REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Round 3: 'Tolerance' on American Universities???

POSTED BY: CARTOON
UPDATED: Friday, December 15, 2006 22:38
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4023
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 5:08 AM

CARTOON


As Round 2 was also getting a bit long, I took the liberty of following Soup's previous move, and continuing the thread here.

This thread originated at http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25454, and was subsequently continued to http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25599.

I heard the following by Mark Earley on "Breakpoint" commentary just a few hours ago. It's something else to chew on, related to this discussion...

Quote:
Founded in 1693, the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia (my alma mater) is the second-oldest college in the United States after Harvard. Like Harvard, William and Mary was founded for explicitly Christian purposes: The Royal Charter listed the training of “ministers of the gospel” and the propagation of the Christian faith among the “western Indians” among the school’s founding purposes.

Not surprisingly, given the school’s history, one of the oldest buildings on campus is the chapel, designed by Sir Christopher Wren who also designed St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. On the altar stood a gold cross that was donated to the school by the nearby historic Bruton Parish church in the 1930s.

I say “stood” because in October, William and Mary President Gene R. Nichol ordered that the cross be removed from the altar. His goal was to “make the Wren Chapel less of a faith-specific” place and to “make it more welcoming” to people of “all faiths.”

As you probably guessed, Nichol could not cite a specific instance of non-Christians being made to feel unwelcome by the presence of the cross.

Not surprisingly, the decision did not go over very well with William and Mary alumni and students. One alumnus wrote Nichol asking whether William and Mary students are “so fragile that the mere symbol of a religion, which they may or may not agree with, should reduce them to [a] pool of blubbering Jell-O?”

Even worse, from the school’s point of view, were the words of an alumna who has been “very generous to the college since [she] graduated.” She pledged not to “donate another penny to the school until the cross is returned to the altar” and to encourage other donors to do the same.

After the intense reaction, which included editorials in leading Virginia newspapers criticizing the move, Nichol offered another rationale: that the cross was not part of the original design of the chapel, and removing it is in keeping with the restoration of the Wren Chapel. This is my favorite, really.

This concern for William and Mary’s history here is, at best, selective. The concern for the “original” William and Mary is limited simply to architecture: the Wren Chapel being restored to its original design. But if returning to originality were really the main concern, then there would be a discussion going on about returning William and Mary to its original mission of training ministers of the Gospel and propagating the Christian faith. That discussion is not occurring.

While a subsequent compromise will allow the cross to be displayed during Christian events, the fear of offending someone still prevailed. This “fear” is also why Christian programs like the InnerChange Freedom Initiative® launched by Prison Fellowship are under attack by people who think that unwanted exposure to religion will irreparably damage people.

Understanding this fear still leaves us with the question of how do we respond in a culture that is increasingly less welcoming to our faith? For both the Christian students at William and Mary and for you and me, the answer is to be “Christ-bearers,” ourselves—living crosses.

The above transcript was taken taken from: http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5878

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 6:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Bump

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 7:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think this is simply another reflection of what I said before: Xtians are so accustomed to being the unquestioned norm that they view ANY limitation on religious expression as "intolerance". My gut response is: Suck it up and deal with it. As an atheist, I am such a reviled minority that I can say for certainty that you have no idea what it feels like to be excluded.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 7:58 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
I heard the following by Mark Earley on "Breakpoint" commentary just a few hours ago. It's something else to chew on, related to this discussion...
Quote:

...

While a subsequent compromise will allow the cross to be displayed during Christian events, the fear of offending someone still prevailed. ...


Thanks for the new thread, cartoon.

I'm highlighting the above sentence from the commentary because it is wrong. The electronic paper trail has been preserved quite well by savethewrencross.org . Here's the notification e-mail that went out:
Quote:
from http://www.savethewrencross.org/melissasemail.php
Dear Spotswoods,

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.

Students and groups wishing to have the cross temporarily returned to the space--for special events, worship services, private prayer, etc.--may request it while they are in the room. Please direct all requests to either Louise or me, and we will be happy to return the
cross for the time allotted.

If you encounter questions, concerns, or resistance to this change, please direct the person/group with the inquiry to us. If we are not in our office, a stack of our business cards are in the InformationCenter. Offer a card and inform the person they are welcome to contact us with their concerns.

Please continue to interpret the room as the Wren Chapel. Is has always been the Chapel and will continue to be the Chapel even without the cross on the altar. Inform visitors (as you always do) that the College was once affiliated with the Anglican Church, and while it is now a public university, the Wren Chapel continues to be used as a nondenominational chapel. Weddings, memorial services, and student-led prayer services are held here, as well as initiations and their student activities. For those interested in hearing the antique organ, an organ recital is scheduled for every Saturday morning at 10:00 am.

Thank you, and my best to you all for a warm, safe, and happy homecoming

Here's a confirmation e-mail from Nichol:
Quote:
from http://www.savethewrencross.org/nicholsemail.php
Questions have lately been raised about the use of the Wren Chapel and the cross that is sometimes displayed there.

Let me be clear. I have not banished the cross from the Wren Chapel. The Chapel, as you know, is used for religious ceremonies by members of all faiths. The cross will remain in the Chapel and be displayed on the altar at appropriate religious services.

But the Chapel is also used frequently for College events that are secular in nature--and should be open to students and staff of all beliefs. Whether celebrating our happiest moments, marking our greatest achievements, or finding solace during our most profound sadness, our Chapel, like our entire campus, must be welcoming to all.

I believe a recognition of the full dignity of each member of our diverse community is vital. For this reason, and because the Chapel is surpassing important in William and Mary's history and in the life of our campus, I welcome a broader College discussion of how the ancient Chapel can reflect our best values.

So it sounds like the decision was made to change the cross' status from "always there" to "there if you want it to be there."

In other words, here is the message from those who want the cross brought back permanently, "It's important for all groups who use the chapel for organized worship to continue to display a Protestant cross during their service. That way you can continually be reminded of the true faith and hopefully repent the error of your ways."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 9:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


dbl

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 9:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


One other point on "intolerance": My tax dollars are supporting faith-based initiatives.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 11:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


In addition to Soup's discovery that the policy of W&M was misrepresented in the posted article, there is one other point that needs to be made: While W&M was originally a Xtian university, it became a public university in 1906. That means it is state funded. Finding an "instance" of a person who feels unwelcome by the presence of a Protestant cross IMHO is a prolly moot point. Likely the state has something in it's own constitution about separation of church and state. The alumni are psuedo-Xtians throwing their considerable financial weight behind a lop-sided relgious display.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 12:13 PM

CARTOON


Soup,

As much as I respect your opinions, I think you're off target on this one. The passages you quoted to confirm that Earley's statement was incorrect, actually confirmed Earley's statement.

Earley said, "While a subsequent compromise will allow the cross to be displayed during Christian events, the fear of offending someone still prevailed."

The info you found, stated: "Students and groups wishing to have the cross temporarily returned to the space--for special events, worship services, private prayer, etc.--may request it while they are in the room."

Also: "The cross will remain in the Chapel and be displayed on the altar at appropriate religious services."

Earley: "displayed during Christian events". Your info: "returned...for special events, worship services, private prayer," as well as "displayed on the altar at approp. religious services."

They say the same thing. How is Earley incorrect in his assessment?

Regarding the second point, Earley said: "the fear of offending someone still prevailed..."

Your info stated: "...our Chapel, like our entire campus, must be welcoming to all."

Again, they are saying the same thing.

Your info also omits the fact that the cross was not returned until after certain alumni from the university made a big stink about it's removal, and Nichol had to quickly cover his tracks.

Personally, I could care less about objects which are supposed to typify something related to the Christian faith. As Jesus said, we are to worship Him in "truth and in spirit". Where we worship, and the objects which adorn the place of worship have no bearing on worship.

What bothers me about this is the same thing which bothered me about the initial article quoted for this thread. That this is now the "norm" -- to try to please everyone else at the expense of Christians.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Likely the state has something in it's own constitution about separation of church and state.

I'm not familiar with the Virginia state constitution, but the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as I stated previously -- and seem to have to keep repeating myself) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Putting up a cross is not "Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion." How anyone can interpret it to mean such is clearly beyond reason.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My gut response is: Suck it up and deal with it. As an atheist, I am such a reviled minority that I can say for certainty that you have no idea what it feels like to be excluded.

Minority status is relative. You're certainly not the minority in this forum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 12:49 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
What bothers me about this is the same thing which bothered me about the initial article quoted for this thread. That this is now the "norm" -- to try to please everyone else at the expense of Christians.
This is typical of Xtian blind-sidedness. I would say that you had a point if there were a minorah and star of David; a crescent moon and five-pointed star; statues of Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu; an altar to the ancestors (complete with incense sticks); a totem pole; other religious symbols; and a cross and ONLY the cross was removed. But that's not the case. There was ONLY the cross, the represetation of a sole religion. Now it's being treated like all other religious symbols. And this, apparently, is what Xtians can't abide. In fact, it still gets special preference because I doubt the university has other religious symbols in it's store-rooms, ready to be dragged out for other religious observances.
Quote:
I'm not familiar with the Virginia state constitution, but the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as I stated previously -- and seem to have to keep repeating myself) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Putting up a cross is not "Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion." How anyone can interpret it to mean such is clearly beyond reason.
The point is that the university, being state funded, must follow the state constitution.

AFA begin a minority- I think you and I are about the same standard deviations away from the norm, you as a fundamentalist Xtian and me as a firmly practicing skeptic. Because altho not many people agree with YOU, most of the ppl on this board are religious in one way or another. Me- not so much.

----------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 1:35 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
They say the same thing. How is Earley incorrect in his assessment?

Simple. The e-mail I quoted is the start of the controversy.

In other words, the policy outlined in that e-mail (the cross has been removed and the cross will be brought out if you want it) is the policy that people had a problem with. It's not a subsequent compromise.

The old policy (the one the protesters want to return to) was that the cross was present unless a group requested it to be taken down for an event. The new policy (the one the protesters are protesting) is that the cross is absent unless a group requests it to be brought out for an event.

Now reread Earley. Do you see the mischaracterization?

* edit to add some parenthetical stuff

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 2:16 PM

CARTOON


Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
They say the same thing. How is Earley incorrect in his assessment?

Simple. The e-mail I quoted is the start of the controversy.

Yes, if that was the start (and from my own research into the subject, it would appear that it was -- assuming there wasn't more to Nichol's remarks, subsequent to this), then Earley is incorrect in his use of the term "subsequent compromise".

However, this is still a case of political correctness run amok, and only one of many such examples where institutions are going out of their way to remove anything even remotely associated with the Christian faith. (Even though, as I stated previously, I could care less about the removal of "objects" -- it's the hostility directed toward Christianity which disturbs me about the whole thing.)

And, contrary to otherwise held beliefs, erecting (or maintaining an already erected) object which symbolizes a tenent of the Christian faith (even if it is the only faith represented) is not, under any circumstances, "Congress making a law respecting the establishment of a religion."

The same people who wrote the U.S. Constitution also offered Christian prayers at government functions, and chose to take the oath of office on a Christian Bible. Certainly, if such actions were to be construed (as apparently they are by some oversensitive folks these days) as "Congress making a law respecting the establishment of a religion", they would never have done so.

After all, Washington swore on a Bible and said many "Christian" prayers in public speeches before most, if not all, of the very people who wrote the Constitution --- none of whom (at least to my knowledge) ever seemed to accuse him of "establishing a religion".

Again, for those who have trouble understanding what a government-established religion really looks like, check out Iran and Saudi Arabia (just to name a few).

Further information I've found on this William & Mary cross-removal controversary can be found here...

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/
RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149191783641

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTk3Njc2MWM5OWNjZmY3MmNjYzUzMGJiN
jZlZWFiY2E=

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 3:21 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Yes, if that was the start (and from my own research into the subject, it would appear that it was -- assuming there wasn't more to Nichol's remarks, subsequent to this), then Earley is incorrect in his use of the term "subsequent compromise".

And, if Earley is incorrect in the use of the term "subsequent compromise," then a lot of the ooomph in the piece goes out the window.

Here's what I got out of Earley's commentary: "They permanently removed a cross. From a chapel. On a formerly Anglican campus. Why do they hate Christianity? But Christians fought back. And now, because the President is a money hungry man of no moral character, he caved and at least the cross will be available some times."

Here's what I got from the savethewrencross.org timeline: "Before, the cross was there unless someone asked for it to be temporarily removed. At least the heathens had to wait and be reminded that, while the chapel is for all students, the default are Protestants. Now, we're the ones who have to be inconvenienced by waiting around for the cross to be brought out of storage. Oh, the inhumanity."

I have a simple solution. They use a cross hologram that can be turned off and on via a switch. The default position is off, but you can have your cross at the flick of a finger.

I'm reminded of a conversation I had with my boss about organ donation. He remarked that in some parts of Europe the default is yes (if you don't do anything, your organs will be donated upon your death). In California, the default is no. And the results are unsurprising. Even though signifying you are a donor is a simple process the vast majority of Californians don't.

At the chapel, the old default was Protestant. Now the default is everyone. See how it pisses people off when they don't get the preferential treatment they are accustomed to?

* edited to add: In doing a quick search to make sure my boss wasn't completely off base I stumbled upon the following phrase, "policymakers need to be aware of the implicit messages conveyed by their choice of default." ( http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/soc/policydefaults06.asp ). Now, although this was sorta from a different domain, I think this really gets at the heart of what's going on at William and Mary. When you are used to implicit organizational support for your beliefs and that support is removed you are going to feel like you are being discriminated against. Nobody likes to give up privilege, especially privilege they never realized they were benefitting from until it was taken away.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 3:58 PM

RAZZA


Just to put my two cents worth into the discussion, I think the whole "political correctness" movement is a sad commentary on our current culture. It is a sympton of a much greater problem in my view. We have become a society overly sensative to the slightest irritation. What ever happened to the "sticks and stones" philosophy? Everyone seems to be walking around looking for a reason to be offended. I see it everyday working with the public, unfortunately. "Political Correctness" is the result of this "what can I find to offend me today" mentality. What is even more disturbing is that no one seems immune from this pervasive habit. Christians, Liberals, Conservatives, Athiests, you name it.

They removed a cross from permanent display in a chapel on a publicly funded college campus, SO WHAT!?

There is a cross on permenant display in a chapel on a publicly funded college campus somewhere in this country (don't doubt it!), SO WHAT!?

The only people being offended by either of these incidents are people desperately looking for a reason to be offended. It is a self fulfilling prophecy and we shouldn't be surprised when we find ourselves offended as a result.

Didn't mean to get in a rant gorram it, but I'm offended by all these people who can't seem to go a day without being offended!

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 4:32 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

*FMF streaks through the thread, while trying not to spill her fruity, tropical umbrella drink*

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEE


----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 6:46 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


del

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 6:46 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
However, this is still a case of political correctness run amok, and only one of many such examples where institutions are going out of their way to remove anything even remotely associated with the Christian faith. (Even though, as I stated previously, I could care less about the removal of "objects" -- it's the hostility directed toward Christianity which disturbs me about the whole thing.)
May I say that you... and the overly sensitive alumni ... are part of the PC problem? You see "hostility" when there is only ... even-handedness. Should Muslims view the lack of a crescent moon/star as "hostile"? Should Jews veiw the lack of a star of David and a Minorah as "hostile"? What about Hindus? Confucians? Buddhists?

If not, why are the people complaining ... Christians?


Most of you really don't "get it". The Founding Fathers were not Jesus-believers in drag. They really did think that there should be a "wall of separation" between Church and state, and that means the Xtian religion too. I guess at this point the conversation turns to AntiMason.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 9:47 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:
originall posted by Signym-

Should Muslims view the lack of a crescent moon/star as "hostile"? Should Jews veiw the lack of a star of David and a Minorah as "hostile"? What about Hindus? Confucians? Buddhists?


not neccessairly, but its percieved as hostile to be told to take it down i think. we all understand this but the point is that every individual has the right of expression, so whether youre a muslim or bhuddist or humanist you are free to 'express' or adopt that worldview without descrimination. i think its also fair to say that in the western world atheists are hardly neglected with their share of representation, since the de facto 'genesis' of mans origins(evolution; which im sorry but its a speculative theory) has become the standard taught among academics as tangeable proven science- what more could you ask for?

one thing that bothers me is that christian symbols and references no longer seem appropriate in public places, and appear to infringe on the rights of others... meanwhile we allow outright luciferian occultism to go unnoticed throughout government(and corporate america). i hate to beat a dead horse about this, but people know that our founders were masons... i think its time theyre told that MASONRY IS A RELIGION, and our government has, down to the T adopted its image- we just never here any cries about it. the reason 'in god we trust' is still around is because their god, Lucifer, is still alive and socially acceptable, so long as people are unable to contemplate the significance of his associative symbols

Cartoon made my point which is that our body is our temple, as it contains within itself all that is needed for worship; but just as importantly is that God says
Quote:
" Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"
or in other words, we are not to idolize the creation over the Creator.. as the secret societes founded on the ancient mysteries do

Quote:
Most of you really don't "get it". The Founding Fathers were not Jesus-believers in drag. They really did think that there should be a "wall of separation" between Church and state, and that means the Xtian religion too. I guess at this point the conversation turns to AntiMason.


well.. the thing about masonry is that it shares a lot of archetypical truths with christianity. some masons may have joined as christians, but those that accept Jesus as savior are excluded to the outer circle and led astray from the trusted secrets; at its core it is wholeheartedly luciferian. the bible says 'do not worship graven images', while the Masons idolize an Eyptian god atop a pyramid- and i could go on and on about the pentagram layout of DC, the washington obelisk, or the statue of Mars(the god of war) outside the US capitol building; but i dont really need to.. its all there, its right on the dollar bill, and its not christian, but 'pagan' symbolism.

its late and id rather not go through all of it now, but do your own search- just understand that masons are gradually enlightened and methodically decieved, and would not be inclined to reveal secrets to you. masons recognize diception as part of their religion.. just as the layers of the pyramid symbolizes, with the ignorant profane providing the base as it ascends to the giver of 'knowledge' lucifer.

i hate to say this but people tend to revert to their reptile brains when they hear the word 'conspiracy'.. but its neccessary to look outside the mainstream for the truth on this issue. heres a site ive posted before, but its consistant with what i read elsewhere http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/ read through and find anything, just notice the common theme

Quote:
"when our fathers declared 'a new order of the ages', they were acting on an ancient hope THAT IS MEANT TO BE FULLFILLED" George W Bush
- 2005 Inaugural address










NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 9:51 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


about the William and Mary chapel deal:

Is it still a consecrated space? If it is, then it's a church sanctuary, and use for any secular purpose is sacrelige. If it is, it should be under the authority of a clergyman, and a church, not a university. If it is, then the cross is a critical part, and should stay. If it is, then no government money should be spent on it.

If it isn't still a consecrated space, then it's OK for use as a meeting hall, lecture room, recreation space, architectural model, whatever.
And the cross should come or go, depending on the wishes of the user. But a serious formal trafitional clergyman wouldn't want to use it for religious purposes, wouldn't want its scared symbols desecrated.

Seems I remember a scene from the movie Alice's Restaurant, if any of ya are old enough to have seen it. Alice, Ray and the hippies bought a Protestant church that was closing, to live in ,and form their commune around. The church bishops held a Ceremony of DeSanctification, declaring that the property was no longer holy, and was, forever more, totally secular.

I once did a youth show for a church. It was part of the Youth Service Sunday, and was a recognized service, held at the regular time and presided over by the minister. The play we were doing was in place of the sermon.

While discussing where to perform the play, i mentioned that I was uncomfortable acting, pretending, on the altar. I was also concerned given the traditional attitude of churches toward actors; that actors were disreputable, mostly criminals and ne'er do wells, and that actresses were prostitutes. ( All true attitudes, 100 years ago or so.). The minister explained that that was no longer the official attitude of the Methodist church, and it was OK with him.

But since I was so concerned, he suggested that we perform in the Social Hall instead of the sanctuary. The SH had been the sanctuary originally, when the church was first built, but as the congregation grew, a new sanctuary was built, and it was downgraded.
We held the service there, it and the play were a great success, and I got some comments from the old timers about how great it was to worship in the old room.

ANd I felt much better- I didn't have to do something that might have disrespected Holy Ground.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 11:40 PM

SOUPCATCHER


Just out of curiosity, NewOldBrownCoat, is the consecrated-space-not-used-for-anything-secular thing part of the Anglican tradition? Or, I guess it would be more accurate to ask about the Episcopalian tradition since the chapel was in use after the Revolution.

Shifting... to kind of put a period to my thoughts of this "controversy." ...
Here's a photo of the chapel from 2002 with the cross visible: http://www.wm.edu/about/wren/wrenchapel/htmls/wm07.html
And here's a photo from 2002 of the altar without the cross: http://www.wm.edu/about/wren/wrenchapel/htmls/altar04.html
It's a good thing no one who is easily offended happened to be in the chapel while the second picture was being taken.

Shifting some more... I'm not entirely sure if this is relevant to the topic at hand but Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBC) banned the promotion of speaking in tongues (a practice more associated with Pentecostal churches but apparently making headway into the SBC) on campus back in October.

Now this is a private college and I have absolutely no problem with their board of trustees banning any discussion by faculty of the religious practices of other denominations. After all, it is a school run by the Southern Baptist Convention so why should the professors talk about Pentecostal practices? That said, am I off line in seeing this as a clear example of intolerance?

http://www.baylor.edu/Lariat/news.php?action=story&story=42501
(couldn't find anything on the SWBTS website other than an announcement about the trustee's meeting and didn't feel like linking to a F*xNews article so you get a Baylor link).



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 1:01 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Antimason:
Quote:
" Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"

or in other words, we are not to idolize the creation over the Creator.. as the secret societes founded on the ancient mysteries do
Or in still other words:
Art is evil.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 4:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Images or no images? Sacred ground or not? Speaking in tongues or not? These were the kinds of distinctions that could get you jailed, pilloried, or burned at the stake if you weren't careful, and exactly what the FF tried to avoid. One of the Swiss cities (I can't remember which, I'll have to look it up) circa 1500 went through no less than FOUR changes in official religion over the course of less than 20 years. Internal spies were on the lookout for people surreptitiously making the sign of the cross, or hiding banned sacred objects, or listening to out-of-favor clergy. Count in the 100-years-war, the changeover from Catholic to Anglican (part of the reason why anti-king messages were coded as nursery rhymes was because Henry VIII- and many English kings- had a huge network of internal spies that reached down to the lowliest serf.) and you get an idea why the FF wanted to avoid any semblance of state-sanctioned religion. And BTW- the FF knew about Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists and sought to protect them too.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 5:15 AM

CARTOON


Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
At the chapel, the old default was Protestant. Now the default is everyone. See how it pisses people off when they don't get the preferential treatment they are accustomed to?

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
They removed a cross from permanent display in a chapel on a publicly funded college campus, SO WHAT!?

The thing which is seemingly ignored here is what the chapel was designed to be -- a Christian chapel. A Christian chapel in a Christian university, unless someone also missed that point.

Yes, the state did take over the university in the last century, but (as indicated by the quote provided below) the bylaws of their governing authority still recognize the authority of the initial charter (as long as its provisions are not inconsistent with Virginia law).

And what was the original charter?

"Forasmuch as our well-beloved and faithful subjects, constituting the General Assembly of our Colony of Virginia, have had it in their minds, and have proposed to themselves, to the end that the Church of Virginia may be furnished with a seminary of ministers of the gospel, and that the youth may be piously educated in good letters and manners, and that the Christian faith may be propagated amongst the Western Indians, to the glory of Almighty God; to make, found and establish a certain place of universal study, or perpetual College of Divinity, Philosophy, Languages, and other good Arts and Sciences."

This Christian University built a Christian chapel. What is the purpose of a Christian chapel? Maybe, some folks need to look that up. Is a cross inappropriate in a Christian chapel? No. Should visitors to a Christian chapel expect to find objects therein, which are used to typify a tenent of the Christian faith? Yes. If visitors don't want to see objects used to typify a tenent of the Christian faith, they shouldn't be entering Christian chapels, as by definition, that's what you're likely to find there.

Would one expect to find objects related to FDR in a building dedicated to FDR? If someone were to walk into such a building, would they be surprised to see something so associated with FDR prominently displayed there? Would conservatives visiting such a building be offended by such objects, and demand they be removed?

Would people walking into a gymnasium be shocked to find exercise equipment therein??!?! ZOUNDS!! Quick! Get rid of it before someone has their feelings hurt. Who put that in here in the first place?! Imagine finding exercise equipment in a gymnasium!! Who'd have thought?!

This is laughable, and should be a no-brainer, except for the fact that the objects in view relate to "Christianity". Christianity is a viable target at the altar of Political Correctness, and the prejudice against Christianity is so rampant (as evidenced by many of the responses within this thread), that certain people cannot see for the forest for the trees.

So who is seeking "preferential" treatment here? The ones who expect to find objects associated with the Christian faith in a Christian chapel, or the ones who expect to find nothing associated with the Christian faith in a Christian chapel?

To reiterate my personal feelings on this, I could care less about the object removed. I could care less about whether or not the university even had a chapel. What I do care about is that this university, which had been founded as a "Christian" university, which built a "Christian" chapel, now considers it inappropriate to display an object identifiable with both the initial purpose of the univerity and the purpose of a chapel.

If they don't like having a "Christian" chapel on site, tear it down and put up a meeting hall, then fill it with whatever objects they please. Just stop designating the building as a "chapel" if it is no longer to function as one.

Quote:
In 1906, W&M became a public institution within the Virginia university system. Notwithstanding its public status, the bylaws of William & Mary’s governing authority — the Board of Visitors — still recognize the authority of the 1693 Royal Charter in governing the affairs of the school as long as its provisions are not inconsistent with Virginia law.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 6:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Cartoon, you seem to have glossed over this important point: as long as its provisions are not inconsistent with Virginia law So, I went and looked up Virginia law and religious freedom. The Virginia statute was written by Jefferson and promoted by Madison. (If you look up what both of these Virginians had to say about religion you'd already know how this story is going to end.) The statute says in part:
Quote:
... Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religiousworship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
In other words, and to make this point pellucidly clear, state taxes CANNOT be used to maintain religious properties. In fact the statute specifically and intentionally addressed taxes, so nobody can argue that the chapel was sideswiped by an unrelated law or ruling.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm
Quote:
The thing which is seemingly ignored here is what the chapel was designed to be -- a Christian chapel. A Christian chapel in a Christian university, unless someone also missed that point.
BTW- the Church of Virginia was officially Anglican, not generically Christian. Shall we stand on history and force all Virginians to be Anglican?


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 6:44 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Just out of curiosity, NewOldBrownCoat, is the consecrated-space-not-used-for-anything-secular thing part of the Anglican tradition? Or, I guess it would be more accurate to ask about the Episcopalian tradition since the chapel was in use after the Revolution.


Hafta admit that I can't claim that that's the official position of any organized church that I can cite, but my own.

But isn't that the fundamental POV of all traditional religions?
Quaker, Catholic, old line Protestant. Isn't that why churches aren't used for other purposes every day except SUnday. ?
Only folks who don't practice that are Islamics, who think it's OK, after all, to store weapons in their mosques, and shoot at Christian soldiers from them, but then expect then not to be attacked in retaliation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 6:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


For whenever two or more of you are gathered there am I also.

Not sure if I'm quoting exactly, but I think the whole idea of "consecrating" properties was to take it out of the hands of the kings and tax collectors.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 7:02 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Cartoon,

You seem to be consistently avoiding SignyM's clear and historically researched points. I'd certainly like to see your take on them.

----------------------
From the last thread, where evolution was cited as one example of anti-Xtian hostility, I never got an answer to my question:

Where do you draw the line between acceptable science and heresy?

Any answers from the Xtian contingent?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 7:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


None of us like to see changes to what we're used to, and the demotion of Xtianity to "just another religion"... to be treated under the law like ANY OTHER religion... is a bitter pill to swallow. But that is exactly what the big-name Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, Paine, Ethan Allen etc) intended. http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html

That does not prevent a church or a person from putting up a creche on their property. It DOES prevent "the government" from using tax money to support religions; and generally the various state constitutions follow the Federal Constitution.

It can be argued that those big-name Founding Fathers were the "secular progressives" of their day, the "liberal elite" that the right-wing today is always railing against. And they're prolly correct: MOST people in the early USA were Xtians of one sort or another and were unfamiliar with the French Enlightenment and all the philosophical thought behind it. But nobody can argue that the United States was intended to be a "Christian nation" in it's founding, and to do so is to totally misrepresent the concepts behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And that wall between Church and state is what makes this nation (here comes the dirty word) secular.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 8:20 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Just to further elaborate on my question:

"Where do you draw the line between acceptable science and heresy?" I find it odd that Judaism doesn't seem to have a problem with evolution. (And I see Judaism as closer to the OT than Xtians.)

When it comes to Xtians, back in the day, when ordinary people routinely slaughtered animals for food (and each other in wars for that matter) it was heresy to autospy a human. So despite common experience there were all sorts of fanciful ideas on human blood circulation. If you wanted to know about it you referred to the bible. If you were enlightened (and literate) you looked to the Greeks and Romans - the classical writings.

Science provided an alternative - if you wanted to know, you looked - for yourself. But the idea that humans were somehow like animals was heretical. And back in the day, autopsies were illegal as well. So the people who looked were miscreants of the worst sort. But look they did and founded modern medicine.

Now we all take modern medicine for granted. And we acknowledge that humans have common biochemistry and functions with mere animals. That's why people study and experiment on bacteria, rats, rabbits, and chimps rather than humans.

So where do you draw the line between 'bad' heretical science like evolution and acceptable science like medicine?


"Eppur si muove" - it still moves.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 10:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Cartoon- the silence from your end is deafening. Shall I take it that this particular outrage of "hostility" to the Xtian religion has been determined to be nothing more than a w/drawal of the privilege, in accordance with the state Constitution-mandated separation of church and state?
Quote:
one thing that bothers me is that christian symbols and references no longer seem appropriate in public places
. I don't think there is a problem with religious displays in "public" (ie easily viewable) places, just in government-funded ones. Whether businesses, homes, churches, or private organizations choose to display religious symbols is pretty much up to them. The fact that businesses seem to be downplaying religiosity is simply because they're going after the broadest market. In other words, they're following the money.
Quote:
meanwhile we allow outright luciferian occultism to go unnoticed throughout government(and corporate america). i hate to beat a dead horse about this, but people know that our founders were masons... i think its time theyre told that MASONRY IS A RELIGION, and our government has, down to the T adopted its image- we just never here any cries about it. the reason 'in god we trust' is still around is because their god, Lucifer, is still alive and socially acceptable
"in god we trust" was not present on most currency until relatively recently. It was added to some coins during the Civil War, and to most currency during the 1950's (anti-Communist McCarthy scare)

I haven't specifically looked it up, but some of the Founding Fathers were prolly Freemasons. Whoever designed the currency certainly was! But I'm not sure that is a potent organization any more. While I agree that there is a conspiracy to "take over the world" I tend to lay that at the feet of capitalists, not Freemasons. And capitalists make a religion of money, not Lucifer. (Altho, come to think of it, Hugo Chavez said he smelt sulfur at the UN. Maybe he's on to something....)





---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 12:17 PM

CARTOON


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Cartoon- the silence from your end is deafening.

Firstly, I didn't realize that I was obligated to respond instantly. I can't speak for anyone else in here, but I happen to have a job, as well as responsibilities around my house, which have far more precedence in relation to the expenditure of my time than does answering questions for people which I've already answered, but seem to be beyond their comprehension.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Cartoon, you seem to have glossed over this important point: as long as its provisions are not inconsistent with Virginia law So, I went and looked up Virginia law and religious freedom. The Virginia statute was written by Jefferson and promoted by Madison. (If you look up what both of these Virginians had to say about religion you'd already know how this story is going to end.) The statute says in part:
Quote:

... Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religiousworship, place, or ministry whatsoever...

For the fifteen millionth time (slight exaggeration applied due to intense frustration)...

Having a cross on government-owned property meets not a single one of the Constitutional restrictions -- neither federal, nor (as you pointed out) Virginian.

In the event anyone seems to have trouble comprehending this -- putting a cross on government-owned property is not "compelling" anyone to "frequent or support" the religion from which the symbol is derived. Nor is putting a cross on government-owned property "Congress establishing a religion."

The very fact that anyone would (in any way) construe it to mean such, underscores the level of bias toward Christianity.

Meanwhile, the FDR-dedicated building and the gymnasium analogies are ignored, because the analogies were both right on target. The point being...

Why would anyone be "offended" at finding objects typifying Christianity in building specifically built for a Christian purpose -- which is what a "chapel" is?

"Oh, there's sex in that porno film!" Duh!! What does one expect to find in a porno film? Instruction on carpentry?!?!

One expects to find symbols of Chrisitianity in a Christian CHAPEL. If one is threatened by those objects (which obviously many in here seem to be), then tear down the chapel and build a meeting hall. The soul purpose of a Christian chapel is for Christian assembly.

Apparently, this is a concept beyond comprehension, as so many seem to be missing it -- a Christian chapel for Christian assembly. Oh, maybe if I say it fifty thousand more times...

P.S. I haven't seen photos of the chapel, but given its age, I would guess it probably has stained-glass windows, as well. (I don't know, I'm just guessing.) If it does, I imagine they would (as most chapels or churches do) contain images from the Bible. If this is the case, I'm wondering if the university is going to remove those, as well? Liberal forbid anyone is offended by stained-glass images of Jesus or dead Jewish prophets -- particularly in a building erected for "Christian" worship (where one would certainly ever expect to find such things).

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
For whenever two or more of you are gathered there am I also.

Not sure if I'm quoting exactly, but I think the whole idea of "consecrating" properties was to take it out of the hands of the kings and tax collectors.

I hate to admit it, but you're actually correct about this.

As I've also stated previously (my posts must be invisible, because I have to keep repeating the same things over and over and over), place of worship isn't important, nor designated as such in Scripture. Christians may worship God anywhere, and do not need a "specific" building for this purpose. You are correct.

The only thing in Scripture which falls even remotely within this category would be the old Jewish Tabernacle, then subsequent Temple(s) -- which were designated by God to be such. There is no New Testament precedence for "consecrated ground" or "building" or whatever.

Why believers eventually started erecting "buildings" for this purpose after Rome finally legalized Christianity (four centuries after the fact), isn't important. They aren't necessary, nor mandated by Scripture. Nor are the objects they contain.

However, as I've stated above, as this building was built specifically for that purpose (Christian worship), it shouldn't come as a surprise for anyone to find it actually being utilized in that capacity. And, contrary to what many here seem to believe -- building and utilizing a structure for that purpose (even though the government has subsequently come to own said property) is not "Congress establishing a religion", nor the state of Virginia "compelling" anyone to "frequent or support" such.

I've said this more times than should be necessary for people (who are obviously as intelligent as you otherwise seem to be) to not understand. I'll not repeat it again, nor will I answer any points directed at this aspect of this discussion, as the above answer is more than sufficent. Such actions are not "Congress establishing a religion", nor the state of Virginia "compelling" anyone to "frequent or support" such. Please, try to let that sink in.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
From the last thread, where evolution was cited as one example of anti-Xtian hostility, I never got an answer to my question: Where do you draw the line between acceptable science and heresy?

As someone else has accurately stated somewhere in this forum, the Bible is not a science manual. Science is free to theorize, postulate, and prove anything it would like. Many times science is correct. Many times, not so correct, and its theories need to be revised or discarded altogether. It doesn't really matter to me.

It's not my job to determine heresy in the world. The "church" (body of believers) was told to govern itself (those professing to follow Christ -- an even then, only as related to public worship within an assembly of fellow believers), not those who don't. The Lord will ultimately determine who was right and who wasn't, and I'm not about to lose much sleep over it, either way.

As I've said elsewhere, if those who believe in evolution are correct, and we are the product of nothing, time and chance, then what we do has no eternal consequence, and once we die, who cares what we thought, said or did. If, however, evolutionists are incorrect, and we were created by a Creator for a specific purpose (and we have not, as individuals met that Creator's criteria for our existence), then there are going to be a whole lot of very, very, very surprised and disappointed people when they die.

Either way, I have nothing to lose by believing as I do. If I'm wrong, I won't know it (and neither will anyone else), and it won't really matter in the least. If they're wrong, however, they most certainly will know it, and it will likely matter very, very much.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 12:32 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I was just wondering why you seem to think the teaching of evolution is an anti-Xtian bias.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 12:34 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


And I wanted to separately ask this:

"In the event anyone seems to have trouble comprehending this -- putting a cross on government-owned property is not "compelling" anyone to "frequent or support" the religion from which the symbol is derived. Nor is putting a cross on government-owned property "Congress establishing a religion."

The very fact that anyone would (in any way) construe it to mean such, underscores the level of bias toward (against ?) Christianity."

How would you feel if your tax dollars were spent putting Islamic symbols on public buildings INSTEAD of Xtian ones?



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 1:00 PM

CARTOON


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How would you feel if your tax dollars were spent putting Islamic symbols on public buildings INSTEAD of Xtian ones?

My tax dollars are being spent on a lot of things for which I do not approve. That's the American way.

In specific answer to your question, though, if there were an Islamic building which came into the possession of our government (federal, state or local), I would not expect them to remove the objects typifying Islam which were contained within.

I also assume that "public" libraries buy Korans and other books about Islam, as well as those pertaining to every type of religion. They also probably buy a lot of (what I would consider to be) smut.

So, as I said, the government is never going to spend our money the way we'd like. It's part of the cost of freedom.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I was just wondering why you seem to think the teaching of evolution is an anti-Xtian bias.

I haven't.

While I personally do not believe in evolution (and, as such do not believe it should be taught as "undeniable fact" in our schools), I do not see it as bias against Christianity -- just false.

People have the right to be wrong, but not to force others to be wrong with them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 1:19 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
In the event anyone seems to have trouble comprehending this -- putting a cross on government-owned property is not "compelling" anyone to "frequent or support" the religion from which the symbol is derived.
except that TAX DOLLARS are used to purchase or build and maintain buildings. You know, buildings aren't "free". They require utilities, cleaning, maintenance and repair, and parking facilities. They often require bonds for construction, which includes building costs and interest. They may even represent lost revenue if another (more useful) building might be put in its place. It would be interesting to see HOW MUCH the Wren building costs each year (tax dollars).
Quote:
Why would anyone be "offended" at finding objects typifying Christianity in building specifically built for a Christian purpose -- which is what a "chapel" is? ... The soul purpose of a Christian chapel is for Christian assembly...a Christian chapel for Christian assembly.
YOUR insistence that this is a Christian building puts in in DIRECT collision with the the State Constitution. Under YOUR rubric, W&M would be forced to sell it to a private party. Now, if you were to claim this is a HISTORIC building... a museum piece... then perhaps a cross might belong. But you're not making this claim, and this building is clearly being used as a meeting place by various groups not as a historical display.


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 2:11 PM

ERIC


Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
As I've said elsewhere, if those who believe in evolution are correct, and we are the product of nothing, time and chance, then what we do has no eternal consequence, and once we die, who cares what we thought, said or did. If, however, evolutionists are incorrect, and we were created by a Creator for a specific purpose (and we have not, as individuals met that Creator's criteria for our existence), then there are going to be a whole lot of very, very, very surprised and disappointed people when they die.


False choices. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about the existance or nonexistance of a creator. It attempts to explain the how, not the why. The two are not mutually exclusive. Unless one is married to the particular notion that the Earth is 6000 years old and Adam & Eve rode dinosaurs to church on Sunday.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 2:29 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
As I've said elsewhere, if those who believe in evolution are correct, and we are the product of nothing, time and chance, then what we do has no eternal consequence, and once we die, who cares what we thought, said or did. If, however, evolutionists are incorrect, and we were created by a Creator for a specific purpose (and we have not, as individuals met that Creator's criteria for our existence), then there are going to be a whole lot of very, very, very surprised and disappointed people when they die.


False choices. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about the existance or nonexistance of a creator. It attempts to explain the how, not the why. The two are not mutually exclusive. Unless one is married to the particular notion that the Earth is 6000 years old and Adam & Eve rode dinosaurs to church on Sunday.

I believe this is also a logical fallacy, believe what I believe because if you don't and I'm right you lose, but if your right no one wins.

It's an argument attempted by all truely stupid people. Fact is any God worth believing in wouldn't condemn on their inabillity to spread their word.

The thing that fanatics like Cartoon miss is that some people are actually interested in the truth, whatever that maybe, not just getting a green light on any evil they wish to perpetrate on their fellow man.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 2:36 PM

CARTOON


Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
False choices. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about the existance or nonexistance of a creator. It attempts to explain the how, not the why. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Hi, Eric.

Well, I cannot speak for evolutionists, but from my understanding, I'm fairly certain that most of them (at least of those who've voiced opinions in this forum) believe that everything came from nothing, by accident (apart from design), over a great period of time. That seems to rule out a Creator/Intelligent Designer/God by their own definition.

Although, if I'm incorrectly voicing their position, I'm sure they'll correct me.

Quote:
Originally posted by Signym:
except that TAX DOLLARS are used to purchase or build and maintain buildings

You know, if you actually stopped loathing Christians long enough to remove the blinders, you may actually see how ridiculous your complaining over the spending of tax dollars for the maintenance of a structure built initially for Christian purposes really sounds. Particularly, as I stated above, that our tax dollars also (undoubtedly) purchase Bibles, Korans, and other books related to every belief system under the sun -- plus a few.

These anti-Christian protests are ridiculous, and prove my initial assertion about the bias and hatred (and apparently fear) directed towards/at Christians in this country. Apparently, some people will never be happy until every last vestige of Christianity is purged from the land. I'm through beating this dead horse.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 2:51 PM

ERIC


Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Well, I cannot speak for evolutionists, but from my understanding, I'm fairly certain that most of them (at least of those who've voiced opinions in this forum) believe that everything came from nothing, by accident (apart from design), over a great period of time. That seems to rule out a Creator/Intelligent Designer/God by their own definition.


Here's something to chew on. In an infinite universe, anything that has a nonzero chance of happening MUST eventually happen, given enough time. Accident and design ultimately converge to the same outcome. If a creator set the universe in motion then let it go, anything that happens afterward is by design, but you'd never know it. Evolution does not rule out the possiblity that the whole process was set in motion deliberately, it just doesn't consider the question at all, not the least because its not disprovable. Some people who accept evolutionary theory may also reject the concept of a creator, but that's not an integral feature of evolution.

D'OH, NOT ANOTHER EVOLUTION THREAD! Ignore everything above...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 3:47 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
You know, if you actually stopped loathing Christians long enough to remove the blinders, you may actually see how ridiculous your complaining over the spending of tax dollars for the maintenance of a structure built initially for Christian purposes really sounds.
I'm not worried about spending money on building 'initally' built for Xtian purposes. But it is very clear that neither the Federal government nor the State of Virginia can spend tax dollars maintaining a structure AS an Xtian chapel. Just as they can not maintain a building as a mosque, or as any other house of religion. Is that clear now?
Quote:
These anti-Christian protests are ridiculous, and prove my initial assertion about the bias and hatred (and apparently fear) directed towards/at Christians in this country.
It's not fear or hatred. I'm being very Jeffersonian about the whole thing. And I would apply the same standard to ANY religion, not just Xtian.
Quote:
Apparently, some people will never be happy until every last vestige of Christianity is purged from the land.
Are you saying that suddenly there is a shortage of churches? That angel ornamanents are missing from the stores? Thet people are forbidden from putting stars on their trees, and creches on the mantle? Puhleez! The only places where religion should be purged from is government. Feel free to follow Christ- or whomever- as long as you don't violate the laws of the land.
Quote:
I'm through beating this dead horse.
No doubt you'll continue to feel aggrieved and "picked on" altho you really shouldn't.


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 4:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Apparently, some people will never be happy until every last vestige of Christianity is purged from the land."

I don't see anyone attemping to purge every last vesitge of Xtianity from the land. Just from government budgets.

Do you cognate the difference?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 4:30 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Here's something to chew on. In an infinite universe, anything that has a nonzero chance of happening MUST eventually happen, given enough time. Accident and design ultimately converge to the same outcome. If a creator set the universe in motion then let it go, anything that happens afterward is by design, but you'd never know it. Evolution does not rule out the possiblity that the whole process was set in motion deliberately, it just doesn't consider the question at all, not the least because its not disprovable. Some people who accept evolutionary theory may also reject the concept of a creator, but that's not an integral feature of evolution.


You know, whether anyone agrees with that perception or not, still, that's probably the most reasoned and intelligent thing i've heard in RWED for months now.

Bravo.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 4:36 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Antimason:
Quote:
" Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"

or in other words, we are not to idolize the creation over the Creator.. as the secret societes founded on the ancient mysteries do
Or in still other words:
Art is evil.


now you know that is not what is meant, the reality is that God cannot be symbolised. i know you would not argue with me that the history of the catholic church and vatican has been a complete perversion of morality; that is because the 'church' became the power of THIS WORLD.. which Jesus says is of the Devil. the Vaticans motivation had nothing to do with the message of Jesus but the motives of men seeking material gain. i dont believe Jesus' message was meant to be institutionalized.. it is a personal worldview and mindset, not a physical symbol or representation.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 7, 2006 7:18 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Just to further elaborate on my question:

"Where do you draw the line between acceptable science and heresy?" I find it odd that Judaism doesn't seem to have a problem with evolution. (And I see Judaism as closer to the OT than Xtians.)


heres the thing though- modern day Israel, and the babylonian talmud that they use is NOT the same as the Torah; Abraham and Moses would never have tolerated such an occultic forgery to pass as the scripture of the Lord Jesus Christ. the people of Israel in Jesus' time, who weren not true believers and followers in Yahweh, turned out to be the ones who murdered him; and he was yahweh in the flesh. Jews today deny Jesus was their messiah and God, which according to the NT is the mark of antichrist. current Jews do not take the Torah(ot) literally, which says many times that God created the heavens and earth in 6 days. the reason the Pharisaic jews didnt recognize Jesus as their prophesied messiah is because they had become corrupted by the surrounding cultures. and now today they are reading a luciferian perversion that graciously accomodates evolutionary theory or any alternative but what the Torah actually teaches

Quote:
When it comes to Xtians, back in the day, when ordinary people routinely slaughtered animals for food (and each other in wars for that matter) it was heresy to autospy a human. So despite common experience there were all sorts of fanciful ideas on human blood circulation.


what did anyone know 'back in the day'? im assuming atleast a few hundred years ago.. i know medical science was primitave to the point of carnality. friend believing in God does not blind us to the physical recognizable laws at work, we accept what can be proven. ultimately we just have a premise that states that God established these laws 'in the beginning'

Quote:
If you wanted to know about it you referred to the bible. If you were enlightened (and literate) you looked to the Greeks and Romans - the classical writings.


and having seen some of those writings(in hindsight) i feel redeemed and further convinced that their is some historical truth to the worldwide "god myths". the Greeks and Romans were not dillusional, and they believed in supernatural deities and related "mythologies" that fit quite appropriately with the underlying biblical archetypes.

most importantly though is that the bible scripturally never discourages science as long as it is truthful. in the case of the Catholic church and the darker years.. that kind of societal totalitarianism comes from manipulative social heirarchies with the motive for earthly gain

Quote:
Science provided an alternative - if you wanted to know, you looked - for yourself.

And back in the day, autopsies were illegal as well. So the people who looked were miscreants of the worst sort. But look they did and founded modern medicine.



i see how youre framing this.. but its almost literally a comparison of apples and oranges. the bible is not a science book, it was not meant to be - and is not an obstacle to science, truth or fact(emphasizing all synonymns). we believe the theory that God created all the matter in the universe. your theory is that nothing existed prior to the 'big bang', that all the known chemicals and particles and minerals came from a single source; but then again it came from nothing, a vacuum, an empty void, the size of a particle or something rediculous. even then.. where did the particle come from? this is a fundemental question.. 'something from something, or something from nothing? unless i have it wrong thats what the theory comes down to.. and neither theory has tangeable evidence we can draw conclusively from. the universe IMO is indicative of an intelligent 'design(er)', and likewise i believe science when used honostly was intended by God for us to study and appreciate his creation with; not to suppress(as some so graciously insert into our belief system)

Quote:
But the idea that humans were somehow like animals was heretical.


alright.. well then explain to me your opinion of our evolution, how you think it took place? also if you can, for the sake of arguement, tell me how this worldview improves the morality of a person(comparative to mine)? i always hear that 'kids shoudlnt be threatened with eternal damnation'..( Jesus says in Matthew
Quote:
"unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kindgom of heaven"
or in other words.. no kid would be cursed with such a threat) but i say its a lot worse to tell them that your existence stops once you die in the physical dimension; because that seems to encourage the desire to acquire material and temporal satisfaction without conscious restraint

admit atleast that among the christian community, the bible is clear that our ancestors were Adam and Eve(the pre and post fall 'models' of man), and the creation was not subject to this cycle of death and decay prior to our fall.. and will one day be redeemed and restored. that is our belief, but it is not in opposition to proven reproducable varafiable scientific fact

Quote:
Now we all take modern medicine for granted. And we acknowledge that humans have common biochemistry and functions with mere animals. That's why people study and experiment on bacteria, rats, rabbits, and chimps rather than humans.


the bible says that God created certain species in the days before Adam, and others afterward.. so naturally we would share physical characteristics with other 'fallen' creatures(since we share their fate in this mortal material dimension). the difference i believe is that we dont personally believe that all living species share a common ancestor that started as inanimate matter. i think to do that your assuming, or presupposing, that nature itself(as if it were its own God or "Gaia") evolved from nothing.. through a single source, which at some point came from essentially *nowhere*(what was before the big bang?)

Quote:
So where do you draw the line between 'bad' heretical science like evolution and acceptable science like medicine?


science that is unfounded, but introduced and paraded as fact. i accept Citizens point when he says that science is increasingly changing as its methods get better and new dynamics are uncovered- so lets recognize then that science should not be taken as a religion, since it is not all knowing. i will openly admit that mine is a religion, because then i can accept that we are far from even contemplating the visible universe.. so what can we honostly prove at this point?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2006 3:00 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
now you know that is not what is meant, the reality is that God cannot be symbolised.
Actually Anti, I know nothing of the sort, what I'm trying to do is show you how easy it is to read anything into a given passage in the Bible. Let me break it down:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"

Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, I read that as pretty much any art work, painting sculpture video etc.

of anything that is in heaven above Okay no problem there, that's God.

or that is in the earth beneath, People, animals, landscapes, cars, cities etc all things on the Earth.

or that is in the water under the earth Fish, Whales, Dolphins etc.

To be honest it sounds like you can't make a likeness of anything in Human perception, pretty tightly hooked up. The fuzzy areas would be planes/birds in flight and Space, but you could argue those are covered by Heaven. I don't know that passage is preventing you from making images of God, I know that's the traditional interpretation, but really it reads quite different.
Quote:
i know you would not argue with me that the history of the catholic church and vatican has been a complete perversion of morality; that is because the 'church' became the power of THIS WORLD.. which Jesus says is of the Devil. the Vaticans motivation had nothing to do with the message of Jesus but the motives of men seeking material gain. i dont believe Jesus' message was meant to be institutionalized.. it is a personal worldview and mindset, not a physical symbol or representation.
Which I couldn't agree with more, though why you brought it up is somewhat puzzling. However what we call Christianity has been shaped and more or less created by the Roman Catholic Church. What you seem to talk about is more a Jesus Cult (okay Christianity itself is a Jesus cult but you know what I mean) and doesn't bear much relation to the common idea of Christianity, nor in my experience do most Christians. Take Cartoon, a man who obviously opened the Bible and managed to miss all of Jesus teachings.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2006 3:04 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
your theory is that nothing existed prior to the 'big bang', that all the known chemicals and particles and minerals came from a single source; but then again it came from nothing, a vacuum, an empty void, the size of a particle or something rediculous. even then.. where did the particle come from? this is a fundemental question.. 'something from something, or something from nothing? unless i have it wrong thats what the theory comes down to.. and neither theory has tangeable evidence we can draw conclusively from. the universe IMO is indicative of an intelligent 'design(er)', and likewise i believe science when used honostly was intended by God for us to study and appreciate his creation with; not to suppress(as some so graciously insert into our belief system)
Before I answer the question of where the singularity came from perhaps you can tell me where this intelligent creator came from?


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2006 4:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hey Anti- I had replied to you but I think it got lost in the shuffle so I'd appreciate your take:

------------------------
ANTI: one thing that bothers me is that christian symbols and references no longer seem appropriate in public places

SIGNY: I don't think there is a problem with religious displays in "public" (ie easily viewable) places, just in government-funded ones. Whether businesses, homes, churches, or private organizations choose to display religious symbols is pretty much up to them. The fact that businesses seem to be downplaying religiosity is simply because they're going after the broadest market. In other words, they're following the money.

ANTI: Meanwhile we allow outright luciferian occultism to go unnoticed throughout government(and corporate america). i hate to beat a dead horse about this, but people know that our founders were masons... i think its time theyre told that MASONRY IS A RELIGION, and our government has, down to the T adopted its image- we just never here any cries about it. the reason 'in god we trust' is still around is because their god, Lucifer, is still alive and socially acceptable

SIGNY: "in god we trust" was not present on most currency until relatively recently. It was added to some coins during the Civil War, and to most currency during the 1950's (anti-Communist McCarthy scare). I haven't specifically looked it up, but some of the Founding Fathers were prolly Freemasons. Whoever designed the currency certainly was! But I'm not sure that is a potent organization any more. While I agree that there is a conspiracy to "take over the world" I tend to lay that at the feet of capitalists, not Freemasons. And capitalists make a religion of money, not Lucifer. (Altho, come to think of it, Hugo Chavez said he smelt sulfur at the UN. Maybe he's on to something....)

------------------
Interested in your general take on Mason/Luciferian v corporate power. And also specifically what Luciferian symbols in the corporate world?



---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 8, 2006 4:37 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


AntiMason -

I'm replying by translating your post as fairly as I can - putting them into my understanding of your thoughts. I'm not using your entire quotes in order to save space, but anyone with an interest will be pointed in the right direction:

heres the thing though- modern day Israel, and the babylonian talmud that they use ...
They read and believe in the wrong script. They believe in unholy things. My script is right. Mine says they are the antichrist.

believing in God does not blind us to the physical recognizable laws at work
Science is OK if it's commonly accepted by similar religious people.

and having seen some of those writings(in hindsight) i feel redeemed ...
Two selected religions seem to validate my beliefs about the universe.

most importantly though is that the bible scripturally never discourages science as long as it is truthful ...
But when science clashes with the 'correct' biblical writings, the biblical writings are to be believed.

tell me how this worldview improves the morality of a person(comparative to mine)?
People need to be manipulated with unprovable bribes and threats to behave well.

admit atleast that among the christian community, the bible is clear that our ancestors were Adam and Eve ... and the creation was not subject to this cycle of death and decay ...
The bible provides the history we need. We don't need to use science to explore causes.

we dont personally believe that all living species share a common ancestor ...
This is one example where my correct bible has the only truth, which trumps scientific thought.

you believe ... nature itself ... evolved from nothing.
It's easier for me to think of a god who came from nothing and created a universe from nothing than it is to think of a universe that came from nothing on its own.

science should not be taken as a religion, since it is not all knowing.
My beliefs comfort me.
-------------------------------

I was heartened at your reference to the difference between science and religion.

Sincerely,
Rue

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 9, 2006 8:59 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:
posted by Citizen-

To be honest it sounds like you can't make a likeness of anything in Human perception, pretty tightly hooked up. The fuzzy areas would be planes/birds in flight and Space, but you could argue those are covered by Heaven. I don't know that passage is preventing you from making images of God, I know that's the traditional interpretation, but really it reads quite different.

'

well.. i get your point, but i think it would be hard to justify that interpretation when taking the whole of biblical literature into account; especially when considering what is known about the symbolism used by occult secret societies, i have no doubt that God was referring to idolatry(which Wikipedia says : "Hebrew terms for idolatory include avodah zarah (foreign worship) and avodat kochavim umazalot (worship of planets and constellations), or in other words, worshipping the creation above the Creator. the civilizations that did not know God literally worshipped the image of physical material objects.. be they planets, or their former inhabitants(fallen angels/annunaki)

Quote:
Which I couldn't agree with more, though why you brought it up is somewhat puzzling.


well my point was that Jesus says that this world, and this age are under the control of the 'prince of the kingdom of the air', or Lucifer; the reason the catholic church became such a monstrousity is because it became the queen of this world, and was led astray and became an apostate institution and a perversion. the catholic church sought earthly rule and material gain, which Jesus himself says are desires 'of the flesh'. the Vatican is in so many ways aligned with the motives of the globalist NWO occultists, that it doesnt require much of an imagination to see whats really happening here

Quote:
However what we call Christianity has been shaped and more or less created by the Roman Catholic Church. What you seem to talk about is more a Jesus Cult (okay Christianity itself is a Jesus cult but you know what I mean) and doesn't bear much relation to the common idea of Christianity, nor in my experience do most Christians.


maybe thats my point.. youve heard me make the arguement before that a christian is someone who does the will of Jesus- a Jesus Cult would be sure to follow the teachings of Jesus, since we believe he is thee God manifest; the Roman Catholic church conversely was an idolatrous, authoritarian, suppressive *worldy institution fundementally opposed to the teachings of Jesus. besides exploiting Jesus' image... its impossible to reconcile the two. ultimately this is exactly why God was never meant to be symbolized or insitutionalized

Quote:
Before I answer the question of where the singularity came from perhaps you can tell me where this intelligent creator came from?


well.. technically the burden of proof is not on me, since my belief is an admitted religion. to answer your question i dont know where God came from... but since evolutionary theories are considered hard science, i have to wonder where did all the known matter come from, if prior to the big bang there was just an empty(void)

this was the first chance ive had to get on.. but ill get to your guys' others questions later (just bear with me)








i

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:15 AM

CITIZEN


Disregard.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:15 AM

CITIZEN


This is not the post that you were looking for.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Oops! Clown Justin Trudeau accidently "Sieg Heils!" a Nazi inside Canadian parliament
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:24 - 4 posts
Stupid voters enable broken government
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:04 - 130 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:09 - 7499 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:02 - 1190 posts
Netanyahu to Putin: Iran must withdraw from Syria or Israel will ‘defend itself’
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:56 - 16 posts
Putin's Russia
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:51 - 69 posts
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:44 - 4 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:39 - 2 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:35 - 4763 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL