The following was reported at Indystar.com (the full link is posted below):
“An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge’s unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to “non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.”
The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth.
Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion Superior Court, kept the unusual provision in the couple’s divorce decree last year over their fierce objections, court records show. The order does not define a mainstream religion.
Bradford refused to remove the provision after the 9-year-old boy’s outraged parents, Thomas E. Jones Jr. and his ex-wife, Tammie U. Bristol, protested last fall.”
This is a real new one on me. We don’t have a case of one parent complaining to a judge that the other parent is raising their child in a religious faith that they themselves object to, and it’s part of a custody dispute. This is a judge who unilaterally didn’t like the faith in which a child was being raised and endeavored to take action. The article goes on to say:
“The parents’ Wiccan beliefs came to Bradford’s attention in a confidential report prepared by the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau, which provides recommendations to the court on child custody and visitation rights.”
Understand, there’s no Satanic rituals here. They don’t even practice skyclad. Nor is there the slightest indication that the child is being harmed.
I have little doubt that this ludicrous decision will be overturned, but the notion that it occurs at all…I mean, is there any more pure travesty of the First Amendment than the courts telling two parents in what faith they can and cannot raise their child? Maybe the parents should reconsider the whole divorce thing; if this is how they want to raise their child, they’re going to be a lot stronger together than separately.
Me, I’m wondering if Tom DeLay is going to be speaking up in outrage over this clear abuse of power by an activist judge. Unless, of course, he’s too busy whining about being ill-used on “Law and Order: Criminal Intent.”
PAD
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481
• 
Just one little thing. No self respecting Wiccan I know (and I know, well, a lot of ’em) would ever refer to themselves as a warlock.
And as for suspending the laws of physics, they’re just being bent in different ways. The power of belief and the mind can do that….
Since I’ve taken so much heat for saying “I’m sure the judge had a good reason for doing what he did” allow me to clarify what I meant.
I in no way meant to say that I personaly thought he was justified and that he was right, I merely meant that I was sure he himself had a good reason, or at least, he felt he had a good reason, not that the reason was actually right.
There is a difference and if you bothered to read anything else that I said and kept it in context you would have saw that.
But I like how everyone wants to dismiss Wicca and witchcraft practices as silly since they don’t belive in them. Harmless!
However, I also only meant to say that like any other religion, it can be dangerous if taken too far and many Wiccans take their religion very, very seriously. As I said, I have relatives and they do take it seriously enough to call themselves witches and warlocks and believe in spells and other such things.
And sometimes believing can be more dangerous than it actually being true.
Everyone wants to jump on the religion aspect, I myself choose to believe it was the judge trying to protect the kid. I could be wrong but that’s how it struck me.
And not once did I say that I thought the judge was actually right, but if in fact he had reason to believe that the parents were harming the child with their beliefs than I have to give him points for at least trying (it’s not like he doesn’t know it will be overturned).
Sometimes trying and knowing you’ll fail is better than not trying at all.
I’m not naive, I’m just not so jaded yet.
I think Craig said it all perfectly above…
Christine commented:
“PAD wrote: I think you have to be able to twitch your nose, too.
That’s it! I *knew* I was forgetting something. ::goes off to practice her nose wiggling:: :)”
I’d take Samantha Stevens over Jeannie any day 🙂
So…. ‘neocon’ is code for Jewish? So… Bush, Chaney et al are Jewish?
Who knew?
Talk about a cover-up…
The only Christians who want a theocracy are a very fringe group who have no real power or sway over most Christians
Unless you count both Bushes, Frist, DeLay, and seceral others. These are just the top of the list.
Christianity does not have the powerful clerics that Islam has
Pat Robertson
Pat Robertson’s son
James Dobson
Donald Wildmon
For all of the fear that James Dobson seems to strike in the hearts of some of you, he only has the same sway that a Rev. Jesse Jackson has — he preaches to the choir
Except Dobson’s choir occupies the White House, top positions in congress, and seats on the Supreme Court.
if the country is being pulled apart, the liberal side is on the other side of that rope in this political tug of war.
Yes, because the liberals are the ones
* saying those with different values are condemed to hëll
* People who don’t fall into lockstep with the government are ‘anti-American’, ‘unpatriotic’, and ‘hate America’.
yes, liberals do their share, but to say the blame is only on the liberals, or any one side alone, is crap.
I know it is not as “coherent” of a system as the major religions, but the teachings and concepts it adopts come from ancient tribal religions that enslaved women and sacrificed children. No, I am not saying the modern form of Wicca embraces those beliefs. But it is fascinating how its origins are not honestly dealt with.
Nearly all religions have been used as such. There are still those today who use the Bible to justify that women are secondary to men & should obey their fathers &/or husbands.
And I can guarantee that you will hear nothing against this from DeLay or the Right Wing.
It wasn’t too long ago that they were being told to butt out of criticizing judges rulings…now they will be criticized for not doing just that…once again, another case of it all depending on whose ox is getting gored.
No, the point of this is will they condemn this “judicial activism” or will they keep quiet when it’s a ruling they will agree with?
I in no way meant to say that I personaly thought he was justified and that he was right, I merely meant that I was sure he himself had a good reason, or at least, he felt he had a good reason, not that the reason was actually right.
I myself only question the “he had a good reason” part. If he did, then when didn’t he say so in his decision? The only justification he cited was that the kid might be confused by being exposed to more than 1 belief system. If this is true, then why not bar the parents from sending the kid to Catholic school?
BTW, If a kid could be so easily confused if he/she is exposed to more than 1 belief system, then wouldn’t this be an argument against teaching Creationism or prayer in school? Or will all parents be barred from exposing their children to any religion other than the one taught in school?
One final thought: The only Christians who want a theocracy are a very fringe group who have no real power or sway over most Christians.
Really?
So, when those in the fringe called for the removal of judges and whatnot after the Terry Schiavo case, DeLay and company *did not* leap to their side and offer up the same asanine opinions?
The “fringe” seems to have more power than you think, Jim.
Evangelical Christians (or any other form of “Christianity”) are not tearing this country apart.
This is no longer a battle of ideas in Congress & the White House. It’s about, as somebody else called it, “winning”.
Nuclear option on the filibuster? The Repubs wanted to take that route because they weren’t getting their way, whining and crying like 2-year olds in the candy isle. They want total control, at any cost.
Almost forgot – a state legislator in New Jersey is trying to get the Devils hockey team to change their name & logo because of it’s symbolism.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=4&u=/ap/20050529/ap_on_sp_ho_ne/hkn_devils_name_change
well, first things first, why hasn’t this clear cut Church/State issue been taken care of by the state supreme court throwing out his ruling, and why is this Judge not being disciplined for letting his personal beliefs dictate a ruling that has to go by our constitution?
inanity, all of it…
Insanity, that is…
So…. ‘neocon’ is code for Jewish? So… Bush, Chaney et al are Jewish?
Who knew?
Talk about a cover-up…
Oh, well, you see, they might not be jewish per se but smarter folks than I have said that they are under the thumb of the all powerful Israel lobby and Jewish controlled media. The most powerful neo-cons, whether they be jewish (Wolfowitz,Tommy Franks (who knew?),Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, etc) or just dupes of the Israeli State (Bush, Cheney) all make their foreign policy decisions solely on how it will best benefit Israel.
Paranoid anti-semitism? Sure, I’d think so but I guess I’m just not smart enough to connect the dots.
Actually, it’s pretty inane, too, in addition to being insane.
Man, that’s another of those things that just bugs me about English. Someone who isn’t insane is sane. But something that isn’t inane isn’t described as “ane.”
PAd
well, first things first, why hasn’t this clear cut Church/State issue been taken care of by the state supreme court throwing out his ruling, and why is this Judge not being disciplined for letting his personal beliefs dictate a ruling that has to go by our constitution?
Due process. An appeal has to be filed & then the petitioners have to wait their turn to face the court. They can request that the case be expedited, but as it isn’t a life-threatening matterit might not happen.
“I’m looking at you PAD, why arn’t you running for some office?”
Oh yeah, I can just see it.
“Please vote for me on election day.”
“Nah…”
“Why not, you idiot?”
Sure. That’ll work.
PAD
PAD
“And as for suspending the laws of physics, they’re just being bent in different ways. The power of belief and the mind can do that….”
Okay, that’s got to be, hands down, one of the stupidest statements ever to appear on these boards.
You know, if Wiccans, or any other group for that matter, could actually demonstrate ANY supernatural abilities whatsoever, they would instantly become the most popular belief system out there.
I always wondered why, in the Marvel Universe, churches devoted to the Norse Gods didn’t start springing up all over he place. They’d have a great slogan–something like “OUR God is real…and he just beat up Stilt-Man!” and the kids could join up with the Church of Loki just to honk off Mom and Dad.
“I always wondered why, in the Marvel Universe, churches devoted to the Norse Gods didn’t start springing up all over the place.”
Well…they did. We did it first in 2099 with the Church of Thor and the Thorites. And then it was eventually done in the pages of the Thor comic just a couple years ago.
PAD
Wasn’t Nate Grey worshipped as a God when he was alive?
Wasn’t Nate Grey worshipped as a God when he was alive?
No, Tom, I’d have to say that honor goes to Iowa Jim, and his claim that Wicca comes from a tribal tradition that “enslaves women and sacrifices children.”
You mean like those passages in Leviticus that make a female worth intrinsically less than a male, or that tell us that we may take slaves from neighboring countries?
Or are you referring to such obviously “enslaved” women as Boadiccea?
Jim, my friend, even a careless reading of the Old Testament will show that JudeoChristianity is hardly clean on this score…
(Of course, this also leads me to the poster above who claimed that discrimination against Jews is in the Bible. This ignores the plainly stated fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, and was often referred to as “Rabbi”, as well as ignoring Paul’s entire Epistle to the Hebrews…)
// (Of course, this also leads me to the poster above who claimed that discrimination against Jews is in the Bible. This ignores the plainly stated fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, and was often referred to as “Rabbi”, as well as ignoring Paul’s entire Epistle to the Hebrews…) //
Yes, but then again the “Christians” who have used the Bible for Jew Bashing pretty much since the time Jesus died have had no trouble ignoring those facts so I didn’t have any trouble ignoring them either. There’s plenty of contridictory stuff in the Bible, (both new and old testimates). Most people practice what has been termed “cafiteria style religion”, that is they take what they like and ignore what they don’t. It’s that kind of logic that leads people to ignore such passages as “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, “judge not least yea be judged” and “let he who is without sin throw the first stone” and go right to the parts about Gays being an abomination who don’t deserve to live and will rot in hëll for thier sins.
I have met an awful lot of christians and Catholics who are completly unaware that Jesus was Jewish, (seriously), but they know the Jews were responcible for his death. That’s a little factiod they’ve been told all thier lives and, like it or not, there’s plenty in the Gospells to support that interpretation. Historical fact, Hitler used the term “Christ-Killers” in speachs and Nazi propaganda to whip up anti-Jewish feelings. The Catholic Church only recently absolved Jews of thier guilt over thier lords death, (how nice of them).
Like it or not, the Jew Bashing stuff is in the Bible, it’s contridicted by a ton of other stuff but that’s not the same as saying it isn’t there. People have been using those “Jew Bashing” passages to justify bigotry, oppression, murder and even genicide (see the Holocust), since Christ left the world 2000+ years ago. To think otherwise shows an outstanding denial of real world history.
So, when those in the fringe called for the removal of judges and whatnot after the Terry Schiavo case, DeLay and company *did not* leap to their side and offer up the same asanine opinions?
The “fringe” seems to have more power than you think, Jim.
I used a very specific word: “Theocracy.” That means setting up God as the monarch, the real king of our country. Your example has nothing to do with setting up a theocracy. Unless you want to arbitrarily say any thought derived from a religious source, or that happens to agree with the same, is an attempt to establish a theocracy. If that is the case, then there is no room for discussion. You have already ruled out a line of reasoning that you personally have rejected. I doubt that is actually the case, but that is the logic that is being used against Christian beliefs.
Iowa Jim
You know, since the judge didn’t define “mainstream religion”, there’s nothing stopping the parents from saying that Wicca IS a mainstream religion, is there?
Christianity does not have the powerful clerics that Islam has
Pat Robertson
Pat Robertson’s son
James Dobson
Donald Wildmon
You have got to be kidding me! You are comparing apples to oranges. Dobson and Robertson are no different than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. They are not clerics who control hit squads. They are not religious icons who are instigating terroristic acts. The few that do (Jim Jones, the occasional bomber of abortion clinics, etc.) are most definitely on the fringe.
There is no doubt that James Dobson is an influential figure. But it is not the power of a cleric. His power is the same as that of a Rush Limbaugh or a Molly Ivins. They tell the story from their point of view and try to motivate people to action. PAD does the same on this site, and that is his right.
I agree that in my short 38 years, I don’t remember it being this polarized. But I am very plugged into the Christian right. I occasionally listen to Dobson. I come across things from Robertson. I never, ever hear them suggesting any thing other than appropriate political action (such as voting or calling your conrgressman or senator). And quite frankly, I don’t agree with a lot of what Pat Robertson says and don’t always agree with Dobson.
So called “right wing” Christians/Evangelicals are not mind numbed robots who wait for marching orders and then blindly accept them. Nor do we want to take away over the country and set up a theocracy. On certain issues (eg., abortion), we do have a moral view on the issue that does have roots in both common sense and our belief that the Bible is a revelation from God. So what? Others have views based on many other sources.
One last thought: Delay, Bush, etc., do not necessarily represent most Christian’s viewpoints on every issue anymore than Bill Clinton represented all of the democrats views on issues. All leaders play the political game.
Iowa Jim
Might want to take an actual look at the Christian Bible before you get on your high horse.
Actually, I have read it quite extensively. First, although the Bible did permit slavery, it vastly improved it and protected those who were slaves. The same is true about women. When you the Jewish culture to other Ancient Near Eastern cultures, the biblical standards were as revolutionary as our freeing slaves was in the 1800’s and our insisting on civil rights was in the late 1900’s. You don’t change societies overnight, and so I have no problem living with the fact that the Bible permitted slavery.
Second, I agree that atrocities and injustices have been done in the name of virtually every religion, including Christianity. My point was not to compare religions at their worst. Instead, my reference was to go back to the core teachings that established the religions. As I mentioned above, biblical standards always improved the lives of people in the culture in which they were given. It put a far higher value on human life. The principle of “an eye for an eye” was an improvement because it limited the retribution. You could no longer kill someone because they put out your eye. It was not a barbaric requirement that equal pain be inflicted on the other party. Instead, it stopped the cycle of violence by limiting the justice that could be executed in response.
When it comes to the source of Wicca, here is a quote from a Wicca website:
“Thanks to archaeological discoveries, we now have basis to believe that the origins of our belief system can be traced even further back to the Paleolithic peoples who worshipped a Hunter God and a Fertility Goddess.”
http://www.wicca.com/celtic/wicca/wicca.htm
That religion believed in sympathetic magic. That means they would enact rituals in the hopes that the “gods” would then follow. These practices regularly included using women as sexual objects (this was NOT an “orgy” where it was enjoyable for all; it was a power/control issue of a man dominating a woman). And that is just one example.
My point? Wicca claims to be descended from the very same pagan religions that would use and abuse people in an effort to make the gods do as they asked. Have Christians tried to the same? Perhaps on occassion, but reading the Bible shows that was not what we were taught to do. There is a radical difference between the two religious systems.
Iowa Jim
I never, ever hear them suggesting any thing other than appropriate political action
Like when Robertson said he wanted to put a nuclear bomb under the state department building?
Let’s face it, folks. The ancient world could be a very violent and ugly place. I have no doubt that followers of traditions today loosely followed by Wiccans could be savage to modern sensibilities (just like lots of stuff done in Christ’s name was and is savage).
This is besides the point. I know plenty of MODERN Wiccans and they’re no more threatening than the average Christian (they’re often less threatening actually in my humble agnostic oppinion).
What should be discussed here is, why the f… it would be considered abusive or endangering to teach your kid “witchcraft” if that is what you want? Is it any different than teach them to pray to the saints or whatever rocks your boat?
As long as said rituals don’t involve exposing the child to physical violence, sex, or drugs, what is the dámņ problem? Endangering the child’s immortal soul? That is only a problem from the Christian perspective, but the parents aren’t Christians…
// Actually, I have read it quite extensively. First, although the Bible did permit slavery, it vastly improved it and protected those who were slaves. The same is true about women. When you the Jewish culture to other Ancient Near Eastern cultures, the biblical standards were as revolutionary as our freeing slaves was in the 1800’s and our insisting on civil rights was in the late 1900’s. You don’t change societies overnight, and so I have no problem living with the fact that the Bible permitted slavery.
Second, I agree that atrocities and injustices have been done in the name of virtually every religion, including Christianity. My point was not to compare religions at their worst. Instead, my reference was to go back to the core teachings that established the religions. As I mentioned above, biblical standards always improved the lives of people in the culture in which they were given. It put a far higher value on human life. The principle of “an eye for an eye” was an improvement because it limited the retribution. You could no longer kill someone because they put out your eye. It was not a barbaric requirement that equal pain be inflicted on the other party. Instead, it stopped the cycle of violence by limiting the justice that could be executed in response.
When it comes to the source of Wicca, here is a quote from a Wicca website:
“Thanks to archaeological discoveries, we now have basis to believe that the origins of our belief system can be traced even further back to the Paleolithic peoples who worshipped a Hunter God and a Fertility Goddess.”
http://www.wicca.com/celtic/wicca/wicca.htm
That religion believed in sympathetic magic. That means they would enact rituals in the hopes that the “gods” would then follow. These practices regularly included using women as sexual objects (this was NOT an “orgy” where it was enjoyable for all; it was a power/control issue of a man dominating a woman). And that is just one example.
My point? Wicca claims to be descended from the very same pagan religions that would use and abuse people in an effort to make the gods do as they asked. Have Christians tried to the same? Perhaps on occassion, but reading the Bible shows that was not what we were taught to do. There is a radical difference between the two religious systems. //
Sorry, your whole argument still doesn’t hold up, basically you hold Christian/Jewish beliefs up as self correcting, (hey they did allow slaves but not any more), while ignoring the fact that Wiccans have also self correted. Thus Wiccan’s get held to a standard of things that happened 100’s/1000’s of years ago, and don’t happen anymore, but Christians/Jews get a free pass on past mistakes.
(You also ignore mistakes still being made, like the whole “hate gays”, “Jews are Bad” “anyone who doesn’t believe as we do will be condemmed to eternal torment”, mistakes not currently being made by the other religions you put Christianty above, but hey lets not quible).
As far as the Bible not teaching scarfice, ect, to get on thier Gods good sides, you might want to check that old testimat again, not only were there tons of animal scarfices but Abraham was ready and willing to sacrifice his son because God told him to, (And yes I know God changed his mind at the last minute but that doesn’t change the point that us humans had no problem scarficing human life for God, something in the Bible you give a “free pass” but judge other religions for).
There’s also an awful lot of orgies in there and the last time I looked Christianity still has plenty of rules that have no other purpose but to keep women in thier place. But apparently keeping the women folks down in the here and now is morally superior then some forced orgies that happened a few thousand years ago that has no effect on any one actually living today.
Once again, you might want to think a little before stepping on your high horse.
I always wondered why, in the Marvel Universe, churches devoted to the Norse Gods didn’t start springing up all over the place.”
Well…they did. We did it first in 2099 with the Church of Thor and the Thorites. And then it was eventually done in the pages of the Thor comic just a couple years ago.
Well, there you go. Boy, there was a time when I could have written an encyclopedia of the Marvel Universe but those days are obviously long gone. (I do wish I’d jumped on board the whole 2099 thing when it came out).
Unless you want to arbitrarily say any thought derived from a religious source, or that happens to agree with the same, is an attempt to establish a theocracy.
I suppose that depends on how many countries God has told Bush to bomb, doesn’t it?
Which was my point: When our president says he’s been told to do something by god (like, bombing the hëll out of innocents), I think it’s time for said president to take a hike, because it might as well be putting a god in a position of leadership.
It’s why I’ve never understood the Catholic church, even though I’m baptized – they have the Pope, the Speaker for God (in a nutshell).
Why? Why the hëll does anybody need the Pope to tell them what god supposedly says? Can’t people figure it out for themselves?
First, although the Bible did permit slavery, it vastly improved it and protected those who were slaves.
A slave is a slave is a slave.
There’s no way to “improve” slavery short of abolishing it.
Iowa Jim: But I am amazed at the ignorance there is about the origins of this religion. I know it is not as “coherent” of a system as the major religions, but the teachings and concepts it adopts come from ancient tribal religions that enslaved women and sacrificed children. No, I am not saying the modern form of Wicca embraces those beliefs. But it is fascinating how its origins are not honestly dealt with.
Luigi Novi: Much of which can be said of any other religion, including Christianity.
Iowa Jim: I used a very specific word: “Theocracy.” That means setting up God as the monarch, the real king of our country. Your example has nothing to do with setting up a theocracy. Unless you want to arbitrarily say any thought derived from a religious source, or that happens to agree with the same, is an attempt to establish a theocracy.
Luigi Novi: Except that we all know that we’re not talking about “any thought.” We’re talking about LEGAL RULINGS and other LEGAL efforts to force people to live by the religion of one group.
Iowa Jim: My point? Wicca claims to be descended from the very same pagan religions that would use and abuse people in an effort to make the gods do as they asked. Have Christians tried to the same? Perhaps on occassion, but reading the Bible shows that was not what we were taught to do.
Luigi Novi: Oh really? So when God commanded his followers to bring him the foreskins of those in a neighboring tribe, that wasn’t abuse? When God slaughtered the first born sons of Egypt, that wasn’t abuse?
// Why? Why the hëll does anybody need the Pope to tell them what god supposedly says? Can’t people figure it out for themselves? //
Why did I have the sudden image of James T Kirk asking “um, excuse me, Why would God need a starship?”
I haven’t been reading the thread (i will later). I just wanted to add that this lack of separation is happening more and more frequently.
As reported in the Jewish Advocate (jewish boston newspaper) Check out the article in the bottom left hand corner (only good for this week 05/27-06/02).
http://www.thejewishadvocate.com
A quote from said article to help give the gist of it:
“Recent Graduate Casey Weinstein claims he was subject to proselytizing by his teachers, restriction of kosher food, the inability to observe the Sabbath and Christian themed parties sponsored by the academy.”
And then a quote from later on by Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State told this to the Jewish Advocate:
“There is a clear preference for Christianity at the academy, so that everyone else feels like a second class citizen.”
I’ll try and find a better link for the entire story if I can. this will have to do for now.
I do wish I’d jumped on board the whole 2099 thing when it came out
You didn’t miss much. Spider-Man & the early issues of the Punisher were the only ones worth reading.
Why the hëll does anybody need the Pope to tell them what god supposedly says?
Because for centuries non-clergy were not allowed to read the bible, let alone consider or discuss it.
//a slave is a slave is a slave.//
True and not true. Yes a slave, in the traditional sense of any person being held in thrall against their will, is a slave is a slave. The biblical definition of slavery is quite different. It provides for indentured servitude, or signing up to work for someone for a period of years without pay, but with some recompense at the end. It was a VOLUNTARY action taken only by people who were destitute. You would work for someone for a period of four to seven years, and at the end of that term, you were released with some money, and reinstituted as an equal member of society. This is the same idea that was used in our country at it’s founding. Slavery in America grew up out of this when Black people started being treated differently. True, there are better ways of dealing with poverty (like social security) but still, this isn’t forcible capture of innocents. Also, as to the idea that we are supposed to follow the old testament exactly, it surprises me that no one has EVER mentioned the fact that the rules were that harsh because the Israelites backslid at every opportunity. Moses leaves for 40 days, they can SEE the storm on the mountain, and what do they do? make a golden calf. C’mon, if you were God, you’d crack down too.
Like when Robertson said he wanted to put a nuclear bomb under the state department building?
Say what? That is a new one. I would love to get the full context. It was a stupid thing to say if he really did say it, but anyone who listens to him knows it was in no way a command or request or even a hope that it would happen. I would vote for McCain before I voted for Robertson. He really is a nut at times. But he is not as influential as Dobson or other conservative Christian leaders.
Iowa Jim
A slave is a slave is a slave.
There’s no way to “improve” slavery short of abolishing it.
No, there are many forms of slavery. Ancient slavery was not the modern racial type of slavery we had here in America. It was an indentured servant in some cases, and a captive in another. Either way, it was the only way for them to eat. There was not welfare system. There was no economy to support them.
You also are forgetting (or do not know) that the Israelite legal system mandated the freeing of all indentured servants on the year of Jubilee (every 49 years). While it is likely this was not practiced as the Jewish Law required, it in essence should have freed all of the Jewish slaves on a regular basis. There would not have been the generations of slaves as we had here in America. (As I recall, this was not true for “alien” slaves, most of whom were captives from war. But there was stict rules of how to treat them. This was more humane since it served as a welfare system and took care of their essential needs.)
I agree that the ultimate solution is to abolish it, but you are living in a dream world if you think it could have been abolished overnight 2,000 years ago, even within the confines of the nation of Israel. The reality is, Christianity is the religion that led the way to obliterate slavery worldwide. You don’t find any other world religion doing so. It is the same Christianity that established hospitals and orphanages, and has taken care of the poor and the abused. Yes, it has not had a perfect track record, but who does? The reality is Christianity has done much to make America a place of freedom, including freedom of religion. Name me any nation that has allowed the freedom of religion that we have enjoyed that did not have a strong Christian foundation? You don’t find it among Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or any other tribal religion. So it is rather frustrating to hear people say it is Christianity that is the threat to our freedom. That is not the case. It has, on occasion, been twisted that way, as has any religion or philosophy. But it consistently has been a religion that embraces freedom.
Iowa Jim
In June, Robertson told his television audience, “Well, it looks like Congress had better do something, and maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up.”
October 2003
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/740.html
Foggy Bottom is where the U.S. State Department building is located.
// The reality is, Christianity is the religion that led the way to obliterate slavery worldwide. //
And your source on this would be? Saying it doesn’t make it so.
//You don’t find any other world religion doing so. //
Well aside from the fact that there were abolitionist who were not Christians, (some were athiest, some were quakers, ect. ect), And there were plenty of Christian preachers telling the faithful that holding black people as Slaves was perfectly OK, (said so in the Bible, see), it should also be pointed out that several eastern religions were preaching the golden rule, (including forbidding slavery) years before Christ birth. Abolishing Slavery was a social issue that included religion, not a religious issue that became social.
// It is the same Christianity that established hospitals and orphanages, //
Bull, hosptials and orphanages existed in places before the Christians came, hëll at one time the best medical care you could get was in the Muslin controlled countries.
// and has taken care of the poor and the abused. //
Again this is not unique to Christianty.
// Yes, it has not had a perfect track record, but who does? The reality is Christianity has done much to make America a place of freedom, including freedom of religion. //
Bull. It’s the fundumentalist Christian Right that attempts to squash religious freedom every chance they get. And the people who came up with the concept of “freedom of Religion” were for the most part not Christian. They were a group of radical guys, some were Freemasons, some were Quakers, some were Athiest and Agnostics, and none of them thought government and religion should ever mix.
// Name me any nation that has allowed the freedom of religion that we have enjoyed that did not have a strong Christian foundation? //
The myth that this county was founded on a Christian foundation has been debunked so many times, but like many lies if you keep saying it people keep believing it. The people who first landed here weren’t even Christians, they were for the most part, Quakers. Many of our founding farthers, (you know the guys who thought up the freedom of religion concept), were at best, non religious, and at worst outright athiest. Christianity has nothing to do with the constitution, other then the people who wrote it were aware of Christianity and a few of them may have practiced it. The same could be said to be true of the charter of any organization, so what? You can’t draw a line from one to the other without either changing history or making incredible leaps in logic. Of course that hasn’t stopped the religious right from doing just that over the years.
// You don’t find it among Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or any other tribal religion. //
Bull, Buddhist and Hindus are incredibly tolarent of other religions and beliefs. And the only problem most Jews have with other religions is when those religions have people strap bombs to themselves and blow up thier citizens. Which seems a resonable complaint, don’t you think.
// So it is rather frustrating to hear people say it is Christianity that is the threat to our freedom. //
Not Christianity per say, just radical religious Christian right, many of whom are currently in power or very close to those who are. Could radical Muslisms, Jews, ect. be a threat, sure, but they currently aren’t close to the power base in this county, hence they aren’t the big threat.
Name me any nation that has allowed the freedom of religion that we have enjoyed that did not have a strong Christian foundation? You don’t find it among Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or any other tribal religion. So it is rather frustrating to hear people say it is Christianity that is the threat to our freedom. That is not the case. It has, on occasion, been twisted that way, as has any religion or philosophy. But it consistently has been a religion that embraces freedom.
I got one for you: America. America is not a Christian country (though it is predominantly Christian). It was not founded on christian principles (as the constitution does a pretty good job separating religion from government). You want to call it Deism, fine; a humanistic approach, fine. Christian, nope.
And for the record, historically speaking, Jews generally were treated better (up until this past century) in Muslim countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Turkey) than they were in Christian countries (Spain, France, Russia, England, most of Eastern Europe). And even this past century hasn’t been so hot for the Jews in Europe. I would say it more inconstantly embraced freedom (which is the case of most religions, even mine-Judaism). But it, like all religions, is still evolving, and I really do have the utmost respect for Christianity and those practicing Christianity. I just get bothered (and a little scared) when Christianity (or any religion for that matter) is used as a measuring stick for government decisions.
It is the same Christianity that established hospitals and orphanages, and has taken care of the poor and the abused.
Yes, that is true, though that can be said of Islam, Judaism, and many other religions. Christianity is amazing at charity, it is something to be respected and admired, yet does not hold a monopoly on charitable actions and organizations world wide.
I’m not quite sure how this tangent started, but to get back onto the main topic, even if a religion is not mainstream that does not give the government to legislate how a parent raises a child. The only way the government should be able to intervene is if said religion was dangerous and harmful towards the child, which wicca, in it’s current practice in America, is not.
The wall seperating church and state is slowly crumbling. As I posted previously, this is a link to more of the story.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/03/airforce.religion/
Michael Brunner
“”I’m Christian. My wife is Catholic”
Ummm … I thought that Catholics were also Christians?”
Yes they are. But the churches I grew up around were the types of chuches that viewed Catholics as lost and the people that killed/destroyed the faith. Jenn’s been around Catholic churches that were as tight about who a Catholic could date or wed as some Orthodox Jews are. If you weren’t Catholic you needed to convert or bug off. While neither of us live by those standards (nor, thankfully, do are parents) we still tend to seperate “Christian” & “Catholic” when talking about faiths and standards of belief.
Not that we care really. Just kinda habit.
I’m not quite sure about this new tangent. But it underscores a lesser point from my other posts. The faith gets highjacked by someone who wants to hold it up while trashing some other faith. All religions have a history of leaders and followers that acted like pinheads, did bad things and rewrote the books to get away with murder. No one religion, to me, is better or worse then any other. Now, what the leaders do with it and what the people allow themselves to be talked out of or into doing is another matter all together. But you can’t knock a faith for what the most vocal, and most often minority, voices are kicking up.
Oh, and if anyone is so stupid as to think that being a slave under Christian values isn’t really all that bad then come on down/up/over to VA. I could really use all the free lawn help I can get and promise to only abuse you in Christian ways.
I would just like to make a point of clarification. Christian and Catholic is not the same thing.
A Christian is one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
Christianity is a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history.
Thus anyone who believes in the teachings of Christ is a Christian this includes Quakers (a Christian sect founded by George Fox about 1660; commonly called Quakers [syn: Religious Society of Friends, Society of Friends, Quakers]) and Puritans(A member of a group of English Protestants who in the 16th and 17th centuries advocated strict religious discipline along with simplification of the ceremonies and creeds of the Church of England.)
To say that Quakers are not Christians is just wrong. Also most of the founding fathers were religious Christians as was the custom for that time, to claim that this country was not founded by Christians is just wrong. Unless you are referring to the Indians who were here before the white men came, and their religion more closely resembles Wicca than not.
The reason for the separation of Church and State as set forth in the Bill of Rights was because our founding fathers were cognizant of the fact the first colonies that were set up in the new world were done by people seeking to escape from religious persecution. Something that this Judge seems to have forgotten.
I would just like to make a point of clarification. Christian and Catholic is not the same thing.
A Christian is one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
Christianity is a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior 2: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history.
Thus anyone who believes in the teachings of Christ is a Christian…
I’m confused. Are you saying catholics aren’t cChristians or that they are christians. Based on your definition it sounds like “not all christians are catholic, but all Catholics are Christian”, which is what I thought to begin with.
to claim that this country was not founded by Christians is just wrong.
I don’t know who’s saying that, I just meant that the founding fathers weren’t using Christian doctorine or theology in regards to the founding of the country, thus – as you said, they created to seperation between church and state.
Craig,
“Yep. I present honesty and truth”
Oh, you have a monopoly on what is the truth? Why don’t you include justice and the American Way while you’re at it. Oh, I forgot, you don’t care for Superman.
“as does PAD and many other posters here.”
In other words, the ones you agree with. You can always tell an insecure person when he has to point out that “OTHER PEOPLE AGREE WITH ME” rather than making a point on the merits. Something that it seems outside of your capabilities to do.
“But those are things you won’t find coming out of the White House”
No. No. Of course not. YAWN.
“If you don’t like it, you’re more than welcome to stop responding to my posts, because, quite frankly, I don’t give a dámņ what you think about the posts I make.”
What a wonderful, open-minded little progressive you are, so receptive to different opinions.
“If you want to bìŧçh, whine and moan about the Islamics, who aren’t ruining this country, btw, be my guest.”
Hold it right there. That is NOT what I said. I NEVER said that. I NEVER broadly condemned all practitioners of Islam. See, unlike you, I don’t bash a whole group of people based on the actions of a few or because they beleve in things I don’t.
What I DID condemn was Islamic FANATICS, who actually kill people. And I have yet to see you (or many here) have one angry word to say about those who have chopped off heads and fly planes into buildings than you do over a case like this, which is an anomaly and will likely be overturned.
Don’t you see what the danger is here?
If EVERY time something like this happens you turn your outrage meter to 10, then if jack-booted thugs ever do start breaking down doors, if rights truly are repressed no one will listen because you are screaming at the top of your lungs every day over minor incidents and abuses that don’t exist.
THAT is scary. So is your justifying hating a whole group of people. That is what skinheads do. That is what militant blaCKS do. That is what anti-semitic people do.
You really want to be like them? Be my guest.
“So, quite frankly, I don’t see a need to bash these other religions. Apparently, you think I should, just to be consistent?”
Apparently, you need to take a course in reading comprehension. I am saying that bashing any group in broad strokes like you do with Christians is an ugly, disgusting thing to do.
“My, aren’t you a hypocritical jáçkášš.”
My, don’t you need to get a dictionary and learn the definition of hypocritical, since you obviously don’t know what the word means.
Something’s been gnawing at me for a bit, and I think I know what it is. A lot of people who meet some messed up kid who’s trying “dark magic” and says he’s a “Wiccan” just shrug, accept it, and move on.
Would people have the same reaction if the same kid said that Jesus wanted him to sacrifice a goat? Why not? He obviously believes in Jesus. He’s also obviously a complete nutbar.
Just because somebody says they’re something doesn’t make it so. If they’re not so much as paying attention to even the most basic tenets of the belief system, they’re not of that faith, no matter what they say.
The Church and popular culture have done such a good job over the centuries of discrediting anything remotely pagan that most people are automatically ready to accept the worst, but when something positive is said, they start digging for the “other side” or the “real story.”
Sad really, when all it is, when you boil it down, is a different name for God and a different approach to speaking to him.
-Rex Hondo-
And your source on this would be? Saying it doesn’t make it so.
Any decent history book. Some of the earliest opposition to slavery in the Roman Empire came from Christians. Of course, the fact that a very large number of slaves were becoming Christians may have played a role in the process. Nonetheless, Christians have opposed slavery virtualy from the inception of Christianity.
Jump ahead to the 1800’s. I never said Christians were the only ones who opposed slavery. But they were very much at the forefront pushing for it to be abolished. The movement very much coincided with a Christian revival that spread through both England and America. It was Christian preachers who were campaigning for the end of slavery. (If it was today, they would have to worry about losing their tax exempt status.) Yes, there were also Christians who supported slavery. And there were also many secular enlightenment leaders who also supported slavery, based in part on evolutionary ideas.
Go do some research on William Wilberforce. He would be considered a very conservative Christian in todays terms. He is widely credited as a driving force behind the abolition of slavery in England. The opposition to slavery in America did include a wide range of people, both religious and secular. But without the strong and unwavering support of many Christian leaders, it would not have suceeded. There are plenty of books that address this issue. An article written by Charles Colson lists some of those resources:
http://acct.tamu.edu/smith/ethics/BP_Christianity_and_Slavery.htm
Concerning other humanitarian issues, I do not deny others have offered help and aid. But I would suggest that Christian aid has very often led the way and offered help to those others have shunned, especially when you go back 100 years or more. You may disagree that Christians have been at the forefront, but you cannot deny that Christians have been known for their humanitarian efforts for hundreds of years.
Iowa Jim
Perhaps I should make my point a different way. My point is simply this: The so called “separation of church and state” that I hear described would have greatly hindered much of the good that Christianity has done in this country’s history and done little to have stopped the bad. The original concept, that a specific church/denomination should not be “the” state sponsored religion is an important and necessary concept. But the current idea that James Dobson is threatening democracy as we know it because he is against gay marriage and for conservative judges is a joke. Dobson has a right to express his views, whether they come from a Bible or a dream he had after eating pizza. So does any atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Budhist, etc. If elected, he has the right to act on those views. If his actions violate the boundaries set by the constitution, bill of rights, etc., then he should be stopped.
Bottom line, Christianity is not a threat to democracy. On the contrary, Christianity played a crucial (though not exclusive) role in the birth of modern democracy. Religious freedom in America did not happen in spite of Christianity, it happened in large part because of Christianity. And most Christian leaders today, such as Dobson, have no agenda or desire to take away freedom of religion or to create a state church.
Agree or disagree, that is your choice. I have said my peace and will drop the matter.
Iowa Jim
The people who first landed here weren’t even Christians, they were for the most part, Quakers.
Quakers aren’t Christian? So Richard Nixon was our first non-Christian President?
Bill, shhhhhhhhhh! You don’t want to interupt a good rant with little things called facts.