PDA

View Full Version : Should schools ban Harry Potter in fairness?


Taco John
04-21-2006, 05:09 AM
A hearing took place yesterday about whether a Georgia school should ban Harry Potter from school libraries because of complaints that the books glorify witchcraft. (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/0420gwxpotter.html) It occurs to me that there is an effort, I believe rightly, to get religion out of schools and keep church and state seperate. In the spirit of those who would go to whatever end necessary to abolish any symbol of Christianity from public schools, should Christians be afforded the same courtesies against Witchcraft?

I don't personally know that they should. I'm just asking the question.

Adept Havelock
04-21-2006, 06:04 AM
Last time I checked, the Harry Potter books made no direct reference to any specific religion. The brand of "magic" practiced bares little similarity to the practices of Wicca or most "pagan" faiths, AFAICT.

If this is proven to be the case, then why not? Of course, that also means banning the classics of C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia.

patteeu
04-21-2006, 06:11 AM
A hearing took place yesterday about whether a Georgia school should ban Harry Potter from school libraries because of complaints that the books glorify witchcraft. (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/0420gwxpotter.html) It occurs to me that there is an effort, I believe rightly, to get religion out of schools and keep church and state seperate. In the spirit of those who would go to whatever end necessary to abolish any symbol of Christianity from public schools, should Christians be afforded the same courtesies against Witchcraft?

I don't personally know that they should. I'm just asking the question.

I don't think Harry Potter witchcraft is a religion, it's a fantasy. Even though Wiccans might call themselves witches, it's a different kind of witch. Anyone who believes they are a Harry Potter style witch is crazy, not religious.

memyselfI
04-21-2006, 06:30 AM
:rolleyes:

The kids of people screaming about this really should be attending RRWNJ schools or home schooled. Leave the rest of us and our kids the fugg alone.

Radar Chief
04-21-2006, 07:06 AM
:rolleyes:

The kids of people screaming about this really should be attending RRWNJ schools or home schooled. Leave the rest of us and our kids the fugg alone.

So, when do you send your kids to madrassa? ;)

oldandslow
04-21-2006, 07:14 AM
No, the books should not be banned.

This entire discussion is ridiculous.

Braincase
04-21-2006, 07:16 AM
Where is the First United Church of Potter Related Magic?

Can't say I've had people with funny hats coming around asking me if I'd like a copy of the Gryffindor Times.

Mr. Laz
04-21-2006, 08:32 AM
depends ... do you consider Magic a religion?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-21-2006, 08:35 AM
If Harry Potter books are banned, it should be because they f*cking suck, not b/c of any presumed religious content. The logical extension of this argument would lead to the banning of nearly every book on the grounds that it glorifies some type of religion, whether it be main stream Christianity or secular humanism. Leave it to the Georgia cousin rapers...

Mr. Laz
04-21-2006, 08:36 AM
So, when do you send your kids to madrassa? ;)
are yours attending The Neo-Confederates school of literature and achievement?

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 09:06 AM
Freedom of speech doesn't seem to be on ther forefront of people's minds when they talk of banning books. Is the bible in school libraries? If so, then harry potter should be. If not, no.

As for C.S. Lewis, I seem to remember that he turned against God at one point in his life. I don't know what the basis of Narnia is, but if it was written after the turn I don't see it as a "tool for religion".

If you want to be a witch, be one, just don't push it off on me as something good. (Kind of like what they say about religion if they are non-believers.)

patteeu
04-21-2006, 09:12 AM
Freedom of speech doesn't seem to be on ther forefront of people's minds when they talk of banning books. Is the bible in school libraries? If so, then harry potter should be. If not, no.

As for C.S. Lewis, I seem to remember that he turned against God at one point in his life. I don't know what the basis of Narnia is, but if it was written after the turn I don't see it as a "tool for religion".

If you want to be a witch, be one, just don't push it off on me as something good. (Kind of like what they say about religion if they are non-believers.)

I'm no CS Lewis expert, but my recollection is that his transformation was the reverse of what you are thinking. He was a skeptic and later became a Christian. And while Lewis never said as much, most people believe that the Narnia Chronicals are very much based on the stories of Christ.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 09:19 AM
I'm no CS Lewis expert, but my recollection is that his transformation was the reverse of what you are thinking. He was a skeptic and later became a Christian. And while Lewis never said as much, most people believe that the Narnia Chronicals are very much based on the stories of Christ.

As a book of fiction it could be based on most anything or anyone.

How about the modern day William Smith (who was reported to be the Christ) or Joshua (movie character that was based on a modern day Christ). For that matter it could be based on any "known" religious figure that tried to follow the bible.

I will do some research on CS Lewis. We've had discussions about him and what happened to him at PK. I'll get back with what I find.

Sully
04-21-2006, 09:22 AM
IMHO, I don't think anything should be banned from a library.
I understand protecting kids and all, and I support that. But if you afraid of a subject (Christianity, Islam, Witchcraft), what better way to confirm or shoot down that fear than research. Research could include both reference type of books, and how the subject appears and is portrayed in poular culture.
My mom was one of these nuts trying to hide me from everything as I was growing up.
I was banned from watching the friggin Smurfs, for crying out loud, because some religious paranoid whacko had convinced her of all the symbolism for witchcraft included in it.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 09:26 AM
As a book of fiction it could be based on most anything or anyone.

How about the modern day William Smith (who was reported to be the Christ) or Joshua (movie character that was based on a modern day Christ). For that matter it could be based on any "known" religious figure that tried to follow the bible.

I will do some research on CS Lewis. We've had discussions about him and what happened to him at PK. I'll get back with what I find.

A quick search gives me the indication that C.S. Lewis wrote the Chronicles of Narnia while he was a believer and that later he fell away from religion. I'm still searching for the book in which he explained his change.

patteeu
04-21-2006, 09:37 AM
As a book of fiction it could be based on most anything or anyone.

How about the modern day William Smith (who was reported to be the Christ) or Joshua (movie character that was based on a modern day Christ). For that matter it could be based on any "known" religious figure that tried to follow the bible.

I will do some research on CS Lewis. We've had discussions about him and what happened to him at PK. I'll get back with what I find.

As an example, in The Lion, the Witch , and the Wardrobe, the savior character dies to redeem/save a fallen character from his "sin" and then he rises from the dead to reclaim the world from the forces of evil. There is much more parallelism, but I'm not the right person to describe it since I'm only superficially aware of both CS Lewis' stories and Christianity.

DanT
04-21-2006, 09:38 AM
Here's the Wikipedia.org entry on C.S. Lewis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.s._lewis

patteeu
04-21-2006, 09:42 AM
A quick search gives me the indication that C.S. Lewis wrote the Chronicles of Narnia while he was a believer and that later he fell away from religion. I'm still searching for the book in which he explained his change.

Keep looking, I still think you have it backwards. Here is the timeline:

1) Born
2) Raised Christian
3) Became a Disillusioned Skeptic
4) Reconverted to Christianity
5) Wrote Narnia Chronicles
6) Died

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 09:45 AM
Here's the Wikipedia.org entry on C.S. Lewis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.s._lewis

You are late, already been there and a few other places.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 09:47 AM
Quote: <HR SIZE=1>Originally Posted by Chiefs Express
A quick search gives me the indication that C.S. Lewis wrote the Chronicles of Narnia while he was a believer and that later he fell away from religion. I'm still searching for the book in which he explained his change. <HR SIZE=1>

Keep looking, I still think you have it backwards. Here is the timeline:

1) Born
2) Raised Christian
3) Became a Disillusioned Skeptic
4) Reconverted to Christianity
5) Wrote Narnia Chronicles
6) Died

I'm still looking, but item #5 and the bold above still match up. That is one of the points you were trying to espouse earlier.

Iowanian
04-21-2006, 09:49 AM
I think thats ridiculous. I may not fully "get" the hype with Harry Potter or LotRs.....but anything that kids enjoy enough to read that much, can't be all bad. Encouraging them to read in general is a good thing.

patteeu
04-21-2006, 09:51 AM
Quote: <HR SIZE=1>Originally Posted by Chiefs Express
A quick search gives me the indication that C.S. Lewis wrote the Chronicles of Narnia while he was a believer and that later he fell away from religion. I'm still searching for the book in which he explained his change. <HR SIZE=1>



I'm still looking, but item #5 and the bold above still match up. That is one of the points you were trying to espouse earlier.

Right, but what I'm saying now is that there was no subsequent falling away from Christianity after writing those novels.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 09:59 AM
I think thats ridiculous. I may not fully "get" the hype with Harry Potter or LotRs.....but anything that kids enjoy enough to read that much, can't be all bad. Encouraging them to read in general is a good thing.

Then what would be wrong in having them read the bible as well?

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 10:01 AM
Right, but what I'm saying now is that there was no subsequent falling away from Christianity after writing those novels.

Like I said, I'm still looking for the book I saw part of that described why he fell away from Christianity and when it happened.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure I can find in in my heart to admit it.

I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong! [stolen from J.P. Hayes]

Sully
04-21-2006, 10:04 AM
Then what would be wrong in having them read the bible as well?

I think the disconnect lies in your terming.
No one is "having" them read Harry Potter. It is available in the library for them to read, as I believe the Bible, Quran, and any other book should be.

NewChief
04-21-2006, 10:10 AM
Like I said, I'm still looking for the book I saw part of that described why he fell away from Christianity and when it happened.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure I can find in in my heart to admit it.

I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong! [stolen from J.P. Hayes]

AFAIK, and I've studied Lewis quite a bit, Lewis died a believer, even if some of his beliefs might be contentious. The following author, obviously, feels that Lewis is not fundamental enough in his Christianity, but the bolded excerpt leaves little doubt that Lewis considered himself a Christian.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm

By the time of his death, Lewis had moved from Idealism (no idea of a personal God) to Pantheism (an impersonal God in everything) and then to Theism (the existence of God). In Letters to Malcolm (p. 107), Lewis indicates that shortly before his death he was turning toward the Catholic Church. Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175). Lewis used profanities, told bawdy stories, and frequently got drunk with his students (5/19/90, World magazine). Christians need to read more critically The Abolition of Man, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, The Great Divorce, and God in the Dock. For example, Lewis never believed in a literal hell, but instead believed hell is a state of mind one chooses to possess and become -- he wrote, "... every shutting-up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind is, in the end, Hell" (The Great Divorce, p. 65).

mlyonsd
04-21-2006, 10:14 AM
It's funny but my family has experienced sort of this exact thing.

My son goes to grade school in a small South Dakota town and my wife was an aid there for several years.

When the subject of Harry Potter came up more than one teacher looked upon the book series as something which kids possibly shouldn't be exposed to because of the witchcraft.

It never rose to the level of actually considering to ban it though. We were just amused by the thinking in small town America.

NewChief
04-21-2006, 10:18 AM
When the subject of Harry Potter came up more than one teacher looked upon the book series as something which kids possibly shouldn't be exposed to because of the witchcraft.


Many, many of my cousins in Arkansas hold this belief. In fact, they can't believe that my side of the family lets our kids read Harry Potter and the like. My cousins couldn't watch the Smurfs when they were little either, because their mother thought it was demonic.

Braincase
04-21-2006, 10:23 AM
The comparison between HP books and the Holy Bible is only valid if you treat both books as fiction or both books as non-fiction.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2006, 10:29 AM
Witchcraft IS a pagan religion and is deemed a bonafide religion per our Supreme Court.

If Christianity is disallowed due to Church and State issues than this should b as well per other amendments dealing with equality under the law.

But really, per our Consitution these issues should be settled locally based on the make-up of the local population.

Personally, I think they should allow Harry Potter books AND Christian based books in the library,including Protestant KJ's Bibles and Catholic Douay-Rheim's Bibles because no one is being forced to read them. Afterall, it is the first book ever printed when Gutenberg invented his movable type and printing press. It is also a history book ...of a people and piece of literature that has had a major impact on the development of Western Civilization.

vailpass
04-21-2006, 10:33 AM
Yes great lets take away books that are interesting to young children and so motivate them to read.
Witchcraft. What a bunch of buffoons.
"Build a bridge out of her!"

Reason #2135 I send my children to private school.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2006, 10:39 AM
I send my kid to a private school too.
Public schools have become too politicized.

vailpass
04-21-2006, 10:47 AM
I send my kid to a private school too.
Public schools have become too politicized.

Agreed. Education is about learning and knowing as much about life as possible. Kids need to experience the depth and breadth of literature, science, history, religion, mathematics, physical education and current events. The good, the bad, and the ugly in accordance with their maturity level and ability to effectively assimilate the materials.

We then discuss their findings and determine how they do or do not apply to our beliefs. Hiding literature or other information from children only robs them of knowledge, it doesn't protect them from anything. Frankly, through no fault of their own it makes those children dumber, duller, and less equipped to deal with the world than their well-rounded counterparts

Radar Chief
04-21-2006, 10:56 AM
are yours attending The Neo-Confederates school of literature and achievement?

Nope, but I’m not the one claim’n that everyone not me should be banned from public schools.
Yours attending the “Rainbow Consortium of Sphincter Tickling”? :p
And when did you become Denise’s public relations moon bat? :shrug:

banyon
04-21-2006, 11:30 AM
Keep looking, I still think you have it backwards. Here is the timeline:

1) Born
2) Raised Christian
3) Became a Disillusioned Skeptic
4) Reconverted to Christianity
5) Wrote Narnia Chronicles
6) Died

This is accurate.

The movie Shadowlands (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108101/) details some of Lewis's life if you don't like reading.

Also, his arguments with J.R.R. Tolkien on the nature of allegory and metaphor are extremely interesting. Supposedly, Tolkien played some role in Lewis coming back to his faith.

Dave Lane
04-21-2006, 11:51 AM
IMHO, I don't think anything should be banned from a library.
I understand protecting kids and all, and I support that. But if you afraid of a subject (Christianity, Islam, Witchcraft), what better way to confirm or shoot down that fear than research. Research could include both reference type of books, and how the subject appears and is portrayed in poular culture.
My mom was one of these nuts trying to hide me from everything as I was growing up.
I was banned from watching the friggin Smurfs, for crying out loud, because some religious paranoid whacko had convinced her of all the symbolism for witchcraft included in it.


I agree I think there should even be a xtian bible (though maybe in the mythology section ROFL). Anything anyone can write is welcome in my mind.

Dave

DanT
04-21-2006, 11:58 AM
There's a lot of misinformation about whether the Bible can be studied as literature in public schools. It can be. Here, for example, is an excerpt from a "Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools (4/12/1995)" signed by the ACLU and a bunch of other organizations:

http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16146leg19950412.html

5. Students may be taught about religion, but public schools may not teach religion. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "[i]t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization." It would be difficult to teach art, music, literature and most social studies without considering religious influences.

The history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other scripture)-as-literature (either as a separate course or within some other existing course), are all permissible public school subjects. It is both permissible and desirable to teach objectively about the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries. One can teach that the Pilgrims came to this country with a particular religious vision, that Catholics and others have been subject to persecution or that many of those participating in the abolitionist, women's suffrage and civil rights movements had religious motivations.

Dave Lane
04-21-2006, 02:02 PM
The comparison between HP books and the Holy Bible is only valid if you treat both books as fiction or both books as non-fiction.


Then I would say there is a fair comparision.

Dave

Iowanian
04-21-2006, 02:13 PM
Then what would be wrong in having them read the bible as well?

I have zero problem with a bible being in school.

That said.....get back to me when Kids are lining up at midnight to buy the new testiment and read 600 pages in a couple of days.

I think its a silly thing for GA to be upset about.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 02:21 PM
I have zero problem with a bible being in school.

That said.....get back to me when Kids are lining up at midnight to buy the new testiment and read 600 pages in a couple of days.

I think its a silly thing for GA to be upset about.

I think you might check into some of the private schools. I believe that they are not only buying bibles and reading them they are reading several different translations to make sure they get the message.

But, who am I to argue? I just believe that the seperation between Church and State is somewhat of a modern era redefinition of the constitution.

Iowanian
04-21-2006, 02:23 PM
I don't think EITHER the Harry Potter series OR the holy bible should be taught in public school.

Allowed and available in the Library? Yes.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 02:26 PM
I don't think EITHER the Harry Potter series OR the holy bible should be taught in public school.

Allowed and available in the Library? Yes.

To be honest, I don't know how many libraries in the U.S. would have the bible in them. Not because they can't but because they are afraid of the ACLU.

Dave Lane
04-21-2006, 02:40 PM
To be honest, I don't know how many libraries in the U.S. would have the bible in them. Not because they can't but because they are afraid of the ACLU.


The ACLU only takes issue with being in the religion business at schools They fully support comparitive religion being taught at schools.

And PS the constitution was entirely founded on the principles or separation of church and state.

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. ----James Madison

Sums it up pretty well.

Dave

Nightwish
04-21-2006, 03:02 PM
A hearing took place yesterday about whether a Georgia school should ban Harry Potter from school libraries because of complaints that the books glorify witchcraft. (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/0420gwxpotter.html) It occurs to me that there is an effort, I believe rightly, to get religion out of schools and keep church and state seperate. In the spirit of those who would go to whatever end necessary to abolish any symbol of Christianity from public schools, should Christians be afforded the same courtesies against Witchcraft?Against witchcraft? No. Against Wicca? Yes. Witchcraft is not a religion, although there are many Wiccans who practice witchcraft. However, Wicca and "witchcraft" are not synonymous terms, despite the efforts of some of the "fluffy bunnies" to claim otherwise. By the way, I'm a non-practicing long-time Wiccan, so I know whereof I speak.

The Harry Potter books do glorify witchcraft (at least, a fantasy version of it) somewhat, and it could even be argued that they, to some extent, promote it. But they do not promote any recognizable religious doctrine or religious practice. At most, they promote some fairly widespread ideals, such as the value of friendship, trust, and personal responsibility, as well as the ageless idea that good should triumph over evil. But those ideals aren't ensconced solely in any one religion to the point that if someone were to read about them, the reader would automatically say, "Hey, they're talking about [insert religion]!"

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 03:12 PM
The ACLU only takes issue with being in the religion business at schools They fully support comparitive religion being taught at schools.

And PS the constitution was entirely founded on the principles or separation of church and state.

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. ----James Madison

Sums it up pretty well.

Dave

I disagree with your interpetation of the comment as well as your interpetation fo the constitution.

The founding fathers intent, IMO, was to stay away from the Church by design. Not being able to tell each of our citizens what religion they had to practice as they did in England. James Madison's statement only fortifies that belief.

It's not hard to see if you aren't blind. If the founding fathers were so defined in their beliefs then, and through the first 150 or more years of the country, why were the references of God and the bible allowed to be placed on Government buildings? Why was the Ten Commandments included in many of our court buildings? Why is there an invocation and benediction at government activities?

The founding fathers might not have had the same beliefs as the people now living in our country, but they had very defined feelings and they were very predominant in ealry U.S. history.

The term "seperation of Church and State" is not found in that format in the constitution.

What you are referring to is this:

<A id=amendmenti name=amendmenti>Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

To find seperation of church and state in this amendment is a far stretch from the written word.

irishjayhawk
04-21-2006, 05:13 PM
It's quite funny. They tout the Bible as non-fiction and Potter as fiction yet they both contain "faith". That is, whether you believe in it or not.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2006, 05:30 PM
The ACLU only takes issue with being in the religion business at schools They fully support comparitive religion being taught at schools.

And PS the constitution was entirely founded on the principles or separation of church and state.

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. ----James Madison

Sums it up pretty well.

Dave


I gotta agree with ChiefExpress here on this one.

Madison wrote the Constitution but when he did he was very aware that many states had state "established" churches ( Massachusettes was one). So Madison was careful how he worded it trying not to step on the toes of the states.

Public schools were not publically funded at the time either. But public schools have also been traditionally funded at the local level so that Constitutional clause really has no bearing and should have no bearing...except the problem arises when the Feds are murkying up the issues with their involvement. There is no Consitutional authority for the Federal Gov't to have any involvement in local schools or provide any funding.

Also, the Framers argued this point heatedly, even the issue of prayer for opening sessions in congress, as they were a mix of Masons who were Deists, agnostics and Christians. The separation clause really is referring to a federa; state "established" church. Per the definition of the word "establishment." It does not prohibit free speech which includes religious speech.

Lastly, the Constitution ends with the words "in the year of our Lord....."

Now I am not saying, at a local level, it is not the best policy to not teach religion...just saying the Constitutional clause doesn't make that claim exactly.

Adept Havelock
04-21-2006, 05:33 PM
I think thats ridiculous. I may not fully "get" the hype with Harry Potter or LotRs.....but anything that kids enjoy enough to read that much, can't be all bad. Encouraging them to read in general is a good thing.

:clap:

Hydrae
04-21-2006, 06:04 PM
First off, if a state wants to put this into law, go for it. This is certainly not an issue that needs to be looked at from a federal point of view.

As to CS Lewis and all that, my folks certainly viewed it as an allegory for the bible. We spent a couple of years where my dad would read a chapter from Narnia and a chapter out of the bible out loud after each dinner. Got all the way through both!

My parents also did not let my little brother and sisters watch Smurf's for religious reasons as well (I am too old to have been affected, Smurf's were after my youth). My mother also will not read anything by Orson Scott Card because he is very up front about being a Mormon and my mom feels he shows those opinions strongly in his books. I have never noticed but then I am not looking for hidden messages in fictional stories.

I also agree with those who point out that Potter has created a lot more readers in this country than any single author. I know my kids love them and my wife and I both read them as well. My wife also made a point of reading the first one before letting any of the kids read it. Hmmm, parents deciding what is best for thier children rather than the establishment. Novel concept! :)

Dave Lane
04-21-2006, 06:22 PM
I gotta agree with ChiefExpress here on this one.

Madison wrote the Constitution but when he did he was very aware that many states had state "established" churches ( Massachusettes was one). So Madison was careful how he worded it trying not to step on the toes of the states.

Public schools were not publically funded at the time either. But public schools have also been traditionally funded at the local level so that Constitutional clause really has no bearing and should have no bearing...except the problem arises when the Feds are murkying up the issues with their involvement. There is no Consitutional authority for the Federal Gov't to have any involvement in local schools or provide any funding.

Also, the Framers argued this point heatedly, even the issue of prayer for opening sessions in congress, as they were a mix of Masons who were Deists, agnostics and Christians. The separation clause really is referring to a federa; state "established" church. Per the definition of the word "establishment." It does not prohibit free speech which includes religious speech.

Lastly, the Constitution ends with the words "in the year of our Lord....."

Now I am not saying, at a local level, it is not the best policy to not teach religion...just saying the Constitutional clause doesn't make that claim exactly.


Mostly the founders where non-xtians and wanted to make certain no religion was "favored" by the government over the other. I see no reason to not have an xtian bible in libraries but to promote any particular religious speech within any governmental institution goes against the spirit of what was intended.

Dave

Dave Lane
04-21-2006, 06:23 PM
Also the the "the year of our lord" was a common term in those days and not xtian in origin in any regard anyway.

Dave

BucEyedPea
04-21-2006, 08:09 PM
What's xtian?

It's "the year of our L" with a capital "L"

Cases have already been won in the SC on suppression of religious speech on public property. Congress even has a Chaplain and opens with a prayer...always has. It was not the intention to suppress all religious speech.The states were pretty much free to do what they wanted....they were practically sovereign states until the era of big gov't.

Douche Baggins
04-21-2006, 08:11 PM
If they do that, they should ban Lord of the Rings, too. The magic involved in that story is much more dark.

Dave Lane
04-21-2006, 08:31 PM
What's xtian?

It's "the year of our L" with a capital "L"

Cases have already been won in the SC on suppression of religious speech on public property. Congress even has a Chaplain and opens with a prayer...always has. It was not the intention to suppress all religious speech.The states were pretty much free to do what they wanted....they were practically sovereign states until the era of big gov't.

xtian is short for christian. Like xmas is for christmas.

Its not that you can't publicly speak about religion as long as the Government isn't sponsoring it in any way.

Dave

banyon
04-22-2006, 08:53 AM
Now I am not saying, at a local level, it is not the best policy to not teach religion...just saying the Constitutional clause doesn't make that claim exactly.

That was true until it was applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) and Everson v. Board of Education (1947).

All of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated by the 14th except the 3rd and the 7th.

Chiefs Express
04-22-2006, 11:47 AM
xtian is short for christian. Like xmas is for christmas.

Its not that you can't publicly speak about religion as long as the Government isn't sponsoring it in any way.

Dave

Your definition seems to be a home made one. I've seen Xmas for years but never xtian. Got a link?

Nightwish
04-22-2006, 12:01 PM
Your definition seems to be a home made one. I've seen Xmas for years but never xtian. Got a link?It's a pretty common term. It's almost never used by Christians, who consider it disrespectful, but it finds pretty common use among non-Christians, particularly atheists and non-Christians who have a particularly antagonistic attitude toward Christians. Interestingly, I have heard a lot of Christians use the term "Xmas," but only rarely have I heard a Christian use the term "Xtian." The latter is almost exclusively used by non-Christians.

It appears there are a number of uses of the word, not all of which are meant to be insulting:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=xtian

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/XTIAN

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/x00.html

Chiefs Express
04-22-2006, 12:24 PM
It's a pretty common term. It's almost never used by Christians, who consider it disrespectful, but it finds pretty common use among non-Christians, particularly atheists and non-Christians who have a particularly antagonistic attitude toward Christians. Interestingly, I have heard a lot of Christians use the term "Xmas," but only rarely have I heard a Christian use the term "Xtian." The latter is almost exclusively used by non-Christians.

It appears there are a number of uses of the word, not all of which are meant to be insulting:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=xtian

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/XTIAN

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/x00.html

Where did I say that it was insulting?

Mr. Laz
04-22-2006, 12:28 PM
And when did you become Denise’s public relations moon bat? :shrug:
not defending moonbats as much as slapping around wingnuts :D


you're just as nutty as denise ......... just the other direction on the political scale. :moon:

Nightwish
04-22-2006, 10:08 PM
Where did I say that it was insulting?You didn't. I mentioned earlier in my post that not many Christians use the term because they consider it disrespectful. But when I was looking up some links for you, I learned that although it is often used in a sort of derogatory manner (such as those who use Xmas in order to remove "Christ" from the holiday), it also has other derivations, such as the X representing the Greek letter Chi, which is sometimes used to represent Christ (I'm not sure if it's because there is some special meaning to the letter Chi, or if it is just because the X resembles a cross).

So I wasn't trying to contradict something you had said, I was just correcting myself.

Dave Lane
04-22-2006, 11:02 PM
Damn and I thought I had made it up. Never seen it anywhere before either just seemed like nice shorthand for people that type 15 words a minute like me.

Dave

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 06:51 AM
You didn't. I mentioned earlier in my post that not many Christians use the term because they consider it disrespectful. But when I was looking up some links for you, I learned that although it is often used in a sort of derogatory manner (such as those who use Xmas in order to remove "Christ" from the holiday), it also has other derivations, such as the X representing the Greek letter Chi, which is sometimes used to represent Christ (I'm not sure if it's because there is some special meaning to the letter Chi, or if it is just because the X resembles a cross).

So I wasn't trying to contradict something you had said, I was just correcting myself.

KO

Radar Chief
04-24-2006, 09:13 AM
not defending moonbats as much as slapping around wingnuts :D


you're just as nutty as denise ......... just the other direction on the political scale. :moon:

Ok, but what do you even know ‘bout “my politics”? :shrug:
Since you appear to be in such a hurry to slap some “rebel flag wave’n southern redneck” label on me I’d assume not much. :hmmm:
Course I didn’t expect much more from a whiney lib pant wetter that gets their ideology from bumper stickers and 10 second sound bits. :p ;)

Saulbadguy
04-24-2006, 11:32 AM
Then what would be wrong in having them read the bible as well?
Booooooooooooring. :ZZZ:

Saulbadguy
04-24-2006, 11:34 AM
They should not ban it, because Harry Potter is not religious text.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 11:46 AM
They should not ban it, because Harry Potter is not religious text.

The Wicca Religion might disagree with your attempted defaming of their influence in the movie.

Saulbadguy
04-24-2006, 11:47 AM
The Wicca Religion might disagree with your attempted defaming of their influence in the movie.
No, they won't.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 11:50 AM
No, they won't.

Now there's a real witty and convincing comeback! :rolleyes:

Nightwish
04-24-2006, 01:25 PM
The Wicca Religion might disagree with your attempted defaming of their influence in the movie.
Actually, the Wiccan community is among the most vocal about distancing themselves from the Harry Potter universe. We're usually the first to tell you how little Harry Potter has in common with magic, witchcraft, or Wicca in the real world.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 05:09 PM
Actually, the Wiccan community is among the most vocal about distancing themselves from the Harry Potter universe. We're usually the first to tell you how little Harry Potter has in common with magic, witchcraft, or Wicca in the real world.

Only because you are trying to legitimize a false religion.

First, it's a movie so who really cares about it's content?

Second,....... Oh, hell.... what's the use arguing with a brick?

Believe what you want to, it's going to be that way any way.

What happens to a Wicca member when they die?

Dave Lane
04-24-2006, 05:33 PM
I think they die but then not being a Wiccan I'm not sure..

Dave

Sully
04-24-2006, 05:33 PM
I need to learn a new skill in arguments.
If I am losing at an argument, rather than just admit I am wrong, I need to learn to A) change the subject, pretending as if that wasn't the original argument I was taking part in or, B) Claim I don't have time to explain how I was actually right.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 05:35 PM
I think they die but then not being a Wiccan I'm not sure..

Dave

The one I saw them planting in Orlando seemed pretty dead to me.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 05:36 PM
I need to learn a new skill in arguments.
If I am losing at an argument, rather than just admit I am wrong, I need to learn to A) change the subject, pretending as if that wasn't the original argument I was taking part in or, B) Claim I don't have time to explain how I was actually right.

I think you should just quit posting, you lose all of your arguments.

If you comment was meant to insult me, you are reaching the limits of your ability. It can't be done.

Stupid topics need off the wall shit posted. That's why I'm here.

Nightwish
04-24-2006, 06:03 PM
Only because you are trying to legitimize a false religion.
So you think that the only reason Wiccans would claim that Harry Potter does NOT represent the way magic and witchcraft really are, is because they want to legitimize their religion. So ... what ... in our hearts, we actually believe Rowling got it right, but we just don't want to admit it? Heck, dude, we were also among the first to point out how hokey "The Craft" was.

First, it's a movie so who really cares about it's content?
Apparently quite a few people, since some are working so hard to get it banned from schools and libraries.

What happens to a Wicca member when they die?
There is no doctrine in Wicca about the afterlife. Wiccans believe many different things about it. Some believe in reincarnation, others believe in the Christian idea of heaven and hell, still others believe there is nothing after death. But what does that have to do with whether or not Wiccans think Harry Potter represents our religion fairly and accurately?

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 07:09 PM
There is no doctrine in Wicca about the afterlife. Wiccans believe many different things about it. Some believe in reincarnation, others believe in the Christian idea of heaven and hell, still others believe there is nothing after death. But what does that have to do with whether or not Wiccans think Harry Potter represents our religion fairly and accurately?


So, you say that if you are in a Wiccan cult you still believe in God? How do you reconcile your rituals with the bible?

Adept Havelock
04-24-2006, 07:18 PM
So, you say that if you are in a Wiccan cult you still believe in God? How do you reconcile your rituals with the bible?

From what I've read, while various sects may vary, Wiccans generally acknowledge a God (not the Abrahamic model), and a Goddess.

Some Wiccans see them as simple manifestations of a single greater being, in a manner similar to the "Triune" God worshipped by most Christians.

Not being a believer but only a bystander interested on an academic level, I could be fuzzy on the specifics of the theology involved, but I'm fairly certain that's the gist of it. Perhaps one of our resident Wiccans, or our theologically oriented Christians could elucidate further if there is interest.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 07:23 PM
From what I've read, while various sects may vary, Wiccans generally acknowledge a God (not the Abrahamic model), and a Goddess.

Some Wiccans see them as simple manifestations of a single greater being, in a manner similar to the "Triune" God worshipped by most Christians.

Not being a believer but only a bystander interested on an academic level, I could be fuzzy on the specifics of the theology involved, but I'm fairly certain that's the gist of it. Perhaps one of our resident Wiccans, or our theologically oriented Christians could elucidate further if there is interest.

I don't have any interest, I was just giving the dude something to post about. He seemed like he was all fired up about it.

Dave Lane
04-24-2006, 08:20 PM
So, you say that if you are in a Wiccan cult you still believe in God? How do you reconcile your rituals with the bible?


Why would there be a need to. Their bible would be just as valid.

Dave

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 08:25 PM
Why would there be a need to. Their bible would be just as valid.

Dave

I find that pretty hard to believe. I don't think they would "invent" a god, it would be more of a wizard or something.

Dave Lane
04-24-2006, 09:10 PM
How would it be any less valid to them?

Dave

Nightwish
04-24-2006, 11:31 PM
So, you say that if you are in a Wiccan cult you still believe in God? How do you reconcile your rituals with the bible?Why would we need to reconcile our rituals with the bible? To most Wiccans, the Bible isn't the inerrant word of God, it is the attempt by ancient men to explain God and the world. As such, they will read the Bible for its value as an historical text, and they'll read the words of Jesus as an invaluable guide to decent living and human interaction, but not as an inviolate gospel Truth. In other words, most Wiccans will read the bible as a good book, not The Good Book. Unless one considers the Bible to be inerrant and the dictated Word of God, then there is no conundrum.

By the way, unless they are strict BTW Gardnerians or Alexandrians, most Wiccans don't fit the "cult" definition. Christians fit it much closer.

Nightwish
04-24-2006, 11:35 PM
From what I've read, while various sects may vary, Wiccans generally acknowledge a God (not the Abrahamic model), and a Goddess.

Some Wiccans see them as simple manifestations of a single greater being, in a manner similar to the "Triune" God worshipped by most Christians.

Not being a believer but only a bystander interested on an academic level, I could be fuzzy on the specifics of the theology involved, but I'm fairly certain that's the gist of it. Perhaps one of our resident Wiccans, or our theologically oriented Christians could elucidate further if there is interest.
You did just fine. I'd say, in fact, that most Wiccans, in my experience (which is considerable) are of the archetypalist polytheistic monotheist variety -- believing that the various gods and goddesses of various mythologies are simply archetypes, representing specific aspects of God and Creation, sort of a way of "whittling" it down to size, so to speak, rather than trying to frame it all in one vague and elusive package. Likewise, though there are some who literally believe in two deities - a God and a Goddess - most just believe they are equal halves of one single deity, one Creator, one God. Hence my term polytheistic monotheists.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 11:42 PM
Why would we need to reconcile our rituals with the bible? To most Wiccans, the Bible isn't the inerrant word of God, it is the attempt by ancient men to explain God and the world. As such, they will read the Bible for its value as an historical text, and they'll read the words of Jesus as an invaluable guide to decent living and human interaction, but not as an inviolate gospel Truth. In other words, most Wiccans will read the bible as a good book, not The Good Book. Unless one considers the Bible to be inerrant and the dictated Word of God, then there is no conundrum.

By the way, unless they are strict BTW Gardnerians or Alexandrians, most Wiccans don't fit the "cult" definition. Christians fit it much closer.

So, as a Wiccan, where are you going when you die? Dust?

Nightwish
04-24-2006, 11:46 PM
Why would there be a need to. Their bible would be just as valid.

Dave
Wiccans don't have a bible. Yes, there are a couple books out there entitled "The Witches' Bible," one written by the Frosts (who I know personally), and one written by the Farrars. But they aren't considered holy books, and they weren't intended to be read as such. Though the Christians have coopted the term "bible" to mean "holy book," it doesn't actually mean that, it simply means "book." Gavin chose the title sort of as a joke, and for shock value, when he first published it. He's that kind of person.

Nightwish
04-24-2006, 11:47 PM
So, as a Wiccan, where are you going when you die? Dust?
I don't pretend to know the answer to that.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 11:53 PM
I don't pretend to know the answer to that.

I don't pretend to know either. If your name is not in the book of life all you get is hell fire and brimstone. Pretty black and white. If I'm wrong I end up dust just like you. If I'm right I've made the wise choice and you have not.

Nightwish
04-24-2006, 11:58 PM
I don't pretend to know either. If your name is not in the book of life all you get is hell fire and brimstone. Pretty black and white. If I'm wrong I end up dust just like you. If I'm right I've made the wise choice and you have not.
Well, the whole hellfire and brimstone thing isn't very biblical, it's based on the works of John Milton, though most Christians don't realize that. But as far as who is right and who is wrong, I'm not overly concerned with it. As we've discussed before, I prefer to concentrate on this life I'm living now the best way that I can, and the afterlife will work itself out. I'm not going to go through the motions of practicing Christianity "just in case," as I don't think Jesus is going to have many rewards in store for the hedge-betters, if indeed Jesus ever was more than a man, and if indeed the Christian story is true.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 12:02 AM
Well, the whole hellfire and brimstone thing isn't very biblical, it's based on the works of John Milton, though most Christians don't realize that. But as far as who is right and who is wrong, I'm not overly concerned with it. As we've discussed before, I prefer to concentrate on this life I'm living now the best way that I can, and the afterlife will work itself out. I'm not going to go through the motions of practicing Christianity "just in case," as I don't think Jesus is going to have many rewards in store for the hedge-betters, if indeed Jesus ever was more than a man, and if indeed the Christian story is true.

I don't think you have any problems there.

I'm not perfect, but I am a Christian and I do have redemption. Has little to do with what you are saying, but there you go.

Dave Lane
04-25-2006, 12:32 AM
I don't pretend to know either. If your name is not in the book of life all you get is hell fire and brimstone. Pretty black and white. If I'm wrong I end up dust just like you. If I'm right I've made the wise choice and you have not.


You are a conservative man. You know I might just convert at the bitter end too just in case...

Dave

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 01:28 AM
You are a conservative man. You know I might just convert at the bitter end too just in case...

Dave


convert to what?

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 01:29 AM
Well, the whole hellfire and brimstone thing isn't very biblical, it's based on the works of John Milton, though most Christians don't realize that. But as far as who is right and who is wrong, I'm not overly concerned with it. As we've discussed before, I prefer to concentrate on this life I'm living now the best way that I can, and the afterlife will work itself out. I'm not going to go through the motions of practicing Christianity "just in case," as I don't think Jesus is going to have many rewards in store for the hedge-betters, if indeed Jesus ever was more than a man, and if indeed the Christian story is true.

You are getting hungup on symantics, but that seems to be what you do best.

Sully
04-25-2006, 06:00 AM
A) Some Christians believe that the Bible isn't inerrant and/ or "God breathed," so that's not simply a non-Christian thing.
B) It's sad when I see people who are Christians only for the sake of saving themselves from "hell." Especially considering they typically ignore the true beauty of Christianity, Jesus' teachings, and that they typically live in so much anger and pain due to their beliefs, that hell is on earth to them.

tiptap
04-25-2006, 06:21 AM
I don't pretend to know either. If your name is not in the book of life all you get is hell fire and brimstone. Pretty black and white. If I'm wrong I end up dust just like you. If I'm right I've made the wise choice and you have not.


Can you get God to print us a copy? I am a bit dubious who really is on the roll.

As far as cost/risk analysis, the reason so many of the people that post on this site against fundalmentalist notions is because the actions of this group are slowing down the scientific discoveries and determinations based upon how nature acts as opposed to how the Bible claims thing are. It has real costs to us now, on this planet to teach claims, that are scientifically false, as more than spiritually true.

And I don't think God puts people on the roll when their profession of faith is too get to heaven. It is for people who embrace the moral teachings of Jesus as the correct stance here and now, for this world not the next. If it takes hell to convince you to accept God then I suspect it isn't love but fear that guides your choice.

Saulbadguy
04-25-2006, 06:42 AM
Your goals are of a dubious nature, Christian zealot!

Mr. Kotter
04-25-2006, 06:58 AM
There's a lot of misinformation about whether the Bible can be studied as literature in public schools. It can be. Here, for example, is an excerpt from a "Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools (4/12/1995)" signed by the ACLU and a bunch of other organizations:

http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16146leg19950412.html

That may be true, but in practice teaching the Bible as literature is avoided like the plague....very few schools or teachers actually do it, for fear of lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits. Pussies.

jspchief
04-25-2006, 07:00 AM
I don't pretend to know either. If your name is not in the book of life all you get is hell fire and brimstone. Pretty black and white. If I'm wrong I end up dust just like you. If I'm right I've made the wise choice and you have not.I always love this argument.

"I believe in god just in case he exists, so I can go to heaven." Sounds like your god isn't very demanding of his worshippers.

What would make more sense? Letting in a non-christian that led a good and moral life, or letting in a bad christian that only believes in god "just in case"?

The entire premise is absurd. If that's the way your god operates, I wouldn't worship him even if I knew he existed. He doesn't deserve my worship.

Dave Lane
04-25-2006, 10:19 AM
convert to what?

everything... Ya know you can't be too careful.

Dave

Logical
04-25-2006, 10:49 AM
If a court found that it was promoting religion I guess I would be ok with it being blocked. I personally do not think it is remotely related to the Wiccan religion but that is just my view, I see it more as fantasy, like you find with the wicked witch of the west in the Wizard of Oz. I just wonder where you would start drawing the line on storys that mention wizards and witches?

Nightwish
04-25-2006, 12:41 PM
I just wonder where you would start drawing the line on storys that mention wizards and witches?
Heck, a lot of people believe that Gandalf is an allegorical representation of Christ (albeit unintentional, according to Tolkien). If that's true, it would certainly throw a wrench into the mix.

NewChief
04-25-2006, 12:57 PM
Heck, a lot of people believe that Gandalf is an allegorical representation of Christ (albeit unintentional, according to Tolkien). If that's true, it would certainly throw a wrench into the mix.

That would be ridiculous, though. Jim Casey (JC) is a thinly veiled allegory for Jesus Christ (JC) in the Grapes of Wrath. About 50% of Western Literature has some sort of biblical allusion or allegory within it.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 04:28 PM
I always love this argument.

"I believe in god just in case he exists, so I can go to heaven." Sounds like your god isn't very demanding of his worshippers.

What would make more sense? Letting in a non-christian that led a good and moral life, or letting in a bad christian that only believes in god "just in case"?

The entire premise is absurd. If that's the way your god operates, I wouldn't worship him even if I knew he existed. He doesn't deserve my worship.

Your interpetation of what I said is very interesting, not fact based in the least, but interesting.

The good news for you is that you have until you die to ask for forgivness and those that are granted forgivness at the stroke of midnight get the same reward as those that have been there all day long, so to speak. What you might want to consider is that if you drop dead without that opportunity you have lost everything.

Good luck with your Russian Roulette timing for salvation.

NewChief
04-25-2006, 05:53 PM
Your interpetation of what I said is very interesting, not fact based in the least, but interesting.

The good news for you is that you have until you die to ask for forgivness and those that are granted forgivness at the stroke of midnight get the same reward as those that have been there all day long, so to speak. What you might want to consider is that if you drop dead without that opportunity you have lost everything.

Good luck with your Russian Roulette timing for salvation.

I think their point is that turning to God because you fear eternal damnation, hellfire, and brimstone is an inferior reason than turning to God because you desire a personal relationship with the Creator and that those who use the scare tactics to drive nonbelievers toward repentance are doing the faith a disservice.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 06:07 PM
I think their point is that turning to God because you fear eternal damnation, hellfire, and brimstone is an inferior reason than turning to God because you desire a personal relationship with the Creator and that those who use the scare tactics to drive nonbelievers toward repentance are doing the faith a disservice.

How did you get that out of what I said? You taking drugs? The comparison was pretty clear, but just so you understand. I was a born again Christian at an age that would negate your argument. I am well over 39 so that would predate any of the conversations held on this or any bulletin board.

What I said, to be perfectly clear, is that I turned to God when I was 13 and not because I thought anything other than that Jesus died for my sins and provided a path for me to heaven by believing that his blood could take away my sins.

NewChief
04-25-2006, 06:20 PM
How did you get that out of what I said? You taking drugs? The comparison was pretty clear, but just so you understand. I was a born again Christian at an age that would negate your argument. I am well over 39 so that would predate any of the conversations held on this or any bulletin board.

What I said, to be perfectly clear, is that I turned to God when I was 13 and not because I thought anything other than that Jesus died for my sins and provided a path for me to heaven by believing that his blood could take away my sins.


I don't pretend to know either. If your name is not in the book of life all you get is hell fire and brimstone. Pretty black and white. If I'm wrong I end up dust just like you. If I'm right I've made the wise choice and you have not.

I'm not speaking of your own path to salvation, but the arguments you use to witness. You seem to be trying to convert others toward Christianity through a "covering all their bases" argument while holding over their head the fear of an eternity of hell fire and brimstone. If that wasn't your intention, that's great.

jspchief
04-25-2006, 08:00 PM
Your interpetation of what I said is very interesting, not fact based in the least, but interesting.

The good news for you is that you have until you die to ask for forgivness and those that are granted forgivness at the stroke of midnight get the same reward as those that have been there all day long, so to speak. What you might want to consider is that if you drop dead without that opportunity you have lost everything.

Good luck with your Russian Roulette timing for salvation.I don't want your god's forgiveness. He's obviously desperate for worshippers if the criteria to get in heaven is so little. Doesn't sound like someone worthy of my worship. If I ever were to decide to devote any part of me to a deity, I think I would be more selective than settling for a god that will take anyone.

The threat of burning in hell for not believing in your god is the same as the threat of not getting presents if I don't believe in Santa.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 08:01 PM
I don't want your god's forgiveness. He's obviously desperate for worshippers if the criteria to get in heaven is so little. Doesn't sound like someone worthy of my worship. If I ever were to decide to devote any part of me to a deity, I think I would be more selective than settling for a god that will take anyone.

The threat of burning in hell for not believing in your god is the same as the threat of not getting presents if I don't believe in Santa.

Would guess that you are attempting to portray humor. You are failing.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 08:04 PM
I'm not speaking of your own path to salvation, but the arguments you use to witness. You seem to be trying to convert others toward Christianity through a "covering all their bases" argument while holding over their head the fear of an eternity of hell fire and brimstone. If that wasn't your intention, that's great.
That was a comment. What part of that told you that I made a decision based on fear of hell?

<HR SIZE=1>Originally Posted by Chiefs Express
I don't pretend to know either. If your name is not in the book of life all you get is hell fire and brimstone. Pretty black and white. If I'm wrong I end up dust just like you. If I'm right I've made the wise choice and you have not. <HR SIZE=1>

If you don't like the hell fire and brimstone, how about using the lake of fire that is described in the Bible? It is my firm belief that my name was written in the book of life when I was 13. I would still like to know how you derived accepting Christ as my savior only to hedge a bet out of that comment.

jspchief
04-25-2006, 08:18 PM
Would guess that you are attempting to portray humor. You are failing.I wasn't attempting to be funny in the least. I'm dead serious.

There are dozens (if not hundreds) of gods in this world. Apparently the only requirement to get your god's approval is to kiss his ass. IMO, he's not worthy of my devotion. I'd just as soon worship someone that had higher standards.

And threats from an imaginary being just aren't scary. I don't have to worry about what happens when I die, because I know that nothing happens. I'm just dead.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 08:22 PM
I wasn't attempting to be funny in the least. I'm dead serious.

There are dozens (if not hundreds) of gods in this world. Apparently the only requirement to get your god's approval is to kiss his ass. IMO, he's not worthy of my devotion. I'd just as soon worship someone that had higher standards.

And threats from an imaginary being just aren't scary. I don't have to worry about what happens when I die, because I know that nothing happens. I'm just dead.

So you are content in believing that when you die there is nothing more to the essence of you.

Just exactly what threats did God make to you?

As for the other "gods", you might try reading the Bible.....naw, you couldn't do it, it's beyond your ability to understand what it says. Maybe you should go find a minister or priest to help you out.

I'd say you are a lost cause, but there is redemption for everyone. Even you.

NewChief
04-25-2006, 08:24 PM
If you don't like the hell fire and brimstone, how about using the lake of fire that is described in the Bible? It is my firm belief that my name was written in the book of life when I was 13. I would still like to know how you derived accepting Christ as my savior only to hedge a bet out of that comment.

Wow. This has been a dissapointing exchange. One more time, I'll spell it out. I never said your own salvation was hedging bets. I said you were arguing the merits of Christianity (witnessing) to others on the basis of hedging bets.

PS. I went back to my post #105 and bolded the part where I told you I wasn't referring to your own salvation.

jspchief
04-25-2006, 08:30 PM
So you are content in believing that when you die there is nothing more to the essence of you.

Just exactly what threats did God make to you?

As for the other "gods", you might try reading the Bible.....naw, you couldn't do it, it's beyond your ability to understand what it says. Maybe you should go find a minister or priest to help you out.

I'd say you are a lost cause, but there is redemption for everyone. Even you.God didn't literally make any threat, but you seem to be implying that there is danger if I don't worship him.

And what the hell does the bible have to do with other gods? I read a large portion of the bible in the 6th grade, doing book reports on it every week. The movie "King David" sparked my interest in it. It was a nice piece of fiction, but the writing style leaves a lot to be desired for a 12 year old.

It's the ridiculous arrogance of individual religions that makes me so combative towards them. I don't care that people choose to believe a certain thing, it just bothers me that they are arrogant enough to believe they are so right when so many others with just as much conviction are so wrong. The idea that some African in a remote part of the desert that has never even heard of christianity is going to burn in hell because he didn't ask forgiveness is insulting.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 08:33 PM
Wow. This has been a dissapointing exchange. One more time, I'll spell it out. I never said your own salvation was hedging bets. I said you were arguing the merits of Christianity (witnessing) to others on the basis of hedging bets.

Who did I ask to accept Christ as their saviour to keep them out of hell just in case?

And once again:

If your name is not in the book of life all you get is hell fire and brimstone. Pretty black and white. If I'm wrong I end up dust just like you. If I'm right I've made the wise choice and you have not.

Where in there did I indicate that he change his mind and accept Christ?

FWIW, If you started out to hedge your bet, who's to say that it would be a bad thing? If you are hedging you bet you have to participate in some Christian activities and you will meet people that might be a better influence on you than the place you typically hang out.

BTW, if you knew you only had one hour to live would you hedge your bet?

NewChief
04-25-2006, 08:34 PM
BTW, if you knew you only had one hour to live would you hedge your bet?

I'm a Christian.

Adept Havelock
04-25-2006, 08:41 PM
I wasn't attempting to be funny in the least. I'm dead serious.

There are dozens (if not hundreds) of gods in this world. Apparently the only requirement to get your god's approval is to kiss his ass. IMO, he's not worthy of my devotion. I'd just as soon worship someone that had higher standards.

And threats from an imaginary being just aren't scary. I don't have to worry about what happens when I die, because I know that nothing happens. I'm just dead.


ROFL ROFL :clap: Good evening to most here, and a couple of parting bon mots from a favorite fellow freethinker.
Would that I was that eloquent. Alas....

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.


A religion is sometimes a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both.

jspchief
04-25-2006, 08:44 PM
ROFL ROFL :clap: Good evening, and a couple of bon mots from a favorite fellow freethinker.Those are some good quotes. Who is Robert Heinlein?

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 08:48 PM
God didn't literally make any threat, but you seem to be implying that there is danger if I don't worship him.

And what the hell does the bible have to do with other gods? I read a large portion of the bible in the 6th grade, doing book reports on it every week. The movie "King David" sparked my interest in it. It was a nice piece of fiction, but the writing style leaves a lot to be desired for a 12 year old.

It's the ridiculous arrogance or individual religions that makes me so combative towards them. I don't care that people choose to believe a certain thing, it just bothers me that they are arrogant enough to believe they are so right when so many others with just as much conviction are so wrong. The idea that some African in a remote part of the desert that has never even heard of christianity is going to burn in hell because he didn't ask forgiveness is insulting.

Where did I imply danger if you don't worship him? In the Bible it says the wages of sin is death, if that is the case you earn what you get.

Exodus 20:3 (New International Version)

New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31) (NIV)

3 "You shall have no other gods before [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:3&version=31#fen-NIV-2055a)] me.

I think this is where I might think that I thougth that there might be a connection with your other gods.

The Bible is not only a recorded history from approximately 6000 years ago, it is also a means of learning what God has planned for us.

So if the Bible was so dry in it's reading why didn't you change versions? I know, as a child you thought as a child, but as it is written it's time to put away childish things and maybe take another look.

The end times are guaranteed to begin AFTER everyone on earth has had an opportunity for salvation.

Your war with the organized religions is understandable, the doctrine that they all operate under was written by men. I think all churches have quite a bit of Brother Joe's interpetation of what should be. Some denominations say smoking is a sin, some say drinking is a sin, others have a keg party when they have board meetings for the church. Those rules were written by men. There are no churches that are free form interferrence of man. People find churches that most fit their personal beliefs and are content there. They find people that have similar beliefs and form great relationships. It gives them a friend when a crisis comes up and a direction to get help.

You have alot of bitterness in you so I think it might be hard for you to recover from that by walking into the first church on the left.

If you really wanted to study out what the bible says you wouldn't be relying on what you read as a 12 year old, you'd be checking things out now.

Adept Havelock
04-25-2006, 08:49 PM
Those are some good quotes. Who is Robert Heinlein?

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A_Heinlein">Robert A. Heinlein</a> AKA The Bard from Butler, MO. Thank you, Wikipedia.

Have a good evening, and even if you dislike "Science Fiction", I highly recommend "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress">The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress</a>". It's more a tale of Libertarian revolution than anything else.

Heinlein's guiding motto? TANSTAAFL.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. ;)

You also might enjoy his non sci-fi "Job: A Comedy of Justice". It's one of the last things he wrote, but a wonderfully humorous "modern" take on the story of Job.

jspchief
04-25-2006, 08:53 PM
Where did I imply danger if you don't worship him? In the Bible it says the wages of sin is death, if that is the case you earn what you get.

Exodus 20:3 (New International Version)

New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31) (NIV)

3 "You shall have no other gods before [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:3&version=31#fen-NIV-2055a)] me.

I think this is where I might think that I thougth that there might be a connection with your other gods.

The Bible is not only a recorded history from approximately 6000 years ago, it is also a means of learning what God has planned for us.

So if the Bible was so dry in it's reading why didn't you change versions? I know, as a child you thought as a child, but as it is written it's time to put away childish things and maybe take another look.

The end times are guaranteed to begin AFTER everyone on earth has had an opportunity for salvation.

Your war with the organized religions is understandable, the doctrine that they all operate under was written by men. I think all churches have quite a bit of Brother Joe's interpetation of what should be. Some denominations say smoking is a sin, some say drinking is a sin, others have a keg party when they have board meetings for the church. Those rules were written by men. There are no churches that are free form interferrence of man. People find churches that most fit their personal beliefs and are content there. They find people that have similar beliefs and form great relationships. It gives them a friend when a crisis comes up and a direction to get help.

You have alot of bitterness in you so I think it might be hard for you to recover from that by walking into the first church on the left.

If you really wanted to study out what the bible says you wouldn't be relying on what you read as a 12 year old, you'd be checking things out now.I don't really care what the bible says. It's largely uninteresting. Why would I read it when there are so many other good books out there?

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 09:01 PM
Good evening to most here, and a couple of parting bon mots from a favorite fellow freethinker.
Would that I was that eloquent. Alas....

Your reference to Heinlein says a lot. He was a science fiction writer. I've read a few of his books, in one of them he perverted religion to regain control of America after the Euroasians (Chinese) took over.

Have you ever done a study of what Heinlein's religious beliefs were? I did find that he was not a Mormon nor a Mason.

Nightwish
04-25-2006, 09:25 PM
Robert A. Heinlein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A_Heinlein) AKA The Bard from Butler, MO. Thank you, Wikipedia.

Have a good evening, and even if you dislike "Science Fiction", I highly recommend "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress)". It's more a tale of Libertarian revolution than anything else.

Heinlein's guiding motto? TANSTAAFL.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. ;)

You also might enjoy his non sci-fi "Job: A Comedy of Justice". It's one of the last things he wrote, but a wonderfully humorous "modern" take on the story of Job.I've always been partial to Stranger in a Strange Land, especially as a Wiccan, because that book inadvertently spawned a real Wiccan church called the Church of All Worlds! I've never been a part of that church, but I always thought it was interesting that it was based on a Heinlein novel.

Do you grok deeply and fully? If so, let us share water! lol

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 09:38 PM
I've always been partial to Stranger in a Strange Land, especially as a Wiccan, because that book inadvertently spawned a real Wiccan church called the Church of All Worlds! I've never been a part of that church, but I always thought it was interesting that it was based on a Heinlein novel.

Do you grok deeply and fully? If so, let us share water! lol

Well, the moonbats are here, I'm going to bed.

Dave Lane
04-25-2006, 09:53 PM
I wasn't attempting to be funny in the least. I'm dead serious.

There are dozens (if not hundreds) of gods in this world. Apparently the only requirement to get your god's approval is to kiss his ass. IMO, he's not worthy of my devotion. I'd just as soon worship someone that had higher standards.

And threats from an imaginary being just aren't scary. I don't have to worry about what happens when I die, because I know that nothing happens. I'm just dead.


Actually, and intellectually I find this interesting, you have been dead before. There are 2 states a person can be in, dead or alive, much like Adepts cat. Therefore if you are not alive, including not yet alive, you are dead. So I was dead for billions of years and it never hurt and I didn't suffer so its not all bad.

Dave

Nightwish
04-25-2006, 11:59 PM
Well, the moonbats are here, I'm going to bed.What's with the hostility toward Heinlein? He's considered by many to be Missouri's second greatest author, behind Twain, though Heinlein's genre of choice was science fiction.

Chiefs Express
04-26-2006, 05:24 AM
What's with the hostility toward Heinlein? He's considered by many to be Missouri's second greatest author, behind Twain, though Heinlein's genre of choice was science fiction.

I've read a few of his books, I like his style of writing.

I was talking about the current typing moonbats.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2006, 05:40 AM
Mostly the founders where non-xtians
I don't believe so:Breakdown of Religious Affiliation of Founding Fathers (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html)


...U.S. Founding Fatherand wanted to make certain no religion was "favored" by the government over the other.

I think you missing the nuances in my post on this.
That meant the "Federal Gov't" could not establish a "church" but state gov'ts already had them. They did not want any religion to be favored by the Federal government...that does not put restrictions on religious speech while on public grounds or property. Otherwise there'd be no Bibles sworn on in courts. (FYI There also was some money given to a religious group by the First Federal Congress) And Washington would have never said this in an official capacity:

General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America

A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington


Note: Thanksgiving Day dates were set by year, before becoming permanently set in November.

Adept Havelock
04-26-2006, 05:55 AM
Do you grok deeply and fully? If so, let us share water! lol

Indeed, I do.

I'm more of a Lazarus Long fellow, myself. :p

What's sad is that some here seem to long for Nehemiah Scudder. :shrug:

BucEyedPea
04-26-2006, 06:18 AM
That was true until it was applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) and Everson v. Board of Education (1947).

All of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated by the 14th except the 3rd and the 7th.
So.

I'm perfectly aware of the cases that amendment has been used to erode the idea of the Framers that the Constitution was written primarily as a restraint on Fed Gov't powers. This is why I chose my words carefully in my post you responded to as... before the "era of big gov't" (FDR Marxist-Progressive era and beyond).

Those words were EXACTLY regarding the idea on the Bill of Rights being interpreted against the states in a way which put them more under the thumb of the Fed Gov't...something the Framers were against and states were afraid of which was why the Bill of Rights were added in the first place.

I'm also perfectly aware of the history behind that amendment. At the time it was passed, the claim that such erosion on the states would be the result was DENIED by those recommending it, as it was originally intended to protect freed blacks in the post-Civil War period. Further its "privileges or immunities" do not clearly claim all the rights in the Bill of Rights...if you actually read it and which was understood by most of the ratifiers in 1866.

Unfortunately, even libertarians (such as Pilon at Cato) fall on both sides of this amendment. But imo it's arguable--as in NOT perfectly clear. So, why should it give us fundamental change to the federalist system we were given 1789?

My post was about then [Framer's intent] was it not?

It was also ratified at the point of a gun. The southern and border states decisely rejected it but had to ratify in order to end military rule.

IMO the 14th Amendment should be repealed and rewritten with tighter language. You're not telling me anything new with your post. You sound like a Progressive.

patteeu
04-26-2006, 06:22 AM
So.

I'm perfectly aware of the cases that amendment has been used to erode the idea of the Framers that the Constitution was written primarily as a restraint on Fed Gov't powers. This is why I chose my words carefully in my post you responded to as... before the "era of big gov't" (FDR Marxist-Progressive era and beyond).

Those words were EXACTLY regarding the idea on the Bill of Rights being interpreted against the states in a way which put them more under the thumb of the Fed Gov't...something the Framers were against and states were afraid of which was why the Bill of Rights were added in the first place.

I'm also perfectly aware of the history behind that amendment. At the time it was passed, the claim that such erosion on the states would be the result was DENIED by those recommending it, as it was originally intended to protect freed blacks in the post-Civil War period. Further its "privileges or immunities" do not clearly claim all the rights in the Bill of Rights...if you actually read it and which was understood by most of the ratifiers in 1866.

Unfortunately, even libertarians (such as Pilon at Cato) fall on both sides of this amendment. But imo it's arguable--as in NOT perfectly clear. So, why should it give us fundamental change to the federalist system we were given 1789?

My post was about then [Framer's intent] was it not?

It was also ratified at the point of a gun. The southern and border states decisely rejected it but had to ratify in order to end military rule.

IMO the 14th Amendment should be repealed and rewritten with tighter language. You're not telling me anything new with your post. You sound like a Progressive.


Excellent post. It's great to have you here in DC. :clap:

Nightwish
04-26-2006, 01:17 PM
I was talking about the current typing moonbats.You do know what a moonbat is, right? It is not a term for "left-winger," "right-winger" (they can come from either side), lwnj, rwnj, "wing nut," or anything like that. It is a term for people who tend to go about espousing wild, outrageous and unsubstantiable conspiracy theories. What conspiracy theories were being discussed in this thread?

Examples of moonbats are those who claim the US was involved in 9/11, or that the War in Iraq is only about oil, or only about Bush "getting even" for his father, or those who complain about the "homosexual agenda," or the "atheist agenda," or the "War on Christmas."

banyon
04-26-2006, 01:43 PM
IMO the 14th Amendment should be repealed and rewritten with tighter language. You're not telling me anything new with your post. You sound like a Progressive.

Guilty as charged. :D

I used to be a far right fascist like patteeu, though. j/k :)

Chiefs Express
04-26-2006, 03:26 PM
You do know what a moonbat is, right? It is not a term for "left-winger," "right-winger" (they can come from either side), lwnj, rwnj, "wing nut," or anything like that. It is a term for people who tend to go about espousing wild, outrageous and unsubstantiable conspiracy theories. What conspiracy theories were being discussed in this thread?

Examples of moonbats are those who claim the US was involved in 9/11, or that the War in Iraq is only about oil, or only about Bush "getting even" for his father, or those who complain about the "homosexual agenda," or the "atheist agenda," or the "War on Christmas."

What's your point?

Were there not moonbats present when I said that?

Actually moonbat is not actually a real word, it's an epithet.

Nightwish
04-26-2006, 04:16 PM
What's your point?
The point is, if you're going to go into unbidden namecalling (everyone's conversation with you had been pretty civil until you decided to change the tone), at least choose names that make a lick of sense to the conversation at hand.

Were there not moonbats present when I said that?
Well, I don't know. Who do you feel were moonbats, and why do you feel that way?

Actually moonbat is not actually a real word, it's an epithet.
It's been a word for awhile now. It may have been invented only a few years ago, but it's found its way into common vernacular nowadays, so it's a word now. Being an epithet doesn't preclude it from being a word.

Chiefs Express
04-26-2006, 09:21 PM
The point is, if you're going to go into unbidden namecalling (everyone's conversation with you had been pretty civil until you decided to change the tone), at least choose names that make a lick of sense to the conversation at hand.


Well, I don't know. Who do you feel were moonbats, and why do you feel that way?


It's been a word for awhile now. It may have been invented only a few years ago, but it's found its way into common vernacular nowadays, so it's a word now. Being an epithet doesn't preclude it from being a word.

Find it in a standard dictionary.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2006, 10:41 PM
Excellent post. It's great to have you here in DC. :clap:
Why thank you for the warm welcome!

Nightwish
04-27-2006, 02:01 AM
Find it in a standard dictionary.
Whether or not it appears in a standard dictionary only a few short years after its invention has nothing to do with whether or not it is a word. It is a word based on consensus and common use. That's how every word in every language became a word in the first place.

NewChief
05-05-2006, 08:54 AM
By the way, I just looked in our school's library. Not only do we have several Bibles on the shelves, but we have many books that are downright Evangelical in nature and are marked "Religious" with a cross and a star of david on the marking. Note, I have absolutely zero problem with this, but I just wanted to share the information.