a Nativity scene in every front yard and church and business possible.

deusdonat

Jarnor 23, to your quote "but I'd rather people have love in an imperfect way towards the kernel of the truth present in all religious searching that points to God, than to be a Phillip Pullman." I'll claim ignorance here as I don't know who Phill Pullman is. But I will repeat the age-old adage, "a half-truth is still a whole lie". The fact that Hindus believe in a higher being does not erase the harm that the belief that the caste system, child sacrifice and temple prostitutes are ordained by said being. The fact that Muslims believe in one god does not lessen the misery of the victims of their nihilistic genocidal belief system of the Qur'an which seems to violently impose hegemony on the world. There are of course good people who happen to be Muslims (notice: not "good Muslims" who cannot by definition be good people in a Christian mindset) or Hindus. But we must not sacrifice the truth in the name of some false "I'm OK, you're OK" eccumenism. Not saying that's what you're advocating, I just wanted to make a point.

David B.

Philip Pullman is a radical atheist.

Esau

Jarnor23 is a radical catholic muslim. ;^)

Charles Shurman

City officials say they have never used the main players in the Christmas story out of fear of complaints from the ACLU.

That's their choice. Other towns no bigger have made other choices. Some people live in fear. Some don't. Some ignore or don't understand the law. Some follow and learn it. The ACLU is one of many calling for laws to be obeyed and understood.

Here is a blatant example of double standard. Every New Mexican knows that the Zia symbol is specifically a religious symbol, but the ACLU is going after the rosary only

Just as there are arguments, there are counter arguments. Perhaps it's not a double standard. Perhaps you're only half informed. For example, who knows what tomorrow may bring. Most people walk one step at a time. Perhaps a town before the whole state. Or perhaps it's not specifically a religious symbol advancing one religion over another. Even a menorah can be considered a cultural symbol and not specifically a religious symbol. The Zia is a symbol for the sun. It reflects, in the words of the State of New Mexico, "the tribal philosophy of the Zia Indians, with its wealth of pantheistic spiritualism teaching the basic harmony of all things in the universe." Encompassing all things in the universe, or everything under the sun, is that advancing one religion over another?

What the ACLU and others want (and will use the courts as a convenient lever) is freedom *from* religion.

That's what you say they want. Here's what they say: The ACLU works to keep the government out of religious affairs and defends citizens' rights to exercise their religions freely as long as their practices do not interfere with others. We [ACLU] have one consistent position: The government should not have a say in religion. The ACLU will defend your right to have a religious display on private property or public property -- that is a public forum of expression.

The threat of a lawsuit is enough to achieve the desired result, in most cases.

Yes, in many cases, the threat of a lawsuit is enough to bring about compliance with the law.

Mary Kay

but ACLU is going after the rosary only...Perhaps it's not a double standard. Perhaps you're only half informed.

Charles, you're quite adept at not acknowledging a point.

What about the ACLU's silence about tax funded footbaths? You know, what Muslims - and only Muslims - use before praying?

Then there is the Dec. 2002 suit that allowed a menorah and crescent/star but not creche. But that really underscored that everyone, at some level, recognizes Christianity as the true religion.

Charles Shurman

Okay, mr grammer police :-) Make people angry.

Make people angry? Who makes you believe that? I don't make anyone anything any more than the weather makes anyone anything.

no, I wasn't angry... So you admit those angry with you received their righteous anger from God?

If you're not angry, then of whom are you speaking? Some imaginary people in your head? I said if you have any anger you'd like to give away, I always welcome it to be given up to God. Doesn’t matter to me whether it's from a bad stomach, ignorance, Santa Claus, the weather or wherever.

You said this: ... The above statment, your own, was not loving. It was sarcastic.

What was mine was the question: "Who could that be?" The rest was quoted from Tim's post and the dictionary. If you choose to make it out as "not loving" or "sarcastic," that is your choice, your make believe.

Now it comes out. Find me an official statement from the Church defending pedophilia, or else apologize for this slander of the faith of a billion.

Check again. See who is the only one on this thread who mentioned defending pedophilia. In representing NAMBLA in the referenced case, the ACLU was not advocating sexual relationships between adults and children. What the ACLU advocated was robust freedom of speech for everyone, as protected by the Constitution, even if the message might not be popular.

Charles Shurman

The fact that Hindus believe in a higher being does not erase the harm that the belief that the caste system, child sacrifice and temple prostitutes are ordained by said being.

In Hinduism, "said being" no more ordains "the caste system, child sacrifice and temple prostitutes" than "said being" also ordains arresting the prostitutes, protecting the children, transcending caste and preaching Christianity. What you speak against is a limited conception of Hinduism, i.e. ignorance. Ignorance is not unique to those who may call themselves Hindu.

The fact that Muslims believe in one god does not lessen the misery of the victims of their nihilistic genocidal belief system of the Qur'an which seems to violently impose hegemony on the world.

Whatever the religion, there is no shortage of those who cling to ignorance.

Charles Shurman

What about the ACLU's silence about tax funded footbaths? You know, what Muslims - and only Muslims - use before praying?

You can use the footbaths too, if you so choose. They're not restricted to Muslims.

Then there is the Dec. 2002 suit that allowed a menorah and crescent/star but not creche. But that really underscored that everyone, at some level, recognizes Christianity as the true religion.

The law says what the law says, and it doesn't recognize any religion as the true religion any more than any other.

Joe

There are people with backbones?

Skygor

There are people with backbones?
Yes, but their banks books have a touch of osteoporosis, when they cannot shell out +10k$ on a whim to compete equally in the legal/political organization.

Mary Kay

Charles,

The law says what the law says, and it doesn't recognize any religion as the true religion any more than any other.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I didn't say the judge overtly declared Christianity as the true religion. What I actually said was But that really underscored that everyone, at some level, recognizes Christianity as the true religion. The reason for the decision was that "the menorah and the star and crescent have a secular dimension, while the nativity scene is 'purely religious.'"

Each of the three stand for a major religion. Only the one representing Christianity is purely religious. At some level, even a judge making a decision against Christianity recognizes as the only one that is "purely religious."

To continue from the decision, "Elsewhere, he wrote that the holiday displays 'must be reviewed as perceived by the children, Christian children in particular, but not one hyper-sensitive Catholic child.'" So a Catholic child who is expressing his reason for the season is disparaged as "hypersensitive." Nice.


Your other two comments show that you do indeed have troll-like aspects. It's 50-50 whether you are troll-like baiting or if you are benignly, if misguidedly, looking for a mutual discussion.

Christians are often accused of being sheeple, but I really think that term belongs to those who swallow uncritically statements devoid of common sense.

You can use the footbaths too, if you so choose. They're not restricted to Muslims.

One of the most inane statements I've read and a perfect example of dancing around without really answering. Why would I, or anyone, want to use a footbath?

Those taxpayer funded footbaths are in Dearborn MI where the temperature is 25 degrees. That's 8 degrees warmer than it is here and I can assure you that a footbath does not cross anyone's mind unless their Islam religion tells them.

Moving on to the NAMBLA comment. I'll have to check to see where it was first mentioned, but it totally lacks in common sense.

What the ACLU advocated was robust freedom of speech for everyone ... even if the message might not be popular.

We're not talking popularity, but protection of children. For those fortunate to not have run across them yet, NAMBLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association, a group whose sole interest is advocating sexual relations between grown men and underage boys.

Here's the common sense view. Sex is an adult activity. Children are not adults. By definition, children can not give consent to sex with an adult. There's another whole discussion of exploration versus coercion when dealing solely with underage kids, but that's for another thread. But back to NAMBLA, for which there is no excuse. Nor can the ACLU give a good reason for defending them because it's not free speech of an unpopular view, but one that would harm children. Common sense says children are to be protected.


Tim J.

I recommend, again, that we not feed the troll. This is exactly what it wants.

Brian Walden

Even a menorah can be considered a cultural symbol and not specifically a religious symbol.

Even a nativity scene can be considered a historical symbol representing the birth of Jesus who many people of many faiths/non-faiths think of as a nice guy and not a specifically religious symbol.

The Zia is a symbol for the sun. It reflects, in the words of the State of New Mexico, "the tribal philosophy of the Zia Indians, with its wealth of pantheistic spiritualism teaching the basic harmony of all things in the universe." Encompassing all things in the universe, or everything under the sun, is that advancing one religion over another?

The cross is a symbol of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. It reflects, in my words, "the cultural philosophy of the Christians, with its wealth of monotheistic spiritualism teaching the cruelty of crucifixion as a form of execution." Protesting tortuous execution, or all forms of cruel punishment, is that advancing one religion over another?

You can use the footbaths too, if you so choose. They're not restricted to Muslims.

Great idea. Let's all work for a tax-funded rosary distribution program. Obviously they won't be distributed with any specific type of prayer instruction so that anyone can use them for any type of prayer/meditation/self-help/relaxation exercise they choose. Rosaries aren't restricted to Catholics.

I wonder what the ACLU would think about those ideas.

bill912

Tim's right.

Charles Shurman

The reason for the decision was that "the menorah and the star and crescent have a secular dimension, while the nativity scene is 'purely religious.'" Each of the three stand for a major religion. Only the one representing Christianity is purely religious. At some level, even a judge making a decision against Christianity recognizes as the only one that is "purely religious."

If you're saying he saw the nativity scene as the only religious symbol among that batch, ok, what of it? In another batch, a judge may see something different. For example, a menorah with candles or lights can be a religious symbol, but one without lights a cultural symbol.

Why would I, or anyone, want to use a footbath? ... I can assure you that a footbath does not cross anyone's mind unless their Islam religion tells them.

I honestly don't care what reason anyone has for using or not using a footbath. But if someone wants to wash his/her feet, it's much easier if not safer/healthier to do so in a footbath designed for that purpose rather than in a sink designed for washing hands.

We're not talking popularity, but protection of children. For those fortunate to not have run across them yet, NAMBLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association, a group whose sole interest is advocating sexual relations between grown men and underage boys.

You're entitled to your opinion as to the "sole interest" of NAMBLA, but it is only an opinion and is in fact contrary to what NAMBLA states. For example, for those afraid of visiting their website, they state "NAMBLA calls for the empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual... NAMBLA does not provide encouragement, referrals or assistance for people seeking sexual contacts. NAMBLA does not engage in any activities that violate the law, nor do we advocate that anyone else should do so. We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults."

Sex is an adult activity. Children are not adults.

"Adult" can mean different things to different people at different times in history. For example, a creature biologically able to reproduce can be said to be an "adult." In the Bible days, children at 12 were married. Today, most people popularly think it should be later.

Even a nativity scene can be considered a historical symbol

Even a nativity scene "can be" acceptable under the law.

The cross is a symbol of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth... Protesting tortuous execution, or all forms of cruel punishment, is that advancing one religion over another?

In the view of the law, the cross "can be" reasonably seen as advancing one religion over another, perhaps much in line with the commonly heard view that unless one accepts Jesus as Lord one will be punished. Do you accept the Buddha and Krishna as equal to Jesus?

Great idea. Let's all work for a tax-funded rosary distribution program.

Neither a simple chain of beads nor a footbath is itself religious. But call it a rosary and what is it? According to the dictionary, nothing but religious. The same is not true of a footbath.

rosary:
1 often capitalized : a Roman Catholic devotion consisting of meditation on usually five sacred mysteries during recitation of five decades of Hail Marys of which each begins with an Our Father and ends with a Gloria Patri
2: a string of beads used in counting prayers especially of the Roman Catholic rosary

footbath: a bath for cleansing, warming, soothing, or disinfecting the feet

Jarnor23

Deusdonat, I stand completely by what I said. Please reference the Catechism of the Catholic Church...

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

Mushy ecumenism indeed.

David B.

Check again. See who is the only one on this thread who mentioned defending pedophilia.

Let's be honest, Chuck. You meant the statement "Of course! You didn't stop giving to the Church did you?" To refer to the sex scandal, and to explain away the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA's promotion of sex btween adults and children (which no doubt encouraged two men to murder a boy and then do even worse things).

In representing NAMBLA in the referenced case, the ACLU was not advocating sexual relationships between adults and children. What the ACLU advocated was robust freedom of speech for everyone, as protected by the Constitution, even if the message might not be popular.

"Fire" might be an unpopular message in a cinema, but what the heck, it's freedom of speech, right? Read the article again. NAMBLA encouraged adult men to sexually molest boys. No one can tell me that that is freedom of speech, or that lawmakers meant to allow the conspiracy of adults to molest children to be protected by that amendment. I cannot believe your defense of this action by the ACLU.

The Church, OTHO, has always opposed all sexual crimes, especially when committed by clerics. No one can blame an entire Church for the sins of a small minority who didn't follow the teachings of their faith.

If you're not angry, then of whom are you speaking? Some imaginary people in your head?

I think someone called you a 'troll,' they didn't mean it in a nice way.

Truly, I wasn't angry until you compared my giving to the Church (a spiritual body with Christ at Its head, Whose teachings oppose sex crimes) to the ACLU, an organization that defendedthose who distributed manuals on how to molest children and get away with.

In the real world, people don't get away with disruptiong a discussion, saying inflammatory things, refusing to engage in a conversation by saying rhetorical questions are 'gifts,' etc, and insulting one's fellow commentators.

David B.

Anyone who thinks the statement : "NAMBLA calls for the empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual... NAMBLA does not provide encouragement, referrals or assistance for people seeking sexual contacts. NAMBLA does not engage in any activities that violate the law, nor do we advocate that anyone else should do so. We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults." is not advocating sexual relations between grown men and underage boys, is crazy.

" We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults. "

Should be read as: "pedophilia Rules!".

Tim J.

Well, at least now we know where Charles' sympathies lie.

Nice.

Mary Kay

Charles, in this latest exchange you show yourself to be a big-time relavist. The truth is relative to what you want it to be. (As compared with an objective standard.)

If you're saying he saw the nativity scene as the only religious symbol among that batch, ok, what of it? In another batch, a judge may see something different. For example, a menorah with candles or lights can be a religious symbol, but one without lights a cultural symbol.

Not a shred of an objective standard in that paragraph.

a footbath does not cross anyone's mind unless their Islam religion tells them ... I honestly don't care what reason anyone has for using or not using a footbath.

You only care explanations that fit your view. Anything else is inconvenient and to be denied. The fact is that those footbaths were built for Muslims to fulfill a religious ritual.

And totally unnecessary: Regardless, some students - Muslims included - have expressed disgust at the school's use of student fees for this project. "The cleansing ritual, or ablution, requires only a quick wipe of the feet and to spend $25,000 on something we do not need is unnecessary," said junior Saleh Al-Ahmeen.
http://repeal-aumf.org/index.cgi/2007/07/10/

Mary Kay

You're entitled to your opinion as to the "sole interest" of NAMBLA, but it is only an opinion and is in fact contrary to what NAMBLA states.

Talk about selectively presenting facts. Since I couldn't get back to the main page of NAMBLA, I found the page you quoted from. You completely skipped over what directly preceded your quote. This is what you skipped over:

NAMBLA's goal is to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by:

building understanding and support for such relationships;
educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;
cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements;
supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.
Our membership is open to everyone sympathetic to man/boy love and personal freedom.

How very dishonest, or at the very least, manipulative of you.

For example, for those afraid of visiting their website

You must think that if you bait, people won't see how slanted your posts are.

Sex is an adult activity. Children are not adults. ...
"Adult" can mean different things to different people at different times in history.

More relativism. And again, dancing around while being obtuse.

For example, a creature biologically able to reproduce can be said to be an "adult."

This fails the basic common sense test. In addition, it misses the point in so many ways. Teens are able to biologically reproduce long before they are considered adult. There is far more to being an adult than biologic reproduction. In respect to NAMBLA, reproduction is not even a tangential factor.

That's just the tip of the iceberg of the ways you are so off.

Mary Kay

i>In the Bible days, children at 12 were married.

Bait and switch, eh? We were talking about consensual sex. Children married at 12 did not choose, it was an arranged marriage.

These 3 posts were originally one where I got going and couldn't stop.

Mary Kay

oops. Lost coherency in haste.

Charles Shurman

Let's be honest, Chuck. You meant the statement "Of course! You didn't stop giving to the Church did you?" To refer to the sex scandal, and to explain away the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA's promotion of sex btween adults and children

Yes, let’s be honest. You demanded, "Find me an official statement from the Church defending pedophilia, or else apologize for this slander of the faith of a billion." But I did not say the Church was defending pedophilia, nor have I said the ACLU is defending pedophilia. You alone said anything about defending pedophilia, so it’s your comparison, not mine. My comparison is based on the fact that whether it’s money in the church collection basket or money to the ACLU, it’s been used to pay for legal defense under the law. The money sent to the ACLU pays to defend the legal rights of the accused, not to promote sexual relationships between adults and children. The money dropped in the church collection basket also has gone to pay for the legal defense of the accused, but unlike money to the ACLU, money from the church collection baskets has gone toward paying the actual judgments against the accused.

NAMBLA encouraged adult men to sexually molest boys. No one can tell me that that is freedom of speech or that lawmakers meant to allow the conspiracy of adults to molest children to be protected by that amendment.

When I check, I see the court dismissed the claim of conspiracy back in 2002 as well as a RICO claim in 2003. Beyond that, much of what NAMBLA did or didn’t do, whether it’s protected speech and if there’s any legal connection between NAMBLA and the rape and murder, remains a legal question. It is this legal question in regard to the First Amendment -- not the sex, rape or murder -- that the ACLU is supporting.

No one can blame an entire Church for the sins of a small minority who didn't follow the teachings of their faith.

Who is paying for it? It’s not the "small minority who didn't follow the teachings of their faith."

I think someone called you a 'troll,' they didn't mean it in a nice way.

Trolls are make believe.

Truly, I wasn't angry until you compared…

You weren't angry until you didn't understand.

In the real world, people don't get away with disruptiong a discussion, saying inflammatory things, refusing to engage in a conversation

If that's what you want, then why don’t you return to your "real world"?

Anyone who thinks the statement ... is not advocating sexual relations between grown men and underage boys, is crazy.

To use your term, anyone who thinks I said they're not advocating such sexual relations "is crazy." The issue I responded to was whether it’s their *only* interest, to which NAMBLA affirms the contrary: "NAMBLA calls for the empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual."

Charles Shurman

Charles, in this latest exchange you show yourself to be a big-time relavist. The truth is relative to what you want it to be. (As compared with an objective standard.)

As the article I posted earlier said, "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor set a subjective - some say confusing - test of whether a ‘reasonable observer’ would see a display as endorsing one religion over others."

The fact is that those footbaths were built for Muslims to fulfill a religious ritual.

They were built so people won't use hand sinks not designed for washing feet. You can also wash your rosary in the sinks if you want, but if you don’t want to wash your rosary, your feet or your hands, you don’t have to.

The cleansing ritual, or ablution, requires only a quick wipe of the feet

Then such a statement doesn't much support the claim that the baths are for religious purposes. Some people were washing their feet in the hand sinks many times a day. This was contrary to the design of the hands sinks. So foot baths were provided.

You completely skipped over what directly preceded your quote… How very dishonest, or at the very least, manipulative of you.

Again, your point was discredited with just the single sentence from the quote that I posted which said: "NAMBLA calls for the empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the sexual." Your alleged "skipped" material helps to further discredit your claim. For example, "cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements; supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression." That does not exemplify your claim that their "sole interest" is advocating sexual relations between grown men and underage boys.

You must think that if you bait, people won't see how slanted your posts are.

It's not slant. It's balance.

Teens are able to biologically reproduce long before they are considered adult. There is far more to being an adult than biologic reproduction. In respect to NAMBLA, reproduction is not even a tangential factor.

I’m only asking you to define the terms you use. You insist they have to be "adult". So what is "adult" to you? On average, in the U.S., the so-called age of consent is 16 years old. Some places it's 14 or less. Is that adult to you? What’s your standard? Laws vary from state to state, country to country. They're subject to change and not written in stone.

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

>>>Trolls are make believe.

Internet trolls are quite real, unfortunately.

In Jesu et Maria,

bill912

Tim was right: Just starve it.

David B.

To use your term, anyone who thinks I said they're not advocating such sexual relations "is crazy."

Chuck, I didn't say you thought that, now did I?

David B.

You weren't angry until you didn't understand.

I understood, all right. My statement still stands: " Truly, I wasn't angry until you compared my giving to the Church (a spiritual body with Christ at Its head, Whose teachings oppose sex crimes) to the ACLU, an organization that defended those who distributed manuals on how to molest children and get away with. " I asked you whether you would still support the ACLU in light of it's defense of NAMBLA. You replied "Of course! You didn't stop giving to the Church did you?". This implied a similiarity between the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA's subversive sex manuals to the Church. You should've clarified your statment if you didn't desire to make such a comparison. Furthermore, that the church (which unlike the ACLU hasn't defended anyone's 'right' to distribute pedophile sex manuals, but has rather promoted the dignity of the human person and the need to protect innocence) is forced to pay for the crimes to it's members commit isn't analogous to the ACLU's defense of a child rape organization. Mary Kay's posts should reveal to any clear-thinking adult that NAMBLA's mission is the promotion of pedophilia!

[What is an] adult to you? What’s your standard? Laws vary from state to state, country to country. They're subject to change and not written in stone.

You said that the law is the rule we should follow. 10-year-olds aren't allowed to marry 21-years-olds. It's wriong. That you argue over this is truly saddening.


That does not exemplify your claim that their "sole interest" is advocating sexual relations between grown men and underage boys.

You seem to think that the most important thing in discussing NAMBLA's mission statement is whether sex between adults and children is 'their sole interest.' Un-Bull-Evil-Bull.

David B.

Okay Bill, I'm done with this post. It's too bad that a post acknowledging inter-religious fellowship was hick-jacked by an apologist for the ACLU and, apparently, NAMBLA's ..."freedom" of err..."speech."

Mary Kay

Un-Bull-Evil-Bull.

Bullseye, David. A fitting way to end the off-topic derailment.

Charles Shurman

Internet trolls are quite real, unfortunately.

Real as make believe. If you don’t like trolls, just remember what Peter said, "Every time a Catholic says 'I don't believe in trolls', a troll disappears."

Chuck, I didn't say you thought that, now did I?

Did you hear anyone say you did?

that the church … is forced to pay for the crimes to it's members commit isn't analogous to the ACLU's defense of a child rape organization.

The comparison was in regard to voluntary payments, not forced. My donations to the ACLU are voluntary, as are my donations to the Church. With the money, both the ACLU and the Church diocese are paying the legal defenses against claims in connection with "bad" behavior. Of course, unlike the diocese, the ACLU didn’t engage in the behavior being punished and isn’t being "forced to pay".

You said that the law is the rule we should follow. 10-year-olds aren't allowed to marry 21-years-olds. It's wriong.

That's why NAMBLA says: "NAMBLA does not engage in any activities that violate the law, nor do we advocate that anyone else should do so. We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults."

You seem to think that the most important thing in discussing NAMBLA's mission statement is whether sex between adults and children is 'their sole interest.'

No, that’s what you think.

It's too bad that a post acknowledging inter-religious fellowship was hick-jacked by an apologist for the ACLU and, apparently, NAMBLA's ..."freedom" of err..."speech."

Tim brought up the ACLU. You brought up NAMBLA. It doesn't matter to me whom you oppose as I support justice for all.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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