Atheists challenge the religious right... [Archive]

Assassin X

Jan 5th, 2007, 5:15 AM

For some time, the religious right has decried "secular humanism," a philosophy that rejects the supernatural or spiritual as a basis for moral decisionmaking. But now, nonbelievers are vigorously fighting back.

Only a small percentage of Americans admit to being nontheists (between 2 and 9 percent, depending on the poll), but that equates to many millions. And religionists' role in debates over stem-cell research and evolution vs. intelligent design - as well as radical religion in world conflicts - have galvanized some atheists to mount a counteroffensive. In bestselling books, on websites, and with a national lobbying effort, atheists and other nontheists are challenging the growing religious influence in government and public life. Some are attacking the foundations of religion itself.

Two particularly provocative books, in fact, hit the top of Publishers Weekly's religion bestseller list in December. No. 1, "The God Delusion," by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, and No. 2, "Letter to a Christian Nation," by writer Sam Harris, are no-holds-barred, antireligion polemics that call for the eradication of all manifestations of faith. "I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented," declares Dr. Dawkins, the famed Oxford professor who wrote "The Selfish Gene."

These offerings are so intolerant of religion of any kind - liberal, moderate, or fundamentalist - that some scientists and secularists have critiqued their peers for oversimplification and for a secular fundamentalism. "They undermine their own case by writing in a language that suffers from many things they say are true of believers - intolerance, disrespect, extremism," says Alan Wolfe, a professor of religion at Boston College, who is a secularist and author of several books on American religious perspectives.

Yet the authors are anything but modest about their efforts to supplant faith with pure scientific rationality. While critics point out that religion is a genuine reflection of people's experience and will always exist, Mr. Harris suggests it could be equated with slavery, which once was widely acceptable, but eventually was looked upon with horror. He sees it as responsible for many of life's tragedies.

Harris first hit the bestseller bull's-eye in 2004 with "The End of Faith," and he says the responses to that book, particularly those from Christians, spurred his latest epistle. A mere 96 pages, "Letter" may be dismissed by many for its condescending tone or overheated rhetoric. Yet its bold arguments offer a useful window into nontheist perspectives and could also startle some complacent religionists into a rethinking and refining of perceptions.

Many nontheists don't share this militant perspective, but have decided that keeping silent in religious America no longer makes sense. They are astonished that a majority of Americans question evolution and support teaching intelligent design in the science classroom. They are distressed over polls that show that at least half of Americans are unwilling to vote for an atheist despite the Constitution's requirement that there be no religious test for public office. And they contend that in recent years, Congress has passed bills and the president has issued executive orders that have privileged religion in inappropriate and unconstitutional ways.

As a result, seven organizations of nontheists - including atheists, freethinkers, humanists, and agnostics - began the Secular Coalition for America (SCA), a lobby seeking to increase the visibility and respectability of nontheistic viewpoints in the United States. "In some parts of the country, children are ostracized if someone finds out their families are atheists," says Lori Lipman Brown, SCA director. "We need to educate the public that people who don't have a god belief can be good neighbors and friends and moral and ethical people."

They also intend to stand up vigorously for their rights. "Some people want to go back to a time when religion was imposed, such as official prayer in public schools," she adds. "For someone to say they can't practice their religion appropriately if all schoolchildren are not required to recite a public prayer is very disturbing."

The SCA intends to lobby the new Congress to override a presidential veto on stem-cell research and to repeal land-use legislation and other laws seen as "privileging one religion over other religions or over those who don't follow religion." Still, the group makes clear on its website that while it promotes reason and science as the bases for policymaking, it also supports religious tolerance.

"I have absolutely no problem with anyone believing differently than I believe, as long as they don't impose their religion on me or my government," says Ms. Brown, a former Nevada state senator. To spotlight the prejudice against atheists holding public office - and to encourage atheists to "come out of the closet," SCA is sponsoring a contest to identify the highest US official who acknowledges being a nonbeliever. They expect to announce contest results in February.

Internet-based groups are also seeking to spread the atheist message, particularly among young adults. The Rational Response Squad (RRS) has chosen a provocative mode using the popular website YouTube. Their "blasphemy challenge" calls on young nonbelievers to create videos in which they renounce belief in the "sky God of Christianity" and upload it on the site; in return they'll receive a free documentary DVD, "The God Who Wasn't There," which includes interviews with Dawkins, Harris, and others. RRS is publicizing its campaign on 25 popular teen websites.

"We wanted to strike up more of a conversation about religion, and this was a way for people to show their nonbelief and encourage others to come out," says Brian Sapient, RRS cofounder. Mr. Sapient says he was raised Catholic and then a born-again Christian, but later learned that many things he was taught were fictional. RRS now has some 20,000 people on message boards, with about 5,000 actively engaged in debunking religious claims, passing out fliers, and placing DVDs in churches.

As for the blasphemy challenge, "there's about 490 response videos so far, and 85,000 views on our trailer video," he says. Sapient acknowledges this approach may not persuade religious youths. "There are people with a more palatable approach to talking about religion," he says, "but I wonder if those people would be as effective if it weren't for us or Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins shaking up the group a bit." He also insists that you don't really respect people unless you speak up when you think their beliefs are wrong. It's OK with him, he adds, if religious people try to convince him they are right.

Harris and Dawkins make it clear that they think faith has gotten off too easy for too long. Their books have spurred widespread commentary, much of it a strong critique of their arguments and lack of religious knowledge. But in a culture immersed in combativeness in politics and the media, the intemperate books are selling well.

Yet one critic, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, calls for a truce: "We've suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance."

Well since the view on this board is "Bash religion to the ground and its people, and when their down kick them" I am sure you'll all be for it but I am basically going to say what that last quote says above.

Isn't there a line between stating your opinion and letting things go? Sure some christians like to tell people about christianity, although in all fairness thats what thw word of god is about, leading others to our faith and to a better place when they die, that isn't a bad thing. Its the "heavy" pushers that people don't like. And on the other side...athiests, you got people that push just as hard, if not harder. This forum is a good example. As I sarcasticly stated up top, you bash people to the ground on why your opinion is right.

So do we really need groups corrupting minds of people, kids even on atheism (since this is what this story is about)? Shouldn't that be the parents decision then the childs when they are of age? This reminds me of the gays forming groups and forcing everyones child to "understand" what they think is right, while I don't mind if my kid (if I had one) learned about gays, some people don't and thats fine too. But they think otherwise.

I think Atheists push to hard agaisnt religion and need to not push that hard and back off a bit. Just because religion is one of the biggest things in this country doesn't mean you have to think you need to "rise against it". It won't force you into it. How are we suppose to get along if you won't calm down?

nrj

Jan 5th, 2007, 7:17 AM

Isn't there a line between stating your opinion and letting things go? Sure some christians like to tell people about christianity, although in all fairness thats what thw word of god is about, leading others to our faith and to a better place when they die, that isn't a bad thing. Its the "heavy" pushers that people don't like. Oh, please, "heavy pushers"? Christianity has been acting "heavy pushers" for the past 1000 years. Did you really not see this one coming?
And on the other side...athiests, you got people that push just as hard, if not harder. So, when you tell people the word of god, it justifies "heavy pushing", but when we try to make the world accept legitimate science, we're wrong? Please explain why, X, and don't dodge this one, please.

So do we really need groups corrupting minds of people, kids even on atheism (since this is what this story is about)? I don't support attacking people for their religion (I did once, but I've stopped, this I admit). The reason is because what you believe is what you believe. Evolution doesn't disprove an omnipotent creator.
Shouldn't that be the parents decision then the childs when they are of age? Parents should not shrug away kids from real facts. It's dangerous to walk on a free way. Fact. Children shouldn't talk to strangers they meet on the street. Fact. Evolution have loads of evidence behind it. Fact. If a parent tells the child anything else, he or she is, in my opinion, a bad parent. What the child believes is up to him or her.

Fut004

Jan 5th, 2007, 7:55 AM

...Evolution have loads of evidence behind it. Fact. If a parent tells the child anything else, he or she is, in my opinion, a bad parent. What the child believes is up to him or her.

I agree with a lot of what you just said, Nrj, except for this part.
I think it's the Parents responsibility to educate children about the world, religion is part of the world. If the parents are Christians, they shouldn't be afraid to tell their children the stories and shit from the Bible.

The "Bad Parent" part comes if they heavily push the Bible stuff to their children. The moment they say something like "We have to do this because in the Bible it says..." is where things go wrong.

I was raised with some basic knowledge of the Bible. My parents had me baptized when I was born, I was brought to church for "Midnight-Mass" on christmas, I was brought to church on Easter Morning. Hell, my Parents even made me go to Confermation when I was 12. Does that make them bad Parents? No, not at all.
They made decisions for me until I was old enough to make an informed decision on my own life. Isn't that exactly what parents are supposed to do?

Now I'm "all grown-up" and I've made my decisions regarding Religion. And you know what? On Christmas Eve of this year my parents and I were discussing how many errors there are with Religion, and my mother even questioned about how Adults can have so much belief in an Old Book that seems more like a Fairy Tale than anything else.

Anyhow, I'm loosing my Point here as I ramble on.
I think it's in there somewhere, if not just smack me and I'll try to clarify.

Traveler

Jan 5th, 2007, 8:18 AM

Personally I see this kind of confrontation as inevitable and the result of those who actually mean good, not understanding what they are doing. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I just had to throw these scriptures in there because it so typifies this board. But it also explains why this confrontation should not be happening if people actually understood what they were doing. Ammo is expensive if bought in large quantities, You’re going to go broke!

John Chapter 18

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

In verse 36 Jesus stated flat out that his kingdom is not of this world. Because his Father was God (virgin birth) and he was not descended from Adam, his citizenship was not of this world either. The plan of redemption was put in place to save people out of this world, not to save the world itself. Those who are saved by Christ will make up the citizens of his kingdom but his kingdom will not be a part of this world system or order. This world system will be passing away under the fires of judgment at a latter time.

The gospel of salvation is to be taken to individual people so as to bring about a change in the individual person themselves so as to redeem them out of this world. It was never intended to become the establishment here in satans stronghold.

From verse 38 we see that the Roman Administrator, Pilate, had the same problem as many others here on this forum. “Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?” Of course the world system is going to view truth as a relative supposition dependant on ones personal point of view. How else do you think satan can draw into question what God declares as a truth that contradicts his own philosophy. The world system will naturally mimic its master!

DontBeAfraid

Jan 5th, 2007, 8:39 AM

Traveler I NEVER EVER read any bible quotes from christians. I seriously stop as soon as I see the name and number.

Fut004

Jan 5th, 2007, 8:46 AM

I usually read them, but only to see how far off they are, and how much they don't relate to the Topic..

DontBeAfraid

Jan 5th, 2007, 8:54 AM

and how much they don't relate to the Topic..How much they DONT relate to the topic is why I quit reading them years ago. Its like they are just randomly selected.

Traveler

Jan 5th, 2007, 9:41 AM

So how far off was I here.

Now Don'tBeAfraid, you mustn't be afraid any more, OK!

Stabby Joe

Jan 5th, 2007, 9:51 AM

Those athiests do not NOT represent them...

DontBeAfraid

Jan 5th, 2007, 9:55 AM

So how far off was I here. Ill never know, Im not going to read the quotes.

Now Don'tBeAfraid, you mustn't be afraid any more, OK! Actually, my moniker is now, and has always been, a word of encouragement directed solely at you, traveler.

Traveler

Jan 5th, 2007, 10:10 AM

encouragement, On here? From YOU?

Looks like everybody else is going to have peace and I'm going to get a toe toe

Assassin X

Jan 5th, 2007, 10:16 AM

I think both "parties" want their opinion to be heard but there are .....:thinks of a better word: "stronger" groups in the "parties" that REALLY want to be heard and think only way is the right way. And since theres no one to dictate a even line everyone just fights it out with no resolution.

You said you didn't get what I meant by athiests "push harder" too. Well the goverment isn't religous, oh sure it has religious members but they aren't allowed practicing really except at home or whatever. Goverment seperates itself from religion and vica versa. So Goverment is more like "Athiests" and the Public is more like Religion. Never the two shall cross the borders.

Basically what I see more and more is athiests are trying to make the goverment ban more religious stuff so this country doesn't allow religion anywhere except at specified buildings and at home (maybe no where in the far future). No one bothers to come up with something that everyone can agree with. Or maybe some laws that would limit the "pushing" of either subject.

Really I don't know why people like yourselves get so inflamed over religion, heck this subject no matter what it is about get you so pissed you rant and rave about it. I posted about dinos and you mocked it, so obviously you hate religion enough that you would probably ban it. Thats pushing the subject to me to far if you can't discuss things without having "hate" in the message.

I walk around all day, all year and I think maybe 2 or 3 times come up against something that I have to be mad about when it comes to another religion or athiests....etc. You guys act like its always down your throats. You must drive by churches and think its down your throats. If thats what you consider "down your throats" then you are paranoid. I drive past jewish temples and ...well... just drive past them. No thoughts, if I see a jewish person out in their garb I don't think about anything. I just know I am near their temple. No violent thoughts or hatred.

But I notice you guys think the oppisite, my friend does the same thing. Hes athiest and when he drives he gets mad at every religious thing he sees like its effecting his life somehow. I think people let it bug them, like they didn't grow out of being a child or something. I don't know. Now I am ranting on.

DontBeAfraid

Jan 5th, 2007, 10:24 AM

Basically what I see more and more is athiests are trying to make the goverment ban more religious stuff so this country doesn't allow religion anywhere except at specified buildings and at home (maybe no where in the far future).Actually they only fight to KEEP the government from endorsing religion. They arent trying to ban it but just to keep public money from funding it in any way.

You guys act like its always down your throats.It is on every dollar I spend. In every courthouse and in every hotel dresser..... And lets not even talk about the missionaries or the pushy parents who want public schools to make kids sit through prayer meetings.

You must drive by churches and think its down your throats. Actually I wonder why they all look exactly alike.

No violent thoughts or hatred.You are paranoid.

I think people let it bug them, like they didn't grow out of being a child or something.When you are told "no, you cant use my taxes to build alters unto your god" you feel persecuted.... Yes, it bugs me that you would even ask.

Fut004

Jan 5th, 2007, 11:22 AM

It is on every dollar I spend. In every courthouse and in every hotel dresser..... And lets not even talk about the missionaries or the pushy parents who want public schools to make kids sit through prayer meetings.

Ouch. I'd say that's pretty "forced down your throat".
haha

Actually I wonder why they all look exactly alike.

The churches are all built the same based on the different "faith".
I know that all Anglican churches are build like an "upside down" boat. Something to do with a Saint or something...

Traveler

Jan 5th, 2007, 11:36 AM

You cannot please all the people all the time.

In a democracy the will of the majority carries the motion and determines the direction that the democracy will move in. That is what a democracy is all about and why people have the vote.

If the majority has a religious bent then that will be reflected by those that are elected to power.

Are we to throw the democratic system out the window because we do not want to offend a vocal minority.

A democracy has the ability to change and adapt in accordance with the will of the people if practiced properly. But if the will of the majority is pushed aside to favor the minority then you no longer have a democracy do you!

DontBeAfraid

Jan 5th, 2007, 12:29 PM

Are we to throw the democratic system out the window because we do not want to offend a vocal minority.A democracy is no longer a democracy when the majority oppresses the minorities now is it? A democracy is about representation for all, not just the majority. But as a christian you can not be expected to know this.

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Jan 5th, 2007, 1:23 PM

In a democracy the will of the majority carries the motion and determines the direction that the democracy will move in. That is what a democracy is all about and why people have the vote. Yes, but religion is RELIGION, it's NOT government. Religion has NO place in government. Therefore, the rules of democracy do NOT apply to religion...

Traveler

Jan 5th, 2007, 3:19 PM

Yes, but religion is RELIGION, it's NOT government. Religion has NO place in government. Therefore, the rules of democracy do NOT apply to religion...

Of course not, The will of the people does, But if the will of the people changes then the action of Government changes.

Religion is attached to the will of the people, not government.

Though you complain about religion in government that is not what this is all about is it. You just hate anything to do with religion and will use any club you can find to hammer at it.

:bondage:

DontBeAfraid

Jan 5th, 2007, 3:40 PM

Though you complain about religion in government that is not what this is all about is itNo, this is exactly what it is about.

You just hate anything to do with religion and will use any club you can find to hammer at it. Sorry but I really dont care to feed your fetish of feeling "oppressed" and persecuted. Not allowing you to oppress me is not me oppressing you. Sorry but I dont care if your persecution is whats needed to bring back zombie jebus, Im not interested in helping you out with this.

Traveler

Jan 5th, 2007, 4:05 PM

Well if you are going to embark on this crusade then you had better shape up and do the job properly.

The biggest threat in the mixing of religion and government is found in the Muslim world where their religion actually runs the governments of their countries.

Then you had better get the Hindoos back down to earth and have them put away their prayer wheels

Now don’t forget Europe where atheism is fast becoming a state religion, you can’t let that get the upper hand.

Now you are really going to have your work cut out for you in Africa. In some cases it is the witch doctors that rule the roost and in others the state controls the church as a political tool which is just as bad. But in some cases it is church aid that keeps the governments in existence altogether.

So have fun and I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavors to rid the worlds states of religion.

DontBeAfraid

Jan 5th, 2007, 4:11 PM

Now don’t forget Europe where atheism is fast becoming a state religion, you can’t let that get the upper hand.Atheism is not a religion. And seperating church and state is the best thing that ever happened to the first world.

Traveler

Jan 5th, 2007, 4:19 PM

Atheism is not a religion. And seperating church and state is the best thing that ever happened to the first world.

Yes it is. Only they are more fanatical about their convictions than the Christians are

nrj

Jan 5th, 2007, 4:51 PM

I agree with a lot of what you just said, Nrj, except for this part. Clearly, my bad english shows itself since I must've chosen the wrong words. What I meant was that once the parents do their children things just based on their religion (such as, the science teachers are wrong, because the Bible says otherwise) or any non-factual shit (don't trust the cops, because their aliens) or whatever, they're bad parents because they manipulate their children to believe whatever they believe without even looking up on the other view. I think I should highlight the last part: once the parents tell the children, directly, that the other view is wrong, and try to encourage them from even looking it up, they're bad parents

DontBeAfraid

Jan 5th, 2007, 4:56 PM

Yes it is. Only they are more fanatical about their convictions than the Christians areWhat about atheisms fundamental quality of NON-belief makes it a religion?

A NON-belief can hardly be described as a conviction. The only conviction you could possibly be referring to is its none uniform yet loud detachment and denouncement of religion. Not wanting to be stepped on can hardly be described as a religion, even if those who wish not to be stepped on all share the same non-belief.

nrj

Jan 5th, 2007, 5:01 PM

In a democracy the will of the majority carries the motion and determines the direction that the democracy will move in. That is what a democracy is all about and why people have the vote.

If the majority has a religious bent then that will be reflected by those that are elected to power.

Are we to throw the democratic system out the window because we do not want to offend a vocal minority. That's not democracy. If one group of people (i.e the christians) expect to get benefits just because they're christians, then we're entering a class society. A very firm and obvious class society on top of that.

Like DBA said, one majority can't opress a minority in a democracy. The jewish were a minority in Germany. Was that fair?

Now don’t forget Europe where atheism is fast becoming a state religion, you can’t let that get the upper hand. What the **** do you know about Europe, and what the **** do you know about how the process of atheism changes the continent? I am yet to hear anything about ANY European goverment that wants to ban religion.

Sammy56

Jan 5th, 2007, 8:15 PM

In a democracy the will of the majority carries the motion and determines the direction that the democracy will move in. That is what a democracy is all about and why people have the vote. Yes, but it's also the governments job to protect the rights of everyone, including the minority. The government endorsing the majority religion is a violation of the right of everyone not part of the religion. The government should be secular and have no stance on religion. And no, that doesn't mean we will become an athiest country.

Now

Jan 5th, 2007, 10:11 PM

Then you had better get the Hindoos back down to earth and have them put away their prayer wheels

Would you agree that it is important when attempting to make a point to have some knowledge of that to which you are referring? I think you will find that it is Tibetan Buddhism which uses Prayer Wheels, not the Hindu faith, which, by the way, is not spelled Hindoo. You may be confusing it with Vindaloo, which is a tasty dish often prepared by Hindus. This would be the equivalent of saying "Those Kristians will have to put away their Yamakas." Ignorance carries with it a great potential to offend, especially when it comes to other people's belief systems.

Now.

Traveler

Jan 6th, 2007, 12:53 AM

One of my old employers was a Hindoo and his faith involved the prayer wheel.

It is used to aid in meditation

Cartesiantheater

Jan 6th, 2007, 1:01 AM

One of my old employers was a Hindoo and his faith involved the prayer wheel.

It is used to aid in meditation
No, really, it's spelled H I N D U.... but still... carry on....

Traveler

Jan 6th, 2007, 1:38 AM

Webster’s Dictionary

Religion

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

Atheist

A person who denies or disbelieves in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Now if I get this right, an Atheist believes in the laws of cause and effect and that all life evolved as a consequence of chance chemical reactions either here or elsewhere. They are firm in their belief that science will eventually answer all the questions of how this process came about and that it will be repeated in the laboratory.

Now that is the Atheist belief system. That is the philosophy that he uses as a guide while making the decisions regarding his life. Their belief system is there religion.

A religion does not have to be centered around a God as in a supreme being. There are many religions that fall into this category. How about Scientology, or the reptilians. Ascended Masters.

The fact is that in the human context there will never be a religious vacuum. If you drive out one set of beliefs then another will fill the void. That’s just the way it is.

Now as for Europe that you hold up as a perfect example. Christianity is indeed in retreat but the vacuum is being filled with Islam. If you want me to haul out the statistics to prove it then fine.

This happened once before, The Islamic hoards literally advanced all the way to the gates of Vienna, which was considered as the capitol of Europe at the time. The tide was turned by a small theologian that rallied what was left of the European forces under the banner of Christ and the Islamic armies where driven back out the way they came. That is all part of European history and is one of the reasons why Europe was the bastian of Christian civilization for so long.

All you guys are doing is setting western civilization up for another fall. Bright one numb-nuts!

nrj

Jan 6th, 2007, 3:28 AM

Now if I get this right, an Atheist believes in the laws of cause and effect and that all life evolved as a consequence of chance chemical reactions either here or elsewhere. They are firm in their belief that science will eventually answer all the questions of how this process came about and that it will be repeated in the laboratory.

Now that is the Atheist belief system. That is the philosophy that he uses as a guide while making the decisions regarding his life. Their belief system is there religion. No. I don't use science to make moral choices in my life. How, exactly, would that work? "What would my chemical reactions want me to do"? Rather, I make my own judgment on what's the best decision.

Now as for Europe that you hold up as a perfect example. Christianity is indeed in retreat but the vacuum is being filled with Islam. If you want me to haul out the statistics to prove it then fine. Um, you do realise that there are people converting from islam every day here? And that the muslims that's in Europe were BORN into it in their previous countries? The reason why the muslim population is growing is because of the growing immigration from the Middle East and Northern Africa.

This happened once before, The Islamic hoards literally advanced all the way to the gates of Vienna, which was considered as the capitol of Europe at the time. The tide was turned by a small theologian that rallied what was left of the European forces under the banner of Christ and the Islamic armies where driven back out the way they came. That is all part of European history and is one of the reasons why Europe was the bastian of Christian civilization for so long. Yeah, this IS happening right now! I mean, wherever I go, I see neo-nazis on the mall, neo-nazis on the train, neo-nazis in the paper, oh, and not to forget the 2001 cop killings in Sweden (you've propably never heard of it, it's a local thing) were neo-nazis shot down two muslims, and after one of them were arrested, they killed three cops as "revenge". And then, to our big surprise, those muslims form their own youth gangs to defend themselves from the neo's. Heh, yeah, those muslims are just violent monsters.

All you guys are doing is setting western civilization up for another fall. Bright one numb-nuts! Oh, I'm so sorry! I just though western civilization could thrive without christianity, like it does in South East Asia.

DontBeAfraid

Jan 6th, 2007, 3:47 AM

if I get this right, an Atheist believes in the laws of cause and effect and that all life evolved as a consequence of chance chemical reactions either here or elsewhere. No, you did not get it correctly. An atheist simply lacks belief in any god. That is ALL that the label implies, It states nothing of any other personal beliefs.

Atheist = absent of ONE belief. nothing more.

Traveler

Jan 6th, 2007, 4:31 AM

Well if that be the case then an ashiest should view Christianity as an old wives tail and just superstition.

But instead of their unbelief regarding this subject with irrelevance, they seem to be attaching a great deal of relevance to it and go out of their way to destroy it.

That tells me that there is other motives here and that the atheist thing is just a tool that is being used to achieve an objective.

I guess that you had better call your big brother Bill in because I’m finding it hard to believe you. I’m sure he needs some new postings for his wall and I like to think that I’m not getting stale in the news flashes.

jeffweeder

Jan 6th, 2007, 4:33 AM

if I get this right, an Atheist believes in the laws of cause and effect and that all life evolved as a consequence of chance chemical reactions either here or elsewhere.

DBA ,No, you did not get it correctly. An atheist simply lacks belief in any god. That is ALL that the label implies, It states nothing of any other personal beliefs.

Atheist = absent of ONE belief. nothing more.__________________

So without God what other options are there available?
besides the quoted one?

DontBeAfraid

Jan 6th, 2007, 4:44 AM

A person could still be spiritual without a god. No god does not always mean no afterlife or no soul.

Well if that be the case then an ashiest should view Christianity as an old wives tail and just superstition.They do, but its an old wives tail that is finding a way to affect public policy in too many aspects to be casually ignored.

That tells me that there is other motives here and that the atheist thing is just a tool that is being used to achieve an objective.Would you not respond if a religion not of your choosing were to cause above normal disruptions in your life? Like say some jackoff muslim were trying to get your kids school to force the kids to sit through praising allah 5 times a day? Or teaching him that dying leads to virgin sex? Or some other belief that you find ridiculous? Or how if the mormons decided that its immoral to dance after 2 A.M. and so enacted a law making it illegal? (welcome to utah)

The truth is that if you guys would just settle down and quit sticking your noses in everyones personal business and trying to make your religion the state religion then you wouldnt get much more than a passing glance from people who find your belief system to be silly.

Traveler

Jan 6th, 2007, 5:45 AM

I do concede that you do have a point there.

The legalism that many modern denominations display should not be there. And definitely not enforced on the world around them.

I do not find that this is supported by scripture. What I have found is that the individual Christian is to display self discipline and not partake of that which is considered destructive. The actual individual is to separate themselves from the things of the world that are an offence to God, We were never instructed to change the world as it is already considered lost, but we were instructed to save who we can from out this world before it falls under judgment.

Indeed you are right in saying that forcing the world to conform to principles that are alien to them is wrong. Those who are the servants of the Lord should be setting a good example that others may want to copy but never by force. Like I said before. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Assassin X

Jan 6th, 2007, 5:49 AM

I seen to many thigns to respond to. Some of you look like you hate all religions because other religions have crazy ways of doing things. I think jewish ways are totaly crazy but that does that mean I should hate ALL religion? No, that just means I think they have crazy ways. I still am friendly to them because we have to live on the same planet.

I think thats what you people and other forget. You can ban religion and what not but in the end were still stuck living together. And while the older "religious" people might say nothing the younger people are crazy assholes (religious or not) and don't care about authority. If you ban religion you'll have chaos on your hands.

I am sure someone right now is madly typing away something like "So your crazy bastards would go nuts if you can't have your way?". No, you taking away the rights we have. You choose to be athiests (or whatever you want to call it), we choose to be religous. If the goverment started saying "No more athiesm, you have to choose a religion!" You would get pissed right? Don't step on our rights. Thats basically what is happening.

Although at the same time it isn't because I watch the news and I see people defying the system and swearing in using the Quran. So now its totaly messed up. So throw away some religions, say religion is bad, but then on the other hand allow other religions to take over other things because they have the right to? What?!?!?

People can't learn to have equal rights. Like I said (I say that alot) earlier in this topic. I can walk by people and smile and say hi, but those same people if given the reverse roll would make a comment because I am religious. It seems the non religious people are the ones with the real issues here.

Also like I said, check out this post. For the most part any religious people are peaceful, the only ones that are mean and nasty are the athiests. They want their way and they want it now. They can't accept anything else.

Flynn

Jan 6th, 2007, 7:05 AM

AssX do you get a hard on from feeling persecuted? It certainly seems so.

No one wants to ban religion or take your religion away from you. We only want religion to stop influencing public policy on issues such as abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage and cloning.

No one wants to close churches and abolish religion. Just keep your religion to yourself and out of the government.

Jan 6th, 2007, 10:12 AM

Bitterness is self-induced misery, it projects itself in every aspect of a persons life, it stops productivity and motivation, and seems to be the continues underlying sentiment of some peoples comments. Feeling sorry for ones self is the most destructive trap anyone can fall into and creates the perspective that the world is against you, people in this state see any advice as criticism and lack of sympathy towards their situation, and fail to understand that others around them have the same burdens to carry. IMHO.

Stabby Joe

Jan 6th, 2007, 10:41 AM

Middle views seem to hold water in religion vs state but can include all relgions and ideologies (not religious) for that matter, "do what you will aslong as it doesn't intervene with important matters" (policing, medical, education).

And X, alot of what you've said falls into that long list of myths about athiests thread.

Traveler

Jan 6th, 2007, 2:16 PM

I have to go with Assin X on this one.

It may not be right to force another to partake of a particular religious belief but at the same time it is also not right to deny others the right to actually practice those beliefs just because you don’t agree with it.

Also mentioned (Quote)

No one wants to ban religion or take your religion away from you. We only want religion to stop influencing public policy on issues such as abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage and cloning.

The opposition to this is not necessarily based on religion. Much of the opposition comes from common sense. If you create a situation where you legitimize the concept of disposable humans then you open the door for yourself to be labeled as disposable. Research is motivated by money and a marketable product with a quick return in mind. Public safety is only of secondary concern and there has already been fall out from GM crops that has been released in the wild without all aspects being thought through.

There is good reason to be concerned about these subjects but proclaiming that the opposition to it is only coming from the religious right is just a spin to try and discredit the opposition to it.

Flynn

Jan 6th, 2007, 3:13 PM

It may not be right to force another to partake of a particular religious belief but at the same time it is also not right to deny others the right to actually practice those beliefs just because you don’t agree with it. Again, NO ONE wants to deny you the right to practice whatever you want. We just want you to do it in the privacy of your home or church.

There is good reason to be concerned about these subjects but proclaiming that the opposition to it is only coming from the religious right is just a spin to try and discredit the opposition to it.While there is non-religious opposition to these issues you can not deny that a large portion of the opposition IS stemmed from religious belief.

Take these (http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/12/how-evangelical-children-learn-about.html) assholes for example. It's a scene from the documentary Jesus Camp.

jinxz

Jan 6th, 2007, 3:22 PM

It may not be right to force another to partake of a particular religious belief but at the same time it is also not right to deny others the right to actually practice those beliefs just because you don’t agree with it.

More often than not this sort of thing happens to the minority religion, not the mainstream: like when the Mormons were forced to stop practicing polygamy, when adherents of Santiera were impelled to stop animal sacrifices because of animal cruelty laws, or when Native Americans were barred from public employment because their rituals required the use of peyote.

It's less often that the state tries to impugn on a mainstream Christian or Jewish sect. Even during prohibition, there were exceptions (in all but the most ultra-Protestant areas) for the religious use of wine.

So if it's not right to interfere with me freely exercising my religious beliefs, what if I decided I wanted to revive an Aztec death cult and sacrifice willing human victims? Do you think the state should draw the line there? Should it draw a line anywhere?

Assassin X

Jan 6th, 2007, 3:50 PM

The impression I get from most "non" religous people is they would just assume ban religion period. Then we got stories like that one about the athiests not wanting religion this and religion that. Then theres the goverment not wanting religion anywhere. To me it just all sounds like no one wants religion. And to me I think about the future and crazy presidents that start banning things like religion, gay rights.....etc. AKA my Hitler thread.

Because this country is becoming so hyper sensitive it gives the goverment my power and freedom to ban things that the citizens don't want. And from there it becomes and there only little "Nazi Country". :thinks of V for Vendetta"

Stabby Joe

Jan 6th, 2007, 4:10 PM

You're getting the wrong impression then.

And to me I think about the future and crazy presidents that start banning things like religion, gay rights.....etc. AKA my Hitler thread.

You are aware that alot of mainstream religion would ban things like gay rights. It can be both sided. Currently the governments are Christian based and we keep getting threads complaining about them, inlcuding some of yours.

Sammy56

Jan 6th, 2007, 5:24 PM

The impression I get from most "non" religous people is they would just assume ban religion period. Well, that it's really the impression I get. I get the impression that nonreligious people what religion to be a private thing that takes place in a person's home or church, not a public thing that the government endorses or that influences policy.

However, jinxz made a great point. Where does the government draw the line on religious practices? They did it before with minority religions. Personally, I believe a practice should be limited when it interferes with another persons rights. So, does that make willing human sacrifiace ok?

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Jan 6th, 2007, 9:05 PM

Well if that be the case then an ashiest should view Christianity as an old wives tail and just superstition. NOW you've got it!

That tells me that there is other motives here and that the atheist thing is just a tool that is being used to achieve an objective. Yes, the objective is to prevent STUPID people from doing STUPID things in the name of God...

So without God what other options are there available? Why do there HAVE to be other options, Jeff? Besides, without God, you've still got your family and friends...

You can ban religion and what not but in the end were still stuck living together. We're NOT out to ban religion! We just don't want it pushed on us. We don't want it in government. We don't want religious wackjobs to harm or kill others in the name of God. Religion makes people do unreasonable things. Religion makes people abandon common sense...

If you ban religion you'll have chaos on your hands. How did you come to this conclusion? Did you realize that something like less than 0.5% of the prison population in America is atheist? If atheism leads to chaos, then this number would be MUCH higher...

No, you taking away the rights we have. You choose to be athiests (or whatever you want to call it), we choose to be religous. If the goverment started saying "No more athiesm, you have to choose a religion!" You would get pissed right? Don't step on our rights. Thats basically what is happening. WHAT rights are you talking about, Assassin? You're not losing ANY rights, dude! All you're doing by stating the above is proving DBA's assertion that you guys have a serious persecution complex. You're not losing any rights whatsoever. Take abortion for example. If the government makes abortion legal, then Christian women STILL have the right to keep their babies. But if the government makes abortion illegal, then a large portion of the female population LOSES the RIGHT to have an abortion. In other words, Christians are trying to take away the rights of non-Christians in this particular issue...

Also like I said, check out this post. For the most part any religious people are peaceful, the only ones that are mean and nasty are the athiests. They want their way and they want it now. They can't accept anything else. Only when it involves STUPIDITY. If Muslims wanted to enact a ridiculous law in America, then you can bet that the Christians would get vocal VERY quickly. As a non-religious person, I am personally FED UP with the STUPIDITY that is fueled by religion. Don't get me wrong though. Religion CAN be, and IS, often used for good by many people. I simply object to those STUPID ones who cling to sadly outdated Draconian ideals and insist on pushing these ideals on EVERYBODY for the SIMPLE and STUPID reason that the Bible says so. We simply ask that people start to use common sense for a change. You can have your religion. I don't object to that. But use it WISELY. Don't be STUPID with it...

It may not be right to force another to partake of a particular religious belief but at the same time it is also not right to deny others the right to actually practice those beliefs just because you don’t agree with it. NOBODY is denying you the right to practice your beliefs! WHAT is with the self-persecution???

The impression I get from most "non" religous people is they would just assume ban religion period. That's not realistic. Religion will always be around no matter what. As I've said before, religion CAN be used for good. THAT would be ideal. But again, it's not realistic. Religion will always be warped by some people to the detriment of society. Where is starts to interfere with common sense and affects my life is where I personally draw the line...

Traveler

Jan 7th, 2007, 8:52 AM

Stabby Joe

Jan 7th, 2007, 9:14 AM

What say you find some new things I said so as to keep me up to date. After all I don’t want my fans getting board.
Fans? :dummy:

Board or bored? :grin

Traveler

Jan 7th, 2007, 10:04 AM

Ahh, fan mail,

I just love it

Stabby Joe

Jan 7th, 2007, 11:05 AM

Hows this? :2fu: :bird: :btchn:

(Lets continue with the topic at hand now)

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Jan 7th, 2007, 12:35 PM

Hey bill,

Your news casts are getting stale, you’re turning me into old news!

What say you find some new things I said so as to keep me up to date. After all I don’t want my fans getting board.

Now get off your buttt and do your job, you’re slacking Couldn't respond to anything, could you? So you must agree with everything that I posted. Interesting... And "news casts"? What are you talking about?

DontBeAfraid

Jan 7th, 2007, 1:42 PM

traveler its a hall of shame.... that means it doesnt change often.

Assassin X

Jan 7th, 2007, 2:44 PM

Well would someone explain how religion is being pushed on everyone? Is there trucks going down streets with speakers blaring "BECOME CHRISTIANS YOU SINNERS"?

When you drive by a church is does it say on the sign "LOOK HERE UNGODLY HETHENS!!!!!"? :D

Why do you feel its being pushed on you?

I can understand that theres alot more "religious" people in this country and so you may see or hear more about relilgion because of that. But that doesn't mean it should "less" tolerated because its a big part of the country. If it was the oppisite way around and atheism was the dominate thing in this country should religious people get all weird because all they see and hear is atheistic things? No. That would be stupid. Its just part of life in a country that has a big amount of religious people in it.

Another thing I don't get is how people felt things that were religious that were goverment based were affecting them such as ten commadments on the walls, "In god we trust" on money....etc. These were things that have been around since the country was started, I don't care about "Well so and so said this" or "Well technically", point is its been there since the beggining back when people weren't paranoid about such things. People are to full of anger and bitterness now and had to take it down. Things that have lasted forever and now effect them. Sad.

Stabby Joe

Jan 7th, 2007, 3:48 PM

Traveler

Jan 7th, 2007, 5:49 PM

Ok DBA

I’ll spell it out for you

What you term a wall of shape is also a badge of honor.

Now I know you switch off if you see scripture so I’ll just tell you what it says in a different way.

The Christian is told to count it as a blessing when the world reviles them. If we suffer with Christ we will also be accounted worthy to be blessed with him.

Now this thread and others like it have brought to the fore a perfect example of the spirit of this world in opposition to the spirit of God. The two do not mix and the spirit of this world does not grasp the things of God because they are not tuned into it.

I am thinking of writing a thread on this very subject.

Now Bill may want to believe that there is no answer to what he says but in reality he does not want to hear anything that contradicts what he says and I doubt that he will pay any attention to even the most well thought out response. The thing is that he is wise in his own eyes but this only gives him a tunnel vision.

Now as for news casts. His wall of shame is so far reflecting the thoughts that many others are in fact in agreement with. But if you are going to have a wall of shame then you need to keep it up to date or it gets stale.

Now as for this persecution complex that you seem to think we all get. If you actually had an understanding of religious subjects then you would know that things tend to work in the opposite way as compared to the worlds systems. But you are basically just lashing out at that which you don’t actually have a good grasp of. The fact that others are actually attempting to be reasonable to you is a testament to their patients. A virtue that you two would do well to develop.

Now you two go on and have your fling and tell me all about how ignorant I am and how modern and intellectual you are, I’ve probably heard it all before but I won’t get upset, So go ahead and bless me quick!

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Jan 7th, 2007, 6:13 PM

I doubt that he will pay any attention to even the most well thought out response. Not so. If you've got something intelligent to say, then I'll pay attention to it. Simply saying "God did it" is something that even the simplest of simpletons can say. It requires ZERO intelligence. And you claim that I won't pay attention to you? You didn't respond to ONE thing that I posted the other day. One thing that I would LOVE to know is how your rights as a Christian are being trampled upon. Your lack of response would indicate that you've suddenly realized that you are NOT the martyr that you make yourself out to be...

Now as for news casts. His wall of shame is so far reflecting the thoughts that many others are in fact in agreement with. But if you are going to have a wall of shame then you need to keep it up to date or it gets stale. Don't worry about that. You just keep on posting and I have a feeling that the Hall will be updated sooner than later...

The fact that others are actually attempting to be reasonable to you is a testament to their patients. And by "reasonable", do you mean posting smart ass comments instead of responding "reasonably" to my post? Yes, that IS a testament to your PATIENCE...

Now you two go on and have your fling and tell me all about how ignorant I am and how modern and intellectual you are, I’ve probably heard it all before but I won’t get upset, So go ahead and bless me quick! Get your martyrs here! Get your piping hot martyrs heeeeeeeeeeeeeeere!

DontBeAfraid

Jan 7th, 2007, 6:33 PM

The Christian is told to count it as a blessing when the world reviles them. If we suffer with Christ we will also be accounted worthy to be blessed with him.
from that to this:

Now as for this persecution complex that you seem to think we all get.

If you actually had an understanding of religious subjects then you would know that things tend to work in the opposite way as compared to the worlds systems. But you are basically just lashing out at that which you don’t actually have a good grasp of. The fact that others are actually attempting to be reasonable to you is a testament to their patients. A virtue that you two would do well to develop.I know nothing about your religion? news to me

Jan 7th, 2007, 6:46 PM

His religion is racist garbage fit for the dialog of the Third Reich.....

*Arbeit macht frei Traveler.

Raptor Witness

Jan 7th, 2007, 7:15 PM

Traveler

Jan 7th, 2007, 7:47 PM

Quote

One thing that I would LOVE to know is how your rights as a Christian are being trampled upon. Your lack of response would indicate that you've suddenly realized that you are NOT the martyr that you make yourself out to be...

OK Bill, you want a very good example I’ll give you one.

The Christians have been told that they are not allowed to pray in the name of Jesus because this makes the prayer for Christians only and is not all inclusive.

Now this is where the problem comes in.

A Christian is unable to pray with out using the name of Jesus. Without that name he will just be talking to fresh air. By applying that law all Christian public prayer has been rendered powerless.

You are only able to approach God before the throne of grace under the covering of the blood of Jesus. You are only able to make your requests in the name of Jesus and in accordance to his will. God will not respond to answer any other way.

Do you now see the dilemma.

By demanding that we become all inclusive we have become cut off. In the name of political correctness administered with a good dolop of ignorance the Christian has lost his right to come before God.

darlingnikki

Jan 7th, 2007, 9:29 PM

Just to set the record straight I know a Hindu who got saved by Jesus
If that ain't a MIRACLE
I don't know of one!

Hindoo is an archaic spelling of Hindu. It may refer to:
The Hindu religion, or the Indian people in general
Hindoo, a famous racehorse.
Hindoo style, a Western style of architecture in which Indian motifs are used.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hindoo

Now

Jan 7th, 2007, 9:56 PM

Hindoo is an archaic spelling of Hindu. It may refer to:
The Hindu religion, or the Indian people in general
Hindoo, a famous racehorse.
Hindoo style, a Western style of architecture in which Indian motifs are used.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hindoo

Then there's this, from Wikipedia

By the late 19th century, fear had already begun in North America over Chinese immigration supplying cheap labor to lay railroad tracks, mostly in California and elsewhere in the West Coast. In xenophobic jargon common in the day, ordinary workers, newspapers, and politicians uniformly opposed this "Yellow Peril". The common cause to eradicate Asians from the workforce gave rise to the Asiatic Exclusion League. When the fledging Indian community of mostly Punjabi Sikhs settled in California, the xenophobia expanded to combat not only the East Asian Yellow Peril, but now the immigrants from British India, the Turban Tide, equally referred to as the Hindoo Invasion (sic). Although "Hindu" is the correct spelling, the spelling "Hindoo" was popular at the time.

This suggests that "Hindoo" was simply a popular mis-spelling borne out of ignorance of the correct spelling, which was why the point was raised in the first place.

Carry on.

Now.

Traveler

Jan 7th, 2007, 10:23 PM

Now

Jan 7th, 2007, 11:11 PM

This may interest you all.

The Oxford Dictionary has more than one edition out at any given time. One is the English Oxford Dictionary and the other is the American English Oxford Dictionary.

There are quite a few differences in spelling, depending on which side of the Atlantic you are on.

My computer spell checker uses the two oo’s so that is why I go with it.

Point taken and understood. You have a computer spell checker which uses archaic mis-spellings. To add to that, the Hindus spell it Hindu, and that is why I go with it, out of respect for them, since it is the name of their faith and they are as worthy of respect as anyone of any other belief, or non-belief.

Now.

Cartesiantheater

Jan 7th, 2007, 11:48 PM

MaximumPain

Jan 8th, 2007, 12:00 AM

In any case, you should all convert to Hinduism, as it is far superior to Christianity in most respects (especially in the sin and retribution category... no blood thirsty God from on high who requires death for the remission of sins...none of this "only one chance" to make the right choice, either...you get as many lifetimes as you need... etc...)

LMAO how about some kind of blended religon. I never belived the only Jesus Bullshit any way. That was just made up by the priests so you would give your 10% to them.

Now

Jan 8th, 2007, 12:02 AM

In any case, you should all convert to Hinduism, as it is far superior to Christianity in most respects (especially in the sin and retribution category... no blood thirsty God from on high who requires death for the remission of sins...none of this "only one chance" to make the right choice, either...you get as many lifetimes as you need... etc...)

Not to mention the curries, Shiva's cycle of "Create, Protect, Destroy," and the fact that Buddha was originally a Hindu. You're right CT, it really does have a lot going for it. Krishna was way cool.

Now.

Cartesiantheater

Jan 8th, 2007, 12:06 AM

Not to mention the curries, Shiva's cycle of "Create, Protect, Destroy," and the fact that Buddha was originally a Hindu. You're right CT, it really does have a lot going for it. Krishna was way cool.

Now.

Personally, Brahman is my favorite... that and the Avatar thing...

Now

Jan 8th, 2007, 12:31 AM

Personally, Brahman is my favorite... that and the Avatar thing...

I think that if we remove the Charlton Heston visual image and the misplaced characteristics of fear based human ego attributed to the Judeo/Christian Old Testament God, (eg, wrath, vengence, anger, jealousy, etc) we have Brahman, which, ironically, is closer to Jesus' descriptions of God. The concept of Brahman as "the origin and end of all things, material or otherwise," is not dissimilar to the "Alpha and Omega," in fact, they are one in the same. Beautiful.

Now.

Traveler

Jan 8th, 2007, 3:19 AM

DontBeAfraid

Jan 8th, 2007, 3:52 AM

The Christians have been told that they are not allowed to pray in the name of Jesus because this makes the prayer for Christians only and is not all inclusive. Who told you that? Christians pray however they like.... oh unless you are talking about sponsered prayers and not real prayers.

Traveler

Jan 8th, 2007, 4:08 AM

This issue has just been through the courts, (navy Chaplin etc)

Outrage at opening prayers of parliament etc.

Its all been in the news

DontBeAfraid

Jan 8th, 2007, 4:12 AM

So you are talking about SPONSERED prayer and not true prayer. In that case you dont have a case.

MaximumPain

Jan 8th, 2007, 6:11 AM

Now

Jan 8th, 2007, 8:03 AM

From the sound of it you are all just trying to select a God that will match your life style and make you comfortable.

None of those did anything close to parting of the Red Sea . At best they are philosophical in nature.

How about Just going with the God that is actually out there, after all he is the one that actually holds the real power and you are going to be required to stand before him one day even if you deny his existance

You need not be possessive about your notion of God, Traveler. You need not compare, or justify, or speak of your notion like children in the playground comparing the strength of their fathers. As soon as anyone claims that they know the nature of God, that's when I know for sure that their ego is interferring with their openess. This, of course, is quite "normal" but unforunately, not particularly sane. I am perfectly happy for you to see God however you wish, you can call it "He" if you so desire, it is of no consequence. Apparently Jesus and Moses also had quite radically, in some cases diametrically opposed notions of God, and yet their views appear together in the same book.

The Hindus have their view, the Muslims another, the Buddhists none at all, as is also the case for Atheists, and everyone else is quite free to believe whatever they wish. Do you really think that any of this would matter in the slightest degree to All That Is, and All That Isn't? These are the very differences that men have fought and died over, and continue to do so at an escalating rate. Isn't there something to learn from this? Wouldn't this suggest that there is something intrinsically erroneous in believing that you have cornered the market in defining the nature of the indefinable, or that you have given finite definition to the infinite? There is a clinging form of arrogance in the approach which says "My view of God is the only right view, and anyone who disagrees with me is mistaken." Would it not be more honest to say, "My finite reasoning mind is incapable of comprehending the totality of God, therefore all I really have is an opinion." And you know what they say about opinions.

Now.

Stabby Joe

Jan 8th, 2007, 8:11 AM

Thats the problem with SOME Christians, they think they're better than everyone else when in fact their the ones giving Christianity and religion in general a bad name.

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Jan 8th, 2007, 9:38 AM

The Christians have been told that they are not allowed to pray in the name of Jesus because this makes the prayer for Christians only and is not all inclusive. Wrong. NOBODY is saying that you can't pray in church or in your home...

Traveler

Jan 9th, 2007, 9:19 PM

Stabby Joe

Jan 10th, 2007, 10:10 AM

Or maybe you could answer him so he'll stop posting?

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Jan 10th, 2007, 3:12 PM

Now you Know why I didn’t bother to answer the question at the start.

It is your policy to diss it no matter what.

So in the end all you did with your demand for an answer was waste every bodies time.
WTF??? Are you talking about me, Traveler? If you are, then I don't know why you're getting all pissy. I asked a LEGITIMATE question. You guys are ALL the same. As soon as we start to point out your STUPIDITY with LEGITIMATE and VALID points, you get all defensive and go into your martyr's shell and you also get all uki-like and DON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS. Answer the question, martyr:

Are you not allowed to pray in church or in your home?

Traveler

Jan 10th, 2007, 8:32 PM

This was the question that you asked

Quote

One thing that I would LOVE to know is how your rights as a Christian are being trampled upon. Your lack of response would indicate that you've suddenly realized that you are NOT the martyr that you make yourself out to be...

This was my reply

The Christians have been told that they are not allowed to pray in the name of Jesus because this makes the prayer for Christians only and is not all inclusive.

Now this is where the problem comes in.

A Christian is unable to pray with out using the name of Jesus. Without that name he will just be talking to fresh air. By applying that law all Christian public prayer has been rendered powerless.

You then go on and demand that I answer this question

Quote

Are you not allowed to pray in church or in your home?

Now that is a second question. Have you lost count?

But I will answer this second question anyway.

The answer is yes I can pray in my own home and for the time being in a church. But I have in effect been banned from praying in public, which was at one time a right that I had access to.

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Jan 10th, 2007, 9:29 PM

The answer is yes I can pray in my own home and for the time being in a church. But I have in effect been banned from praying in public, which was at one time a right that I had access to. So praying in church and praying in your home is NOT ENOUGH for you? WHY do you have to pray in public?

DontBeAfraid

Jan 10th, 2007, 11:41 PM

He can still pray in public bill. Its the prayers that are endorsed by the government which have to be inclusive now. Traveler is just being a baby.

nrj

Jan 11th, 2007, 4:22 AM

The answer is yes I can pray in my own home and for the time being in a church. But I have in effect been banned from praying in public, which was at one time a right that I had access to. Wow, what a big load of BS. Do you really think we're THAT retarded that we don't know that there is NO LAW preventing you from sitting on a bench and pray? Hell, you can even pray loudly, as long as you don't make to much noise.

And praying in church for the time being? I would love to see how your goverment are taking away prayers in church...

loganosborne

Jan 11th, 2007, 2:26 PM

The answer is yes I can pray in my own home and for the time being in a church. But I have in effect been banned from praying in public, which was at one time a right that I had access to.
Im pretty sure you are allowed to pray in public and even if you weren't, isn't praying at home or in a church enough praying for you. Also praying in a church for the time being? Your not thinking that there actually going to ban you from praying in a church do you? To me that is ridiculous and certainly will never happen.

Fut004

Jan 11th, 2007, 2:34 PM

The answer is yes I can pray in my own home and for the time being in a church. But I have in effect been banned from praying in public, which was at one time a right that I had access to.

The only way that you praying in Public would be now banned, is if your regular praying customs involve you getting butt-ass naked and screaming out to Jesus/God/Whoever. In which case it's still not even the Praying that you're not allowed to do, it's the other crazy christian stuff that goes along with it...
Anyhow, you're still able to pray in public, no matter what you're conversations with Jesus tell you.

Besides, Don't most people pray in inner-monologue anyhow? How would people even know you're praying?

Traveler

Jan 11th, 2007, 8:19 PM

Wow, what a big load of BS. Do you really think we're THAT retarded that we don't know that there is NO LAW preventing you from sitting on a bench and pray? Hell, you can even pray loudly, as long as you don't make to much noise.

And praying in church for the time being? I would love to see how your goverment are taking away prayers in church...

Take that statement and frame it for posterity.

You know very well the direction things are moving in.

A few more years and you are going to be quoting me an eleventh commandment. Thou shalt not get caught!

loganosborne

Jan 12th, 2007, 1:00 AM

You know very well the direction things are moving in.
No I dont know what direction things are moving as I haven't heard any news that there going to ban you from praying in public or a church.

Skynet12

Jan 12th, 2007, 2:27 AM

neither have I hearded there was a complacent traveler on the loose.

Stabby Joe

Jan 12th, 2007, 10:06 AM

And Traveler has still yet to answer the question...

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Jan 12th, 2007, 11:01 AM

And Traveler has still yet to answer the question... Answering the question would ruin his martyr status. That, plus the fact that he is currently busy self-flagellating ( no, not THAT, you pervs! ) like that albino Sirius Black guy from "The DaVinci Code"...

nrj

Jan 12th, 2007, 12:39 PM

Take that statement and frame it for posterity.

You know very well the direction things are moving in.

A few more years and you are going to be quoting me an eleventh commandment. Thou shalt not get caught! Show me ANY signs that your goverment is removing prayers from church. ANY sign.

Oh, and by the way, why didn't you write "I was wrong, I can pray in public. I just tried to bullshit you"? Did you forgot, or did you really think you could lie right up in a swedes face?

Traveler

Jan 12th, 2007, 12:50 PM

India: Hindu Extremists Beat Four Pastors
Added: Jan 11th, 2007 11:47 PM

MUMBAI, India (Compass Direct News) -- Seven youths beat Pastor Robert Kennedy of Bangalore in Karnataka state on Sunday (January 7), after asking him to “pray for a sick friend.” The pastor required 16 stitches to his head and back after the assault.

In neighboring Andhra Pradesh state, Hindu extremists beat two pastors on January 6 and 7, and another on December 28, after warning them to cease Christian activities in their villages.

Pastor Kennedy and the small congregation of Jesus Preeti Church had gathered for worship for about and hour on Sunday morning when seven young men entered the house church and sat down. They talked among themselves, and one of them made calls on his mobile phone as Kennedy preached.

At about 12:30 p.m., when the service had ended and the believers had left, the youths approached Kennedy and asked him to accompany them to the home of a sick friend who needed prayer.

Since the house was supposedly nearby, Kennedy asked some of the young men to bring the patient to the church for prayer.

As three in the group made their way towards the front door, the others turned on the pastor and beat him severely.

“Suddenly all four attacked me, slapping my face, back and chest,” Kennedy told Compass. “One of them grabbed the microphone stand and struck me across the back, causing a deep gash, and blood began flowing out.”

The three who had not yet left the church came back and slapped the pastor, who had fallen to the floor. They then struck him with the circular base of the microphone stand, causing severe bleeding.

“They said to me, ‘You were telling everyone that Christ shed his blood – now you do the same,’” Kennedy added.

The youths also beat a church member identified only as Rajendran, who by chance returned to the church.

Kennedy believed his assailants were members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) or some other Hindu extremist group, since “they were mocking the teachings of Christ.”

Ten minutes after the assault began, the youths left. Rajendran called for assistance from other church members and Kennedy was taken to a nearby clinic, where he received 13 stitches to his back and three stitches to his head.

Kennedy later filed an official complaint at the Rajgopal police station. At press time no arrests had been made.

Assaults in Andhra Pradesh

Also on Sunday (January 7), Hindu extremists at about 8:30 p.m. severely beat Pastor Narsimullu Jacob of Vanasthalipuran village, Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh state.

The extremists had warned Narsimullu that morning to cease holding worship services and conducting evangelism in the area.

A day earlier, 34-year-old Pastor Malaiya Gabriel was returning home from a weekly catechism class when a group of nine men approached him and warned him to stop indoctrinating the village children with stories about Christ.

Gabriel, who converted from Hinduism two years ago, lives in Shivalingam village in Nizamabad district.

Lionel Francis, coordinator of the Global Council of Indian Christians, said the men threatened Gabriel with dire consequences if he continued his missionary activities.

That evening (January 6), at around 8:30 p.m., Pastor Gabriel was returning from a visit to another Christian’s home when a mob of around 50 people thrashed him with wooden clubs and batons. “They threatened to kill him if he did not stop evangelizing,” Francis said.

Gabriel was taken to a hospital for treatment.

“There is a worrying pattern of behavior in the activities of the RSS in Telangana,” Francis told Compass. “First they issue a warning, and later the mob attacks.”

On December 28, Hindu extremists beat Pastor Pawan Kumar, an independent pastor ministering near Bodhan, Telangana. The extremists entered the home of local believer Issac Raju and beat some 14 Christians, burning their Bibles and sound system.

Extremists had warned Pawan earlier that day to cease his Christian activities.

“The RSS and the Bajrang Dal have become much bolder in their attacks on Christians in Telengana,” Francis said. “Even though we have filed complaints, no arrests have been made in relation to these attacks.”

Next one

Traveler

Jan 12th, 2007, 12:50 PM

Russia Missionaries Fear Soviet-Era Persecution Under New Law
Added: Jan 11th, 2007 11:46 PM

By BosNewsLife News Center in Budapest

MOSCOW/BUDAPEST (BosNewsLife) -- Missionaries and church leaders warned Thursday, August 11, that Russia's new law on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) could lead to persecution of devoted Christians "reminiscent of the Soviet era."

The Russian Orthodox Church, long seen as a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, reportedly added its voice to the chorus of opposition that greeted the passage of Russia's 'Law on Non-Governmental Organizations'.

Russian Orthodox leaders reportedly said that the new requirements are "reminiscent" of the Soviet Union, as they allegedly limit religious freedom and Christian activities.

Under the new legislation, scheduled to take effect April 15, NGOs, including churches, would be required to register with special state agencies, supply details of membership, provide sources of funding and give a record of all meetings.

EVANGELICAL GROUP

Russian Ministries, a major evangelical mission group working in Russia, said this would make it impossible for Christian organizations and churches to function.

"Can you imagine that this law prescribes on a monthly basis that [churches] should count donations from different people?" said Igor Malin, director of distance learning with Russian Ministries' "School Without Walls" program.

"This is basically impossible to do because the banking system is not working and people give cash," added Malin, who is also a pastor in the city of Nizhny-Novgorod, in a statement to BosNewsLife.

Leaders of Orthodox and Protestant denominations have asked the Kremlin for an exemption
from this reporting. NGOs also complained that "the numerous provisions in the new law" are "impossible" to keep, Russian Ministries said. In addition evangelical churches reportedly fear a "selective application" of the law.

MUCH LEEWAY

"The law gives the Federal Registration Service too much leeway to shut down a church or ministry simply because they do not like what it's doing," explained Sergey Rakhuba, vice-president of ministries for Russian Ministries.

He said the new measures would re-introduce, the "authoritarian way of ruling under the Soviet regime, when the church was not allowed to use its funds or volunteers to help the needy in their communities or support their pastors."

He warned that officials could soon "single out mission organizations that receive financial support from abroad; then declare that their activities are based on foreign interests that are not supported by the government."

The Salvation Army, a major Protestant mission group, was already banned from one of its outposts on similar grounds, a move overturned by the European Court of Human Rights.

SEVERAL PROGRAMS

Russian Ministries said news of the law came after a year when it trained church leaders to "spread the Gospel", stepped up school programs and "work with orphans and other needy children, especially through summer camp ministry."

Around the Russian Orthodox Christmas on January 7, Russian Ministries' national workers in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova also distributed gift boxes among especially orphans and "other needy children". The group said, "youth had the opportunity to hear the good news of the Savior's birth."

Next one

Sudan: Police Deny New Year's Church Attack
Added: Jan 11th, 2007 12:53 AM

ISTANBUL (Compass Direct News) -- Sudanese police have denied attacking 800 Christians at a New Year’s Eve service at Khartoum’s Anglican cathedral and injuring six members of the congregation, the church priest said.

Canon Sylvester Thomas of All Saints Cathedral told Compass that officers firing tear gas into the church claimed they were trying to apprehend a man involved in a stabbing.

Church staff registered a case with local police on January 2, but officials have not established who carried out the attack that caused US$7,000 damage, Thomas said.

“The police were trying to claim, ‘This group doesn’t belong to us and we don’t know where they came from,’” Thomas said. “But they were all in uniform and using guns and [police] cars.”

A police spokesman in Khartoum contacted by Compass refused to comment on the attack.

Sudanese Vice President Salva Kiir, a southern Christian, publicly called for the church attackers to be punished yesterday in Juba.

Kiir’s comments came in a nationally televised speech when he and northern President Omar Al-Bashir met to commemorate the second anniversary of a peace deal that ended the nation’s 21-year civil war between northern Islamists and southern Christian, Muslim and animist factions.

During the ceremony, broadcast live on Sudan TV, Kiir and Bashir criticized each other openly for blocking implementation of the peace agreement and the sharing of oil revenues.

Beaten with Whips

No government official from the north, where the Islamist regime holds power, has openly commented on the church attack.

The governor of Khartoum has yet to respond to a protest letter from the Episcopal Church of Sudan (ECS) Bishop of Khartoum, the Rt. Rev. Ezekiel Kondo, who was among those attacked on January 1.

In the letter, Bishop Kondo noted that members of the Cathedral had felt threatened by police cars parked outside the cathedral all day prior to the attack. “Most of the officers were of high rank,” the letter said.

Police first fired 10 canisters of tear gas into and around the cathedral 20 minutes after the midnight service had begun, Thomas told Compass. The congregation panicked and began to stampede out the front door of the church, only to be met by officers who beat them with whips and sticks.

In the ensuing confusion, a 19-year-old man was badly injured in the leg and stomach when the chair he was sitting on went up in flames, Thomas said. The sound system, pews, chairs and windows were damaged.

Among those present were United Nations workers and government officials, including Vice President Kiir’s secretary as well as former Vice President Abel Alier.

“The second assault of tear gas fell just in front of [Alier] and he was almost suffocated,” Thomas said. “His wife had to carry him near the tap and pour water on him, and that is how he survived.”

Thomas helped members of the congregation escape through his office into his home. When police continued to fire on his house, the priest, still in his robes, ran through the smoke towards them to halt their assault.

An officer told Thomas that they had not been firing on the church but had been trying to apprehend a group of men fighting in the street, one of whom had been stabbed. The police claimed they opened fire on the group after the men began throwing rocks to resist arrest.

Church staff investigated police claims that a man named Stephen Chol, from Hag-Yousif in Khartoum North, had been stabbed. But the telephone number provided by police turned out to belong to someone else, and no hospital in the area had any record of a patient treated for stabbing, Thomas said.

Minority Rights

Signed in January 2005 to end Sudan’s civil war, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) provides guarantees for non-Muslim minorities living under Islamic law in northern Sudan.

A CPA commission for the rights of non-Muslims was to be established for significant numbers of Christians and other religious groups living in Khartoum.

Two years on, little concrete progress has been made in establishing the commission. Christians living in the capital city of Khartoum continue to report discrimination and harassment.

In May 2006, the Rev. Elia Komondan of All Saints Cathedral was jailed for a week over the disappearance of a Muslim convert to Christianity. The incident highlighted restrictions placed on Christian evangelization of Muslims and the lack of freedom Muslim-born citizens have in choosing their own religion.

I’ve got another twenty, Do you want more? It’s all slowly creeping here. We have a right to be worried.

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Jan 12th, 2007, 12:57 PM

Traveler STILL hasn't answered the question. Martyr...

DontBeAfraid

Jan 12th, 2007, 1:02 PM

Some links would be nice, though I have no reason not to believe you.

Not entirely related to the topic of "Atheists challenge the religious right... " though now is it? I mean in each case it was another religions extremists who attacked the christians. Its not like Extreme christians havent attacked and killed doctors who perform abortion or other people who speak against christian beliefs, though that does not make what they did any less dispicable.

Im sorry but you have failed to show how YOU are losing your right to freely express your religion. And whether this percieved persecution involves any atheists.

Fut004

Jan 12th, 2007, 1:02 PM

Traveler,
None of your "evidence" shows Laws being created to abolish Christians prayin in public.
"Missionaries and church leaders warned Thursday, August 11, that Russia's new law on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) could lead to persecution of devoted Christians "reminiscent of the Soviet era." "
That's your "Leaders" trying to scare you into following what they say..
I stopped after I read that part, because it's probably all the same anyhow.

Besides, it says you live in Canada.
Show me that stuff happening in North America.

nrj

Jan 12th, 2007, 1:06 PM

Traveler

Jan 12th, 2007, 1:07 PM

This is how it starts. Small steps like not being able to use the name of Jesus and then through what seems a natural progression you end up with a blanket ban. Whats happening here is just a copy of the steps that have been used elsewhere.

Traveler

Jan 12th, 2007, 1:11 PM

I repeat: Show me ANY SIGN that YOUR GOVERMENT is removing prayers in chruch. ANY sign.

And WHY didn't you answer me when I asked you if you forgot to admit that you CAN pray in public? Don't bullshit me. I wan't actual proof that Canada enforces laws that says that you CANNOT pray in public. On a bench, in the public toilet, on the subway, in the car or anywhere. I hate dodgers, answer the question!

I had the habbit of going to the hospitals to pray for the sick. The results of which were often quite dramatic.

I tried the same thing here in canada and was shown the door. There are rules governing affiliation. Don't want to upset the other patants even if the one is asking to be prayed for.

DontBeAfraid

Jan 12th, 2007, 1:14 PM

You must have a habit of making a spectical(sp) of yourself then. You can freely go into somebodies room during visiting hours as an invited guest and pray for them all you want.... Or sinse your god is everywhere you could pray for the sick person from wherever you are. You dont even have to make a scene. God can see you even if you hide in the closet to pray.... I think you know the verse Im getting at dont you traveler? If you post it I promise to read it.

Fut004

Jan 12th, 2007, 1:17 PM

I tried the same thing here in canada and was shown the door. There are rules governing affiliation. Don't want to upset the other patants even if the one is asking to be prayed for.

Hahaha... Where are you In Canada???

Cause I don't believe that. All the Hospitals I've been to have Mini-Christian Chapels built right into them. Hospitals such as "St.Michaels Hospital" in downtown Toronto (one of the Biggest in T.O.).
Hmm.. A Hospital named after a Religious Person... With Statues of Angels and shit outside of it? Yeah, I can see them kicking people out for praying.
Even the Hospital in Timmins Ontario (small little city in Northern ontario) has a CHurch built into it..

Maybe your prayin to people who don't want you there. Maybe it has nothing to do with the prayin at all. Maybe it's just that they dont like some stranger hovering around their bed while they are sick.

Traveler

Jan 12th, 2007, 1:28 PM

Fut004

Jan 12th, 2007, 1:31 PM

Try the Pawantetwa hospital in Regina, Saskatchewan.

They used to have religious symbols and even a statue of an angle on top. All torn down and removed. They have gone all Holistic now. Crosses down and Christ out of there.

A buncha Hillbillies running around in the Praries.. That's a good thing to base your feelings of a country on.
Try coming back to Civilized Canada for awhile...

Besides, that sounds like a "Native American" type word, perhaps they got rid of Christian things because they Aren't Christians...

Traveler

Jan 12th, 2007, 1:42 PM

That sounds about right, and its spreading

Fut004

Jan 12th, 2007, 1:47 PM

That sounds about right, and its spreading

What sounds right, that a Non-Christian Church would want to take down all of the Christian type shit that was forced upon them by Crazy-Christians who thought it was okay?

Yeah, that makes sense to me too. Why would a non-christian church want to have a cross on it?

Cartesiantheater

Jan 12th, 2007, 1:48 PM

Well, Traveler, just be glad that someone with my beliefs doesn't rule the world... cuz rest assured, I WOULD "persecute" you guys... I would outlaw your child abuse (i.e. teaching your kids things that have been shown to be false or physically impossible- like a world wide flood, or say, Jesus seeing the entire world from a tall mountain, for example... and setting them up for depressing nihilism when they find out everything they based their life on is a lie..., etc...)

If you would just be more moderate in your beliefs...life would be so much easier... even the Pope accepted evolution...

Traveler

Jan 12th, 2007, 1:52 PM

Try this link

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53731

IT looks like your wish will come true

Cartesiantheater

Jan 12th, 2007, 2:01 PM

IT looks like your wish will come true
Well, not quite...

"This fight cost me everything. My career is over, my family is now homeless, we've lost a million dollar pension, but Congress agreed with me and rescinded the Navy policy, so chaplains are free again to pray in Jesus' name," Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt told WND. "My sacrifice purchased their freedom. My conscience is clear, the fight was worth it, and I'd do it all again."

...but one can dream, right?

EDIT- I thought I should add...

It's not that I hate you guys, or your religion. It's just the things you do (like several have pointed out)... You protest things like stem cell research; you try to get religion taught in schools under the guise of intelligent design (btw, evolution is NOT a religion- this has been covered a bazillion times here- evolution is FALSIFIABLE and therefore is science. Creationism is NOT falsifiable and therefore is NOT science [think about it; you can always say that God made it to LOOK like the world is ancient, ad nauseum...])

nrj

Jan 12th, 2007, 2:30 PM

I had the habbit of going to the hospitals to pray for the sick. The results of which were often quite dramatic.

I tried the same thing here in canada and was shown the door. If they don't believe in christ they're free to tell you to not pray for them right in front of them. Although I would, personally, just lie down and pretend to listen and then say "yeah, yeah, right, leave now".

Stabby Joe

Jan 12th, 2007, 3:34 PM

Not everyone everywhere has to have religion and hear it in many places... just as much as your church doesn't talk about science during commune.

loganosborne

Jan 13th, 2007, 2:15 AM

I had the habbit of going to the hospitals to pray for the sick. The results of which were often quite dramatic.
I tried the same thing here in canada and was shown the door.
But as nrj said the person has every right to tell you they don't want a pray as they don't beileve in christ. So again im failing to see the problem.

Also your articles show no evidence at all that they are getting rid of prayers in church and making it against the law to pray in public.

liberdave

Jan 13th, 2007, 10:27 AM

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

I think this is hilarious....

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Jan 13th, 2007, 11:35 AM

Can you BELIEVE that they are trying to remove all traces of Christianity from the ث ت ئ ض ش ج church? Those bastards...

Traveler

Jan 13th, 2007, 1:48 PM

Take that statement and frame it for posterity.

You know very well the direction things are moving in.

A few more years and you are going to be quoting me an eleventh commandment. Thou shalt not get caught!

This is what I stated.

The Christians do have a right to be worried. There were well over one hundred thousand Christians killed last year for their faith all over the world.

Many of these countries were once considered Christian

Traveler

Jan 13th, 2007, 1:49 PM

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53571

Saturday, December 30, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAITH UNDER FIRE
British stewardess challenges airline's Bible ban
Officials defend policy on flights to Saudi Arabia, which prohibits all non-Islamic materials

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 30, 2006
3:09 p.m. Eastern

By Dan Wooding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 ASSIST News Service

LONDON – A Christian airline stewardess is planning to challenge a ruling by a British airline that prohibits staff from traveling to Saudi Arabia with a Bible.

Journalist Claire Bergen, writing for the Independent Catholic News website, said, "BMI, formerly British Midland Airways, confirmed that the matter is now subject to an industrial tribunal due to take place in the New Year."

She went on to say, "The stewardess, a committed Christian, likes to take her Bible, which was once her mother's, with her when she travels.

"But BMI says it has banned her from taking the Bible with her in accordance with Foreign Office advice that no non-Islamic materials or artifacts are allowed in Saudi Arabia."

(Story continues below)

On its website, the British Foreign Office says of Saudi Arabia: "The importation and use of narcotics, alcohol, pork products and religious books, apart from the Quran (Koran), and artifacts are forbidden."

Laura Clout, writing for the London Telegraph, quoted a spokesman from the airline as saying, "We issue advice to all our staff and passengers that these are the guidelines.

"She is saying she wants to carry her Bible with her. We are saying we can't start designing rules around individuals when we've got several hundred members of staff. To take every personal preference into account would be impossible."

BMI said it offered the stewardess the opportunity to transfer from long-haul duties to short-haul, but she refused.

Now a Christian councilor from East London has entered the fray.

Councilor Alan Craig, leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance group on Newham Council, is calling for Christians and Muslims to work together in support of the BMI air stewardess.

"It is ludicrous for BMI to take this stand and to condone Saudi religious intolerance," he said, speaking from Newham in East London, where Christians and Muslims comprise respectively 47 percent and 25 percent of the population (2001 UK census).

"British Christians and Muslims know the value of religious freedom as in the UK we have the right to openly carry our Bibles and Qurans and worship at our churches and mosques whenever we want."

Craig also called on Dr. Muhammed Abdul Bari, Secretary General of Newham-based Muslim Council of Britain, to speak out publicly in favor of the BMI stewardess, to express his support for her to BMI directors, to work with church leaders on her behalf and to use his contacts with Saudi Arabia to get their strict policy changed.

"Dr. Bari and other Muslims benefit from Britain's religious freedoms and the London Muslim Center even received significant British government subsidy," said Craig. "He should welcome this opportunity to use his significant influence in senior Saudi circles to benefit this Christian woman in that Muslim country."

The case follows that of British Airways worker Nadia Eweida, also a committed Christian, whose objection to BA rules which forbade her visibly wearing a cross led to a review by BA of its uniform policy.

Traveler

Jan 13th, 2007, 1:49 PM

A Free Press
For A Free People

Founded 1997 Saturday, January 13, 2007 Today's Edition

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
College chief defends banishment of cross
2,600-plus petitioners had wanted it returned to historic chapel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 18, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The president of the College of William & Mary has used an appearance before the school's Board of Visitors to defend his actions in ordering the removal of a bronze cross from the historic Wren Chapel, but board members were given no opportunity to consider the actions or respond, officials said.

College spokesman Brian Whitson told WND that President Gene Nichol "did make some remarks during a regular report to the board" but since a petition drive asking the school to restore the cross to the chapel was not on the board's agenda, no action was taken.

WND broke the story on Oct. 27 that the two-foot-tall, century-old cross had been removed on the order of school managers to make the chapel "more welcoming" to visitors.

At the start of the school's board meeting, there were about 1,400 signatures on the petition. However, by the time the meeting concluded more than a day later, the count was past 2,600 and climbing, according to a count on the website for the SaveTheWrenCross.org campaign.

(Story continues below)

According to a copy of his statement, which was provided to WND by the school, Nichol told the board, "the display of a Christian cross – the most potent symbol of my own religion – in the heart of our most important building – sends an unmistakable message that the Chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others.

It makes it appear "there are, at the College, insiders and outsiders. Those for whom our most revered place is meant to be keenly welcoming, and those for whom presence is only tolerated," he said.

That, he said, is bad for the school.

"I make no pretense that all will agree with these sentiments. The emotions and values touched by this dispute are deeply felt," he said. "I have been pleased to learn that students of disparate religions have reported using the Chapel for worship and contemplation for the first time."

Whitson didn't want to elaborate, but he would confirm that the decision to remove the cross was because Nichol "heard from a number of people, asking that we rethink the practice of the cross."

A WND call asking for a comment from former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who recently was named chancellor of the college, was not returned. It was during her tenure in the Supreme Court that a growing intolerance by the court for religious symbols – particularly Christian symbols – in public places became evident.

Whitson said those complaints came from within the college community, that is, among the faculty, staff and students. The old policy was to have the cross in place on the altar, and remove it upon request. The new policy reverses that.

Nichol told the board the thought that his actions "disrespect the traditions of the College, or, even more unacceptably, the religious beliefs of its members" would lie "heavy on my heart."

However, he said that wouldn't make him change his mind.

Petitioners are objecting to the policy change that removes from the Wren Chapel, a 274-year-old facility used for both religious and secular events on campus, a cross that had been donated early last century.

"We, the undersigned students and alumni of the College, and concerned citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, disagree with your order to remove the Wren Cross from display on the Wren Chapel altar," the petition says.

"The Wren Cross was given to Wren Chapel by Williamsburg neighbor Burton Parish Episcopal Church in the 1930s and has been a fixture on the altar ever since that time. Before your order, the policy was that if a group or individual using the Wren Chapel desired to not have the Wren Cross on display during their use of the Wren Chapel, then the Wren Cross was removed during such event and then returned to the altar.

"We petition you to rescind your October 2006 order and return to the policy that had governed the display of the Wren Cross prior to your inauguration as the 26th President of the College on April 7, 2006."

Vince Haley, a 1988 graduate, set up the website and launched the campaign when he found out what had happened.

"In the name of tolerance, we have intolerance; in the name of welcoming, we have hostility, and in the name of unity, we now have division," said junior Joe Luppino-Esposito.

The removal got started with an e-mail from Melissa E. Engimann, assistant director – historic campus. "In order to make the Wren Chapel less of a faith-specific space, and to make it more welcoming to students, faculty, staff and visitors of all faiths, the cross has been removed from the altar area."

Traveler

Jan 13th, 2007, 1:53 PM

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51571

Thursday, August 17, 2006

LAW OF THE LAND
'China-level' Christian persecution coming
Pastors say court's ruling in Houston Bible case 'breath-taking'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 17, 2006
5:00 a.m. Eastern

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Houston's Bible monument

A few more court decisions like this week's over a display of a Bible in Houston and the United States will be approaching the "China-level" for Christian persecution, according to a leader in the midst of that battle.

The ruling from the Fifth Court of Appeals said the display of a Bible on public ground in Houston to honor the founder of a mission has to go, not because it was unconstitutional itself, but because it became unconstitutional when a Christian group rallied around it.

The pastor's group said that means any monument, building, or even feature of nature is an illegal "establishment of religion" if a church ceremony is held there.

"Connecting the dots between the eminent domain case, which says all of your churches are up for grabs if a town wants a mall, secondly you now have been told you do not have constitutional rights in the public square," Dave Welch, executive director of the Houston Area Pastors Conference, told WorldNetDaily.

"Any kind of an event is okay, as long as you didn't express any religious faith. What is that telling you?

"We're not persecuted yet, we know that. But we're on our way there. Add that to the surprising acceptance of militant Islam, the fear of speaking against that from a Christian standpoint and then we're dangerously approaching the point where we have literally given away and yielded our freedoms that were earned," Welch said.

"We have history, law and the founding fathers who adopted the Constitution collectively affirming the truth expressed by revered Justice Joseph Story in 1840 that, 'We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity,'" said a statement issued by the pastor's group.

Welch told WND that the court's conclusion was "ludicrous" and if followed logically, could mean that a religious rally at any public building would therefore make the building unconstitutional so it would have to be removed.

The Bible was installed on county property about five decades ago in honor of William Mosher, the founder of Star of Hope Mission, and was replaced in 1996 with donated funds. However, an atheist challenged the monument, and on an appeal from the District Court decision that the Bible was unconstitutional, the appeals court carried the argument further.

Its ruling said that the monument became an unconstitutional "establishment" after a 2003 rally was held by Christians to defend the display. That rally involved prayers and clergy, the court noted.

"The ramifications of this tortured decision are breath-taking and without any historic or legitimate Constitutional rationale," said the pastors' organization. "For the court to state that if a private citizen exercises his or her First Amendment rights of religious expression and assembly on public property, that any monument, building or fixed item of any kind that contains religious references becomes 'establishment of religion' is simply irrational."

The conclusion, if applied nationwide, would result in the sandblasting of hundreds of monuments and buildings "including the capstone on the Washington Monument, which reads, 'Laus Deo,' or 'Praise be to God,'" the pastors group continued.

"For this panel majority of two justices to claim that words and actions by private citizens or elected officials with religious content, expressed about a building or monument, convert it from 'secular' and constitutional to 'sacred' and unconstitutional amounts to an act of blatant judicial activism against the freedoms and Constitution," the HAPC said.

The group Battle For The Bible also is working on the case, and Welch said there are experts on constitutional law who have been and plan to continue assisting the county in its fight over the representation of the Bible.

"They are of the opinion this needs to be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, and we're working on that right now," Welch told WND.

He called the logic "twisted" that could conclude the monument once was constitutional, but since "some action by a private citizen" it now becomes unconstitutional.

Because the atheist's lawsuit was against the county over the monument on county land, the pastors and their advisors have been assisting County Attorney Michael Stafford in the fight.

Traveler

Jan 13th, 2007, 1:54 PM

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=20&ITEM_ID=1849

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=94&ITEM_ID=1679

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46307

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/Polzer/persecution-west.htm

Traveler

Jan 13th, 2007, 1:56 PM

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53488

Saturday, December 23, 2006

The eve of Christmas Eve

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah

© 2006
When I was a kid, Christmas was just about the biggest deal in the whole wide world.

As Jean Shepherd, the screenwriter of "A Christmas Story," would say, the entire annual calendar of kid-dom revolved around this holiday.

We'd start thinking about it in September. By Thanksgiving, there was a feeling of imminent inevitability. Hysteria began to set in by Dec. 1.

We didn't just celebrate Christmas. Christmas Eve was nearly as big a deal. And we began a countdown in our household many days before that. Today, for instance, would be the eve of Christmas Eve. Yesterday was the eve of the eve of Christmas Eve, and so on.

With all the attacks on Christmas in recent years, I wonder how much of the fun and delight of Christmas has been robbed from our kids.

(Column continues below)

But, of course, the attacks are not really directed at Christmas, at all. Christmas is only a target of the secular jihadists of the American Civil Liberties Union and their co-conspirators at Americans United For Separation of Church and State because their ultimate goal is destroying what Christmas represents.

They remind me of the terrorists in the Middle East who say they want a state of their own, but what they really want is to destroy another state. Since they haven't been able to achieve their goal in an all-out assault, they settle for getting there piece by piece.

The real target is not Christmas. It's Christianity. That's where the real battle lines are being drawn.

And we should expect this. It's just what Jesus told us to expect:

"Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you. …" – John 15:20

A talk-show host on Air America asked me last year at this time if I "feared" this persecution. I tried to explain that I don't fear it, I welcome it. Because unless we pay a price for our belief in Jesus, our faith has not really been tested – we're not really following in His footsteps.

Think about this: Jesus came to Earth as a little, helpless baby. He knew that even His very birth would result in worldly authorities attempting to hunt him down and slay Him in an effort to prevent Him from doing what He came to Earth to do – preach the gospel, go to the cross to atone for the sins of mankind and be resurrected.

Many Christians have considered the agony Jesus went through in the Garden of Gethsemane, through the humiliation and torture leading to Calvary. But how many of us have considered the decision Jesus made before that – to come into the world as a helpless little infant?

That's faith. That's love. That's Jesus.

What his detractors in 2005 don't get is that the battle is over. The war is already won. It is finished.

You can invent new holidays to try to marginalize Christmas. You can change the words of "Silent Night." You can tell little kids they can't say "Merry Christmas" in school. You can do all kinds of things to try to get mankind to forget about Jesus.

But all it gets you, ultimately, is more company in hell.

Another reporter asked me who was winning the battle over Christmas.

The battle was won a long time ago, about 2,006 years ago, when a little baby was born in Bethlehem, a God-man who would become the Savior of the world. Kings tried to kill him shortly after His birth. Priests marveled at his knowledge when He was but a boy. He turned the world upside down with His teachings. He healed the sick and the lame. He raised people from the dead.

To this day we measure time itself by His coming – not just kid-dom, but the whole world.

In another week or so, we will turn the page on the calendar and celebrate the new year – 2007. It isn't because it will have been 2,007 years since the beginning of the world. It isn't because it will have been 2,007 years since the beginning of history. It's because it's 2,007 years since the birth of the Messiah, the Prince of Peace, the Wonderful Counselor, the King of Kings.

Happy birthday, Jesus. Please come back soon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related offer:

Not just Christmas under attack – it's Christianity!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.

Traveler

Jan 13th, 2007, 2:15 PM

If you really want me to take a real dump on your mocking then ask me to show you how the Christians are being wiped off the face of the map in all the worlds countries that once were considered Christian or Christian friendly.

Just as the “war of liberation” is slowly coming to these shores so is the desired eradication of Christianity. It’s all done in the name of tolerance just as the war is done in the name of freedom from American tyranni. The whole thing is all one big lie to motivate the masses.

So the question must be asked! Why is Christianity being targeted.

All through history men have gone to meet the headsman axe with the following words on their lips, “I have served my God and I have served my King, but I will serve my God first”

There in lies the problem. Christianity has absolutes between what is right and what is wrong. This is a stumbling block to those who are in political power of the day because the man will fear God more than he will fear the king. The eastern religious systems are more adaptable. The absolute has been replaced with a relative color of grey.

DontBeAfraid

Jan 13th, 2007, 2:40 PM

Persecution complex..... Any doubters?

Traveler

Jan 13th, 2007, 5:22 PM

No, of course I’m not paranoid

The world actually is out to get me!

Flynn

Jan 14th, 2007, 11:39 AM

I only read the first article since I suspect the others are more of the same so I'm not going to waste my time. However, explain to me how that article is against Christianity. Saudi Arabia has a policy of not allowing ANY non-Islamic religious material. That means Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, pagan...etc artifacts would all not be allowed. Christianity is not singled out.

Stabby Joe

Jan 14th, 2007, 12:04 PM

You were right, they're pretty much the same.

And that thing about Christmas? Maybe its that date never had anything to do with Jesus in the first place. The original intent of that holiday is the same one you're accusing others of doing. And besides, I've never heard of Christmas being taken away, plenty of people still went to church on that day and prayed WITHOUT any guff from others. If you're saying you want to keep it for Christians then that robbing others of their freedom to enjoy it as well.

Although I don't live in the US, I would still find it hard to believe that Christianity is being taken away even when God is mentioned in many customs and funnily enough I remeber that story awhile ago when Bush said God told him to go to Iraq.

Cartesiantheater

Jan 14th, 2007, 12:13 PM

loganosborne

Jan 14th, 2007, 4:12 PM

Traveler none of those articles proof anything especially the first one. This is what the article stated.

"The importation and use of narcotics, alcohol, pork products and religious books, apart from the Quran (Koran), and artifacts are forbidden."
This clearly states that its not just christians effected by this rule. It is all non islamic religion material and as Saudi Arabia is a Islamic country and in my opnion it has every right to do that.

If you're saying you want to keep it for Christians then that robbing others of their freedom to enjoy it as well.
I agree with you there 100%

OCsupertones

Jan 18th, 2007, 12:31 AM

Yes, but religion is RELIGION, it's NOT government. Religion has NO place in government. Therefore, the rules of democracy do NOT apply to religion...

I find this ignorance and indoctrination funny. Separation of church and state...Shall we talk about it? I want to. The 'separation" was actually a one dimensional wall. It was actually President Jefferson who came up with this PHRASE. That's right, it is only a phrase, a phrase used in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Association on Jan. 01 1802. Religion was welcomed right into the government. The purpose of the separation was only one dimensional, to keep the government OUT of the church. Proof? Look at the early settlers and the indians. Do you know how much money went into converting the native americans? If you want to talk about the the establishment clause from the first amendment, why not? "Congress shall make no law resecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now this is the only thing that holds ground in the supreme court. Only thing is, this is not saying there should be a separation. This is saying that the government shall not force one particular religion over others. That is what America is a all about anyway right? As long as no preferences are made or special treatments, religion is fine.

DontBeAfraid

Jan 18th, 2007, 5:18 AM

OC you have a crazy backwards view of history....

Why did the colonists leave europe in the first place you twit?

That is what America is a all about anyway right? As long as no preferences are made or special treatments, religion is fine.
__________________and somehow you equate that to meaning that your christianity should ibbidty dibbity wherever it pleases?

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Jan 18th, 2007, 8:08 AM

So, OC, it would be OKAY with you if a Muslim president was elected in America and he/she enacted laws that were based on Islamic law? You'd be HAPPY with that?

Fut004

Jan 18th, 2007, 9:09 AM

And that thing about Christmas? Maybe its that date never had anything to do with Jesus in the first place. The original intent of that holiday is the same one you're accusing others of doing. And besides, I've never heard of Christmas being taken away, plenty of people still went to church on that day and prayed WITHOUT any guff from others. If you're saying you want to keep it for Christians then that robbing others of their freedom to enjoy it as well.

The ONLY thing that's happening in the US is that many people are saying "Happy Holidays" instead of just Merry Christmas... Oh God... the PERSECUTION!!!!!!!!!!

I agree that the end of December isn't just for Christians, it's pretty obvious that many religions have a special occasion during this time. To make it so only Christians have a right to celebrate during this time is wrong.

However, the whole "Happy Holidays" and "Holiday Tree" stuffs is garbage. Why do we all feel the need to change our Sayings and Traditions? I celebrate Christmas, i have some Jewish friends that celebrate Hanukkah. They say "Happy Hanukkah" to me and give me a Hanukkah present, I say "Merry Christmas" and give them a Christmas gift... None of us get offended by it.

Why the hell is the rest of the World so frickin touchy on the subject?!?
When I'm shopping and somebody says "Happy Holidays" to me, I always respond with "Merry Christmas". I'll "promote" my holiday, you promote yours. You wanna wish me a happy Ramadan or something, go nuts.

We shouldn't have to feel the need to censor our holidays, and neither should anybody else.... I'm not bothered by it because I feel christians are being "persecuted" or anything like that, I'm just tired of all the self-censorship and fear that's going on.

OCsupertones

Jan 19th, 2007, 12:12 AM

So, OC, it would be OKAY with you if a Muslim president was elected in America and he/she enacted laws that were based on Islamic law? You'd be HAPPY with that?

Nope. I just posted that I think there should be NO special preferences made or special treatment. Are there any laws that are based on christian law? If so, please share. If there even are any, I can tell you right now I don't think it's right. Now, do I think that it is okay to have a Muslim president. Maybe. I don't know how that would work out. Honestly, America isn't ready for that, wether it's right or wrong in my opinion. Here's the thing buddy. The president of the u.s of a shouldn't have anything to do with religion. What he does in his private life is his or her own. The president is expected to do his job, and not let anything interfere. So kind of a flawed question.

OCsupertones

Jan 19th, 2007, 12:15 AM

OC you have a crazy backwards view of history....

Why did the colonists leave europe in the first place you twit?

and somehow you equate that to meaning that your christianity should ibbidty dibbity wherever it pleases?

I don't understand what you are trying to say as usual DBA. What does ibbidty dibbity mean? If I understand you correctly, which I'm not sure of, ANY religion should be able to ibbidty dibbity whatever they please. When people like you try to take away the right for a religion to ibbidty dibbity, well that just makes me heated. Okay to take away, but wrong to allow all a free choice? The logic of this world amazes me.

Cartesiantheater

Jan 19th, 2007, 10:52 AM

I agree that the end of December isn't just for Christians, it's pretty obvious that many religions have a special occasion during this time. To make it so only Christians have a right to celebrate during this time is wrong.

However, the whole "Happy Holidays" and "Holiday Tree" stuffs is garbage. Why do we all feel the need to change our Sayings and Traditions? I celebrate Christmas, i have some Jewish friends that celebrate Hanukkah. They say "Happy Hanukkah" to me and give me a Hanukkah present, I say "Merry Christmas" and give them a Christmas gift... None of us get offended by it.

Why the hell is the rest of the World so frickin touchy on the subject?!?
When I'm shopping and somebody says "Happy Holidays" to me, I always respond with "Merry Christmas". I'll "promote" my holiday, you promote yours. You wanna wish me a happy Ramadan or something, go nuts.

We shouldn't have to feel the need to censor our holidays, and neither should anybody else.... I'm not bothered by it because I feel christians are being "persecuted" or anything like that, I'm just tired of all the self-censorship and fear that's going on.

Oh, I totally agree. Hell, I hate the word "fetus" because an aborted fetus IS a human, as defined by biology (will mate with member of homo sapiens during it's life cycle, right number of chromosomes, etc...)... but I"m STILL pro-choice...

People assign different levels of value to humans. Abortion IS killing an actual creature... but so what? Buying a pizza every week instead of giving your money to starving kids in Africa is in effect killing someone... How many of you cry every night for the indigenous mother that dies from AIDS while giving birth? So why do we need to coat reality with these PC words (yes, I know, perhaps I take it a little to the extreme with my abortion language [i.e., I call it a baby not a fetus...it's just a cost analysis...evil?...maybe...but so are other things...])

Yeah, the political correct bullshit is aggrivating.

Oh... and I just say "thanks" when they say Happy <insert religious holiday.>

It's like when strangers say "How are you?" They don't give a f*ck... It's all pretentious bullshit... I NEVER ask them how they are after they ask me, even though it's the custum...

People are so damn PC... very aggrivating...

Fut004

Jan 19th, 2007, 11:15 AM

Oh, I totally agree. Hell, I hate the word "fetus" because an aborted fetus IS a human, as defined by biology (will mate with member of homo sapiens during it's life cycle, right number of chromosomes, etc...)... but I"m STILL pro-choice...

People assign different levels of value to humans. Abortion IS killing an actual creature... but so what? Buying a pizza every week instead of giving your money to starving kids in Africa is in effect killing someone... How many of you cry every night for the indigenous mother that dies from AIDS while giving birth? So why do we need to coat reality with these PC words (yes, I know, perhaps I take it a little to the extreme with my abortion language [i.e., I call it a baby not a fetus...it's just a cost analysis...evil?...maybe...but so are other things...])

No, that makes sense.
I actually had a conversation with a friend not too long ago about Abortion, I never once refered to it as a "Fetus". I told her that if she didn't want a Baby and she didn't want people to know she was pregnant, that she should "have an abortion and get rid of the kid before it's born."
Pro-Choice on Abortion is the only thing that makes sense to me. How can you either force a person to Keep a Baby, or to Kill it?

Anyhow....

Yeah, the political correct bullshit is aggrivating.

Oh... and I just say "thanks" when they say Happy <insert religious holiday.>

It's like when strangers say "How are you?" They don't give a f*ck... It's all pretentious bullshit... I NEVER ask them how they are after they ask me, even though it's the custum...

People are so damn PC... very aggrivating...

I suppose saying "thanks" is the either response... "Thanks, you too." would work just as well.

I always took the "Hey, How are you?" as more of just a greeting than an actual question. I've offended a few people with this actually. I'll say "Hey, how are ya?" as I'm passing by, then not stick around to listen to them drone on about how they're doing.