Controversial Lawsuit against Utah Highway Patrol

[Joe Vancil]

Make it solid wood or solid concrete (Christians don't get gold crosses, you know), and give me a way to make such a symbol in one piece, and consider it done.

I too am curious as to what that symbol represents.  I don't know it, either.
 

[Reality]

QUOTE]
I KNOW a fair weather fan CANNOT comprehend this, my alligance is to the Lakers, not Kobe/Shaq/Magic/Kareem/Wilt/West/Mikam.

Plus I would request a solid Amethyst (sic?) and Gold monument like this:

I suppose you could ask a fair weather fan.  I think many of them could be sensitive to your Amethyst and Golden request.

As for a freedom of thought adherent like myself, I can totally support you right to have an Amethyst and Golden memorial.  

Ted, an AMETHYST is a purple variety of quartz.  Here is a pic and description.

http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/gems...st/amethyst.htm

Combines with a karat gold of WOWs choice, an apt memorial could be purchased.  I think the Founding Fathers would approve of such.  Reality Inc has long been in the business of Laker Memorial products.  The Amethyst description continues  "The name "amethyst" comes from the Greek and means "not drunken." This was maybe due to a belief that amethyst would ward off the effects of alcohol, but most likely the Greeks were referring to the almost wine-like color of some stones that they may have encountered. Its color is unparalleled, and even other, more expensive purple gemstones are often compared to its color and beauty. Although it must always be purple to be amethyst, it can and does have a wide range of purple shades.
Wether ones Laker devotion has it's roots in alchoholism or not, we here at Reality Inc stand ready to make your choice of memorial to your liking, whatever of the wide range of purple n gold shade you fall under.

Ted and WOW i hope you don't mind my answering in part for WOW.

[WayOutWest]

Actually, WOW, I've got problems with those two statements, too.  Those are two sentence fragments.  My writing has really gone south.

INFIDEL! Don't try to hide your evil agenda behind a sentence fragment!

I agree that there is an agenda being pushed by the religious right.  I also agree that there's a big part of it that the average American wants nothing to do with.  However, the average American finds more in common with it than they do with the radical left, which is why we've seen the results we've seen in the last two major elections.

FYI Joe, I'm not part of sheep that believes there was no monkey buisness in the last TWO elections.  First in Florida then in Ohio.  So I don't take the last two elections to mean much more than we still live in a time of ignorance and apathy.  

The next swing will be back to the other side.  The failure of the current government will make sure that a new one gets a chance.  But it's unlikely that that one will last for long, either.

Our society as we know it in this country may not last long either.  I think we are nearing a time of change.  Much like the 60's but instead of racial/social equality we will be looking for information/accountability equality.  We may see a change in how our gov does business alla the big SOX push in corporate america (or so I hope).

Neither Democrat nor Republican philsophies represent the people anymore.  Both are too extremist.  So, therefore, it's easy to see when a radical fringe group - like organized Atheism - makes a statement, it doesn't represent the majority.

Amen to that!

I can tell you this right now:  there are more members of the religious right than there are organized Atheists.  There are also more people whose beliefs are closer to the religious right than there are whose beliefs are closer to to organized Atheism.  How do I know that?  Because both Democratic and Republican parties try to pull in support from "semi-religious moderates."  The Democrats do this by making sure their candidate ISN'T a card-carrying Atheist.  The Republicans try to appeal to the "religious values" that their candidate, often a member of the religious right, shares with the "average American."

I agree but there are more members that fall into neither catagory than those two catagories combined.  We can only be pushed so long.

The Democratic party could be a juggernaut in America if it could get rid of the ultra-liberal, ultra-atheistic fringe elements.  The problem is that it would take YEARS out-of-power to accomplish that.  Zell Miller sees that, and talks about that in "A National Party No More."

How many people do you think would vote for a candidate if this were his Party's agenda:

1)  Leave Roe vs. Wade alone
2)  Stop exporting of American jobs
3)  Reduce taxes/eliminate pork
4)  Implement National Health Care
5)  Make firearms available, but require licensing
6)  Spend more money on education
7)  Reduce foreign entanglements
  Appoint judges who do not legislate from the bench
9)  Eliminate inheritance tax

The Democrats fail on 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9.
The Republicans fail on 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7.

This means if your priorities are 5, 8, and 9 - you should vote Republican.
If your priorities are 1 and 4 - you should vote Democrat.

But if a moderate party promised *JUST* 2, 3, 6, and 7 - which BOTH parties fail on (or somewhat support) - they could get a great deal of support.

That's right;  if your priorities are stop exporting American jobs, reduce taxes and eliminate pork, and reduce foreign entanglements, YOU DON'T HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE.  You're screwed.  Yet if you ask EVERYONE on this board, I'll bet good money that those three things are three things they want to see happen.

Am I right, folks on the board?  Is there ANY ONE of these 9 things at the top that you disagree with?  And if so, to what level?  (I'll bet money that the "most controversial" three will be 4, 5, and 9.)

Better yet - let's do this line-item veto style.  You've got a line-item veto.  Which of the 9 items above would you veto?

Personally, I'd veto line-item 7.  America is a world power, and therefore, a world leader.  It can't just "sit on the sideline," whether it be trying to act against terrorism, or joining in the United Nations.  Foreign entanglements come with the territory.

I might veto 5 and 7.  We spend enough on defense, we don't need armed malitia in every little town.  If there were no weapons in the hands of private citizens we may join the rest of the non-warring civilized world in homicide vs. population ratio.

I agree with you on 7.  We need to be more entangled, just not carring weapons.

[WayOutWest]

WoW, what is that symbol?

It is the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) symbol.

[Guest_Randy]

Rick,

You really need to read a bit more history before you make the statements about "separation of church and state."  History is something I enjoy but you really need to understand the history of the first amendment before you make some of the comments you have made.

The first amendment had a GREAT deal of difficulty passing (in fact, Massachussets -- i.e. pilgrims) passed it FINALLY with GREAT reluctance.  The state church (in this case the congregational church) had GREAT power in Massachusets -- other religions were allowed but under great persecution (those who were not "baptized" into the congregational church were persecuted, shut out of the economical system, even beaten, etc.).  In fact, the only original state that truly practiced freedom of religion was Rhode Island.

There were MANY who were quite upset that freedom of religion was NOT guaranteed in the constitution.  In fact, a man by the name of John Leland had a great deal of influence in this area -- some reports list him as gaining support for a run for President before meeting with Madison (and Madison guaranteeing that an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing freedom OF religion would be one of his first and most important goals in Presidency -- so Leland threw his support behind Madison -- obviously, Madison then scripted the words of the 1st admendment).  

Also, if you spend a great deal of time reading the writings of the founding fathers -- you begin to understand that the first amendment is NOT the separation of church and state that has been misinterpreted today.  The first amendment was freedom OF religion -- not freedom FROM religion.  The fact is that a small group of people have misconstrued this principle and therefore inflicts upon the US freedom FROM religion rather than freedom OF religion.

The first amendment is clearly not designed to keep God out of our country but rather to keep a particularly faith system from ruling (and therefore persecuting other faiths).  AND atheism IS a belief system -- so by striving to take God (whatever that means to different people) out of everything -- they ARE breaking the spirit of the first amendment by catering to THAT particular belief system.  

I think it WOULD be better off in this particular point to allow the American people to decide -- see, I don't think that the American people would choose ONE religion over another -- but I DO think we would see a tolerance for all religions.  However, there is a personal agenda by some in the court systems to remove ALL religion from our government -- and that ISN'T in keeping with a historical understanding of the founding fathers OR the 1st admendment.  

This is a phenomenal statement:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However -- somewhere along the line "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has come to be interpreted "separation of church and state."  That's a pretty narrow view of this particular statement.  There should NEVER be a religion or system of beliefs that is given precedence over another -- however, IF you state that God can never be mentioned, no religious emblem should ever be shown in a governmental place, etc. -- then you ARE choosing a system of beliefs over all others -- you are choosing ATHEISM over those who believe in God.  The 1st amendment was never freedom FROM religion (although it certainly protected those who don't want any religion) but it was freedom OF religion.  

Freedom of religion is something I believe in VERY strongly.  I believe that people should have the RIGHT to choose -- even to choose NOT to choose is there right.  And I think we have to be careful not to elevate one faith or system of beliefs above another -- HOWEVER -- we need to realize that atheism IS a belief system and that can't be elevated any higher than any other system of beliefs.  

[Joe Vancil]

AMEN, BROTHER RANDY!

Seriously, though, I see things much the same way Randy laid out in his message.  I do go a few steps further, though, in the idea of a true separation of church and state.

For example, while I agree with this particular concept that Bush tried to present, I believe it crosses into a danger area:  the appropriation of government funds to churches to allow them to help the needy.  I think that's wrong.  YES, the churches will be better able to handle it than the federal government, and YES, I think they'd do a good job, and YES, I think they'd waste less money than most government agencies.  But I have a problem with this idea.  It is not the job of the government to support churches, but the job of the congregation.  I don't want government dollars going to any church - not even MY church.

If, however, the governement wanted to have a program whereby charitable organizations, with government oversight, could do the work, I wouldn't have a problem with churches, mosques, etc. being able to apply.  But there would need to be SERIOUS government oversight, and given that requirement, I think I'd rather have the government do it itself.

So I do believe in some separation between churches - and pretty much any other private organization, as well - and the governement.

But as for atheists and their extremist views whenever they see a cross, I'm wondering how many would refuse blood on the operating table if it came from the Red Cross.  Hey - it's a cross!
 

[WayOutWest]

Rick,

You really need to read a bit more history before you make the statements about "separation of church and state."  History is something I enjoy but you really need to understand the history of the first amendment before you make some of the comments you have made.

The first amendment had a GREAT deal of difficulty passing (in fact, Massachussets -- i.e. pilgrims) passed it FINALLY with GREAT reluctance.  The state church (in this case the congregational church) had GREAT power in Massachusets -- other religions were allowed but under great persecution (those who were not "baptized" into the congregational church were persecuted, shut out of the economical system, even beaten, etc.).  In fact, the only original state that truly practiced freedom of religion was Rhode Island.

There were MANY who were quite upset that freedom of religion was NOT guaranteed in the constitution.  In fact, a man by the name of John Leland had a great deal of influence in this area -- some reports list him as gaining support for a run for President before meeting with Madison (and Madison guaranteeing that an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing freedom OF religion would be one of his first and most important goals in Presidency -- so Leland threw his support behind Madison -- obviously, Madison then scripted the words of the 1st admendment).  

Also, if you spend a great deal of time reading the writings of the founding fathers -- you begin to understand that the first amendment is NOT the separation of church and state that has been misinterpreted today.  The first amendment was freedom OF religion -- not freedom FROM religion.  The fact is that a small group of people have misconstrued this principle and therefore inflicts upon the US freedom FROM religion rather than freedom OF religion.

The first amendment is clearly not designed to keep God out of our country but rather to keep a particularly faith system from ruling (and therefore persecuting other faiths).  AND atheism IS a belief system -- so by striving to take God (whatever that means to different people) out of everything -- they ARE breaking the spirit of the first amendment by catering to THAT particular belief system.  

I think it WOULD be better off in this particular point to allow the American people to decide -- see, I don't think that the American people would choose ONE religion over another -- but I DO think we would see a tolerance for all religions.  However, there is a personal agenda by some in the court systems to remove ALL religion from our government -- and that ISN'T in keeping with a historical understanding of the founding fathers OR the 1st admendment.  

This is a phenomenal statement:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However -- somewhere along the line "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has come to be interpreted "separation of church and state."  That's a pretty narrow view of this particular statement.  There should NEVER be a religion or system of beliefs that is given precedence over another -- however, IF you state that God can never be mentioned, no religious emblem should ever be shown in a governmental place, etc. -- then you ARE choosing a system of beliefs over all others -- you are choosing ATHEISM over those who believe in God.  The 1st amendment was never freedom FROM religion (although it certainly protected those who don't want any religion) but it was freedom OF religion.  

Freedom of religion is something I believe in VERY strongly.  I believe that people should have the RIGHT to choose -- even to choose NOT to choose is there right.  And I think we have to be careful not to elevate one faith or system of beliefs above another -- HOWEVER -- we need to realize that atheism IS a belief system and that can't be elevated any higher than any other system of beliefs.

The problem with your line of thought Randy is the christianity IS the defacto standard.

How many non-christian presidents?

How many non-christian symbols on official gov docs?

How many non-christian symbols in gov buildins?

Not that it would matter since christianity has a history of making the popular symbol or holiday their own, so if it wasn't a christian symbol now it would eventually become one.  Some day Harry Potter will be a christian saint and the peace sign will stand for the holy spirit.

[Guest_Randy]

Do I really need to point out that the cross is FAR from a symbol of peace?

Or that Jesus did not die on a cross but rather an upright stake.

Cross was used in oodles of pagan worship that greatly predates Christ on Earth.

What were the historical origins of Christendom’s cross?

“Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples . . . The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times and among non-Christian peoples may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1946), Vol. 6, p. 753.

“The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.”—An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256.

“It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol. . . . The Greek Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolised to their votaries by a cruciform device.”—The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art (London, 1900), G. S. Tyack, p. 1.

“The cross in the form of the ‘Crux Ansata’ . . . was carried in the hands of the Egyptian priests and Pontiff kings as the symbol of their authority as priests of the Sun god and was called ‘the Sign of Life.’”—The Worship of the Dead (London, 1904), Colonel J. Garnier, p. 226.

“Various figures of crosses are found everywhere on Egyptian monuments and tombs, and are considered by many authorities as symbolical either of the phallus [a representation of the male sex organ] or of coition. . . . In Egyptian tombs the crux ansata [cross with a circle or handle on top] is found side by side with the phallus.”—A Short History of Sex-Worship (London, 1940), H. Cutner, pp. 16, 17; see also The Non-Christian Cross, p. 183.

“These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god, [See book], and are first seen on a coin of Julius Cæsar, 100-44 B.C., and then on a coin struck by Cæsar’s heir (Augustus), 20 B.C. On the coins of Constantine the most frequent symbol is [See book]; but the same symbol is used without the surrounding circle, and with the four equal arms vertical and horizontal; and this was the symbol specially venerated as the ‘Solar Wheel’. It should be stated that Constantine was a sun-god worshipper, and would not enter the ‘Church’ till some quarter of a century after the legend of his having seen such a cross in the heavens.”—The Companion Bible, Appendix No. 162; see also The Non-Christian Cross, pp. 133-141.

Why do accurate depictions show Jesus on a stake with hands over his head instead of on the traditional cross?
The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions (“torture stake” in NW) is stau·ros´. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros´], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.

Was that the case in connection with the execution of God’s Son? It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xy´lon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: “Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree.” It also says “in NT, of the cross,” and cites Acts 5:30 and 10:39 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xy´lon as “tree.” (Compare this rendering with Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.)

The book The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896), says: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”—Pp. 23, 24; see also The Companion Bible (London, 1885), Appendix No. 162.

Thus the weight of the evidence indicates that Jesus died on an upright stake and not on the traditional cross.

Reality,

Where do you get this "historical evidence?"

The fact is that it's pretty clearly documented by history that Roman's were the ones who crucified Jesus and Romans used a two pieces of wood (one of which was a cross beam).  It has been documented that Romans used the cross as their greatest means of torture.  

I just saw a documentary about this on the history channel -- and their first question to answer was what kind of a "cross" was Jesus put to death on (the speculation you mentioned).  However, they brought in the historical data from historical contemporaries during the time of Jesus (Josephus, Gaul, etc.) -- these mention that Jesus was put to death on a cross.  Also, historical data shows the Romans utilizing the cross for crucifixion -- that historical data shows the common cross pictured today rather than just a stake.  

History is pretty clear on that -- not sure where you get your historical data to prove otherwise.  What IS in debate is how one was nail to such a cross.  Obviously, most of the common depictions of crucifixion (or Jesus on the cross) aren't historically accurate.  In fact, it appears that the feet were pierced from the side rather than in the front.  Also the nails were put into the wrists rather than into the hands (which don't have the bone structure to support the weight of a body).  The question is whether the arms were tied to the cross or not (historical data shows usage and non-usage).

 

[WayOutWest]

...I wouldn't have a problem with churches, mosques, etc. being able to apply.

Joe,

This is where you lose me ALOT Joe.

You seem to be under the impression that the way something SHOULD be is the way it WILL be.  What world do you live in?  While some would say the world is what you make it, there are millions of people making the world THEIR way.  I guarantee you that if the gov where to implement that plan a disporpotionate amound of money would be funneled to christian organizations.  They would use the excuse that the majority of QUALIFIED organizations happen to be christian.  Of course the gov/christians would determine who was "qaulified".  I could go on and one but you get the picture.  A 8.0 earthquate hits the middle east at the same time a cat gets stuck in a tree in Spain, 600 million of relief gets sent to Spain while 2 medical interns get sent to the middle east flying coach.

[Reality]

 HOWEVER -- we need to realize that atheism IS a belief system and that can't be elevated any higher than any other system of beliefs.

The problem with your line of thought Randy is the christianity IS the defacto standard.

How many non-christian presidents?

How many non-christian symbols on official gov docs?

How many non-christian symbols in gov buildins?

Not that it would matter since christianity has a history of making the popular symbol or holiday their own, so if it wasn't a christian symbol now it would eventually become one.  Some day Harry Potter will be a christian saint and the peace sign will stand for the holy spirit. [/quote]
 Randy I will agree that the atheist religion should not be elevated above any other.

WOW.  :cheers:  on all points.

Also on the Christendom front:
In WW2 and other wars, how often are the combatants on opposing sides of the same *christian* read Christendom religion?  
I love my spiritual brother, I'm just trying to blow his head off.

[WayOutWest]

Reality,

Where do you get this "historical evidence?"

The fact is that it's pretty clearly documented by history that Roman's were the ones who crucified Jesus and Romans used a two pieces of wood (one of which was a cross beam).  It has been documented that Romans used the cross as their greatest means of torture.  

I just saw a documentary about this on the history channel -- and their first question to answer was what kind of a "cross" was Jesus put to death on (the speculation you mentioned).  However, they brought in the historical data from historical contemporaries during the time of Jesus (Josephus, Gaul, etc.) -- these mention that Jesus was put to death on a cross.  Also, historical data shows the Romans utilizing the cross for crucifixion -- that historical data shows the common cross pictured today rather than just a stake.  

History is pretty clear on that -- not sure where you get your historical data to prove otherwise.  What IS in debate is how one was nail to such a cross.  Obviously, most of the common depictions of crucifixion (or Jesus on the cross) aren't historically accurate.  In fact, it appears that the feet were pierced from the side rather than in the front.  Also the nails were put into the wrists rather than into the hands (which don't have the bone structure to support the weight of a body).  The question is whether the arms were tied to the cross or not (historical data shows usage and non-usage).

LMAO!

You question where Reality gets his info when he CLEARLY shows you the book and sometimes author.

You counter with your "facts" that have no support or reference to support.

All I can say is "TYPICAL!"  There must be some little pamphlet they give you guys, cause almost all of you follow the same MO.

I think there is mention of it in the bible, I'll check when I've got some time.

[WayOutWest]

I love my spiritual brother, I'm just trying to blow his head off.

God wants it that way.  Have you forgotten Cain and Abel?  As long as you have gods mark, you can kill your brother and not be harmed.

[Guest_Randy]

Rick,

You really need to read a bit more history before you make the statements about "separation of church and state."  History is something I enjoy but you really need to understand the history of the first amendment before you make some of the comments you have made.

The first amendment had a GREAT deal of difficulty passing (in fact, Massachussets -- i.e. pilgrims) passed it FINALLY with GREAT reluctance.  The state church (in this case the congregational church) had GREAT power in Massachusets -- other religions were allowed but under great persecution (those who were not "baptized" into the congregational church were persecuted, shut out of the economical system, even beaten, etc.).  In fact, the only original state that truly practiced freedom of religion was Rhode Island.

There were MANY who were quite upset that freedom of religion was NOT guaranteed in the constitution.  In fact, a man by the name of John Leland had a great deal of influence in this area -- some reports list him as gaining support for a run for President before meeting with Madison (and Madison guaranteeing that an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing freedom OF religion would be one of his first and most important goals in Presidency -- so Leland threw his support behind Madison -- obviously, Madison then scripted the words of the 1st admendment). 

Also, if you spend a great deal of time reading the writings of the founding fathers -- you begin to understand that the first amendment is NOT the separation of church and state that has been misinterpreted today.  The first amendment was freedom OF religion -- not freedom FROM religion.  The fact is that a small group of people have misconstrued this principle and therefore inflicts upon the US freedom FROM religion rather than freedom OF religion.

The first amendment is clearly not designed to keep God out of our country but rather to keep a particularly faith system from ruling (and therefore persecuting other faiths).  AND atheism IS a belief system -- so by striving to take God (whatever that means to different people) out of everything -- they ARE breaking the spirit of the first amendment by catering to THAT particular belief system. 

I think it WOULD be better off in this particular point to allow the American people to decide -- see, I don't think that the American people would choose ONE religion over another -- but I DO think we would see a tolerance for all religions.  However, there is a personal agenda by some in the court systems to remove ALL religion from our government -- and that ISN'T in keeping with a historical understanding of the founding fathers OR the 1st admendment. 

This is a phenomenal statement:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However -- somewhere along the line "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has come to be interpreted "separation of church and state."  That's a pretty narrow view of this particular statement.  There should NEVER be a religion or system of beliefs that is given precedence over another -- however, IF you state that God can never be mentioned, no religious emblem should ever be shown in a governmental place, etc. -- then you ARE choosing a system of beliefs over all others -- you are choosing ATHEISM over those who believe in God.  The 1st amendment was never freedom FROM religion (although it certainly protected those who don't want any religion) but it was freedom OF religion.  

Freedom of religion is something I believe in VERY strongly.  I believe that people should have the RIGHT to choose -- even to choose NOT to choose is there right.  And I think we have to be careful not to elevate one faith or system of beliefs above another -- HOWEVER -- we need to realize that atheism IS a belief system and that can't be elevated any higher than any other system of beliefs.

The problem with your line of thought Randy is the christianity IS the defacto standard.

How many non-christian presidents?

How many non-christian symbols on official gov docs?

How many non-christian symbols in gov buildins?

Not that it would matter since christianity has a history of making the popular symbol or holiday their own, so if it wasn't a christian symbol now it would eventually become one.  Some day Harry Potter will be a christian saint and the peace sign will stand for the holy spirit.

You are right, WOW -- but that IS a part of our history -- why are we trying to rewrite it?

How many non-christian presidents?

How many non-christian symbols on official gov docs?

How many non-christian symbols in gov buildins?

So are we going to chisel them all off?  Why?  Why rewrite our history?  We have both good and BAD moments in our history -- we don't have to try and rid ourselves of our history -- I think it would be best if we see these things AS part of our history rather than part of an ORGANIZED religion.  

Not that it would matter since christianity has a history of making the popular symbol or holiday their own, so if it wasn't a christian symbol now it would eventually become one.  Some day Harry Potter will be a christian saint and the peace sign will stand for the holy spirit.

I'm glad you mentioned this -- I meant to respond to you about it and I just didn't have time (and then I forgot).  

Your view is a pretty simplistic one and it seems to have come from a negative image of Christianity rather than a historical one.  Look at the historical reason.

When Emporer Constantine became a "Christian" -- up to this time "Christianity" was severely persecuted -- when he became a "Christian" -- it changed everything.  The rise of the church occured and prominence was given to religion over paganism.  However, one thing that you seem to miss in the midst of all of this was what people "lived" for -- today people "live" for the weekends.  Back then there wasn't a 5 day work week -- it was a 7 day work week -- and it wasn't 8 to 5 -- it was dawn until dusk.  People LIVED for holidays -- about the only time people got a day off from work -- so it was a HUGE day in the lives of the common person.  Therefore, when Constantine became a Christian these "holidays" HAD to continue (or he would surely face an uprising) -- so the holidays became "Christianized."  

What IS interesting to me is how much paganism is continued in the present celebrating of "Christian" holidays -- i.e. lighting of Christmas trees from the druids festival of lights (they worshipped trees); coloring of Easter Eggs, etc.

While I don't disagree that Christian have "hijacked" these holidays -- I think you are missing one of the most important reasons WHY these holidays were "hijacked."  It WASN'T to boost membership -- that's laughable -- it was simply because the EMPORER wanted it that way.  I'm sure it changed things little for those who didn't believe -- for those who didn't care (well, they only cared about having a holiday) -- it didn't bother than one iota -- and then there were those who did believe -- who knows how they celebrated these holidays.  All we know today is a conglomeration of beliefs and practices from MANY different religions, practices, etc.

[Guest_Randy]

Reality,

Where do you get this "historical evidence?"

The fact is that it's pretty clearly documented by history that Roman's were the ones who crucified Jesus and Romans used a two pieces of wood (one of which was a cross beam).  It has been documented that Romans used the cross as their greatest means of torture. 

I just saw a documentary about this on the history channel -- and their first question to answer was what kind of a "cross" was Jesus put to death on (the speculation you mentioned).  However, they brought in the historical data from historical contemporaries during the time of Jesus (Josephus, Gaul, etc.) -- these mention that Jesus was put to death on a cross.  Also, historical data shows the Romans utilizing the cross for crucifixion -- that historical data shows the common cross pictured today rather than just a stake. 

History is pretty clear on that -- not sure where you get your historical data to prove otherwise.  What IS in debate is how one was nail to such a cross.  Obviously, most of the common depictions of crucifixion (or Jesus on the cross) aren't historically accurate.  In fact, it appears that the feet were pierced from the side rather than in the front.  Also the nails were put into the wrists rather than into the hands (which don't have the bone structure to support the weight of a body).  The question is whether the arms were tied to the cross or not (historical data shows usage and non-usage).

LMAO!

You question where Reality gets his info when he CLEARLY shows you the book and sometimes author.

You counter with your "facts" that have no support or reference to support.

All I can say is "TYPICAL!"  There must be some little pamphlet they give you guys, cause almost all of you follow the same MO.

I think there is mention of it in the bible, I'll check when I've got some time.

WOW,

That's pretty funny -- I'm pretty sure that I mentioned BOTH Josephus and Gaul in my writings -- if you care to check out their history books (compilations of course) you can read for yourself.  Why don't you simply do a google search -- you can find out for yourself about their writings.  

Not to mention check out the history channels line-up -- I'm sure they will air that again.

Also, Reality makes a quote from ONE book and that bears weight for historical accuracy?  The book makes reference to the fact that the Bible never states in it's original greek that the "cross" (at least how it is written today) made up of one timber as opposed to two timbers -- therefore it's obvious that it was one?  

Historical data shows how Romans used crosses for Crucifixions -- look it up!

[Joe Vancil]

WayOutWest,

This is where you lose me ALOT Joe.

You seem to be under the impression that the way something SHOULD be is the way it WILL be. What world do you live in? While some would say the world is what you make it, there are millions of people making the world THEIR way.

Agreed, as this is where I lose MOST people a lot.

I maintain that the ideal will never happen until given a chance to happen.  And while I agree that the world is what you make it, I recognize that millions of people are making the world their way.  I have just generally had a faith that my fellow man isn't all that different from me, which means that, given a chance, he'll do things the same way I would.  The big enemy - as I see it - is apathy.  Or, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. in a quote that hangs on my wall here at the office, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

Naive?  Perhaps.  For certain, I agree that there will be those in any situation who try to corrupt it.  And I have *DEFINITELY* grown to believe that there are evil people out there.  My goal has evolved into ENCOURAGING their apathy up until the point that their only choice is to either help in the process or fight the difficult fight of undoing things.

I believe that the world can be better than it is, and the only thing keeping it from being better than it is is the fact that we don't choose to make it better.

I guarantee you that if the gov where to implement that plan a disporpotionate amound of money would be funneled to christian organizations. They would use the excuse that the majority of QUALIFIED organizations happen to be christian. Of course the gov/christians would determine who was "qaulified". I could go on and one but you get the picture.

Which is why I'd require government oversight for government funds, which would scare off the initial money-grabbers.  And like I said, I think that anyone - Christian or not - will come to the same conclusion of what is fair and right and what is injustice.  And I'd expect any who see injustice to speak up.

I have a faith in mankind as a whole, WayOut.  I don't get more jaded until it comes to specific individuals.