Stars and Angels on Christmas trees?
Harry Mary Andruschak
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/24/us/AP-US-Government-Christmas.html
And am I the only one who wonders why the word "holiday" is not
banned? It is soooo obviously a version of "Holy day", about as
Religious as you can get.
Marty Helgesen
wrote:
> Perhaps not if it is supposed to be a happy holidays tree.
>
>
> And am I the only one who wonders why the word "holiday" is not
> banned? It is soooo obviously a version of "Holy day", about as
> Religious as you can get.
The news story says of the man who made the original complaint,
"Sutley said he would consult with attorneys before deciding whether
to sue. He called the reversal a 'real slap in the face to agnostics,
atheists and every person who believes in the separation of church and
state.''' However, the Constitution makes no mention of "the
separation of church and state.'' The First Amendment begins,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" When it was written the
term "establishment of religion" had a precise meaning. It referred
to a special relationship between the state and one particular
church. The Church of England was the established church of England,
as it still is. Ten of the thirteen colonies had established
churches. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire - had the
Congregationalist Church as their established church, New Jersey had
the Church of England, etc. Using the definition that was in use when
the First Amendment was written, it would be impossible to establish
Christianity, much less Religion.
-----
Marty Helgesen
Mygmailuseridis mnhccatcunyvm
Support the Emergency Committee to Defend the Third Amendment!
Kip Williams
> And am I the only one who wonders why the word "holiday" is not
> banned? It is soooo obviously a version of "Holy day", about as
> Religious as you can get.
Perhaps the government is nowhere near as zealous in its attempts to
extirpate all traces of religion as would-be persecutees like to think.
Kip W
Marty Helgesen
It's not the government but some individuals and organizations who try
to use the government impose their views. I think part of the answer
to Harry's question is that the derivation from "Holy Day" is not
obvious to many people. However, I think the main reason is that the
word is sufficiently removed from its origin that even people who are
aware of the origin do not think of the origin when referring to "a
three day holiday weekend," "the Fourth of July holiday," etc.
Kip Williams
> On Dec 24, 9:28 pm, Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> Harry Mary Andruschak wrote:
>>> And am I the only one who wonders why the word "holiday" is not
>>> banned? It is soooo obviously a version of "Holy day", about as
>>> Religious as you can get.
>>
>> Perhaps the government is nowhere near as zealous in its attempts to
>> extirpate all traces of religion as would-be persecutees like to think.
>>
>
> It's not the government but some individuals and organizations who try
> to use the government impose their views.
They were trying to get the government to stop imposing views on them.
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
Referring to it as a Christmas Tree is hardly imposing views on them...
--
"Isn't life strange
A turn of the page
A book without light
Unless with love we write"
John Lodge
Marty Helgesen
> MartyHelgesenwrote:
How does putting a star and an angel on a tree impose anything on
anyone?
Kip Williams
> On Dec 25, 12:43 am, Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> MartyHelgesenwrote:
>>> On Dec 24, 9:28 pm, Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> Harry Mary Andruschak wrote:
>>>>> And am I the only one who wonders why the word "holiday" is not
>>>>> banned? It is soooo obviously a version of "Holy day", about as
>>>>> Religious as you can get.
>>
>>>> Perhaps the government is nowhere near as zealous in its attempts to
>>>> extirpate all traces of religion as would-be persecutees like to think.
>>
>>> It's not the government but some individuals and organizations who try
>>> to use the government impose their views.
>>
>> They were trying to get the government to stop imposing views on them.
>
> How does putting a star and an angel on a tree impose anything on
> anyone?
By implicitly endorsing the religion that has adopted these as symbols
and aspects of its doctrines. Duh.
Kip W
Karl Johanson
On Dec 25, 12:43 am, Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> MartyHelgesenwrote:
> > On Dec 24, 9:28 pm, Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Harry Mary Andruschak wrote:
>> >>> And am I the only one who wonders why the word "holiday" is not
>> >>> banned? It is soooo obviously a version of "Holy day", about as
>> >>> Religious as you can get.
>
>> >> Perhaps the government is nowhere near as zealous in its attempts to
>> >> extirpate all traces of religion as would-be persecutees like to
>> >> think.
>
>> > It's not the government but some individuals and organizations who try
>> > to use the government impose their views.
>
>> They were trying to get the government to stop imposing views on them.
>How does putting a star and an angel on a tree impose anything on
>anyone?
They're symbols of a religion. A religion with a holy book which claims
(more than once) that non-believers are fools, vile and corrupt and that
they do no good. It's bad enough when individuals embrace such hard core
bigotry, but it's quite out of line for governments to be seen to be
endorsing it.
Karl Johanson
David Friedman
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >How does putting a star and an angel on a tree impose anything on
> >anyone?
>
> They're symbols of a religion. A religion with a holy book which claims
> (more than once) that non-believers are fools, vile and corrupt and that
> they do no good.
I agree that they are symbols of Christianity--but of generic
Christianity, not of whatever particular fundamentalist variant you are
imagining. In modern day America, generic Christianity covers a span of
views much broader than your point about the Bible applies to. How many
modern Americans who consider themselves Christians feel committed to
biblical positions in general, whether about non-Christians or anything
else?
Judging at least by my (surely non-random) first hand sample, Christians
are no more likely to be hostile to non-Christians than atheists are to
be hostile to Christians--possibly less.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_
Karl Johanson
news:ddfr-D445E1.1...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <YmPZm.595$yy2...@newsfe01.iad>,
> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> >How does putting a star and an angel on a tree impose anything on
>> >anyone?
>>
>> They're symbols of a religion. A religion with a holy book which claims
>> (more than once) that non-believers are fools, vile and corrupt and that
>> they do no good.
>
> I agree that they are symbols of Christianity--but of generic
> Christianity, not of whatever particular fundamentalist variant you are
> imagining.
Really? I'm fascinated. Which Christian variants have a holy book which
doesn't include the passages calling non-believers "fools," "vile" etc?
Karl Johanson
David Friedman
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> "David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
> news:ddfr-D445E1.1...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
> > In article <YmPZm.595$yy2...@newsfe01.iad>,
> > "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> >How does putting a star and an angel on a tree impose anything on
> >> >anyone?
> >>
> >> They're symbols of a religion. A religion with a holy book which claims
> >> (more than once) that non-believers are fools, vile and corrupt and that
> >> they do no good.
> >
> > I agree that they are symbols of Christianity--but of generic
> > Christianity, not of whatever particular fundamentalist variant you are
> > imagining.
>
> Really? I'm fascinated. Which Christian variants have a holy book which
> doesn't include the passages calling non-believers "fools," "vile" etc?
A question that would make less sense if you hadn't snipped:
> How many
> modern Americans who consider themselves Christians feel committed to
> biblical positions in general, whether about non-Christians or anything
> else?
--
Karl Johanson
> In article <sJQZm.85205$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad>,
> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> "David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
>> news:ddfr-D445E1.1...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
>> > In article <YmPZm.595$yy2...@newsfe01.iad>,
>> > "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >How does putting a star and an angel on a tree impose anything on
>> >> >anyone?
>> >>
>> >> They're symbols of a religion. A religion with a holy book which
>> >> claims
>> >> (more than once) that non-believers are fools, vile and corrupt and
>> >> that
>> >> they do no good.
>> >
>> > I agree that they are symbols of Christianity--but of generic
>> > Christianity, not of whatever particular fundamentalist variant you are
>> > imagining.
>>
>> Really? I'm fascinated. Which Christian variants have a holy book which
>> doesn't include the passages calling non-believers "fools," "vile" etc?
>
> A question that would make less sense if you hadn't snipped:
I specified what the Christian Holy book says. I'm aware that quite a few
don't know that it says that.
Marty Helgesen
Endorsing does not fit the dictionary definitions of imposing, but
more important the actions do not implicitly endorse a religion.
Unless judicial distortion of the First Amendment has completely
eliminated the practice, some local governments put up both a manger
scene and a menorah. And even if they no longer do so they did in the
past. Your interpreation would mean that the local governments were
simultaneously endorsing Christianity, which teaches that Jesus was
the Messiah who was promised in the Old Testament, and Judaism, which
teaches that the Messiah has not yet come. In other words, your
interpetation would mean that the government was simultaneously
endorsing two statements that contradict each other. In reality,
nativity scenes, menorals, and decorations such as angels, stars, and
Stars of David, do not endorse, they simply acknowledge.
Marty Helgesen
"vile" in the King James translation. I found 22 hits. Looking just
and the immediate context provided in one line rather than the
complete chapter I didn't see any that seemed to refer to non-
believers. And even if there are any, there still is the question of
whether the text refers to all non-believers or to the particular non-
believers the human author had in mind.
David Friedman
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
More important, you know--and choose to ignore--that many Americans who
consider themselves Christians, whether or not they know what the Bible
says, don't consider themselves obligated to believe it literally, and
don't.
Kip Williams
> On Dec 27, 2:13 pm, Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> Marty Helgesen wrote:
>>> On Dec 25, 12:43 am, Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> MartyHelgesenwrote:
>>>>> On Dec 24, 9:28 pm, Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Harry Mary Andruschak wrote:
>>>>>>> And am I the only one who wonders why the word "holiday" is not
>>>>>>> banned? It is soooo obviously a version of "Holy day", about as
>>>>>>> Religious as you can get.
>>
>>>>>> Perhaps the government is nowhere near as zealous in its attempts to
>>>>>> extirpate all traces of religion as would-be persecutees like to think.
>>
>>>>> It's not the government but some individuals and organizations who try
>>>>> to use the government impose their views.
>>
>>>> They were trying to get the government to stop imposing views on them.
>>
>>> How does putting a star and an angel on a tree impose anything on
>>> anyone?
>>
>> By implicitly endorsing the religion that has adopted these as symbols
>> and aspects of its doctrines. Duh.
>
> more important the actions do not implicitly endorse a religion.
> Unless judicial distortion of the First Amendment has completely
> eliminated the practice, some local governments put up both a manger
> scene and a menorah. And even if they no longer do so they did in the
> past. Your interpreation would mean that the local governments were
> simultaneously endorsing Christianity, which teaches that Jesus was
> the Messiah who was promised in the Old Testament, and Judaism, which
> teaches that the Messiah has not yet come. In other words, your
> interpetation would mean that the government was simultaneously
> endorsing two statements that contradict each other. In reality,
> nativity scenes, menorals, and decorations such as angels, stars, and
> Stars of David, do not endorse, they simply acknowledge.
Ah, Appeal to Webster's! Wriggle as you might, for the government to
fund public displays of religion are an endorsement of religion. Some of
us don't care to see the government in the religion biz. Unless the
government wants to waste its money putting up public displays of each
and every religion, sect, and cult, they can't help but favor some over
others. I personally would rather they favor none at all.
Kip W
Marty Helgesen
Is there something wrong with determining the correct meaning of
words.
>Wriggle as you might, for the government to
> fund public displays of religion are an endorsement of religion. Some of
> us don't care to see the government in the religion biz. Unless the
> government wants to waste its money putting up public displays of each
> and every religion, sect, and cult, they can't help but favor some over
> others. I personally would rather they favor none at all.
>
You completely ignore my main point that if, as you claim, putting up
a nativity scene or a menorah is endorsing Christianity or Judaism
then governments that put up both were endorsing contradictory
statements.
William December Starr
Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> said:
> You completely ignore my main point that if, as you claim, putting
> up a nativity scene or a menorah is endorsing Christianity or
> Judaism then governments that put up both were endorsing
> contradictory statements.
Assuming that to be true, of what relevance is it to this discussion?
-- wds
Marty Helgesen
> In article <e18d3e8f-8306-42c9-909f-4b11d777e...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Harry began this discussion by wondering why the word "holiday" is
not
banned when it is obviously a version of "Holy day", which is
religious.
Kip replied, "Perhaps the government is nowhere near as zealous in its
attempts to
extirpate all traces of religion as would-be persecutees like to
think."
My reply to him began, "It's not the government but some individuals
and organizations
who try to use the government impose their views," to which he
replied, "They were
trying to get the government to stop imposing views on them."
I asked, "How does putting a star and an angel on a tree impose
anything on
anyone?"
He answered, "By implicitly endorsing the religion that has adopted
these as symbols
and aspects of its doctrines. Duh."
My reply to him began, "Endorsing does not fit the dictionary
definitions of imposing, but
more important the actions do not implicitly endorse a religion." I
then pointed out that saying that a government body that put up both a
Nativity Scene and a Menorah, as was done in the past, was endorsing
both Christianity and Judaism would be nonsense because Christianity
and Judaism have contradictory beliefs about Jesus and the Messiah.
During the last presidential election a newspaper could not have
published an editorial saying "We endorese Senator McCain and Senator
Obama for President." A newspaper could say that both major
candidates could be good presidents, but that's not what a newspaper
endorsement of a candidate is understood to mean.
Kip Williams
Yes, when dictionary definitions are used to obfuscate what is obvious.
>> Wriggle as you might, for the government to
>> fund public displays of religion are an endorsement of religion. Some of
>> us don't care to see the government in the religion biz. Unless the
>> government wants to waste its money putting up public displays of each
>> and every religion, sect, and cult, they can't help but favor some over
>> others. I personally would rather they favor none at all.
>>
> You completely ignore my main point that if, as you claim, putting up
> a nativity scene or a menorah is endorsing Christianity or Judaism
> then governments that put up both were endorsing contradictory
> statements.
No I don't. Read the paragraph directly above, note "some over others."
Whether it's the judeo- part or the -christian part, it's an
advertisement for some books of what you would call The Holy Bible.
Kip W
David Friedman
Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> No I don't. Read the paragraph directly above, note "some over others."
> Whether it's the judeo- part or the -christian part, it's an
> advertisement for some books of what you would call The Holy Bible.
I think that's a little too strong.
Consider the ethnic equivalent--St. Patrick's day parades and the like.
Is governmental involvement in such things an "endorsement" of Irish
nationalism? Isn't it more "a bunch of our citizens share these views,
so we will help them celebrate them?" Roads are routinely named after
people who are heroes to only a minority of the population.
Kip Williams
> In article<Cb4_m.4313$DR6....@newsfe19.iad>,
> Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> No I don't. Read the paragraph directly above, note "some over others."
>> Whether it's the judeo- part or the -christian part, it's an
>> advertisement for some books of what you would call The Holy Bible.
>
> I think that's a little too strong.
>
> Consider the ethnic equivalent--St. Patrick's day parades and the like.
> Is governmental involvement in such things an "endorsement" of Irish
> nationalism? Isn't it more "a bunch of our citizens share these views,
> so we will help them celebrate them?" Roads are routinely named after
> people who are heroes to only a minority of the population.
St. Patrick's Day parades welcome people of almost all ethnicities, as
long as they're not gay, and I don't see them trying to convert anybody,
except to the extent of putting on some green for a day. It's rather
hard to draw an equivalent between two things with such different
outlooks and purposes as (a) the ancestry some are born into and can't
change and (b) an evangelical religion that tries to recruit people and
declares that nonbelievers will go to hell.
Kip w
Jette Goldie
> David Friedman wrote:
>> In article<Cb4_m.4313$DR6....@newsfe19.iad>,
>> Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No I don't. Read the paragraph directly above, note "some over others."
>>> Whether it's the judeo- part or the -christian part, it's an
>>> advertisement for some books of what you would call The Holy Bible.
>>
>> I think that's a little too strong.
>>
>> Consider the ethnic equivalent--St. Patrick's day parades and the like.
>> Is governmental involvement in such things an "endorsement" of Irish
>> nationalism? Isn't it more "a bunch of our citizens share these views,
>> so we will help them celebrate them?" Roads are routinely named after
>> people who are heroes to only a minority of the population.
>
> St. Patrick's Day parades welcome people of almost all ethnicities, as
> long as they're not gay,
or British.
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Kip Williams
> Kip Williams wrote:
>> David Friedman wrote:
>>> In article<Cb4_m.4313$DR6....@newsfe19.iad>,
>>> Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No I don't. Read the paragraph directly above, note "some over others."
>>>> Whether it's the judeo- part or the -christian part, it's an
>>>> advertisement for some books of what you would call The Holy Bible.
>>>
>>> I think that's a little too strong.
>>>
>>> Consider the ethnic equivalent--St. Patrick's day parades and the like.
>>> Is governmental involvement in such things an "endorsement" of Irish
>>> nationalism? Isn't it more "a bunch of our citizens share these views,
>>> so we will help them celebrate them?" Roads are routinely named after
>>> people who are heroes to only a minority of the population.
>>
>> St. Patrick's Day parades welcome people of almost all ethnicities, as
>> long as they're not gay,
>
> or British.
I should have specified "in the US." As far as I can tell, they don't
care that much over here. Well, I could still be wrong, of course,
Kip W
David Friedman
Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
The equivalence I'm suggesting isn't between the things but between
government treatment of the things. In each case you have a movement,
loosely speaking, which some citizens consider themselves a part of, and
the government does positive things with regard to that movement without
itself advertising or supporting it.
Judaism isn't an evangelical religion. Are you implying that a menorah
or star of David in a public building is fine with you?
Kip Williams
> In article<Lu8_m.79378$de6....@newsfe21.iad>,
But there are differences between the movements. You don't expect the
government to treat St. Patrick's Day parades and, say, drive-throughs
by truculent motorcycle gangs the same, do you?
> Judaism isn't an evangelical religion. Are you implying that a menorah
> or star of David in a public building is fine with you?
Has the situation come up? I had the impression they didn't go around
sticking those things up in public places the same way Christians do.
Kip W
William December Starr
Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> said:
> He answered, "By implicitly endorsing the religion that has
> adopted these as symbols and aspects of its doctrines. Duh."
>
> My reply to him began, "Endorsing does not fit the dictionary
> definitions of imposing, but more important the actions do not
> implicitly endorse a religion." I then pointed out that saying
> that a government body that put up both a Nativity Scene and a
> Menorah, as was done in the past, was endorsing both Christianity
> and Judaism would be nonsense because Christianity and Judaism
> have contradictory beliefs about Jesus and the Messiah.
You seem to be saying "It's contradictory, therefore it has null
effect, therefore it is a null event."
I disagree with "therefore it has null effect."
> During the last presidential election a newspaper could not have
> published an editorial saying "We endorese Senator McCain and
> Senator Obama for President." A newspaper could say that both
> major candidates could be good presidents, but that's not what a
> newspaper endorsement of a candidate is understood to mean.
You're misstating what it is that's being endorsed.
Just as by praising both candidates the newspaper endorses the idea
that both are good and that people should adhere to one of them, by
officially indulging in religious rituals or symbolism the state
endorses the idea that both/all religions are good and people should
adhere to one of them.
Many people believe that that is something the state should not do.
-- wds
Keith F. Lynch
> Kip Williams wrote:
>> St. Patrick's Day parades welcome people of almost all ethnicities,
>> as long as they're not gay,
> or British.
Why not? St. Patrick was British.
Granted that it was mean of the Irish to enslave him, I think his
permanently afflicting that whole island with Christianity was
excessive revenge.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Kevin J. Maroney
<mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>> A religion with a holy book which claims
>> (more than once) that non-believers are fools, vile and corrupt
>I went to http://www.biblegateway.com/ and searched for the word
>"vile" in the King James translation.
Revelation 21:8 (New International)
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the
sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all
liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This
is the second death.
Matthew 23:33:
You snakes, you children of serpents! How can you escape being
condemned to hell?
Galatians 6:8
For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap
corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit
reap eternal life.
So, vile, serpents, corruption, condemned to hell. But because the
King James version doesn't say "Unbelievers are vile" in those exact
words, it's worth contradicting Karl when he says that the Bible calls
unbelievers fools, vile, and corrupt?
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com | www.maroney.org
Games are my entire waking life.
David Friedman
Except that the bit from Revelation doesn't identify all of those with
unbelievers. Nor do the other two, at least in the bits you quoted.
Karl Johanson
news:dmsij5d6tr7fna6h4...@4ax.com...
Well said and interesting examples. I used the New International Version
which uses "vile".
Psalm 14: 1 (NIV) The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are
corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."
Psalm 53 1 (NIV) The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are
corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good."
The King James Version is similarly clear in its bigotry.
Psalm 53:1 (KJV) "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt
are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good."
Psalm 14:1 (KJV) "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are
corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
The bit from Rev has it that unbelievers get the fiery Sulphur version of
Hell though. Granted that makes the one passing sentence the vile one...
Karl Johanson
David Friedman
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
What does that have to do with claiming that non-Christians, or even
people who don't believe in either Judaism or Christianity, are vile
etc.? Reading the statements lierally, they are statements about people
who are both fools and atheists--with at least an implication that all
fools are atheists, not that all atheists are fools.
Karl Johanson
Geneva notes on Psalms:
14:1 <> The fool
hath said in his heart, {a} [There is] no God. They are {b}
corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none
that doeth good.
(a) He shows that the cause of all wickedness if forgetting
God.
(b) There is nothing but disorder and wickedness among
them.
David Friedman
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
You are quoting a commentary, written a couple of thousand years after
the text it's commenting on.
Alan Woodford
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Jette Goldie <boss...@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>> Kip Williams wrote:
>>> St. Patrick's Day parades welcome people of almost all ethnicities,
>>> as long as they're not gay,
>
>> or British.
>
>Why not? St. Patrick was British.
>
Are you really so clueless about Irish and British history as to need
to ask that question?
Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman!
Jette Goldie
This is Keith you're talking to.
Keith F. Lynch
> Alan Woodford wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Jette Goldie <boss...@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Kip Williams wrote:
>>>>> St. Patrick's Day parades welcome people of almost all ethnicities,
>>>>> as long as they're not gay,
>>>> or British.
>>> Why not? St. Patrick was British.
>> Are you really so clueless about Irish and British history as to
>> need to ask that question?
> This is Keith you're talking to.
Are you both really so clueless about humor that you couldn't figure
out that I was joking? My next paragraph, which Alan snipped, was:
Granted that it was mean of the Irish to enslave him, I think his
permanently afflicting that whole island with Christianity was
excessive revenge.
Free hint: I don't have the last name I do because some ancestor
thought it sounded cool. My family is well aware of Irish and
British history.
A new year's resolution of mine is to stop wasting my time and that
of good-faith newsgroup participants by repeatedly defending myself
against this kind of nonsense. Instead, I will be more liberal with
my killfile. And I will use the freed up time to answer substantive
posts instead of trash like this.
Alan Woodford
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Jette Goldie <boss...@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>> Alan Woodford wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>> Jette Goldie <boss...@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Kip Williams wrote:
>>>>>> St. Patrick's Day parades welcome people of almost all ethnicities,
>>>>>> as long as they're not gay,
>
>>>>> or British.
>
>>>> Why not? St. Patrick was British.
>
>>> Are you really so clueless about Irish and British history as to
>>> need to ask that question?
>
>> This is Keith you're talking to.
>
>Are you both really so clueless about humor that you couldn't figure
>out that I was joking? My next paragraph, which Alan snipped, was:
>
> Granted that it was mean of the Irish to enslave him, I think his
> permanently afflicting that whole island with Christianity was
> excessive revenge.
Yes Keith, I figured out that it was meant to be funny. If someone had
posted a similar sort of attempted joke using the word Nigger, would
you have thought that was funny?
>
>Free hint: I don't have the last name I do because some ancestor
>thought it sounded cool. My family is well aware of Irish and
>British history.
>
I know enough about it to know that there has been much evil done by
both sides, going back a very long way.
And I probably have more direct experience of it than you, too.
>A new year's resolution of mine is to stop wasting my time and that
>of good-faith newsgroup participants by repeatedly defending myself
>against this kind of nonsense. Instead, I will be more liberal with
>my killfile. And I will use the freed up time to answer substantive
>posts instead of trash like this.
Are you going to stop posting as if yours is the only possible correct
view on anything, too?
David Friedman
Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Granted that it was mean of the Irish to enslave him, I think his
> > permanently afflicting that whole island with Christianity was
> > excessive revenge.
> Yes Keith, I figured out that it was meant to be funny. If someone had
> posted a similar sort of attempted joke using the word Nigger, would
> you have thought that was funny?
"Irish" isn't equivalent of "nigger"--it's the usual designation for the
inhabitants of Ireland. Hence your question makes no sense. The
equivalent would rather be:
Granted that New World slavery was distinctly unkind, surely the
invention of jazz was excessive revenge.
> Are you going to stop posting as if yours is the only possible correct
> view on anything, too?
Why should he be different from the rest of Usenet?
Alan Woodford
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In article <sd0mj55jhvqhh5bg7...@4ax.com>,
> Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > Granted that it was mean of the Irish to enslave him, I think his
>> > permanently afflicting that whole island with Christianity was
>> > excessive revenge.
>
>> Yes Keith, I figured out that it was meant to be funny. If someone had
>> posted a similar sort of attempted joke using the word Nigger, would
>> you have thought that was funny?
>
>"Irish" isn't equivalent of "nigger"--it's the usual designation for the
>inhabitants of Ireland.
It is a lot closer than you'd think, over here.
>Hence your question makes no sense. The
>equivalent would rather be:
>
>Granted that New World slavery was distinctly unkind, surely the
>invention of jazz was excessive revenge.
>
But I like jazz - I've got some Bix Beiderbecke in the car at the
moment :-)
>> Are you going to stop posting as if yours is the only possible correct
>> view on anything, too?
>
>Why should he be different from the rest of Usenet?
I think you mean the rest of the world, but I could be wrong.
I'm going to drop this now, I don't think I'm going to convince you or
Keith of my viewpoint, and I think I've been getting unnecessarily
grumpy about it.
Here's to a 2010 with less, rather than more security theatre!
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> A new year's resolution of mine is to stop wasting my time and that
>> of good-faith newsgroup participants by repeatedly defending myself
>> against this kind of nonsense. Instead, I will be more liberal
>> with my killfile. And I will use the freed up time to answer
>> substantive posts instead of trash like this.
> Are you going to stop posting as if yours is the only possible
> correct view on anything, too?
I've always been open to disagreement. What I'm not open to are
attacks on integrity, arguments about what I posted, claims that i'm
wrong more often than most people here, and meta-arguments in general.
Stick to the *issues*.
Karl Johanson
> In article <sd0mj55jhvqhh5bg7...@4ax.com>,
> Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > Granted that it was mean of the Irish to enslave him, I think his
>> > permanently afflicting that whole island with Christianity was
>> > excessive revenge.
>
>> Yes Keith, I figured out that it was meant to be funny. If someone had
>> posted a similar sort of attempted joke using the word Nigger, would
>> you have thought that was funny?
>
> "Irish" isn't equivalent of "nigger"--it's the usual designation for the
> inhabitants of Ireland. Hence your question makes no sense.
That's how I reacted as well.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
Sure is. I'm showing that the interpretation of the passage as an attack on
non-believers isn't just my opinion.
Karl Johanson
Jette Goldie
In Ireland some inhabitants will be called "English" or "British" by
other inhabitants.
It wasn't so very long ago that London boarding houses would have
signs saying "No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish" when listing those who
were unwelcome as guests in the establishment.
And a Scot traveling in Boston can still be spat upon by "Boston
Irish" and called a "Bloody Brit" with impunity. (as recently as
1996)(by the Immigration Officer in Boston Airport)
David V. Loewe, Jr
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>"Kevin J. Maroney" <k...@panix.com> wrote
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:22:47 -0800 (PST), Marty Helgesen
>> <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> A religion with a holy book which claims
>>>> (more than once) that non-believers are fools, vile and corrupt
>>
>>>I went to http://www.biblegateway.com/ and searched for the word
>>>"vile" in the King James translation.
>>
>> Revelation 21:8 (New International)
>> But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the
>> sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all
>> liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This
>> is the second death.
>>
>> Matthew 23:33:
>> You snakes, you children of serpents! How can you escape being
>> condemned to hell?
This seems remarkably context free...
>> Galatians 6:8
>> For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap
>> corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit
>> reap eternal life.
>>
>> So, vile, serpents, corruption, condemned to hell. But because the
>> King James version doesn't say "Unbelievers are vile" in those exact
>> words, it's worth contradicting Karl when he says that the Bible calls
>> unbelievers fools, vile, and corrupt?
>
>Well said and interesting examples. I used the New International Version
>which uses "vile".
>
>Psalm 14: 1 (NIV) The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are
>corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."
>Psalm 53 1 (NIV) The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are
>corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good."
>
>The King James Version is similarly clear in its bigotry.
>
>Psalm 53:1 (KJV) "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt
>are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good."
>Psalm 14:1 (KJV) "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are
>corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
Isn't Psalms the OLD Testament?
--
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who
does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
Sir Karl Popper
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>Marty Helgesen wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 2:13 pm, Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Marty Helgesen wrote:
>>>> On Dec 25, 12:43 am, Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> MartyHelgesenwrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 24, 9:28 pm, Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Harry Mary Andruschak wrote:
>>>>>>>> And am I the only one who wonders why the word "holiday" is not
>>>>>>>> banned? It is soooo obviously a version of "Holy day", about as
>>>>>>>> Religious as you can get.
>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps the government is nowhere near as zealous in its attempts to
>>>>>>> extirpate all traces of religion as would-be persecutees like to think.
>>>
>>>>>> It's not the government but some individuals and organizations who try
>>>>>> to use the government impose their views.
>>>
>>>>> They were trying to get the government to stop imposing views on them.
>>>
>>>> How does putting a star and an angel on a tree impose anything on
>>>> anyone?
>>>
>>> By implicitly endorsing the religion that has adopted these as symbols
>>> and aspects of its doctrines. Duh.
>>
>> Endorsing does not fit the dictionary definitions of imposing, but
>> more important the actions do not implicitly endorse a religion.
>> Unless judicial distortion of the First Amendment has completely
>> eliminated the practice, some local governments put up both a manger
>> scene and a menorah. And even if they no longer do so they did in the
>> past. Your interpreation would mean that the local governments were
>> simultaneously endorsing Christianity, which teaches that Jesus was
>> the Messiah who was promised in the Old Testament, and Judaism, which
>> teaches that the Messiah has not yet come. In other words, your
>> interpetation would mean that the government was simultaneously
>> endorsing two statements that contradict each other. In reality,
>> nativity scenes, menorals, and decorations such as angels, stars, and
>> Stars of David, do not endorse, they simply acknowledge.
>
>Ah, Appeal to Webster's! Wriggle as you might, for the government to
>fund public displays of religion are an endorsement of religion. Some of
>us don't care to see the government in the religion biz. Unless the
>government wants to waste its money putting up public displays of each
>and every religion, sect, and cult, they can't help but favor some over
>others. I personally would rather they favor none at all.
Would you like to see Christmas dropped as a Federal Holiday?
You also never really answered Harry - would you like to see the very
word holiday (derived from Holy Day) dropped?
--
"Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that
you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who
misunderstand you."
Sir Karl Popper
David Loewe, Jr.
Starr) wrote:
I disagree. IMO, the state is *acknowledging* that these are important
religions to their constituents. Nothing more. Nothing less. I
certainly feel no pressure to go out and join a church or synagogue
after seeing a religious display - no matter who puts it up.
>Many people believe that that is something the state should not do.
--
"Reading Solzhenitsyn makes it difficult to take seriously the
people in this culture who insist that Dissent has been squelched.
Brother, you have no idea."
James Lileks
Karl Johanson
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:292qj5t9tmnvndt0l...@4ax.com...
Sure is. Why do you ask?
Karl Johanson
David Loewe, Jr.
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote
So...
Why aren't you including Jews in your condemnation? It looks to me like
you are just condemning Christians when the Jewish Holy Book says the
same thing.
--
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
- Lenin
Karl Johanson
news:hhpsj510hj14nkico...@4ax.com...
Because the discussion was about putting a star and an angel on a tree.
However, you are quite correct. Jews are also choosing to believe a religion
with a holy book which calls unbelievers foools, vile & corrupt. Not very
nice of them.
Karl Johanson
David V. Loewe, Jr
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote
However, your objection seems to be about how bigoted that religion is.
>However, you are quite correct. Jews are also choosing to believe a religion
>with a holy book which calls unbelievers foools,
So?
>vile & corrupt. Not very nice of them.
--
"I don't mind you *thinking* I'm stupid, but don't *talk* to me
like I'm stupid."
- Harlan Ellison
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> Just as by praising both candidates the newspaper endorses the
>> idea that both are good and that people should adhere to one of
>> them, by officially indulging in religious rituals or symbolism
>> the state endorses the idea that both/all religions are good and
>> people should adhere to one of them.
>
> I disagree. IMO, the state is *acknowledging* that these are
> important religions to their constituents. Nothing more. Nothing
> less. I certainly feel no pressure to go out and join a church or
> synagogue after seeing a religious display - no matter who puts it
> up.
Like an advertisement, an endorsement does not necessarily have to
_work_ -- i.e., make a given person feel pressured to buy / vote for
/ embrace / whatever the endorsed thing -- in order to still _be_ an
endorsement.
-- wds
William December Starr
Jette Goldie <jgold...@btinternet.com> said:
> And a Scot traveling in Boston can still be spat upon by "Boston
> Irish" and called a "Bloody Brit" with impunity. (as recently as
> 1996) (by the Immigration Officer in Boston Airport)
Micro-nit: it's Logan Airport (full name: Logan International Airport).
-- wds
William December Starr
And to address your other point: the line between acknowledgment
and endorsement is hard to define. I'd say that making Christmas a
state holiday, for example, falls on the acknowledgment side, while
allowing religious displays on state land is an endorsement. A
crude and quick-and-dirty (and probably quite flawed) heuristic
might be "Is the state just giving in the the inevitable, or going
out of its way to do this?"
-- wds
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) said:
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
>>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just as by praising both candidates the newspaper endorses the
>>>> idea that both are good and that people should adhere to one of
>>>> them, by officially indulging in religious rituals or symbolism
>>>> the state endorses the idea that both/all religions are good and
>>>> people should adhere to one of them.
>>>
>>> I disagree. IMO, the state is *acknowledging* that these are
>>> important religions to their constituents. Nothing more. Nothing
>>> less. I certainly feel no pressure to go out and join a church or
>>> synagogue after seeing a religious display - no matter who puts it
>>> up.
>>
>> Like an advertisement, an endorsement does not necessarily have to
>> _work_ -- i.e., make a given person feel pressured to buy / vote
>> for / embrace / whatever the endorsed thing -- in order to still
>> _be_ an endorsement.
>
>And to address your other point: the line between acknowledgment
>and endorsement is hard to define. I'd say that making Christmas a
>state holiday, for example, falls on the acknowledgment side, while
>allowing religious displays on state land is an endorsement.
And I say it doesn't.
Nor is endorsement establishment.
>A crude and quick-and-dirty (and probably quite flawed) heuristic
>might be "Is the state just giving in the the inevitable, or going
>out of its way to do this?"
--
"Learn to see in another�s calamity the ills which you
should avoid."
Publius Syrus
Jette Goldie
ah well, I shan't be going back there.
Karl Johanson
> Karl Johanson wrote:
>> "David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
>> news:ddfr-F6D736.1...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
>>> In article <sd0mj55jhvqhh5bg7...@4ax.com>,
>>> Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Granted that it was mean of the Irish to enslave him, I think his
>>>>> permanently afflicting that whole island with Christianity was
>>>>> excessive revenge.
>>>> Yes Keith, I figured out that it was meant to be funny. If someone had
>>>> posted a similar sort of attempted joke using the word Nigger, would
>>>> you have thought that was funny?
>>> "Irish" isn't equivalent of "nigger"--it's the usual designation for the
>>> inhabitants of Ireland. Hence your question makes no sense.
>>
>> That's how I reacted as well.
>
> In Ireland some inhabitants will be called "English" or "British" by other
> inhabitants.
Aren't all citizens of Ireland British?
> It wasn't so very long ago that London boarding houses would have signs
> saying "No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish" when listing those who were
> unwelcome as guests in the establishment.
That some don't like Irish doesn't make the word "Irish" inherently
pejorative.
> And a Scot traveling in Boston can still be spat upon by "Boston Irish"
> and called a "Bloody Brit" with impunity. (as recently as 1996)(by the
> Immigration Officer in Boston Airport)
Karl Johanson
Jette Goldie
> "Jette Goldie" <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote
>> Karl Johanson wrote:
>>> "David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ddfr-F6D736.1...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
>>>> In article <sd0mj55jhvqhh5bg7...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Alan Woodford <al...@bortas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Granted that it was mean of the Irish to enslave him, I think his
>>>>>> permanently afflicting that whole island with Christianity was
>>>>>> excessive revenge.
>>>>> Yes Keith, I figured out that it was meant to be funny. If someone had
>>>>> posted a similar sort of attempted joke using the word Nigger, would
>>>>> you have thought that was funny?
>>>> "Irish" isn't equivalent of "nigger"--it's the usual designation for the
>>>> inhabitants of Ireland. Hence your question makes no sense.
>>> That's how I reacted as well.
>> In Ireland some inhabitants will be called "English" or "British" by other
>> inhabitants.
>
> Aren't all citizens of Ireland British?
I dare you to stand in a Republican area of Derry and say that. Or
Dublin.
Paul Dormer
Johanson) wrote:
>
> Aren't all citizens of Ireland British?
Not usually. British seems to be restricted to natives of Great Britain,
which is the big island. It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, for instance.
Karl Johanson
j...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Some Northern Irelanders would indignantly claim that of course they are
British; others would deny it with at least equal force. To many of the
Irish, "British" means "of the historical British Empire", although it
doesn't mean that to most residents of Great Britain. Basically, the
term has only loose meanings, and no precise one.
--
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.