Scalia Complains on Church-State Rulings
PARADOX OF BORG
>: DESIGNATING PARADOX FOR FIRST PERSON COMMUNICATION
>: SUBJECT - "I would never curse you by making you human . . . think of
this as a going away gift!"
Designation A...@nashville.general:
I found this article very interesting. Thought the rest of you might
too!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75322,00.html
Also found some Music to with Historical Quotes to support Scalia's opinion.
For a limited time it can be found at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~paradox3d/America.wma
"This is not about age, Time served on the earth doesn't mean you grow
in mind." - from Creed's album "weathered" from the song "signs"
Ever Thinking, Not Just Accepting,
Paradox of Borg at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~paradox3d
PS> Now if we assume that the structure is as we have assumed (and unless we
do, we go back to the Socrates), namely, that the teacher himself provides
the learner with the condition, then the object of faith becomes not the
teaching but the teacher, for the essence of the Socratic is that the
learner, because he himself is the truth and has the condition, can thrust
the teacher away. Indeed, assisting people to be able to do this constituted
the Socratic art and heroism. Faith, then must constantly cling to the
teacher. But in order for the teacher to be able to give the condition, he
must be god, and in order to put the learner in possession of it, he must be
man. This contradiction is in turn the object of faith and is the paradox,
the moment. That the god once and for all has given man the condition that
is the eternal Socratic presupposition, which does not clash inimically with
time but is incommensurable with the categories of temporality. But the
contradiction is that he receives the condition in the moment, and, since it
is a condition for understanding of eternal truth, it is "eo ipso" - the
eternal condition.
- Soren Kierkegaard from PHILOSOPHICAL FRAGMENTS Chp. IV
Ned
Justices as it it relates to his reasoning and argument. He pulls no
punches, and he doesn't play "make believe" when it comes to the
Constitution. His opinions are always interesting and usually are flawless
in their legal construction.
And, BTW, where did this "separation of church and state" come from anyways?
Seems like a dimwitted convolution of the establishment clause. Let's face
it...our society was better when we had religion in schools...
"PARADOX OF BORG" <parado...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hN4V9.10375$Dq.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
PARADOX OF BORG
>: DESIGNATING PARADOX FOR FIRST PERSON COMMUNICATION
>: SUBJECT - "I would never curse you by making you human . . . think of
this as a going away gift!"
Designation "Ned" <n...@nospamxx.com> wrote in message
news:HxycnQ72e8b...@comcast.com...
> Scalia will go down is history as one of the most solid Supreme Court
> Justices as it it relates to his reasoning and argument. He pulls no
> punches, and he doesn't play "make believe" when it comes to the
> Constitution. His opinions are always interesting and usually are flawless
> in their legal construction.
>
> And, BTW, where did this "separation of church and state" come from
anyways?
> Seems like a dimwitted convolution of the establishment clause. Let's face
> it...our society was better when we had religion in schools...
>
Before 1976, and the ACLU pushing the issue from 1976 forward, it never
was an issue. In less than 30 years, they've managed, with the help of
liberal judges appointed by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, to make intrusive
inroads into our justice system and culture. Plus Religion in schools was a
mute point before 1976, because many a one room school in this country just
happened to have its beginning in a Church or the layman lead Sunday School
movement of old when it was separate from any denomination. Many of this
country's public libraries began with Sunday School sponsored Libraries.
You never heard Church's or the National Sunday School movement cry fowl
when States stepped in and took over their classrooms and libraries. They
didn't seem to think their was a problem with separation of Church and
State. Maybe we should go back in time and reward somebody with some sort
of financial compensation since separation of Church and State was obviously
ignored by the States when they took control of these institutions, if the
ACLU really wants to be fair and balanced; but somehow I suspect their
motives are less than just and not really about upholding the Constitution.
Jeff Martin
> Justices as it it relates to his reasoning and argument. He pulls no
> punches, and he doesn't play "make believe" when it comes to the
> Constitution. His opinions are always interesting and usually are flawless
> in their legal construction.
>
> And, BTW, where did this "separation of church and state" come from
anyways?
> Seems like a dimwitted convolution of the establishment clause. Let's face
> it...our society was better when we had religion in schools...
There is no problem with religion in schools. As long as parents and the
students have a choice. The problem is religion in public schools, actually
the problem is public schools. Personally, I don't want my son being forced
to pray when he goes to school. If schools were a community organization,
the community could decide and if a community school forced religion on the
students, parents like me could send their kids elsewhere.
jeff
Olin Murrell
> Justices as it it relates to his reasoning and argument. He pulls no
> punches, and he doesn't play "make believe" when it comes to the
> Constitution. His opinions are always interesting and usually are flawless
> in their legal construction.
>
> And, BTW, where did this "separation of church and state" come from
anyways?
> Seems like a dimwitted convolution of the establishment clause. Let's face
> it...our society was better when we had religion in schools...
>
The "dimwit" who came up with the Separation of Church and State Doctrine
(it's neither law NOR specifically written into the Constitution) was none
other than Thomas Jefferson.
Excerpt below taken from:
http://www.ifas.org/fw/9406/separation.html
"The Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of the U.S. Constitution, first
utilized the term "wall of separation between church and state" in its 1878
Reynolds v. United States decision, in which it held that "the whole
American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state." The
Court then stated that Thomas Jefferson's term "wall of separation between
church and state may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of
the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."
Ol' Tom Jefferson, of course was the "dimwit" who preceded the 9 old
"dimwits" of the 1878 US Supreme Court.
See, all our problems date right back to those rascally founding fathers...
"dimwits," one and all.
In the same article, we learn that 9 more old "dimwits" first applied the
doctrine to a case in 1940.
"The first time the incorporation doctrine was utilized to make the
restrictions of the First Amendment apply to state and local governments was
in the 1940 case Cantwell v. Connecticut. In Cantwell, a Jehovah's Witness
was arrested in the course of his proselytizing on the streets of New Haven,
Connecticut, and was convicted for inciting a breach of the peace. The
Supreme Court reversed the conviction and found that Cantwell's behavior did
not breach the peace and that he was convicted under a statute that was
sweeping and included a great variety of constitutionally protected conduct,
including Cantwell's free exercise of religion."
Idiots. That's apparently all we've ever had running this country. Why, the
very temerity of the USSC, telling a state it can't throw a Jehovah's
Witness in jail for preaching on the streets.
What IS this nation coming to if you can't pass laws against street
preaching... especially those pesky Jehovah's Witness?
Oh! Wait! That's what separation of church and state is all about... the
government can't muck about in religion, either for or against.
Not a bad idea... perhaps... 'specially if you happen to be a JV.
BTW, for the historically challenged, there are literally thousands of web
sites devoted to it, some praising it, some of the apparent belief that it
is evil incarnate. The site the above excerpts were taken from was merely
the second or third that Google popped up with.
Ned
practicing their religion. He believed the government should not be allowed
to establish an official state religion. Morally bankrupt zealots have
become the new tyranny by forcing their narrow minded and juvenile ideas on
people who believe there is nothing wrong with bowing their heads and saying
thank-you to the deity of their choice. That is not "establishment" as far
as Thomas Jefferson was concern, or as far as I am concerned.
BTW, I am not saying you or your children have to participate. You can
worship soap dishes at home, for all I care. But for you to have the
reckless, arrogant, and ethically sickening argument that people wanting to
"pray" hurts you in some fundamental way is simply a fabrication.
"Olin Murrell" <oli...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lpacnfnonoE...@comcast.com...
Joseph Crowe
First off, let's not get nasty here if possible.
Ned wrote:
> Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the prohibition of people freely
> practicing their religion. He believed the government should not be allowed
> to establish an official state religion.
The relevent constitutional statement resides in the 1st amendment to the
U.S.C.
It states that the feral government shall not establish a state religioin AND
that
the feral government shall not interfere with individuals' choice of how to
practice religious beliefs. Unfortunately, as I see it, both limits have been
abused.
> Morally bankrupt zealots have
> become the new tyranny by forcing their narrow minded and juvenile ideas on
> people who believe there is nothing wrong with bowing their heads and saying
> thank-you to the deity of their choice. That is not "establishment" as far
> as Thomas Jefferson was concern, or as far as I am concerned.
I don't have a problem with people observing a moment of silence for
whatever purpose. Frankly, though, and especially in the past, all
children were forced to endure whatever the regional religion wanted
in publically funded schools. It's a valid point. Further, the distribution
of federal dollars to churches a la Bush's most recent move flies
directly in the face of separation of church and state. It's bad enough
that churches don't have to pay taxes, while individuals do. Such
policies give churches huge amounts of power over individuals who
have no vested interests in the religions promulgated by such institutions.
> BTW, I am not saying you or your children have to participate. You can
> worship soap dishes at home, for all I care. But for you to have the
> reckless, arrogant, and ethically sickening argument that people wanting to
> "pray" hurts you in some fundamental way is simply a fabrication.
That does not sound like something that Olin would assert. Did you
actually have a quote like that.
>
>
> "Olin Murrell" <oli...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:lpacnfnonoE...@comcast.com...
>
> > The "dimwit" who came up with the Separation of Church and State Doctrine
> > (it's neither law NOR specifically written into the Constitution) was none
> > other than Thomas Jefferson.
--
Joseph Crowe
Heisenburg may have slept here.
Jeff Martin
"Joseph Crowe" <jcr...@io.com> wrote in message
news:3E282484...@io.com...
>
> Ned wrote:
>
>
> > BTW, I am not saying you or your children have to participate. You can
> > worship soap dishes at home, for all I care. But for you to have the
> > reckless, arrogant, and ethically sickening argument that people wanting
to
> > "pray" hurts you in some fundamental way is simply a fabrication.
>
> That does not sound like something that Olin would assert. Did you
> actually have a quote like that.
>
I'm assuming he was responding to my post also. I mentioned my children. I
don't think it hurts me in some fundamental way if people want to pray, but
it does hurt me and my children if they are forced to pray against my and
their wishes. That's how it used to be in public schools. Personally, I
don't care if *you* worship soap dishes at home or in public, just don't
force my children to worship the same soap dishes.
jeff
Olin Murrell
> Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the prohibition of people freely
> practicing their religion. He believed the government should not be
allowed
> to establish an official state religion. Morally bankrupt zealots have
> become the new tyranny by forcing their narrow minded and juvenile ideas
on
> people who believe there is nothing wrong with bowing their heads and
saying
> thank-you to the deity of their choice. That is not "establishment" as
far
> as Thomas Jefferson was concern, or as far as I am concerned.
>
> BTW, I am not saying you or your children have to participate. You can
> worship soap dishes at home, for all I care. But for you to have the
> reckless, arrogant, and ethically sickening argument that people wanting
to
> "pray" hurts you in some fundamental way is simply a fabrication.
>
Answering an argument I've not made. Not one that Jefferson ever made
either, far as I can tell. The pertinent clause exludes establishment OR
prohibition... one or the other, but both. It's really not much of a reach
for the parent of a child to see a school-led prayer as promotion of a
religion they may not hold to. I have no problem with that concept.
Contrary to popular belief, bowing one's head and saying thanks to a diety
has never been against the law... anywhere. Engraving said prayer into the
wall of a publicly funded institution probably is, if someone wants to push
it.
Scores of well-educated, devoutly faithful and politically astute religious
leaders have known for years the "wall of separation" phrase uttered by
Jefferson that became the much-villified doctrine of separation is far more
for the church's protection than the state's.
PARADOX OF BORG
Designation "Joseph Crowe" <jcr...@io.com> wrote in message
news:3E282484...@io.com...
>
> I don't have a problem with people observing a moment of silence for
> whatever purpose. Frankly, though, and especially in the past, all
> children were forced to endure whatever the regional religion wanted
> in publically funded schools. It's a valid point. Further, the
distribution
> of federal dollars to churches a la Bush's most recent move flies
> directly in the face of separation of church and state. It's bad enough
> that churches don't have to pay taxes, while individuals do. Such
> policies give churches huge amounts of power over individuals who
> have no vested interests in the religions promulgated by such
institutions.
>
Well, Joe, since Bush is funding them, that takes care of the
governments need to repay Church's and Christian Fellowships for the private
schools and libraries they usurped. Just saved us a bunch of legal money
there Joe. Thank You!
Also, no one is mandating that people go to these Faith Based groups
for help. They can choose to. Gee, freedom of choice, what a concept.
When I worked with First Church of the Nazarene and their "Operation Hope"
ministries, on Wedensday and Sunday, and on Sunday when we passed out food
to street and local poor people, no one forced them to come to the Afternoon
service we offer at 1:30pm, but they were welcome, and when that little half
hour worship service is over with, they all line up to get food.
Its obvious sometimes how little religion some of these people practice
beyond showing up for a free handout, and be "blessed" by it. You know Joe,
you may be right, there just might be some covert evil behind Bush's plans
to help Faith based initiatives such as "Operation Hope." More evil yet is
some of these after school programs in Nashville, that allow boys and girls
a safe place to be while their parents are still at work, so they don't get
in trouble with the law or end up with unplanned children, and Mom and Dad
can keep up with their Taxes they owe the Federal and State Government.
Yep, I guess it was wrong for Missionaries to come to Alaska in the
40's and 50's and reach out to a little half Aleutiq, half Norwegian child
whose parent's were alcoholics, and whom the government could care less
about helping at the time, and who was shunned and abused by both
ethnicities because she was considered a half-breed at the time. The
government couldn't offer any assistance to my Grandparents unless my
Grandfather left home. There was no one to counsel them from the Government
when they lost a child to reumatic fever simply because they didn't have
enough money to pay the local doctor, and so they turned to alcohol to drown
their grief. The Government finally did help by coming in a police car to
take my mother and her sibs to a Children's home and later other Children's
home and foster care where they were little more than human slaves. I guess
it was wrong for a good Episcopal Priest later to be an encouragement to
that same young girl after her Father took her out of the children's home at
age 14 and later had kicked her out into the streets at age 16, with the
words, "you'll never be nothing except whore and prostitute. I guess it was
wrong for this Priest that he would asotake the time to marry her to a young
man from KY who loved her. Later that young man would be killed in an auto
accident, at the hands of a drunk driver of a tank carrying semi, and the
day he died, his orders come down that he was to leave for Vietnam. Guess
it was wrong the US Government funded that Chaplain, that Episcopal Priest
to help encourage a young widow who felt like "God" had never done anything
for her, and to stay in touch an remain a friend and Father figure she never
had and who remains a friend of her only son she had by that young man in
Kentucky who just so happens to be writting all this down write now.
Its too bad Communism hadn't taken hold and prevented Russia from
selling Alaska, and thus exporting its evil Russia Orthodox Faith, and you
know what that evil Church did? It kept track of the Natives births,
marriages, deaths, land claims, and help draft a treaty of sale which the
United States ignored until the 1960's, that said the United States could
claim the territory, but had to compensate the Natives for all land used,
and minerals and naturals resources to be compensated for as well, if they
were mined or harvested. Yep, those evil Christians help draft a treaty of
sale for Alaska that helped establish the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANSCA) in the late 60's early 70's.
>
> --
> Joseph Crowe
> Heisenburg may have slept here.
>
It is not that growing up, especially in the South since 1977, that I
haven't seen the darker side of religion (from the Latin meaning - to bind
oneself to God) when used in pure Zealotry form of trying to push it down
someone else's throat. However, I've seen and worked with most of these
Faith Based Initiatives here in Nashville: Salvation Army, Rescue Mission,
Room-In-The-Inn, Operation Hope, Cornerstone Ministries, Y-CAP, and most of
them are filled with Volunteers like myself who get paid $0.00. If the
Government is giving them more money, its simply so they can do more things
for the people they are reaching out to. And the pay of people who do head
up the organizations I have volunteered for is nothing to be envied. In
most cases they make less than $30,000 a year, and some of the professionals
they do recruit and pay, work at significant less pay than what they do
deserve.
My problem with the ACLU and their lawyers is they are silencing the
one thing they seem to be in favor of: Free Speech. It's bad when you work
at Christmas time, and then the Management of Dillard's pulls you aside and
tells you, you can't say, "Merry Christmas" to a customer for fear of
offending them. It's ridiculous for the Government to try to say
"Christmas" isn't a religious holiday, and then try to remove all "religious
references" from their institutions. The stupid Canadians and their "Care
Trees" and being allowed to say "Happy Holidays" but not "Merry Christmas."
I watched fools get on Fox News and try to say, "Christmas" is a religious
holiday, and here the word "Christ" is right in the middle of it.
Let just be honest and say, that sure the ACLU has maybe stopped a few
fundamentalists zealots from crossing the line of separation of Church and
State; but beyond those few people who would have grown old died, and nobody
loved them enough to carry on their nonsense, the ACLU are just one big pain
in the neck for the rest of us. I'm not for people who avoid work, and
spend all their time preaching, like a few fools we have all known. But it
is ridiculous when I go to work, and can't even say, "Merry Christmas" at
Christmas time. Dillards nor anyone else is my "Massa," and I a slave to
their policies. I kept wondering why every Clerk I said "Merry Christmas"
too this past season seemed uneasy, until I talked to a friend who worked
for Dillards. I used to shop at Dillards. From this Christmas forward, and
any retail chain that puts the practice into effect and forces its on their
employees, I am taking my Business elsewhere. If I can go to JC Penny, Wal
Mart, or where ever and say, "Merry Christmas" and not have to worry about
an employee being fired over it, then that is where I am taking my Business.
It's funny that after September 11th, the United States Congress was
out singing "God Bless America" and we didn't hear "poop" out of the ACLU?
Most American's were calling on God when they thought tomorrow they might
not see another day. Talk about hypocrisy! Where was this ACLU's illusion
of "separation of Church and State" then?
Joe you can keep the United States from funding its "Faith Based
Initiatives" but that isn't going to stop the Saudi's from funding
"Wahabianism" and spreading it all over the world with the central message
of "hate for Jews, and hate for the West, especially the United States."
The Saudi's have been funding "Wahabianism" ever since terrorists tried took
hostages at Mecca in 1979, to appease their Fundamentalists Zealots. And
their message has not been one of "Love God with all Your Heart, Soul, Mind,
and Strength" and "Love Your Neighbor as Yourself" as most Christian Faith
based initiatives do, but rather "Love Allah, with all your Heart" and "Kill
the Infidel." Now do you really want America to abandon its Christian Faith
and Heritage? Cause if you do, the fanatical Muslims are already in line to
start coming here and replacing it with their "Faith" and the unwitting ACLU
has been their unwitting handmaiden of assistance in this endeavor.
Joe, here in the United States we have "Freedom Of Religion" not
"Freedom From Religion."
"This is not about age, Time served on the earth doesn't mean you grow
in mind." - from Creed's album "weathered" from the song "signs"
Ever Thinking, Not Just Accepting,
Paradox of Borg at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~paradox3d
PS> "Better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs than a fool in her folly." -
Proverbs 17:12
PS2> Thomas Jefferson also called the Bible "The Cornerstone for American
Liberty"; of the 55 men who wrote the constitution, 52 were active members
of their Church; James Madison said, "We've staked our future in being able
to follow the 10 Commandments with all our heart"; in his farewell address
Washington said, "You can't have National Morality apart from Religious
Principle"; and these are things the ACLU surely doesn't want you to know;
again they seem to be against our freedoms, not for them.
Ned
the hell...how does it hurt someone to simply stand in silence for a few
moments while another person prays?
It is the non-believer's agenda being forced down the throats of
believers...because they can with the help of "politically correct"
legislators and judges.
"Olin Murrell" <oli...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:52qdnezd6rg...@comcast.com...
nblomgren
>Except in schools...and coming soon..to any public function.
Schools are an arm of government, and teachers are government
employees -- they are forbidden by the Constitution from endorsing or
disparaging religion.
Prayer in schools by individuals, however, is constitutionally
protected -- and defended by the ACLU, by the way.
Non-governmental public functions have nothing to do with church/state
separation. What a non-governmental body decides to do is up to it and
its membership.
>I mean...what
>the hell...how does it hurt someone to simply stand in silence for a few
>moments while another person prays?
>
>It is the non-believer's agenda being forced down the throats of
>believers...because they can with the help of "politically correct"
>legislators and judges.
No. For example, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
is made up largely of religious people. Same goes for many Christian
denominations who don't want government to start getting involved in
prayer because it creates the possibility of politicizing churches,
not to mention those Christian groups who believe in the New
Testament's call for prayer to be private. The support of many members
of non-majority religions is strong, as well, since they've felt
first-hand the results of state-sponsored religion.
And Jefferson's letter about church/state issues was in response to
the Danbury Baptists, who wanted assurance government would stay out
of religious issues. Traditionally, American Baptists have been strong
supporters of church/state separation because of their foundational
belief in freedom of conscience. Government endorsement can be seen as
a kind of coercion, antithetical to the right of individuals to freely
practice their religious beliefs as they themselves see fit.
Non-believers have little political pull in the United States -- look
at how many candidates make a point of their being born again, and
compare that to the number who declare themselves atheists.
--Nan
Olin Murrell
> Except in schools...and coming soon..to any public function. I
mean...what
> the hell...how does it hurt someone to simply stand in silence for a few
> moments while another person prays?
>
Again, contrary to popular opinion, bowing one's head, even in school, has
NEVER been against the law. What IS against the law is the school actually
leading a prayer.
But, the question becomes this, at some point. Nashville, like many other US
cities of any size, has a fairly large population of non-English speaking
students who are decidedly NOT Christian. Rather than tick them OR the
Christian, both real and pseudo, off, it seems to me it's just a lot easier
to say no to any kind of organized prayer in a classroom.
> It is the non-believer's agenda being forced down the throats of
> believers...because they can with the help of "politically correct"
> legislators and judges.
>
If what you're trying to say is that a lot of the argument is fueled by
hyperbole, I'll agree with you, but the hyperbole is coming from both sides,
as in the silly notion that there's ever been a law against an individual
bowing his/her head and praying silently.
It fits right in with the wisdom of Solomon that, if you find two sides
arguing over what should be done, regarding religion, in publicly funded
places, that it's smarter to just prohibit displays that go either way.
I went to school long before Madalyn Murray O'Hair won the lawsuit that
eliminated school-led prayer. I really don't remember it being much of a
problem, until one strange day in the fourth grade. Some kid had brought a
bible to school. For whatever reason, he was reading something out of it in
the classroom near the end of recess. Teacher comes back in, and asks the
class to quiet down so the actual work of the day can resume after our
break. Another child says, "Shhh. Can't you see!!! He's reading from the
bible!!!"
If we start to re-insert prayer readings in school, how long do you think
we'll tolerate... say, a Muslim... getting to recite one. How long do you
think the others will remain silent, out of respect?
Can't speak for others, but for me, PC has nothing to do with it. A school
house or a city council chamber is NOT the place for prostelyzing, at any
level.
Olin Murrell
"nblomgren" <nb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:phvg2v4lkklr3m4lc...@4ax.com...
BINGO!!!!!
Give Nan a cigar, or an ice-cream cone, if she prefers.
Even at local levels, you're gonna be hard-pressed to find more than a very
few athiests (at least those who'll freely admit it) in elective office.
Jim Garrett
wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:34:35 -0600, "Ned" <n...@nospamxx.com> wrote:
>
> >Except in schools...and coming soon..to any public function.
>
> Schools are an arm of government, and teachers are government
> employees -- they are forbidden by the Constitution from endorsing or
> disparaging religion.
>
> Prayer in schools by individuals, however, is constitutionally
> protected -- and defended by the ACLU, by the way.
<snippage>
Yours is as eloquent a response to this question as I've seen in a
long time.
It's frustrating that so many people like Ned seem to think it's
necessary to make a spectacle of praying in (government operated)
public places *and* that it will be good for other people to at least
listen to them, if not participate with them in their prayers. Ned's
never heard me pray or participated in my prayers but I'm certain that
doesn't make an iota's worth of difference regarding my communications
with God.
Jim
PARADOX OF BORG
Designation "nblomgren" <nb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:phvg2v4lkklr3m4lc...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:34:35 -0600, "Ned" <n...@nospamxx.com> wrote:
>
> >Except in schools...and coming soon..to any public function.
>
> Schools are an arm of government, and teachers are government
> employees -- they are forbidden by the Constitution from endorsing or
> disparaging religion.
>
James Madison said, "We've staked our future in being able
to follow the 10 Commandments with all our heart"; in his farewell address
Washington said, "You can't have National Morality apart from Religious
Principle" -- uhmm, somebody forgot to point that out to the people who
wrote the Constitution at the time seems like, or maybe we are straining
nats trying to keep out camels.
Everything needs moderation, and when Time ends and you Enter Eternity,
I think He will have found this small stuff anyway. I am mainly just upset
over stupid people trying to say "Christmas" isn't a religious holiday, and
not being able to say "Merry Christmas" to a retail employee for fear they
might get fired. Everyone should boycott Dillards and every store that has
that practice.
"This is not about age, Time served on the earth doesn't mean you grow
in mind." - from Creed's album "weathered" from the song "signs"
Ever Thinking, Not Just Accepting,
Paradox of Borg at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~paradox3d
PS> "Better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs than a fool in her folly." -
Proverbs 17:12
PS2> Thomas Jefferson also called the Bible "The Cornerstone for American
Liberty"; of the 55 men who wrote the constitution, 52 were active members
of their Church; James Madison said, "We've staked our future in being able
to follow the 10 Commandments with all our heart"; in his farewell address
Washington said, "You can't have National Morality apart from Religious
Principle"; and these are things the ACLU surely doesn't want you to know;
again they seem to be against our freedoms, not for them. Why else was
separation of Church and State pretty much a non-issue the first 200 years
of this Country's existence?
nblomgren
Kemps Toffee Chocolate Chip, if possible :)
>Even at local levels, you're gonna be hard-pressed to find more than a very
>few athiests (at least those who'll freely admit it) in elective office.
Yep. Several polls have shown that most Americans wouldn't vote for an
atheist, regardless of the candidate's stand on issues.
As far as public religion, though some Christians feel themselves to
be persecuted, they're not being asked to do any more than most
non-Christian groups have been doing all along.
A (loosely paraphrased )quote from an article about a slightly
different topic: "When you've been in the majority for a long time,
equality can feel like oppression."
--Nan
nblomgren
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:16:51 -0600, nblomgren <nb...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:34:35 -0600, "Ned" <n...@nospamxx.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Except in schools...and coming soon..to any public function.
>>
>> Schools are an arm of government, and teachers are government
>> employees -- they are forbidden by the Constitution from endorsing or
>> disparaging religion.
>>
>> Prayer in schools by individuals, however, is constitutionally
>> protected -- and defended by the ACLU, by the way.
>
> <snippage>
>
> Yours is as eloquent a response to this question as I've seen in a
>long time.
Thank you :)
> It's frustrating that so many people like Ned seem to think it's
>necessary to make a spectacle of praying in (government operated)
>public places *and* that it will be good for other people to at least
>listen to them, if not participate with them in their prayers. Ned's
>never heard me pray or participated in my prayers but I'm certain that
>doesn't make an iota's worth of difference regarding my communications
>with God.
>
> Jim
I'm willing to accept that those who want government-led prayers have
good intentions, believing sincerely that this will make us all better
people.
But what's disturbing about that is the underlying assumption that
those who don't believe as they do aren't _already_ good, moral
people. Every couple of years the Southern Baptist Convention has
their big debate about whether the unsaved can be good.
This isn't the kind of idea I'd want my government endorsing.
--Nan
Olin Murrell
>
Okay. At the very first opportunity. :)
> >Even at local levels, you're gonna be hard-pressed to find more than a
very
> >few athiests (at least those who'll freely admit it) in elective office.
>
> Yep. Several polls have shown that most Americans wouldn't vote for an
> atheist, regardless of the candidate's stand on issues.
>
Count me among that majority... but that may be because I wound up getting
to know Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her moron son, Jon, far better than I'd
have ever cared to know either of them. Actually, when first I met Madalyn,
she was pretty cool, but toward the last time I saw either of them, they'd
become bad caricatures of themselves, and in possession of far too much
belief in their own press releases.
At best, Jon was an arrogant SOB, and worthy of absolutely no trust of any
kind.
> As far as public religion, though some Christians feel themselves to
> be persecuted, they're not being asked to do any more than most
> non-Christian groups have been doing all along.
>
> A (loosely paraphrased )quote from an article about a slightly
> different topic: "When you've been in the majority for a long time,
> equality can feel like oppression."
>
I'd have to agree with that. What amazes me is the simplicity of the hype
coming from the "return prayer to classrooms" crowd.
Oddly enough, most churches now pay appropriate taxes on investments and
non-church related infrastructure. And, many of them did so voluntarily.
Personally, I've got no problem with 'em retaining all tax exemption status
on strictly worship-related property, but tax-exempt shopping malls and
office buildings are just a tad beyond the scope of such exemptions.
Olin Murrell
With regards to this specific issue, we are in agreement. I've mentioned
that my bride is a teacher. What I haven't mentioned is the tightrope she
has to walk, come Christmas time. Over the years, she's had the children of
several Jehovah's Witnesses, who are mostly excluded from such
"foolishness." They, as a general rule, celebrate nothing... no holidays, no
anniversaries, no birth days at all.
Now, she teaches ELL, and usually has a classroom full of Moslems, including
one kid (first-grader no less) who actually covered his ears during a
completely scholarly look at Christmas traditions.
At another campus, one ELL teacher went so far as to file a grievance over
Moslem kids going to a private part of the playground to practice one of
their required five daily prayers.
Somebody tell me again how re-instituting school prayer is gonna help in
these kinds of situations, and I hope I don't hear Ma Ferguson's classic
answer.
> "This is not about age, Time served on the earth doesn't mean you
grow
> in mind." - from Creed's album "weathered" from the song "signs"
>
> Ever Thinking, Not Just Accepting,
>
> Paradox of Borg at:
>
> parado...@netscape.net
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~paradox3d
>
> PS> "Better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs than a fool in her folly." -
> Proverbs 17:12
>
> PS2> Thomas Jefferson also called the Bible "The Cornerstone for American
> Liberty"; of the 55 men who wrote the constitution, 52 were active members
> of their Church; James Madison said, "We've staked our future in being
able
> to follow the 10 Commandments with all our heart"; in his farewell address
> Washington said, "You can't have National Morality apart from Religious
> Principle"; and these are things the ACLU surely doesn't want you to know;
> again they seem to be against our freedoms, not for them. Why else was
> separation of Church and State pretty much a non-issue the first 200 years
> of this Country's existence?
>
Among other things, because for the first 200 years of this country's
existence, we had precious few tv preachers telling us they had the only
right way to govern. It was a non issue, primarily because there was no real
need for it to become one. It became an issue in 1940, when a town decided
to ban street prostelyzing for one specific religion... hence the exhumation
of Jefferson's answer to the Danbury Baptists regarding a wall of separation
between church and state.
As an aside, there are many religions that follow the basic tenets of the
Ten Commandments, and more than a few non-religious folk who live their
lives by those excellent principles.
PARADOX OF BORG
>: DESIGNATING PARADOX FOR FIRST PERSON COMMUNICATION
>: SUBJECT - Then how come you didn't know "Row, row, row, your boat?"
Designation "Olin Murrell" <oli...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:FO6dncWFj8e...@comcast.com...
>
>
> With regards to this specific issue, we are in agreement. I've mentioned
> that my bride is a teacher. What I haven't mentioned is the tightrope she
> has to walk, come Christmas time. Over the years, she's had the children
of
> several Jehovah's Witnesses, who are mostly excluded from such
> "foolishness." They, as a general rule, celebrate nothing... no holidays,
no
> anniversaries, no birth days at all.
>
> Now, she teaches ELL, and usually has a classroom full of Moslems,
including
> one kid (first-grader no less) who actually covered his ears during a
> completely scholarly look at Christmas traditions.
>
> At another campus, one ELL teacher went so far as to file a grievance over
> Moslem kids going to a private part of the playground to practice one of
> their required five daily prayers.
>
> Somebody tell me again how re-instituting school prayer is gonna help in
> these kinds of situations, and I hope I don't hear Ma Ferguson's classic
> answer.
>
Prayer, when one is honest, is much more about listening to God, rather
than telling an omniscient being what He already knows. It's can be like a
child coming to their Father to express their frustrations, express their
joys, and in general just carry on conversation and fellowship. It's not
the Scholastic endeavor most Faith's would have you believe it to be. There
has come, handed down from the Jewish Tradition, community prayer in
Worship, where one leads in prayer in a voice, and others lend voice, or
simply remain silent in honor of what is being said. School is a place for
learning, and unless a private institution, it would be best if Public Lead
Prayer was left out so as to have real Separation of Church and State.
So you and I are basically in agreement here. When I was in High
School, we always had prayer before school got started, and people showed up
voluntarily. Probably the greatest reason for Community Prayer is the
fellowship involved. This is like food to the soul for a Christian. The
sense of community, belonging, not feeling alone, and feeling the Spirit of
God in mass with the whole community. Since this is a type of intimacy for
Christians, the desire to force people who don't desire to be there would
defeat the purpose of the Public Prayer and quench the Spirit as one might
say.
Prayer is something best taught at home, and even parents face a time
when they realize, a child must own their Faith. It cannot be handed down.
For Christians Faith, Worship, Belief; these must be of free will and desire
to be genuine; anything less wouldn't be Christian, true Faith, Worship, or
Belief. Now this being said, since I am a Youth Pastor, and occasionally
have visitors unacquainted with the intricacies of Christian Faith, I do
expect them to be respectful during public prayer, but then again, our
Worship and Ministry Centers do no have required attendance either. I
suppose that in trying to maintain freedom from the abuse of religion, we
must practice more tolerance, and yet it seems a fine line between tolerance
and intolerance and abuse and oppression. Somewhere in the middle we have
to avoid the Zealots amongst the Fundamentalists, as well as the Zealots
amongst the Atheists and ACLU. In my opinion they both represent extremes
at opposite ends of the moral spectrum.
My only satisfaction is that when time Ends and we stand before God,
we'll all see we believed some pretty foolish stuff we thought was more
important than it was.
"This is not about age, Time served on the earth doesn't mean you grow
in mind." - from Creed's album "weathered" from the song "signs"
Ever Thinking, Not Just Accepting,
Paradox of Borg at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~paradox3d
PS> Now if we assume that the structure is as we have assumed (and unless we
Jim Garrett
wrote:
>
> I'm willing to accept that those who want government-led prayers have
> good intentions, believing sincerely that this will make us all better
> people.
I accept that too, at least for the most part. It's still
frustrating.
Jim
Olin Murrell
It would certainly seem we are, essentially, in agreement. I don't even have
a problem with kids gathering on the playground for voluntary religious
discussion, but I know some who do... including the Metro teacher who
kiboshed such for the Moslem kids, even though she knew those five daily
prayers were a requirement for them.
Bottom line is, your religious beliefs are just that... yours. Mine are
mine. The only way whatever differences there are should EVER come in for
discussion anywhere are if WE decide to sit down and discuss them. Seems to
me any "required" public display has more than a little potential to put a
harsh glare on those differences and foster confrontation, especially when
someone chooses not to participate and is called out for it.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, regarding respect as a visitor to a worship
service. Such respect must be granted, or the visit should never have been
made in the first place.
And, I especially agree with you about prayer being best taught at home AND
the test all parents must face when their child finds their own faith, or
lack of faith for that matter. Such is ultimately the choice of the
individual.
And often, what appears to be the child's final decision is anything but.
Interesting. I've read a lot about Kierkegaard, but precious little OF him.
Of course, what's written here could just as easily be applied to almost any
human undertaking, as there's a faith element that the folks in charge have
a clue what they're doing.
PARADOX OF BORG
this as a going away gift!"
Designation "Olin Murrell" <oli...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:L3SdnR9bVZ1...@comcast.com...
Barnes & Noble, and Davis Kidd, usually have a good selection of
Kierkegaard should you desire to purchase and read in your spare time.
However, you have to realize he is responding to Rationalism, British
Empiricism, Skepticism, and in most ways, Immanuel Kant. Not exactly what
you would call "lite" reading. I was bummed out after studying Ancient &
Medieval, and Modern Philosophy. When I took Contemporary Philosophy
(History of Philosophy Courses), Kierkegaard, as well as Hegel, and William
James (pragmatism) helped bring back a lot of focus I felt was lost along
the way. Hegel, even to a student, can be challenging to understand
accurately; James can be boring without understanding all the former
Philosophers before him; but Kierkegaard is a breath of fresh air, but can
again be severally misunderstood without knowing to whom he is responding.
For Kierkegaard, this is about more than "Faith," it is about coming to
grips with the reality of the INFINITE existing as FINITE. To the Logical
Mind, this is absurd, but the Reality of God in Jesus Christ, if true,
creates a "Paradox." You can't explain it, but neither can you deny it, so
"Faith" is how you accept this "Reality." Strict "Faith" such as you are
discussing above, apart from having to deal with Divinity, is what Immanuel
Kant discussed deeply in response to David Hume's Skepticism. For David
Hume you could never achieve certainty in knowledge. For Kant, there was
only Certainty within Mathematics and Universal Principals (Geometry &
Physics), however still within the confines of the Human mind. For Kant,
all knowledge ended up being "Theoretical" and hence needed "Faith" to
ascend to. Therefore we could be certain the Atom was the smallest element
and couldn't be split, and this was accepted as "true" in "Faith" by a
majority of the scientists of the time, until the Nuclear age changed and
evolved the knowledge we once thought we understood, hence all knowledge is
"theoretical" because given time, it may change or at least experience a
paradigm shift.
It does require a lot of "Faith" to believe what I believe about the
Government and the Press and what they tell me. However, for me, there is
also human intuition and instinct; trusting your "Gut" feeling on the matter
based upon experience that grows with time. For Kierkegaard, this was the
essential in ultimately understanding "Faith" in an Infinite God who could
also exist as Finite man. Anything less was blindness. And that Blindness
could only be cured by a God, and only a God who was Man could set an
example you could relate to and teach you to see in the new light of
experience.
When I realize that I live on a planet; that should I represent on
scale with our Sun, being represented by a Tennis Ball for scale, then
Jupiter and Saturn can be represented by peas; the planet I live on, a grain
of sand on that same scale. I realize in the light of this experience just
how small I am, and if there is a God who created the vast Universe around
me, I become rather small and insignificant, except that my "Faith" tells
me, "This God is something special to take the time to talk to someone so
small and insignificant as me!" That's something no Government or Man can
ever take from me.
"This is not about age, Time served on the earth doesn't mean you grow
in mind." - from Creed's album "weathered" from the song "signs"
Ever Thinking, Not Just Accepting,
Paradox of Borg at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~paradox3d
PS> "In this dark, when we all talk at once, some of us must learn to
whistle." Walt Kelly
PS2> "I bring order to chaos . . . . You are the contradiction. You
are in chaos Data, you are a machine who wants to be human!"
- Borg Queen from Paramount's motion picture
"Star Trek: First Contact"
nblomgren
<oli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"nblomgren" <nb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Kemps Toffee Chocolate Chip, if possible :)
>>
>
>Okay. At the very first opportunity. :)
>
>> >Even at local levels, you're gonna be hard-pressed to find more than a
>very
>> >few athiests (at least those who'll freely admit it) in elective office.
>>
>> Yep. Several polls have shown that most Americans wouldn't vote for an
>> atheist, regardless of the candidate's stand on issues.
>>
>
>Count me among that majority... but that may be because I wound up getting
>to know Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her moron son, Jon, far better than I'd
>have ever cared to know either of them. Actually, when first I met Madalyn,
>she was pretty cool, but toward the last time I saw either of them, they'd
>become bad caricatures of themselves, and in possession of far too much
>belief in their own press releases.
>
>At best, Jon was an arrogant SOB, and worthy of absolutely no trust of any
>kind.
They're probably not representative of most atheists -- or of most
human beings :)
>> As far as public religion, though some Christians feel themselves to
>> be persecuted, they're not being asked to do any more than most
>> non-Christian groups have been doing all along.
>>
>> A (loosely paraphrased )quote from an article about a slightly
>> different topic: "When you've been in the majority for a long time,
>> equality can feel like oppression."
>>
>
>I'd have to agree with that. What amazes me is the simplicity of the hype
>coming from the "return prayer to classrooms" crowd.
>
>Oddly enough, most churches now pay appropriate taxes on investments and
>non-church related infrastructure. And, many of them did so voluntarily.
>Personally, I've got no problem with 'em retaining all tax exemption status
>on strictly worship-related property, but tax-exempt shopping malls and
>office buildings are just a tad beyond the scope of such exemptions.
Yep -- and without taxes they'd have an advantage over secular
profit-making ventures. Isn't there some trouble brewing for Lifeway
over taxation and profits? I vaguely remember hearing something about
it this past year.
--Nan
Olin Murrell
Oh, I'm sure they're not. Madalyn, as I said, was pretty cool when I first
met her... probably around 1974. As the years wore on, she just got closer
and closer to the edge. Thing is, they both badly colored my own personal
view of athiesm.
I frankly don't care how, or if, people worship, but zealots of both stripes
just leave a nasty taste with me.
> >> As far as public religion, though some Christians feel themselves to
> >> be persecuted, they're not being asked to do any more than most
> >> non-Christian groups have been doing all along.
> >>
> >> A (loosely paraphrased )quote from an article about a slightly
> >> different topic: "When you've been in the majority for a long time,
> >> equality can feel like oppression."
> >>
> >
> >I'd have to agree with that. What amazes me is the simplicity of the hype
> >coming from the "return prayer to classrooms" crowd.
> >
> >Oddly enough, most churches now pay appropriate taxes on investments and
> >non-church related infrastructure. And, many of them did so voluntarily.
> >Personally, I've got no problem with 'em retaining all tax exemption
status
> >on strictly worship-related property, but tax-exempt shopping malls and
> >office buildings are just a tad beyond the scope of such exemptions.
>
> Yep -- and without taxes they'd have an advantage over secular
> profit-making ventures. Isn't there some trouble brewing for Lifeway
> over taxation and profits? I vaguely remember hearing something about
> it this past year.
>
I don't specifically remember Lifeway, but I know the YMCA got sued by
privately owned health clubs over their perceived tax exempt advantage. My
bride informed me yesterday that the Y won, and gets to keep its exemption
as a non-profit corp.
And the Y not only enjoys the tax exemption... their monthly fees are
significantly higher than the for-profit health clubs, or at least so I'm
told.
Go figure.
Olin Murrell
I wouldn't imagine that he'd be "lite" reading at all. Thanks for the
headsup on availability. I just might pick one up some time. I generally try
to read a pretty wide range of stuff, though since I got out of the radio
biz, most of my reading is for pure pleasure.
Can't argue with that. As a former member of the "press," I'd challenge any
critic to spend a week in a newsroom and still believe there's some magical
conspiracy. A) there's too much competition and B) nowhere near enough
competence to foment one, much less sustain one. Your average newsroom might
just be one of the better clinical demonstrations of chaos theory. ;^)
It may well be a simplistic view, but it's always been my feeling that it's
futile to question someone else's "faith," be it in a religion or a science.
Both are still moveable targets, and it's usually an argument one can't
really hope to win.
Spirited discussions, however, are an etirely different matter. ;^)
> When I realize that I live on a planet; that should I represent on
> scale with our Sun, being represented by a Tennis Ball for scale, then
> Jupiter and Saturn can be represented by peas; the planet I live on, a gra
in
> of sand on that same scale. I realize in the light of this experience
just
> how small I am, and if there is a God who created the vast Universe around
> me, I become rather small and insignificant, except that my "Faith" tells
> me, "This God is something special to take the time to talk to someone so
> small and insignificant as me!" That's something no Government or Man can
> ever take from me.
>
Of course, there's another argument that man truly ticked off God in the
Garden of Eden by eating of the tree of knowledge and "becoming as God," and
got banished before finding and eating from the tree of life and "becoming
God."
Obviously, the above is a grossly simplistic version of the case made, but
it's the essence. Personally, I have no clue if it's a correct
interpretation of the story, but it is an interesting viewpoint. It comes
from what its supporters call a more accurate translation of the scriptures
from the original Aramaic, and I know that the translation(s) we've become
used to were translated, in part, for political reasons in England under
King James.
PARADOX OF BORG
>: DESIGNATING PARADOX FOR FIRST PERSON COMMUNICATION
>: SUBJECT - "I would never curse you by making you human . . . think of
this as a going away gift!"
Designation "Olin Murrell" <oli...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8uucnTLqIdg...@comcast.com...
>
> Of course, there's another argument that man truly ticked off God in the
> Garden of Eden by eating of the tree of knowledge and "becoming as God,"
and
> got banished before finding and eating from the tree of life and "becoming
> God."
>
> Obviously, the above is a grossly simplistic version of the case made, but
> it's the essence. Personally, I have no clue if it's a correct
> interpretation of the story, but it is an interesting viewpoint. It comes
> from what its supporters call a more accurate translation of the
scriptures
> from the original Aramaic, and I know that the translation(s) we've become
> used to were translated, in part, for political reasons in England under
> King James.
>
If that was the case, why come looking for man, banish him from the
Garden, and take the time to clothe him? Its an accurate assertion to say
that "The Earthlings'" fall, was in choosing to be their own god. An
analogy would be similar to a Freshmen Physics Major, having the power to
fire the Head of a Nuclear Power Plant who has a Ph. D in Nuclear Physics,
plus 20 years experience in the field, and try to assume his position. Sure
the Freshmen Physics Major has a knowledge of Nuclear Physics, but it is
severely lacking and in the end will kill himself and anyone else around
him. So also, Finite Man has a limited understanding of "right" and
"wrong," or in pure Computer language "1" and "0" which we know in most
simplistic terms as "yes" and "no." However an Infinite God is omniscient
on such matters, especially since He was intelligent enough to create not
only the world mankind lives in, but also the Universe or one might say the
"Space Time Continuum" itself.
I was talking with a young Orthodox Jewish Man who used to work at the
Quick Sack on West End near Centennial Park. I knew by his dress, skull
cap, prayer shawl, what he was, and decided to get an opinion from someone
other than Christian's on interpretations of Genesis. I said, "My Hebrew
professor believes "Ish" (Adam) is best translated "The Earthling" (Ishish -
Eve - feminine form of same word) -- what do you think?" Well, to my
astonishment, he never really answered my question, but gave me what I was
looking for anyway -- an interpretation from the People who have a deep
cultural understanding of their own writings; he said, "Man, you talking
about the Mysteries (The Genesis Account and much else up until the time of
Abraham), you're not supposed to understand those!" It confirmed what my
one of my Theology Professors had said, Genesis and Revelation were much the
same. Icons, that pointed to a reality greater than themselves. Ray
Dunning also went on to point out, that prophecy is never fully understood
until it comes to pass (hence why so many people are wrong when trying to
fit the future and prophecy into time tables). My first New Testament
Professor, after showing us Messianic texts not part of the Christian Bible,
said to us in class, "If they got Christ's (Messiahs) coming wrong the first
time, who is to say those who say they know aren't just as wrong about the
2nd time?" (Funny that much of what was written in the ancient texts
sounded a lot like Jimmy Swaggart's view on end times back in his "Hey Day"
before he fell in favor)
Jesus taught in Parables and rightly so. Soren Kierkegaard believed
Christ's preaching about the Kingdom indirectly through parables was the
best way to share the Christian faith with the Blind. So in Kierkegaard you
will find Philosophical endeavors where he goes out of the way to meet the
world at its level of understanding, and then at other times when he knows
he is speaking to Christians, his language is more intimate.
When as a child, I heard the story of the "Fall of Man" or "Fall of
Adam and Eve," I thought childishly at the time, "if I were Adam and Eve" I
wouldn't have made their mistake of taking of the forbidden fruit. However,
Adam and Eve's mistake lay not in going to the "Tree of the Knowledge of
Good and Evil" but rather lay in the fact that they didn't go to the "Tree
of Life" first to gain Eternal life. God gave them the whole garden to
choose from, and the mistake is that they go for less than the very best.
They go out sampling all kinds of foods from other trees, enjoying their
roles as care takers in this new creation, and then fail to talk and inquire
of God. Next thing you know Eve is talking to the serpent, and carrying on
what some people say is the first Theological discussion. However, the
mistake is where she is getting her Theology from and to whom she is
listening. Adam's mistake is being a simpleton and simply following Eve's
example. I don't believe it was Nakedness alone that made them ashamed, but
a much more deeper level that disturbs us all. When I realize I am on a
planet that is like a grain of sand when compared to the Sun as a Tennis
ball in our scale, all of a sudden, I am gripped with fear; I realize how
small; how vulnerable I am; and how insufficient I am to be my own god.
Before this, God was their sufficiency, and they felt no shame, no fear, no
nakedness.
Then I grew up and became an Adult, who had been raised in the faith.
Once I left home, I too began to not fellowship with, talk to, or question
my Creator on matters of Theology. I went chasing after good things; but
the more those good things alluded me; the more I wanted them; the more I
didn't get them; the more Naked I felt, the more fear I felt, the more shame
I felt on some of my poorer choices in matters of morality, ethics, love,
integrity, and truthfulness. Instead of turning to my "Tree of Life" from
whom I gain "Eternal Life" -- Jesus Christ, I was soon being my own god, and
wondering why my world was so miserable. I then realized the Genesis story
had come full circle. We all want good things: we want good and healthy
sex and a good and healthy relationship that goes with it; we want
prosperity; we want affirmation and sometimes go about achieving these ends
by less than perfect means and methods because we are too impatient to wait
and listen to God and give Him time to explain things. You could say, "We
lack Faith." Sin - meaning not only "to miss the mark," but also meaning
"without" is not something inside us, but rather a lacking. Our God is
Holy, and we are incomplete until we begin to be filled. Some call it a
"God shaped Hole in our Heart." Yet when Jesus says, "You must be born
again." This is in the future indicative sense. Its not just a one time
deal, but a daily event in which I die to my Divinity of Self (being my own
god) and am born again to grow in the Holy image of God. Hence religious
rules and regulations give me understanding as a child, but as an adult, I
realize these soon turn into games of me trying to fool God and everyone
else around me. However, if in relationship, I love that God and World
around me, I must struggle with my new knowledge of my nakedness, and learn
to allow God to be my sufficiency, and learn how to grow in that (See Post
Script below for further comment).
In Eternity, you don't have time. You might have what one could call
moments or instances of action, but you don't have time. Lucifer was an
Eternal being. When he was not satisfied with just being God's offspring,
but wanted to be god (kind of like me wanting to be my Father which is
genetically, physically, and environmentally impossible), he perverted
himself, and the result of sin was instant damnation. When God created
"Ish" and "Ishish" (The Earthlings - Masculine and Feminine), he made them
in his image (an icon pointing to a reality greater than itself), but let
them remain creatures in a Universe that had "Time" so that if something
went wrong, unlike with Lucifer, there would be "Time" to fix it. However,
when one dies, and returns to Eternity from which time began (kind of like
the Steve Miller Band Song "Time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' . . .
into the future" - a time paradox for sure - the beginning is the end), they
become Eternal like the Angels, and the condition of their soul determines
whether in their lifetimes, they have become like "the Living Fire" to be
able to exist with the "Living Fire" (God - reference Abraham and Moses for
a Burning Pot or Burning Bush), or be burned by that Very Fire. To me that
is the very difference between Heaven and Hell.
However, these are not things proved by the 5 senses (hence British
Empiricism - the Scientific Method - which David Hume logically lead into
skepticism), nor even by theoretical knowledge, since the Infinite God
existing as Finite Man, and his Spirit or Mind being imparted to man like a
PC linked to the Internet, is not something grasped logically and hence a
paradox, but these things are only understood in the light of "Faith" which
God must in "Time" give you, but can only do so if you are willing to
receive it, and then you must choose to learn to walk in it -- you've only
got a lifetime to do so.
"This is not about age, Time served on the earth doesn't mean you grow
in mind." - from Creed's album "weathered" from the song "signs"
Ever Thinking, Not Just Accepting,
Paradox of Borg at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~paradox3d
PS> My prayer is not the whimpering of a beggar nor a confession of
love. Nor is it the trivial reckoning of a small tradesman: Give me
and I shall give you.
My prayer is the report of a soldier to his general: This is what
I did today, this is how I fought to save the entire battle in my own
sector, these are the obstacles I found, this is how I plan to fight
tomorrow.
My God and I are horsemen galloping in the burning sun or under
drizzling rain. Pale, starving, but unsubdued, we ride and converse.
"Leader!" I cry. He turns his face towards me, and I shudder to
confront his anguish.
Our love for each other is rough and ready, we sit at the same
table, we drink the same wine in this low tavern of life.
-----From THE SAVIORS OF GOD: SPIRITUAL EXERCISES by Nikos Kazantzakis
Olin Murrell
I can certainly agree with you here. That would be the very question.
> Then I grew up and became an Adult, who had been raised in the faith.
> Once I left home, I too began to not fellowship with, talk to, or question
> my Creator on matters of Theology.
This is where we might part company. I'm unconvinced questions such as these
are so much questioning God, but rather questioning our own interpretations
of the teachings. Big difference.
Again, all true enough, as it sits. Again, this may well be an overly
simplistic view, but I just feel that individuals find God, Allah, the
Creator, the Great Spirit, Krishna, Buddah, whomever, in their own peculiar
ways.
Or, they don't.
And that's where we, the two of us, come back to pretty much full agreement,
that these matters are best left to parents and teachers schooled in the
various lines of thought, with the knowledge that our children will
eventually make up their own minds, irregardless.