The final few hours of Christmas 2007 are passing by. One last thought before midnight strikes.
Perhaps it's because I've been wasting less time watching cable news channels but I seem to have noticed fewer "War on Christmas" stories this holiday season. If this is the case then it is truly good news and one more reason to be thankful.
These stories seem to fall into two major categories. You either have your lawsuits against municipalities or organizations or you have governmental entities who, fearing a lawsuit, try to avoid offending any person or entity, no matter how marginalized and insignificant; thus offending everyone.
The former usually involves the ACLU or some militant atheist who sues a town in Boemfuque, Iowa, a school district or church for having manger scenes, Christmas pageants, tree lighting celebrations or anything that smacks of having a good time and which brings joy to children and families.
The modern "progressive" movement naturally hates these type of stories. It paints them into a corner by making them look nuttier than grandma's fruitcake and worse, grinches. Which is why naturally "War on Christmas" pieces are good fodder for conservative talk shows, columnists and bloggers.
The issue of Christmas is more important than scoring cheap debate points and personally I'd rather have the issue gone than use it as holly-jolly bludgeon to beat the turkey stuffing out of some whackjob.
There are still plenty of good examples out there, locally and across the country, where some bureaucrat or school board or small town politician caves in to Christmas hating bullies forcing their views on society.
But hopefully we've turned a corner, or are beginning to.
Extra: When it comes to the "War on Christmas" I'd be remiss in not linking to someone far more elequent and profane than myself, the greatest political thinker of all on this issue, your lord and master, Foamy Squirrel a.k.a. Ian Mathers.
1. Any person attempting to fight secular progressives will be smeared and attacked. Scroll down a few threads to the Christmas ad thread and my tet a tet with "Athetist." Expect attacks. Now, here is my opinion of what should be done.
2. Secular progressives have the ACLU, here are some excellent Christian Legal resources:
*Religious Freedom Legal Sites:
Name: American Center for Law and Justice
Website: http://www.aclj.org
Description : Concerned about religious liberty and traditional moral values.
(Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel; Keith Fournier, Executive Director)
Name: American Family Association Center for Law & Policy
Website: http://www.afa.net/clp/
Description: Responds to the requests of Christians for legal representation involving first amendment free speech and free exercise rights. (Stephen Crampton, Chief Counsel)
Name: Alliance Defense Fund
Website: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/
Description: Funding for the legal defense and advocacy of religious freedom.
(Alan Sears, President)
Name : The Becket Fund
Website: http://www.becketfund.org
Description: The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a bipartisan and ecumenical, public-interest law firm that protects the fee expression of all religious traditions.
Name: Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
Website: http://www.catholicleague.org/index.html
Description: The Catholic League works to safeguard both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened.
Name: The Center for Arizona Policy - Len Munsil/President
Website: http://www.azpolicy.org/
Name : Christian Law Association
Website: http://www.christianlaw.org
Description: The motto of this organization is "defending the rights of Bible-believing Churches and Christians since 1969."
Name: Christian Legal Society - Center for Law and Religious Freedom
Website : http://www.clsnet.org/
Description: A network of nearly 4,500 attorneys who are "doing justice with the love of God."
Name: Home School Legal Defense Association
Website: http://www.hslda.org
Description: Proclaiming liberty and protecting religious rights.
Name: Liberty Counsel
Website : http://www.lc.org
Description: A non-profit civil liberties education and legal defense organization established to preserve religious freedom. (Matthew D. Staver, President)
Name: National Legal Foundation
Website: http://www.nlf.net
Description: Supporting the Biblical foundation of American law. (Steven Fitschen, Exec. Dir.)
Name: Pacific Justice Institute
Website: http://www.pacificjustice.org
Description : Assists in the battle for our religious freedoms. (Brad Dacus. President)
Name: The Rutherford Institute
Website: http://www.rutherford.org
Description : Dedicated to the defense of civil liberties and human rights.
(John W. Whitehead, President)
Name: Southeastern Legal Foundation - Todd Young/Director
Website: http://southeasternlegal.org/
Name: Thomas More Law Center
Website: http://www.thomasmore.org/
Description: A Sword and Shield for People of Faith.
(Chief Counsel: Richard Thomas)
3. Now, many of you have read or will read these threads. Which candidate do atheists support? I am not endorsing any candidate, but Evangelicals endorsing Huckabee, those supporting Romney, and mainstreamers supporting Mc Cain need to get to the caucuses. Don't have that it can't happen here mentality. Duke took over the party in LA and they just now got his influence moderated.
Dems will be there without urging and any group other than Cindy Sheehan wackos attempting to take over their caucuses will get their butt kicked. So, don't have that it can't happen here mentality.
4. Parents need to monitor what is being taught in public schools. If you don't like it, complain, go to the school board. Secular progressives do.
5. Remember, the other side isn't going to play nice. You don't have to sink to their level, but you have to be persistent and committed, just like they are.
Finally, expect to be called names and maligned.
Keep going, the culture is at stake.
My two cents.
For what I can tell, the whole thing has been totally blown out of proportion by the Right Wing to instigate "outrage" for sympathy and fundraising...
DonWard writes "Secular progressives have the ACLU" - and then goes on to list more than a dozen "Christian legal resources."
If there is "a culture war" as DonWard states, this makes you wonder who's waging it, and for what purposes....
He also states that "the other side (refereing to 'secular progressives') aren't going to play nice."
Play Nice?
In the grand scheme of things, ACLU lawsuits are infinitely 'nicer' than the tactics of religious extremists - from the Spanish Inquisition to the bombing of family planning clinics...
"Culture War?" Where's the champion of the Right in Washington state, Dino Rossi? Don't dare ask him about any right-wing cultural issue - he'll have a press hack give a non-responsive statement claiming that really importatant cultural issues (like access to safe and legal abortion or Plan-B contraception) aren't issues at all.
The so-called "War on Christmas" is a cover for the real culture war that Conservatives don't want to talk about, because they're on the wrong side of what people want - science over faith in the classroom, reproductive freedom in the bedroom, and equal treatment of domestic partnerships in the courtrooms...
"War on Christmas?"
Give me a break!
Posted by: NoSpin on December 25, 2007 10:05 PMOne example of the ACLU playing "nice."
1. ACLU threat drives Scouts out of schools
BSA drops charters with thousands
of public campuses to avoid lawsuits
Posted: March 11, 2005
4:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The Boy Scouts of America is pulling the charters of thousands of scouting units from public schools in an effort to spare them from lawsuits threatened by the American Civil Liberties Union.
In a letter sent to the BSA last month, the ACLU vowed to take legal action against public schools and other taxpayer-funded governmental agencies that charter Scout groups, claiming their sponsorship amounts to religious discrimination and violates the separation of church and state.
The ACLU specifically takes issue with the Scouts' pledge of allegiance to God and country and the organization's prohibition of homosexuals as scout masters...."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43258
I don't have stats for the number of children growing up in single sex, single parent households, but the Boy Scouts is one tool for mentoring and teaching life skills. The litigation continues against the scouts.
2. I agree with you on extremists of any type and that includes tree spikers and eco-terrorists like those who bombed the UW. Heck, someone even put ball bearings in the slut tracks. I advocate people supporting their positions through the courts, political process and good old fashion jawbone persuasion.
3. So, since there is no war on Christmas, do we get Christmas Trees back at the airport?
Posted by: WVH on December 25, 2007 10:19 PMThe ACLU is hardly a beloved organization in America. I am in the vast, vast minority of people in America; I am not a Christian, and I do not believe in God. But I am respectful of those who believe. I do not feel as if, even among fellow agnostics (and atheists), the majority wish to remove all religion from the public square. Now, that considered, it wouldn't even matter if they did, because:
- The American Religious Identification Survey shows that about three-fourths of Americans identify as "Christian."
- Only about 15 percent of Americans identify as non-religious.
- Of those, other estimates show that only about half do not have a belief in a deity.
There may be a culture war brewing. But if your fear is that your religion will be voted out of the public square, or that your religion is more at risk of being governmentally repressed than my non-religion, I just don't see much risk of it. Moreover, I think you cry "war" too easily. You say that any "secular progressive" will attack you, and then point to one Internet exchange for evidence? I'm a respectful, religion-respecting agnostic, and I'll tell you that I've been smeared by more than a few "God warriors," and I still think the vast majority of Christians are decent, well-intentioned people.
Another face of this debate: the Boy Scouts are certainly a sympathetic organization, but they are an overtly theistic religion. But I had a friend who just got his Eagle badge. He is not a Christian, but effectively had to present that facade during his presentation. It is a mandatory part of the program. Some feel that it is thus inappropriate to give them federal funding. But you're pretty much putting this on an emotional parallel with clubbing seals, as if the ACLU was viciously attacking the Boy Scouts because they are a wholesome family organization "for the children."
There is always a war if someone is willing to fight. But giving the extremists credit, elevating them to the level of representation of some sort of force capable of anything other than nuisance court cases, will end up making your case less sympathetic.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 25, 2007 11:11 PMWhat is an "Athetist"?
Posted by: Atheist on December 25, 2007 11:39 PMI have always appreciated your posts, they always are thoughtful.
Now, you said:
"I do not feel as if, even among fellow agnostics (and atheists), the majority wish to remove all religion from the public square. Now, that considered, it wouldn't even matter if they did, because...."
There is a recent poll that 8 out 10 people in America identify with the Christian faith.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/103459/Questions-Answers-About-Americans-Religion.aspx
I don't know of a poll that supports your statement that most atheist/agnotics don't want all religion removed from the public square. Dr. Nadow, the atheist who sued about the pledge and currently is suing about "In God We Trust" certainly wants all relgion removed. So it you have stats, I'm willing to listen.
You said:
"But giving the extremists credit, elevating them to the level of representation of some sort of force capable of anything other than nuisance court cases, will end up making your case less sympathetic."
Benjamin, who do you consider to be extremist?
Personally, I tend to be pragmatic. For example, I am pro life, but I realize that no law will ever prevent a woman who truly wants an abortion from getting one , will prevent that. She has to be persuaded that she has options and that there are options for the child. Ultimately, that is a personal decision the woman will make. I don't care what the party, a pro-life candidate will not win in Seattle and much of King County for the foreseeable future. I consider those of either party who are so focused on litmus test issues for every candidate, to be extreme.
Now, regarding the Boy Scouts, isn't it a purely voluntarily organization? Yes, one has to subscribe to a higher power. If that is a problem for atheists or gays, why not form one's own organization? Shoud the Catholic Church which does not sanction gay marriage be forced in some locales to support gay adoption? I believe that Catholic Charities has gotten out of the adoption business in Mass. That is a real loss because those seeking fewer abortions need adoption as a viable option. Incidentiality, persuading women to choose adoption over abortion is neither a liberal or conservative issue.
In my opinion, the battle lines were drawn before my Christmas post. It began several years ago when it was interpreted that there was a wall between religion and state instead of a wall preventing the establishment of a state church. I do believe that Christians will become more vocal, I certainly plan to be. No worries from me, though. If someone attempts to take away your right not to believe, I'll march with you.
Posted by: WVH on December 25, 2007 11:41 PMI have no idea what an atheist is, why don't you enlighten us. Oh, this freethought.org site which you list as an address is legit. Do you happen to be my cyberstalker and are now just using the e-mail address of a legit atheist organization. Now as the manner to which you address me. No, I don't hate, but I am prepared to fight for my beliefs. Thank you for the Christmas gift of energizing me for the fight, for that, how could I hate you. Look forward to dueling with you.
Posted by: WVH on December 25, 2007 11:47 PMThere is no such thing as a Christmas tree. There never was. There would be holiday trees at the airport if the holy warriors would simply stop trying to enforce a Christian hegemony. Tree decorations in winter were always a pagan tradition, not Christian. When the Christians conquered the pagans through force, as they have many peoples, they took their winter tree decorating as their own.
And anyone who cares for fact will remember it was a believer Jew), NOT AN ATHEIST, who made the stink about the trees at Seatac. But hey, what do facts matter when there are heretics to burn eh?
Posted by: Atheist on December 25, 2007 11:49 PMSorry. I am not going to run away in fear. I have first amendment rights same as you. Get used to it. For goodness sake, if you cannot support your argument simply say so.
Posted by: Atheist on December 25, 2007 11:58 PM"Wikipedia: Destroyer of productivity; love of my life." -- Anon. [Hide this message]
Christmas tree
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Christmas tree A traditional Danish Christmas tree
Taiwanese aboriginals, tutored by Christian missionaries, celebrate with trees (Cunninghamia lanceolata) outside their homes.A Christmas tree, Yule tree or Tannenbaum (German: fir tree) is one of the most popular traditions associated with the celebration of Christmas. It is normally an evergreen coniferous tree that is brought into a home or used in the open, and is decorated with Christmas lights and colorful ornaments during the days around Christmas. An angel or star is often placed at the top of the tree, representing the host of angels or the Star of Bethlehem from the Nativity story...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree
Nice try trying to sow discord among religions. The trees came down because of a bureaucratic decision by Port Officials.
"Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky of Chabad Lubavitch organization in the University District threatened a lawsuit after his request for a menorah display at the airport didn't move forward as quickly as he anticipated.
Bogomilsky said his organization wants to diversify the airport's display, but removing the trees was not its intention.
Chabad Lubavitch provided menorahs for public display in more than 20 locations statewide, including at the Seattle Center."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/295428_trees11.html
We covered this in threads last year. The lame Port Officials should have just added the Menorah. There is one at Westlake and it is no big deal.
First of all his name is Newdow. He is one man. So you judge ALL atheists by one man. I see.
So I guess I get to think all christians are either pedophiles like priests who molest boys, bigots who protest at dead soldier's funerals ala Fred Phelps, or simply crack addicts with gay hookers ala Ted Haggard. Did I miss anyone? Oh yeah Swaggart and Bakker. They are just run of the mill scoundrels I guess.
Boy this generalization thing is fun. How long have you been doing it?
Posted by: Atheist on December 26, 2007 12:03 AMUnlike you, I don't generalize and sterotype and consider all members of a group to act alike. But, then, though imperfect, I'm trying to live up to my faith. Guess being an atheist, you don't have to even try. So, it is OK for you to setrotype and generalize. I suppose the great thing about being an atheist, as far as you know, there are no consequences.
Posted by: WVH on December 26, 2007 12:13 AMThe practice of cutting a tree and decorating it is prohibited:
Jeremiah 10:2-4: "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not." (KJV).
Pagan traditions: Many Pagan cultures used to cut boughs of evergreen trees in December, move them into the home or temple, and decorate them. 7 Modern-day Pagans still do. This was to recognize the winter solstice -- the time of the year that had the shortest daylight hours, and longest night of the year. This occurs annually sometime between DEC-20 to 23. They noticed that the days were gradually getting shorter; many feared that the sun would eventually disappear forever, and everyone would freeze. But, even though deciduous trees, bushes, and crops died or hibernated for the winter, the evergreen trees remained green. They seemed to have magical powers that enabled them to withstand the rigors of winter.
The ancient Pagan Romans decorated their "trees with bits of metal and replicas of their god, Bacchus [a fertility god]. They also placed 12 candles on the tree in honor of their sun god" 2 Their mid-winter festival of Saturnalia started on DEC-17 and often lasted until a few days after the Solstice.
In Northern Europe, the ancient Germanic people tied fruit and attached candles to evergreen tree branches, in honor of their god Woden. Trees were viewed as symbolizing eternal life. This is the deity after which Wednesday was named. The trees joined holly, mistletoe, the wassail bowl and the Yule log as symbols of the season. All predated Christianity.
2. Um, OK bureaucratic officials, urged on by the lawsuit of a believer. I still do not see what any atheist had to do with it.
Posted by: Atheist on December 26, 2007 12:16 AMAtheists don't have a club, church or other meeting place. They range in political opinion from liberal to conservative. Many would not publicly admit being an atheist for fear of retribution from the god warriors. So polling them and drawing any conclusions is problematic at best.
The only thing you can say about all atheists is that the have no diety.
Posted by: Atheist on December 26, 2007 12:24 AMThe Chronological History of the Christmas Tree
St. Boniface Story
hy do we have a decorated Christmas Tree? In the 7th century a monk from Crediton, Devonshire, went to Germany to teach the Word of God. He did many good works there, and spent much time in Thuringia, an area which was to become the cradle of the Christmas Decoration Industry.
Legend has it that he used the triangular shape of the Fir Tree to describe the Holy Trinity of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The converted people began to revere the Fir tree as God's Tree, as they had previously revered the Oak. By the 12th century it was being hung, upside-down, from ceilings at Christmastime in Central Europe, as a symbol of Christianity...."
http://www.christmasarchives.com/trees.html
2. I love it when atheists and people who hate Christians quote scripture.
First, the passage in Jeremiah deals with idols:
De 4:23
Be careful not to forget the covenant of the Lord your God that he made with you; do not make for yourselves an idol in the form of anything the Lord your God has forbidden.
You attempt the trick atheists often do which is to only quote part of Scripture. Here is the passage which gives the context:
3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. 4 They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter. 5 Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good." 6 No one is like you, O Lord; you are great, and your name is mighty in power. 7 Who should not revere you, O King of the nations? This is your due. Among all the wise men of the nations and in all their kingdoms, there is no one like you. 8 They are all senseless and foolish; they are taught by worthless wooden idols.
You omitted the portion which specifically refers to idols which are worshipped like God.
3. It was a bureaucratic decision. Surely, you will concede that bureaucracies in urban areas are at least secular if not atheist.
Posted by: WVH on December 26, 2007 12:38 AMHere's the ACLU press release about it, which includes their letter to the BSA and the BSA's response:
http://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/000259.shtml
You see, public schools that charter Boy Scout troops are required by the BSA to reject atheists, but public schools can't legally do that. The ACLU stopped public schools from violating the civil rights of atheists by preventing them from operating troops that don't allow atheists to join. The BSA wasn't honest enough to do this on their own initiative.
Posted by: Brian Westley on December 26, 2007 12:43 AM
2. The quote stands. It is quite clear.
3. "It was a bureaucratic decision. Surely, you will concede that bureaucracies in urban areas are at least secular if not atheist."
How intellectually lazy. And you stated you do not generalize, yet "there you go again" to quote a famous person.
First of all the lawsuit was threatened by a beleiver. Just because the outcome was totally different from what he (the jew) had intended, it doesn't change that fact.
No atheist had anything to do with it. But it is always easier for lazy thinkers to generalize that to seek the truth. As a small minority, atheists make great whipping posts because, like powerless blacks in the 60's, they cannot fight back.
Well i have the facts on my side and no atheist had ANYTHING to do with the removal of the trees from Sea Tac. Please stop this slander on an entire group of people.
You were there, I wasn't. A couple of issues, the oath about God. Now, if atheists don't want to affirm, swear, whatever. Why not form atheist groups?
It it not only the use of schools, but any government resource that is being attacked. So, does any religious group have the right to use a public facility? If you want to form an atheist boy scout group with gay leaders as an option and use public facilities, I see no problem with that. Do you?
I'm turning into a pumpkin. No doubt we'll be kicking this issue around the next few years.
Posted by: WVH on December 26, 2007 12:55 AMOr do you mean to say that all Christians are honest because there are perceived consequences? Again I can provide the counterexamples galore (Haggard, Swaggart, Bakker et al)
So we have established you are a bigot when it comes to atheists.
Posted by: Atheist on December 26, 2007 01:01 AMYou don't have any facts on your side.
1. Christmas trees are associated with Christmas.
2. You had the context of the passage wrong and in any religion, context is everything. I love it when Christian haters cherry pick passages. Read the entire Scripture in context.
3. Neither of us can say definitely that an atheist was or wasn't involved in the bureaucratic decision. You said this:
"Many would not publicly admit being an atheist for fear of retribution from the god warriors. So polling them and drawing any conclusions is problematic at best."
Even if the person who made the decision were an atheist, they wouldn't admit it. After all, they could lie, there are no consequences.
Wrong. The ACLU stopped schools from RUNNING boy scout packs and troops. If you had bothered to read the ACLU's press release, you would have read where the ACLU states that packs and troops can use school facilities on the same basis as any other outside organization.
You've completely failed to grasp the distinction.
Posted by: Brian Westley on December 26, 2007 01:02 AMYour link didn't work. This is what I read:
Your search - http://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/000259.shtml - did not match any documents.
"Partial Settlement Means that U.S. Officials No Longer will Discriminate Based on Religion as Part of their Official Duties
November 15, 2004
CHICAGO - The Department of Defense has agreed to cease direct sponsorship of hundreds of Boy Scout units on military facilities across the United States and overseas in a negotiated settlement agreement submitted to a federal court in Chicago today. The settlement resolves an important part of a broader lawsuit brought in 1999 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.
Previously, Department of Defense (DOD) units held charters to lead hundreds of Boy Scout Troops and Cub Scout Packs. Government employees who led those DOD-sponsored troops and packs were required to abide by two rules related to religion promulgated by the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). The first rule from the BSA necessitated that government employees exclude any youth from membership in the Boy Scouts or Cub Scouts simply because they do not believe in God. Additionally, the BSA obliges troop and pack leaders to compel youth to swear an oath of duty to God. By holding charters to operate Boy Scout Troops and Cub Scout Packs, DOD employees acting in their official capacities administered a religious oath and practiced religious discrimination. The ACLU of Illinois alleged in this litigation that such direct government sponsorship of BSA units violates the religious liberty of youth who wish to participate but do not want to express a belief ...."
http://www.aclu-il.org/news/press/000220.shtml
We will be getting into an argument about use of any school funds for any type of even tangigential purpose and it is just too late.
Sorry hon, the facts do not support you. We are not talking an issue of faith here, we are talking hard cold concrete facts. As one who tends to take things on faith without facts on your side I am not surprised you find it difficult to understand that "predates Christianity" means before the mythical Christ creature was even said to have been born.
1. "Even if the person who made the decision were an atheist, they wouldn't admit it. After all, they could lie, there are no consequences."
The burden of proof is on you. You cannot simply generalize. Specifically tell us who was the atheist. In fact, given the mathematic of the situation and the origin of the lawsuit, the decision maker was probably a believer. But then YOU are making the assertion it was an atheist. Defend your thesis professor! Is that how you defend you PhD, by making a gross generalization without any facts to back it up???
What we can definitely say is the lawsuit was brought by a believer. And had the lawsuit not been brought about, the trees would still be there.
I am a bigot when it comes to atheists. Pray for me.
Good Night.
Posted by: WVH on December 26, 2007 01:12 AMWould jesus be proud you are bigoted towards atheists?
Posted by: Atheist on December 26, 2007 01:16 AMDon't you read your own posts:
"There is no such thing as a Christmas tree. There never was" This is your statement. I responded to that.
No dude, had the Port responded with a amount of common sense, the Christmas trees would still be there. I posted the legal resources above so that people would use them. Your side does. I never had a problem with the Rabbi, who made a request which was ignored. He excercised his rights. You atheists do that all the time, don't you.
Since you people hide in bushes we will never know who made the decision. That is the fact.
Now Good Night.
Uh, it's a URL. You don't SEARCH for it, you use that as the URL. If you do that, you can read the ACLU's press release.
The BSA is a dishonest organization; the ACLU was needed to stop public schools from discriminating against atheists.
Posted by: Brian Westley on December 26, 2007 01:27 AMGo ahead a and file a lawsuit against the port if you wish. I doubt you will follow through though. Your kind usually is more bluster than action.
No atheist had anything to do with the removal of the trees from Sea Tac. It was a believer that started the whole thing. Those are the facts. We can name the believer who filed the suit. That is a fact. Had the suit not been filed, the holidy trees would still be on display. That is a fact.
Who has filed an anti-Christmas lawsuit. Please cite a case with links please.
Do you beleive in the god Woden? Then I guess you had better stay home on Wednesdays without pay.
Posted by: Atheist on December 26, 2007 01:47 AMAll Hail Foamy!
Oh, and a belated MERRY CHRISTMAS to everyone! ;-)
Posted by: Stewart_Street on December 26, 2007 02:19 AMYou argue like a greased eel. Not quoting Scripture in context. When a response is given to a statement, then saying that the response is insufficient.
You said this at post #33:
"Go ahead a and file a lawsuit against the port if you wish. I doubt you will follow through though. Your kind usually is more bluster than action."
In the posts written by me is there any where I said I had any intention of filing a lawsuit. Nice try. I listed resources for people who have to deal with greased eels like you.
You said; "Your kind usually is more bluster than action."
Your kind is usually more greased eel and weasel and misstates, fabricates, and uses every devious trick in the book to misslead others. Since you are such a student of the Bible, here is a link which discusses the Temptation of Christ in the desert. One of the tricks of satan was to missquote Scripture by leaving out just enough to change the context of the passage.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1060
Like I said, you can misquote, fabricate, and attack with impunity as you feel that there are no consequences. I suppose there will be plenty of greased eel bluster from you. That follow your leader thing, I suppose. I have a busy day.
Posted by: WVH on December 26, 2007 07:17 AMAtheist argues like a greased eel. It doesn't matter the reponse. The newpaper link which I posted above reports that reports the facts of the case. I don't have sufficient info about Atheist to know his associations other than the @freethought.org is a legitimate atheist group based in Penn. Now, whether he worships satan, don't know because atheism covers a wide spectrum from rational people like Benjamin to devil worshippers. Where atheist falls, hard to tell.
I do know that the greased eel line of argument is:
1. Ask for a definition
2. Say the reponse is insufficinet
3. Attack the responder
4. Misstate or misqote a key passage or relevant piece of information.
5. Claim that there is no fact to support any other position other than their own.
One thing that Atheist's particular brand of argument would love to do is to get people of faith accusing each other. Isn't satan known as the accuser of the brehren? I do not blame the Rabbi. I blame the lack of common sense at the Port.
There are no consequences for these folks, so they think, so anything goes for them.
Interesting that the team had to bring some one in for this assignment.
Posted by: WVH on December 26, 2007 07:32 AMThank you for your kind words. It goes without saying that I've always enjoyed yours too, and appreciate that you often go into "hostile territory." Since this debate has moved on and I honestly don't have time to read it in its entirety, I'm just going to respond to your initial points. I'm sorry if this ends up as redundant or irrelevant.
I don't know of a poll that supports your statement that most atheist/agnotics don't want all religion removed from the public square.
I do not. But, conversely, I do not have polling to suggest the majority of Christians do not want to turn this country into a theocracy. Nor do I have polling to suggest that the majority of blacks don't wish to rise up and keep down the white population. Such a poll would present innumerable troubles. Even among people with extremist sympathies (there will always be people who wouldn't mind their positions being enforced by the government, casually or otherwise), how many of them are going to tell this to a pollster? How do you phrase the question?
But finding no evidence, polling or anecdotal, that the majority of the non-religious desire to enforce non-religion by force, I will assume that most don't. And, again, even if they were to...good luck in a 3:1 Christian nation.
Benjamin, who do you consider to be extremist?
I was using "extremist" axiomatically to mean person of x belief who wants to enforce x belief as the de facto governmental policy, without regard to any persecution this causes to those of y belief.
As for your final point - yes, the Boy Scouts are a voluntary organization. So is the Catholic Church So is the non-existent theoretical-only Federation of Christian-Persecuting Atheists (are there many non-voluntary organizations?). The ACLU's objection is that government funding can effectively be construed as an endorsement of the underlying religious cause. If the United States government were devoting my tax dollars to a church I not only may disagree with, but may find the teachings of harmful or immoral, I would be displeased. In their math, money to theistic organization = money for theistic organization to spread theistic message = endorsement of theism.
The Boy Scouts are a religious organization. They are not a highly proselytic organization, but they are theistic. Some see tax dollars going to such an organization as inherently inappropriate. I imagine that, if an overtly atheistic organization of similar "proselytory" value existed, many Christians would be up in arms as the ACLU is, here. Which is why I believe that it essentially comes down to a basic human tendency to gloss over inappropriate support of things we agree with, and express outrage at inappropriate support of things we oppose. It's definitely unfortunate. But, in a country that is 75-80 percent Christian, that's not really a fight I think the atheists, or even non-Christians, are at any risk of winning.
In any case, please pardon me for forgetting the most important part of my first post: Merry Christmas. :)
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 26, 2007 10:12 AMHey let's talk about the ACLU and NMLBA.
You know that group who really loves boys.
And YEP who jumped right into to support them. The ACLU.
Also, I have a plan of getting people of faith to the caucuses which I will describe this evening when I get home. It is called "Bring Five"
For those of you involved in prayer groups, you need to talk with prayer group members. I will post the addresses of both the dem and republican parties and I will describe the "Bring Five" plan for the caucuses. More later.
Posted by: WVH on December 26, 2007 11:07 AMGreat! Just as a forewarning, I may be on unreliable internet through the beginning of January. Consequently I may lose connection tonight and forget I'm involved in this discussion. If I do, don't feel badly about badgering me elsewhere. I want to give you the deserved reply. And either way, no rush. I'm not the sort to take no reply as an opportunity to gloat or claim victory.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 26, 2007 02:52 PMThank you for your kind wishes. I wish you the best NEW YEAR'S possible and a wonderful 2008.
I suppose the best way to respond is that the conservative legal position interprets the Establishment Clause and Separtion of Church and State very differently than the ACLU. Here is a link to a paper by Jay Sekulow which explains some of the differences:
Protecting Your Constitutional Freedoms as Church/State Challenges Continue - by Jay Sekulow
by Jay Sekulow
October 27, 2004
"The separation of church and state" - it's a phrase that triggers emotion in both the court of public opinion and in courtrooms across America. The phrase has become the mantra of organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Too often, the phrase is being used as a legal strategy to silence Christians, remove references of religion or God from our culture, and to prevent churches and pastors from exercising their constitutional rights...."
http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=775
I recommend going to the ACLJ site as Jay has argued many cases before the US Supreme Court:
American Center for Law and Justice
Website: http://www.aclj.org
The clashes are the result of fundamental differences in interpretation of those provisions.
I'm thankful for the efforts of Mr. Sekulow and company. I can't objectively and quantifiably prove that the ACLU has an "anti-religious bias" in the cases they take, but based on my limited knowledge, I assume they do. So it's good a counterpart exists in the ACLJ. I think that ending activist judicial organizations is a pipe dream. Better we have a balance, and a discourse, and an opposition.
But, respectfully, I was aware of this interpretation, and it doesn't have much bearing on my case. The ACLU may have an anti-Christian bias. But does that elevate it to the status of being a threat to the practice of the Christian religion in the public square? No more, in my eyes, than the ACLJ constitutes a move to institute Christianity as the de facto religion of the public square. If one can see a slippery slope from "no public funding of theistic things" to "no theistic things in the public square," one can see a slippery slope from "public funding of theistic things" to the government funneling money into programs that effectively encourage religious indoctrination. Especially when there is more historical precedence for that happening, and the non-religious constitute maybe a fifth of the population.
That having been said, I wish elements of that one-fifth would be more respectful, especially to. I wish elements of the four-fifths would be more respectful, too. More than anything, I wish the five-fifths would realize it's five-fifths, whether it likes it or not, and that there are matters too urgent to be ignored as the human race fractionates itself into oblivion.
A good resolution for next Tuesday for us all, maybe...
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 26, 2007 10:20 PMIt occurred to me that faith-based voters have more similarities than differences. There are differences in right-to-life issues such as abortion and assisted suicide. There is more agreement than not in issues like a good basic education for all children, support for families, a viable economy that creates jobs, and a tax system that does not penalize marriage.
Even on the abortion issue, many people from all sides can support adoption and support for the mother if she chooses to carry the child to term.
I decided to focus on what we have in common and urge all voters of faith to go to their caucues and participate. If you can, host a caucus. I thought a good name for this grassroots effort is "Bring Five." We are born with five fingers, individually, they don't do much, but as a hand they can work to build things.
1. This is the primary and caucus chart from Vote Smart. Part of the strategy of "Bring Five" is to not only attend your local caucus, but to urge relatives, faith communities, and associates in other states to participate in their caucus or primary.
http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_state_primary_dates.php
Our caucus date is listed as 2/19/2008
If you have family or friends in other states, you need to check the list for their dates.
3. These are the party sites.
a. The dems have a caucus cycle:
http://www.wa-democrats.org/
b. The republicans site:
http://www.wsrp.org/
Let the Spirit lead you to where you need to go.
c. Caucuses are open to all whether of that party or not. If you are a values voter, you should go to the caucus and:
i. Be prepared - do your homework on issues important to you;
ii. Be polite, no one wants reports of religious lunatics overrunning the proceedings; and
iii. Be persistent. If you have time to be a delegate, then by all means, run for the spot.
4. Here is how "Bring Five" works. It is quite similar to a chain letter.
Locally
a. contact your individual e-mail, card,
or mailing list. Let them know about the caucuses, tell them what issues are important for you. Get at least five of them to committ to going to a caucus, give them your issue sheet.
b. Contact your faith community and find out what, if any, voter education they are doing. Urge them to inform their community about the caucuses. If they are worried about IRS implications, see legal resources above or contact Focus on the Family, they have a non-charitable political arm. Get five people or more from your faith community to attend caucuses.
c. Individual spiritual groups like Bible study, prayer groups or other spiritual associations. Prayer is always good, see if you can get five members to attend.
Nationally
a. Many of you came from other parts of the country. Contact family and friends to attend their caucuses or go to their primaries. Check dates above. Let them know your issues. Get at least five to committ to going to their caucuses or primaries.
b. Many spiritual communities have associations in other states. Get at least five communities to inform their attendees that they should become involved in voter education.
c. Many of you are on the boards or in leadership of national associations, get at least five of those associations or their political arms, if charitable, to become involved.
If each one of us "Brings Five" the issues we can agree upon will move to the forefront.
You said:
"The ACLU may have an anti-Christian bias. But does that elevate it to the status of being a threat to the practice of the Christian religion in the public square? "
There is a diference as lusting in one's heart as Jimmy Carter famously said in a Playboy interview and adultery. Having bias is one thing, acting on it is another. The ACLU reminds me in many ways of the NRA. Do we really need a surface-to-air missle mounted on a tank to kill Bambi's mother?
I guess some folks are incapble of compromise of any time, so they take a very hard line on every issue. In my opinion, that is the case with both the ACLU and NRA.
You said in the very first post of me:
"Expect attacks."
Then in post #38:
"You argue like a greased eel. "
You argue like third grader, always changing the subject when the facts don't support you.
The fact remains, a BELIEVER filed the suit. And you have NO proof any atheist at the port had anything to do with their response. Instead you throw out lies to burn the heretics.
You are a self admitted bigot as you said so in post #28:
"I am a bigot when it comes to atheists. "
Are those your words???? Will you lie once more?? Will you blame those words on an atheist too???
It really is no wonder the GOP cannot win dog catcher in this state. The truth of the matter is that Washingtonians want NOTHING to do with Jesus Freaks like you WVH.
It is so funny watching you come here day after day taunting the GOP on how they are going to lose the election in this state when nuts like YOU are the very reason they are losing.
Keep spewing. Let me give you a microphone! You are the anchor that sinks the SS GOP. ROFL!
Once we take over the caucus of the GOP, if we can win the election, we can install our theocracy and force the nonbeleivers to worship or face the inquisition! Once the nation is ours, we shall invade Muslims lands to convert them (damn! Bush has beat us to it).
Onward Christian soldiers!
Posted by: ChristianWarrior on December 27, 2007 01:47 AMI was hoping that you would show up again. If you can read, I simply said get thee to a caucus as the Spirit moves one. All I can say is that the Spirit will move in, around, and through the process. I have no idea what the ultimate final outcome of the process is. I only know that our side wins. Since you will have eternity to ponder your fate, here is a Scripture to mediate upon:
Genesis 3
3:15
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
The Douay-Rheims Bible
Again, MERRY CHRISTMAS and JRSUS IS LORD.
"Again, MERRY CHRISTMAS and JRSUS IS LORD."
Who is JRSUS? Is that the cousin of Dr. Seuss?
Posted by: Atheist on December 27, 2007 02:09 AMYou are neither Christian nor a warrior, simply some one who is scared of an opinion that is different than the PC garbage you hold dear. The caucuses are an open political process designed to encourage grass roots participation. I assume that you have no problem with the Cindy Sheehan types participating? I thought that democracy and open participation was good, right? So, whether one is Christian, whatever or atheist, one has the right to be there.
Posted by: WVH on December 27, 2007 02:09 AMThose leftists like Sheehan should be jailed. Obviously they are part of satan's plan and as such as expendable.
Only true patriots of faith should be allowed to be called citizens. Jail the rest until they repent! Let them spend long days toiling in the fields for they are not worthy even to breath the same air as we the warriors of Christ.
Posted by: ChristianWarrior on December 27, 2007 02:14 AMSince you know Scripture. God uses imperfect vessels. Moses had a stutter, Jonah ran from the task. I am an ordinary person, not perfect ulike the people who consider themselves to be gods, like you. I simply can't type. Oh well. Since you will have eternity to ponder the Scripture, let's leave it at that. Best wishes on your fate.
Posted by: WVH on December 27, 2007 02:15 AMYou are simply a sideside to the conversation. Either you are drunk, an idiot, or both. The message was delivered to atheist. Good Night.
Posted by: WVH on December 27, 2007 02:18 AM"Since you know Scripture. God uses imperfect vessels. Moses had a stutter, Jonah ran from the task. I am an ordinary person, not perfect ulike the people who consider themselves to be gods, like you. I simply can't type. Oh well. Since you will have eternity to ponder the Scripture, let's leave it at that. Best wishes on your fate."
Wow. Besides the fact that for someone who claims to have a PhD, you can't construct a sentence, you also have no idea what the word atheist actually means.
"Since you know Scripture." is a sentence fragment.
And saying an atheist considers themself to be god is about as big a non sequitur as one could possibly think up.
Only when the faithful gather together and in one mighty mass shall we bring this nation to its true moral glory in the righteousness of Christ our Lord. AMEN! Praise Jesus!
Onward Christian Soldiers! Today America, tomorrow the holy land!
Posted by: ChristianWarrior on December 27, 2007 02:30 AM
What is a "sideside"? You are making up words again. And you accuse the other guy of being drunk!
I stayed up really late for me. I am not perfect unlike you. Oh, see you at the caucuses and primaries. I pretty well have the gist of your hate message. I have work to do organizing. Why do you need to hide behind a phony e-mail address?
I suppose like the KKK with their sheets, Aryan Nations, and Nazis your brand of atheism withers when exposed to light.
I forgot to ask. Since you use a phony e-mail address and we don't know where in the world you are. In case you come to the caucuses here, would you be the one in a white sheet surrounded by Nazis literature holding a Ron Paul sign?
Posted by: WVH on December 27, 2007 08:32 AMYou've lost me a little. The ACLU does have some sort of bias, which is inevitable. Is your objection that the bias is overt, and they claim to be a "catch-all" civil rights defense organization? They have taken on cases of the religious, too, and taken rightist causes, although certainly more rarely. But you consider the ACLJ acceptable, because they express their overt pro-Christian bias and operate under those parameters? You would accept the ACLU if it were to express honestly any leanings they have in cases they undertake? I'm not challenging your dichotomy; I'm just trying to understand it.
In any case, I hope it's clear that the ACLU's bias (something that I couldn't even disagree with if I wanted to, because I'm not well-read on it) was not the central point of the posts I was making. It was a little more wide than that... :)
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 27, 2007 10:36 AMI suppose that it is a matter of semantics. The ACLU has taken a few cases in support of religious rights, but, in my opinion, the thrust of their legal advocacy is to eliminate ALL religion from the public square. I never had a issue with the Rabbi's request to display the Menorah or a Muslim request to display, I believe, the Crescent. As far as I can determine the ACLJ does not advocate the elimination of your right to be an atheist or agnostic or WICCAN, for that matter. In my opinion, because they do not view the doctine of Separation of State as an absolute wall, they advocate for the right to have religious expression.
There is also the issue of values. The ACLU promotes secular values. The ACLJ promotes conservative values that are firmly grounded in religion.
There is a clash of two world views, the secular and the faith-based.
Posted by: WVH on December 27, 2007 09:12 PMI suppose I'll just have to leave it at saying that I find the argument that the ACLU is attempting to remove all religion unconvincing. They have taken pro-religious cases. I suppose one could construe that as being an attempt to obfuscate their true intentions, but confronted with the evidence that:
1. The ACLU doesn't have sufficient power to even near removing all religion from the public square
2. The ACLU seems to take cases that conflict with that goal
3. And even if the ACLU succeeded in all of its cases, they would not be advancing this central goal of exterminating public religion
...I can myself only conclude that, logically, this is probably not their goal, or at least one so subtle that they stand little chance of ever realizing it.
In any case, I do not believe the ACLU has ever challenged a right to religious expression not related to government funding of that religious expression (and, by their interpretation, a "light endorsement" of that religion). I may be wrong. Feel free to correct me if I am. But if not, it simply seems to me that this "clash of two world views" comes down to a clash between two judicial-political views, one more favorable to secularism and one that allows for some governmental funding of theistic entities, with some unspecified limit (I'd hope it's limited, at least).
But back to my central issue. I do not see that as an eminent risk to the expression of "religious orientation" in this nation, and I don't see even much of a long-term risk of this. As such, I hope that this is not a "war" yet, but rather a conflict. This is only semantic until you consider the distinction between a philosophical and epistemological disagreement in the courts and a "culture war."
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 27, 2007 09:43 PMWhen tired, everyone makes mistakes. The ACLU has a body of work which is subject to interpretation. I read the tea leaves one way, you don't. That is part of the disagreement on this issue. I simply do not view them as beign on the issue of religion and values probably because I don't support their secular agenda. Reasonable minds disagree.
Posted by: WVH on December 27, 2007 09:52 PM