[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Isn't that happening basically all over the world? And isn't it possible that the religious have brought that upon themselves to some degree?

The world's beef is with man. Not religion. Religion cannot physically do these things. And when a man does something in the name of religion, and that religion does not support his actions, then the blame is on man.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Yeah, it is kinda silly. But at the same time the state is treating all citizens the same.

I don't know law but I would imagine that if the state prevents any and all citizens from putting any and all religious statements on a car license plate then there is no harm done. The state is treating everyone equally while at the same time not privileging any one religion.

I am going to go into silly mode here for a sec, so bare with me.

Would it be ok to take away a countries rights, as long as we took everyone's rights away?

Using your logic it would be!

End of silliness.

So, do you argue for free speech rights or freedom of religion rights.

Neither of these goes against either one. It was a vanity plate. Vanity plates represent the person driving the car. Not the state the car is in. Nor is it the state supporting religion.

[dcmacdaddy]

OK, we seem to have two camps here, those who support this ruling (for various reasons) and those who opposed this ruling (for what appears to be a singular reason). So, I want to ask a question of those who oppose this ruling. Here goes.

**Do you want government to allow religious displays to take place in secular, non-religious government buildings like court houses, schools, libraries?

**If so, are you in favor of letting any religion put religious objects/icons/symbols on display in secular, non-religious government buildings?
or
. . . , are you in favor of letting only specific religions put religious objects/icons/symbols on display in secular, non-religious government buildings?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by KevinK

The world's beef is with man. Not religion. Religion cannot physically do these things. And when a man does something in the name of religion, and that religion does not support his actions, then the blame is on man.

I agree and that was basically what I meant. That the people of various religions are responsible for the heat religion is taking at the moment.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Cody, please explain HOW you think religion is being obliterated by not allowing religious displays in secular, non-religious court houses?

What about license plates?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

This should come as no surprise whatsoever to those of the Christian Faith. It's not like we (Christians) haven't known that things in this world would spiral into deeper apostasy and once again, Christians will be "the hunted" because of our beliefs. Everything is going according to plan.

Exactly. I just can't believe the people that are making apologetic excuses or all out denying it.

I guess that is how it happens.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Official information due shortly.

God is no longer welcome in our country, the country that was founded because of the desire for religious freedom.

Big sigh.

What a load of crap. This country is for all people and all religions, not just yours. As for your desire to make a point by not swearing on a Bible the next time you are called as a witness in court (does that happen often for you?) the judge will (by law) gladly recognize your right to freedom of religion and just ask you to affirm that your testimony is the truth.

I am so looking forward to the 'persecution of Christians' whining that will not persue.

Though I do agree the other land grabbing ruling is a scary one.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I agree and that was basically what I meant. That the people of various religions are responsible for the heat religion is taking at the moment.

Both the people causing people to think religion is bad, and the people who blame religion for the acts of man are at fault.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by KevinK

I am going to go into silly mode here for a sec, so bare with me.

Would it be ok to take away a countries rights, as long as we took everyone's rights away?

Using your logic it would be!

End of silliness.

Good logical point, albeit silly. I am arguing this is an example of taking rights away from everyone uniformly. BUT, and this is a very important qualifier, the state is NOT removing all rights to practice religion. It is simply removing the right to put a religious message on a state-sanctioned, state-provided license plate.

Now, if the state of Vermont was to try and outlaw the practice of religion altogether I would be right there on the front lines with you battling against the state. But that is not what they are doing. They are saying that religious messages, from any and all religions, cannot appear on state license plates.

That is NOT a denial of someone's right to practice their faith. No one religion is being privileged over another. No one will be denied the full experience of their faith if they cannot put reference to a religious saying on a car license plate. (And if there IS a religion that requires putting religious messages on cars or car license plates I would love to know about them.)

I've seen John 3:16 stickers on cars everywhere. So, this person could just as easily express his same sentiment by buying a sticker for a few bucks as he wold by paying for a vanity license plate.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

This should come as no surprise whatsoever to those of the Christian Faith. It's not like we (Christians) haven't known that things in this world would spiral into deeper apostasy and once again, Christians will be "the hunted" because of our beliefs. Everything is going according to plan.

There's nothing to worry about, nothing to fret over, and the world is not coming to an end. Again, these "turns" are expected and merely the beginnings of birth pangs -- so go about your business, do your thing, and keep the Faith.

It's all good.
Maury

So, just for my sake of clarity here, are you arguing that not allowing a display of the 10 Commandments in a secular, non-religious govrenment building is to be considered persecution of Christians?

Also, aother set of questions.
**Do you want government to allow religious displays to take place in secular, non-religious government buildings like court houses, schools, libraries?

**If so, are you in favor of letting any religion put religious objects/icons/symbols on display in secular, non-religious government buildings?
or
. . . , are you in favor of letting only specific religions put religious objects/icons/symbols on display in secular, non-religious government buildings?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Good logical point, albeit silly.

Good then we can agree. Taking the rights away from people in not suddenly ok just because you are CONSISTENT.

What would be consistent is taking away the ability to have vanity plates.

I am arguing this is an example of taking rights away from everyone uniformly. BUT, and this is a very important qualifier, the state is NOT removing all rights to practice religion. It is simply removing the right to put a religious message on a state-sanctioned, state-provided license plate.

That is not backed by any law. They are just saying "Because we say so"

I am betting you will find this overturned. Atleast I hope.

He payed money for vanity plates. There is no reason why he can't put what he wants on them.

This doesn't fall under the "Separation of Church and State" in any way.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally Posted by KevinK

Exactly. I just can't believe the people that are making apologetic excuses or all out denying it.

I guess that is how it happens.

I'm denying it. You guys seem to desperately want to be persecuted, and whenever you aren't being appeased, in direct contravention to our highest laws, you claim it's persecution. Give it a break. You wouldn't know persecution if it bit you on the ass.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by KevinK

That is not backed by any law. They are just saying "Because we say so"

I am betting you will find this overturned. Atleast I hope.

He payed money for vanity plates. There is no reason why he can't put what he wants on them.

This doesn't fall under the "Separation of Church and State" in any way.

I am sure somewhere in the civil code of Vermont there is a passage that grants the VT department of motor vehicles the right to deny citizens certain things. After all, being legally snactioned to own and drive a car is not an inalienable right but a limited right granted to citizens. The state CAN forbid certain individuals from ever owning/driving a car (habitual drunkards) and no one has ever argued that was unconstitutional on the grounds of personal/religious freedoms.

It is certaily the case here in the DC area that a state DMV/DOT can legally restrict a driver's rights. For example, certain words and phrases are forbidden from appearing on license plates in DC, MD, and VA. (Ever see a license plate with the word f*ck or n*gger on it?) And that right to forbid certain phrases is granted to the state DMV/DOT by the state legislature. So, assuming the VT state legislator granted the VT DMV/DOT the right to restrict what gets put on a vanity plate, and that right is enforced uniformly, then they should be ok. Being willing to pay for a vanity plate does NOT grant a citizen the right to put watever he wants on that plate.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

So, just for my sake of clarity here, are you arguing that not allowing a display of the 10 Commandments in a secular, non-religious govrenment building is to be considered persecution of Christians?

Also, aother set of questions.
**Do you want government to allow religious displays to take place in secular, non-religious government buildings like court houses, schools, libraries?

**If so, are you in favor of letting any religion put religious objects/icons/symbols on display in secular, non-religious government buildings?
or
. . . , are you in favor of letting only specific religions put religious objects/icons/symbols on display in secular, non-religious government buildings?

I never once equated the 10 Commandment issue to "persecution." Please don't put words in my mouth. My post is quite clear on my take of this situation.

Maury

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

I'm denying it. You guys seem to desperately want to be persecuted,

We do? No, no we don't. Stop being silly.

and whenever you aren't being appeased, in direct contravention to our highest laws, you claim it's persecution. Give it a break. You wouldn't know persecution if it bit you on the ass.

Think about it all you wish. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I never once equated the 10 Commandment issue to "persecution." Please don't put words in my mouth. My post is quite clear on my take of this situation.

Maury

Umm, I can only put words in your mouth if I say directly and declaratively that Maury said this or RAILhead said that. I did no such thing. I asked for clarification of the point you were making. I asked iif you were trying to argue by your post that you saw this action as an indicator of religious persection. The question was pretty simple requiring only a binary answer, either "Yes" or "No".

So, to make my question even more clear, I will ask it again.

Do you think that not allowing a display of the 10 Commandments in a secular, non-religious govrenment building is to be considered persecution of Christians?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

You can provide a simple Yes/No answer or you can provide a simple Yes/No answer with an explanation for why you think what you think. You can also not answer the question at all.

But you cannot for a minute argue that I am trying to "put words in your mouth". Because nowhere have I said that I think you were trying to say one thing or another. Nowhere have I said, "Maury said this." Got it?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I never once equated the 10 Commandment issue to "persecution." Please don't put words in my mouth. My post is quite clear on my take of this situation.

Maury

Actually, your post isn't clear at all in regards to your take on this issue. Your post doesn't mention the original issue, the Supreme Court ruling, at all. Your post is about "Christians being 'hunted' for their beliefs" and that "everything is going according to plan". Would you care to explain how YOU THINK these statements have rlevancy to the issue of the Supreme Court decision about displaying the 10 Commandments.

[RAILhead]

Sure it's clear: Christians know that as time draws on, we'll see a coming apostasy. Period. I can't be any more plain than that -- and this was a minor step in that direction. Period. Plain and simple, and exactly what i said earlier.

You're wanting me to say whether poor little Maury the Christian feels per-per-persecuted by this, boo hoo hoo.

I don't. Knowing Christians will face apostasy and seeing the birth pangs thereof does not equal persecution.

Maury

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Actually, your post isn't clear at all in regards to your take on this issue. Your post doesn't mention the original issue, the Supreme Court ruling, at all. Your post is about "Christians being 'hunted' for their beliefs" and that "everything is going according to plan". Would you care to explain how YOU THINK these statements have rlevancy to the issue of the Supreme Court decision about displaying the 10 Commandments.

I am not speaking for him, but, it has to start somewhere.

Things aren't going to go from acceptance to beheadings for belief in a day.

These things slowly creep into society. Like a plague.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Sure it's clear: Christians know that as time draws on, we'll see a coming apostasy. Period. I can't be any more plain than that -- and this was a minor step in that direction. Period. Plain and simple, and exactly what i said earlier.

You're wanting me to say whether poor little Maury the Christian feels per-per-persecuted by this, boo hoo hoo.

I don't. Knowing Christians will face apostasy and seeing the birth pangs thereof does not equal persecution.

Maury

Umm, no. I have no interest in knowing whether "poor little Maury the Christian feels per-per-persecuted by this". Although all your posts in reply to this topic seem awfully snide and defensive and I don't quite know why? Has anyone directly or indirectly attacked you in this thread?

BOT, you seem to think what you said was perfectly clear to everyone. But it is not perfectly clear to me. Maybe it is because I am not a Christian. So, how about explaining for me how this act by the Supreme Court could be seen by Christians as persecution or as sign of apostasy.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Has anyone directly or indirectly attacked you in this thread?

He is a Christian. Cpt said "You guys seem to desperately want to be persecuted

He and I both told him, no, that is false.

BOT, you seem to think what you said was perfectly clear to everyone. But it is not perfectly clear to me. Maybe it is because I am not a Christian. So, how about explaining for me how this act by the Supreme Court could be seen by Christians as persecution or as sign of apostasy.

You haven't been READING what we are saying. NO ONE said this was persecution.
At least not me or Rail.

We said it was the BEGINNING of THINGS TO COME.

Ok?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by KevinK

He is a Christian. Cpt said "You guys seem to desperately want to be persecuted

He and I both told him, no, that is false.

You haven't been READING what we are saying. NO ONE said this was persecution.
At least not me or Rail.

We said it was the BEGINNING of THINGS TO COME.

Ok?

OK! I get your point and stand corrected about using the term persecution.

So what does in mean in terms of the Christian belief system when the United States Supreme Court issues a decision saying the displaying the 10 Commandments in a court house in unconstitutional?

So, how is this decision by the Supreme Court seens as "the BEGINNING of THINGS TO COME" in the Christian belief system? I am not a Christian so I don't know what you mean when Maury talks about Supreme Court decisions and apostasy. I don't know what is implied when you say this is the beginning of things to come? what things? when? how? why?

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I'll tell you something else: If I was compelled to testify and they tried to get me to raise my hand and swear on a Bible that I was telling the truth, I wouldn't do it.

Telling the truth is not something you've ever concerned yourself with, so the point is moot.

Besides, I've been in hundreds of courtrooms and have never seen a Bible used, so, sadly, this is one attention-seeking opportunity you'll never have.

I think I remember that Democracy was supposed to be about the best interests of the MAJORITY and not the minority.

You remembered wrong. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the interests of individuals - i.e. non-majorities - from having the majority's religion, among other things, imposed on them. No soup for you.

You can still go to any church you want, on your own time and your own dime. I'm sure you'll meet lots of important people there. Have fun and be sure to tip the guy with the plate.

[BlueSky]

Almonds??? You prefer ALMONDS??? Your DISDAIN for CHOCOLATE is coming through LOUD AND CLEAR, BUSTER!



You are quite CLEARLY a PERSECUTOR OF CHOCOLATE, and no ALMOND-LOVING APOSTASIZER is gonna take away my RIGHTS to enjoy CHOCOLATE!





oh wait, sh*t, wrong thread. nevermind.

.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Do you think that not allowing a display of the 10 Commandments in a secular, non-religious govrenment building is to be considered persecution of Christians?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

You can provide a simple Yes/No answer or you can provide a simple Yes/No answer with an explanation for why you think what you think. You can also not answer the question at all.

If the situation were truly so black and white, then your question would be easy to answer. However, the only easy concept in the Church/State issue is that there are no easy answers.

Case in point: consider the Bible which was used to swear in George Washington as the first President. Since that time, most -though not all- US Presidents have been sworn in using that selfsame book. Completely outside of its religious use, it has become a historical artifact. Should the practice of swearing in Presidents with this book be banned, because the book could be used for religious purposes? Should it remain optional, as it is today? Should it be made mandatory, as a state tradition? Powerful arguments can be made in all three cases, and it is difficult to say who is right.

As another issue, consider the House ceiling, which I mentioned above. This artwork depicts many famous historical lawmakers, and includes Solon of Athens, Hammurabi, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and so forth. There are 23 of these carvings in total. The twelfth spot is held by Moses, who looks out over the chamber; the other 22 (11 each on the left and right) all face towards this center spot. Should the Moses carving be removed?. Should a 24th carving be added opposite Moses, and if so then who should it feature? The carvings are not freestanding so they cannot be turned, but even if then turning Moses in either direction would result in more faces pointing one way than another, so which way should he face?

My point in this is that although the concept of Church/State separation is deceptively simple, in practice it is not at all cut and dried.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Should the Moses carving be removed?

I vote we keep it as a quaint memento of less-enlightened times.

[James L]

I am not sure why people are so tense in this thread.

The US government has not set out to destroy Christianity, as some seem to want to think.

If the US government wants to have a separation of church and state, than they must do more than simply say it.. they must do it. There must be no religious artifacts, or bias, visible anywhere in public, government buildings.

This in no way restricts a person from praying at home, in the park, going to church, etc. It simply moves to keep the government buildings neutral.

The ONLY other fair alternative, is to open the US government buildings to ALL religions... shintoism, buddhism, christianity, islam, etc.

To support one religion, and not others, IS religious persecution. One could argue that inadvertently this is what the US government is currently doing by allowing Christianity in its buildings, but not other religions.

So, the choice, in government buildings, seems simply to allow ALL religions in, or keep ALL religions out.

Personally, I think the government should keep all religions out, and let people make up their own mind.

Cheers,

James

p.s. What the hell do file sharing, and journalism, have to do with this thread? Cody, did you just feel the need to overreact and vent today?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Bingo! We have a winner, folks.

And just for emphasis in case someone missed it the first time

• "Court houses have nothing to do with the church/religion. So there is no need whatsoever to show religious symbols in a court house."

Which includes the SCOTUS? Think they'll remove their "artwork" after this?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Bluesky

I vote we keep it as a valuable memento in the face of the dark days to come.

there, that's better.

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by James L

I am not sure why people are so tense in this thread.

The US government has not set out to destroy Christianity, as some seem to want to think.

If the US government wants to have a separation of church and state, than they must do more than simply say it.. they must do it. There must be no religious artifacts, or bias, visible anywhere in public, government buildings.

This in no way restricts a person from praying at home, in the park, going to church, etc. It simply moves to keep the government buildings neutral.

The ONLY other fair alternative, is to open the US government buildings to ALL religions... shintoism, buddhism, christianity, islam, etc.

To support one religion, and not others, IS religious persecution. One could argue that inadvertently this is what the US government is currently doing by allowing Christianity in its buildings, but not other religions.

So, the choice, in government buildings, seems simply to allow ALL religions in, or keep ALL religions out.

Personally, I think the government should keep all religions out, and let people make up their own mind.

Cheers,

James

p.s. What the hell do file sharing, and journalism, have to do with this thread? Cody, did you just feel the need to overreact and vent today?

[Cody Dawg]

I think it is significant that the Supreme Court is helmed by doddering aged fools who practice dementia in their spare time.

I think that they are making profoundly incorrect decisions.

That is why I posed about all of these things.

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I think it is significant that the Supreme Court is helmed by doddering aged fools who practice dementia in their spare time.

I think that they are making profoundly incorrect decisions.

And thats why you aren't a supreme court justice. Its not their duty to listen to what people want, its their duty to interprete the law. Its up to Congress and the President to do something if they don't like the ruling. It seems to me that most of your rants aren't backup by law or any reasoning to do with law at all. If you you really disagree with the ruling, I suggest you read the majority opinion and come back with why each one of their points are wrong.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I vote we keep it as a valuable memento in the face of the dark days to come.

Yes, I believe dark days are a' comin', and I strongly suspect our success in getting past it will be exactly commensurate with our willingness and ability to take responsibility for it and not leave it to the gods to rescue our collective butts.

The situation with some Christians is that they're looking for opportunities (such as the Supreme Court ruling) to martyr their cause, because it's just another happy sign that Jesus is coming. There are some who say to hell with the environment, it doesn't matter, we're all going to ascend soon enough anyway.

There are some of us who Beg To Differ™ and do not want any representation of any religion displayed in the court.

[cpt kangarooski]

Cody Dawg--

I think it is significant that the Supreme Court is helmed by doddering aged fools who practice dementia in their spare time.

I think that they are making profoundly incorrect decisions.

That is why I posed about all of these things.

So you're a sore loser, and resorting to insults now? And diagnosing illness based on your disagreeing with the Supreme Court's legal reasoning?

Are you confident that they're the ones with dementia?

[BRussell]

I think it's important to keep in mind what the 10 commandments actually say. Here's an excerpt:

I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other God before me.
And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night.
Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain.
Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth.
All shall love me and despair!

[Luca Rescigno]

It's funny that Christians are all screaming persecution while, at this very moment, there's a fundamentalist Christian in the White House and the #1 political party among Christians controls both the house and senate. As an atheist, I'm scared for my own civil rights and I see the courts as my only protection from zealous Christian politicians.

Obviously there's a divide in the nation. There's more talk of fundamentalist Christianity now than there was ten years ago, I think. It's kind of disconcerting (unless you're like Cody Dawg, in which case you'd be happy that the government is trying to push a state religion on people because Christians are in the majority).

[saab95]

Ten Commandments No Longer Allowed In Any Courthouse

Religious freedom is nothing to be taken for granted. In many other countries, where religion is a state-sponsored entity, there is no regard for religious freedom but persecution of those who do not ascribe to the official state religion.

Today's Supreme Court ruling supports the First Amendment regarding this issue by not allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed in the court houses. However, you all are still free to display religious artefacts on your repsective properties!

[saab95]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

......That the people of various religions are responsible for the heat religion is taking at the moment.

What heat?

You are still free to practice your religion in the confines of your home or your house of worship, are you not?

This ruling does nothing to abridge that right.

Nothing at all.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Umm, no. I have no interest in knowing whether "poor little Maury the Christian feels per-per-persecuted by this". Although all your posts in reply to this topic seem awfully snide and defensive and I don't quite know why? Has anyone directly or indirectly attacked you in this thread?

BOT, you seem to think what you said was perfectly clear to everyone. But it is not perfectly clear to me. Maybe it is because I am not a Christian. So, how about explaining for me how this act by the Supreme Court could be seen by Christians as persecution or as sign of apostasy.

You're right, DCMD -- I was being a bit irritable this morning when posting this -- I apologize. I suppose I was on the defensive simply because I know how topics such as this so quickly spiral into a flame-fest -- and I should have done a better job at biting my tongue instead of instigating (especially toward you, mien kapitan, since you don't usually stoop to those levels if I remember correctly). That said, I truly apologize for being an arse.

Basically, what I'm referring to is that in the Christian Faith, we know that the world will turn ever more against the Christian Faith and things that pertain to it. Toward the "end times," religion will be all but abolished in that the Faith of Christianity will be made out to be more and more extremist, irrational, dangerous, and blasphemous. Society will begin to look down upon Christianity more and more and there will come a day -- Christians believe -- that Christians will become the Number One Outlaw of Society. According to Scripture, this will be in the End Days -- which are nowhere in the near future IMHO -- under the assimilation of a global government and rule.

I simply commented that this is but one small -- very small -- step further in that direction: the removal of Christian Religious Elements from "general society."

Hope that better explains what I meant -- and again, sorry for being snippy with you.

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

It's funny that Christians are all screaming persecution while, at this very moment, there's a fundamentalist Christian in the White House and the #1 political party among Christians controls both the house and senate. As an atheist, I'm scared for my own civil rights and I see the courts as my only protection from zealous Christian politicians.

Obviously there's a divide in the nation. There's more talk of fundamentalist Christianity now than there was ten years ago, I think. It's kind of disconcerting (unless you're like Cody Dawg, in which case you'd be happy that the government is trying to push a state religion on people because Christians are in the majority).

Again, please quote where I -- since I'm one of the Christians posting in this thread -- said I was being persecuted by his decision? If you weren't thinking of me, then please ignore this post.

Thanks,
Maury

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Basically, what I'm referring to is that in the Christian Faith, we know that the world will turn ever more against the Christian Faith and things that pertain to it. Toward the "end times," religion will be all but abolished in that the Faith of Christianity will be made out to be more and more extremist, irrational, dangerous, and blasphemous. Society will begin to look down upon Christianity more and more and there will come a day -- Christians believe -- that Christians will become the Number One Outlaw of Society. According to Scripture, this will be in the End Days -- which are nowhere in the near future IMHO -- under the assimilation of a global government and rule.

Wow. Is this a common belief? I know it's not present in at least some Christian denominations. I've never heard this before, after spending most of my life around Christian churches. Can you provide a source for this belief?

If it is a widespread theological belief, it would, quite frankly, explain a lot.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Basically, what I'm referring to is that in the Christian Faith, we know that the world will turn ever more against the Christian Faith and things that pertain to it. Toward the "end times," religion will be all but abolished in that the Faith of Christianity will be made out to be more and more extremist, irrational, dangerous, and blasphemous. Society will begin to look down upon Christianity more and more and there will come a day -- Christians believe -- that Christians will become the Number One Outlaw of Society. According to Scripture, this will be in the End Days -- which are nowhere in the near future IMHO -- under the assimilation of a global government and rule.

I know a lot of Christians - I was brought up as one myself - and I've never heard of this theory. What branch of the Christian faith subscribes to it? They wouldn't, perchance, be extremist or irrational, would they?

Edit: posted before I saw BRussell's similar inquiry.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

You're right, DCMD -- I was being a bit irritable this morning when posting this -- I apologize. I suppose I was on the defensive simply because I know how topics such as this so quickly spiral into a flame-fest -- and I should have done a better job at biting my tongue instead of instigating (especially toward you, mien kapitan, since you don't usually stoop to those levels if I remember correctly). That said, I truly apologize for being an arse.

Basically, what I'm referring to is that in the Christian Faith, we know that the world will turn ever more against the Christian Faith and things that pertain to it. Toward the "end times," religion will be all but abolished in that the Faith of Christianity will be made out to be more and more extremist, irrational, dangerous, and blasphemous. Society will begin to look down upon Christianity more and more and there will come a day -- Christians believe -- that Christians will become the Number One Outlaw of Society. According to Scripture, this will be in the End Days -- which are nowhere in the near future IMHO -- under the assimilation of a global government and rule.

I simply commented that this is but one small -- very small -- step further in that direction: the removal of Christian Religious Elements from "general society."

Hope that better explains what I meant -- and again, sorry for being snippy with you.

Maury

Thanks for the reply and the apology. No worries about the snippiness. My only agenda is clarity of thought and logical arguments.

I am not familiar with the End Times idea apart from what I have read in the Book of Revelations about Armageddon (and it has been several years since the last time I read that book). But this sounds like a more modern "interpretation" of what Revelations portends--Instead of the four horsemen and actual plagues today we would have a more metaphorical conception of these ideas. I have heard espoused among some evangelical or fundamentalist Christian religions that AIDS is considered one of the contemporary versions of a biblical End-Times plague.

So, if the End-Times is brought about by increasing socio-cultural hostility to Christianity then certainly the actions today of SCOTUS would be seen as an act of hostility as you described. Now, while I don't subscribe to that belief system myself I can see how today's events woud be very significant, even if only symbolically so, to someone who does hold such beliefs. Thanks for the explanation.

<Goes off to get his Bible and re-read Revelations.>

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Wow. Is this a common belief? I know it's not present in at least some Christian denominations. I've never heard this before, after spending most of my life around Christian churches. Can you provide a source for this belief?

If it is a widespread theological belief, it would, quite frankly, explain a lot.

The Book of the Revelation of St. John, for starters.

Maury

[TheMosco]

You guys are over-reacting. This ruling didn't bar all religious symbols such as the ten commandments from courts.

There were more than one ruling today:

In one 5-4 ruling, the court said the 6-foot granite monument donated by the Order of Eagles amid a display of other monuments and historical markers on the Texas Capitol's 22-acre grounds is a passive structure that does not violate the Establishment Clause.

In a second 5-4 ruling released on the last day of the term, however, the court upheld injunctions barring Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky's McCreary and Pulaski county courthouses because there was a predominantly religious purpose behind their placement.

The reason the Kentuky one was to be removed was because the ceremony that took place at the installation of the commandments was very religous, Including a pastor that talking about Jesus Christ being the son of the God and other things of that nature (as fas as I remember). That is clearly promoting a religion. This is different from the Texas display which was with other displays as a more historical display.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/sto...ns/0503761.htm

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Thanks for the reply and the apology. No worries about the snippiness. My only agenda is clarity of thought and logical arguments.

I am not familiar with the End Times idea apart from what I have read in the Book of Revelations about Armageddon (and it has been several years since the last time I read that book). But this sounds like a more modern "interpretation" of what Revelations portends--Instead of the four horsemen and actual plagues today we would have a more metaphorical conception of these ideas. I have heard espoused among some evangelical or fundamentalist Christian religions that AIDS is considered one of the contemporary versions of a biblical End-Times plague.

So, if the End-Times is brought about by increasing socio-cultural hostility to Christianity then certainly the actions today of SCOTUS would be seen as an act of hostility as you described. Now, while I don't subscribe to that belief system myself I can see how today's events woud be very significant, even if only symbolically so, to someone who does hold such beliefs. Thanks for the explanation.

<Goes off to get his Bible and re-read Revelations.>

Yes, The Book of Revelation (no "s") holds the key to many items pertaining to the End Times, and yes, the vast majority are metaphorical and use heavy symbolism. The Book of Daniel also has a lot of references to the End Times, as does Matthew and others.

As to Revelation, the specific symbolism I'm referring to is the Great Apostasy at the rebuilding of the Temple. The "Beast" and "False Prophet" will announce that they are the true "Church" and the "Beast" -- who is really the Anti-Christ -- will be touted as the world's realized God. You then get into the "mark of the Beast" and particulars like that, at which time Christians who stand up the new "religion" are hunted down and killed for their beliefs -- unless they renounce them.

There is a vast amount of information in Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel and parts of Matthew about these End Times, and to really get a good, detailed understanding of them, one really needs t invest some deep study. These books are particularly interesting when read from the original translations (or original language, if you know Hebrew or Greek). It's also cool to do word studies on certain words and phrases.

If you'd like a quick way to browse various parts, pop over to Crosswalk and check out their various and sundry Bible translations.

And I really appreciate your attitude and understanding relating to how some Christians (those of us that aren't nutjobs) see today's events. See everyone? We all really CAN get along!

Maury
(who's going to bed after a long, hot day at a Golf Tournament)

[undotwa]

As a Christian, this whole thing is a non-issue. The courthouse is not the place to preaching about the word of God, but I don't really think the issue is significant enough to for anyone to bother campaigning for their removal. For a non-Christian, does the removal of these ten commandments change the way you live your life by giving you new freedoms? I don't think so. To me, this is like the republican debate in Australia.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

**Do you want government to allow religious displays to take place in secular, non-religious government buildings like court houses, schools, libraries?

Sure.

**If so, are you in favor of letting any religion put religious objects/icons/symbols on display in secular, non-religious government buildings?
or
. . . , are you in favor of letting only specific religions put religious objects/icons/symbols on display in secular, non-religious government buildings?

A combination. I think that if anyone wants a religious object in a public building, it should be voted on by the locals. That way we wouldn't have a Buddhas in places that are 99% Christian, and we wouldn't have Jesus statues in places that are 99% Buddhist. If you think that would be promoting Christianity because there likely would be more Christian icons than any others, that's like saying the government is promoting Christianity by giving more building permits to Christian churches (both cases the only reason is because there are more Christians in this country than anything else).

The only thing I'm conflicted on is if you could really let all religions put statues in public buildings (just think of the Scientology statues ). The only limiter I think could be put on would be that there could be no objects of a violent and/or hate-promoting design (i.e. no depictions of killing the infidels).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by deej5871

I think that if anyone wants a religious object in a public building, it should be voted on by the locals. That way we wouldn't have a Buddhas in places that are 99% Christian, and we wouldn't have Jesus statues in places that are 99% Buddhist.

Why should we have religious icons in government buildings except to show government support for the religion? Even if the public approves of it, that doesn't make it acceptable for the government to show that support.

I don't really think this is a very important issue, but it's very clear that the government shouldn't be taking sides.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by deej5871

The only limiter I think could be put on would be that there could be no objects of a violent and/or hate-promoting design (i.e. no depictions of killing the infidels).