Friday is Black, and best ignored by sane people.
New Albany's Holiday Fest is on Saturday, and this year it is accompanied by a nifty wine and beer "Jingle Walk," in which retailers host wine samplings (just one brewery).
Also on Saturday, there's a marathon X-mas story reading at Destinations Booksellers. As enticement for those readers who enjoy counter-intuitive playing against type, well, I believe my slot starts at 11:00 a.m. Here's the pitch:
Destinations Booksellers, 604 East Spring Street, will host a marathon reading relay of Christmas stories as part of the downtown New Albany "Holiday Fest" on Saturday, Nov. 28, beginning at 7 a.m. and running throughout the day until midnight.
Volunteer readers from throughout the community are being recruited to sign up and read from selected novels for 30 minutes and to solicit pledge donations to benefit the Community Alliance to Promote Education (CAPE).
A Christmas Story, by Indiana's Jean Shepherd, will kick off the reading relay. Everyone knows this story from repeated airings of the 1983 film starring Peter Billingsley, Darren McGavin, and Melinda Dillon.
When readers conclude that one, the reading team will begin reading from Truman Capote's A Christmas Memory, followed by Wally Lamb's new Wishin' and Hopin': A Christmas Story. Finally, after dark, readers will pick up with Charles Dickens' immortal A Christmas Carol, reading on until midnight.
CAPE is an Indiana program whose administrative operations are funded by The Lilly Foundation and operated by the New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated Schools Corporation, but additional funds help the initiative to purchase books for pre-schoolers. All pledged donations will be used to further the distribution of books into the homes of targeted families in order to foster literacy.
Eager volunteers are encouraged to contact Randy Smith at Destinations Booksellers, in person, by e-mail, or by phone, as listed below.
Destinations Booksellers
604 E. Spring St.
New Albany, IN 47150
(812) 944-5116
OK, I can't resist the irony. You're reading Christ-mas stories? Do explain. I love to tease my atheist friends about their Christmas plans. Do they still accept Christmas gifts? Do they accept the paid day off from work or do they demand to be at work because they don't believe in what the holiday is all about? Did they come to school over Christmas break? It's always a good conversation.
ReplyDeleteDo you still claim to have a college education, even though you went to UK?
ReplyDeleteAfter losing to Ole Miss, Boston College and George Mason in consecutive days, I think I'd pick a different line of humor.
ReplyDeleteIf I gauged the success of a university on sports results, I think I would, too.
ReplyDeleteWhat else could there be? UK stacks up pretty well in most academic fields. None of this having anything to do with the original topic of course.
ReplyDeleteAnd Roger reading a story about the commodification of a supposedly religious holiday in order to encourage further reading seems ironic to you?
ReplyDeleteConsidering most scholars believe that the birth occurred in the late summer and not on Christmas Eve (which was the date of a pagan festival celebrating the birth of the sun god)...I have no trouble accepting a paid day off even though I'm less than religious.
ReplyDeleteDon't you feel a little shameful for your religion co-opting a pagan festival for your own beliefs? It's as if they just made it up because it sounded like a nice day to do it.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that we still need some more readers for Saturday! I've heard that bluegill is quite the orator...
ReplyDeleteI was being half-hearted with my post because it is such a worthy cause. But I don't think there's much supposed over Christ-mas.
ReplyDeleteI mean everybody knows Jesus wasn't born on Dec. 25. That's far less than a scholarly observation. I try to celebrate His birth everyday, and while I don't see Dec. 25 as any different, I'm grateful there's at least one day a year where most of the world recognizes that birth. Just like on the first day of the week, Sunday, we celebrate His rising from the grave. Doesn't mean we believe it happened every Sunday.
ReplyDeleteWell, head to head academically with IU, UK does not stack up. And if you want to use athletics as your gauge, there's no comparison on the the # of national championships won. UK loses even worse, by that measure.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I didn't attend IU so it's really a moot point to me. Didn't attend UK either--thank god. (that was to get us back on point)
Becoming more in tune with my "pagan" roots over organized relegion, I have no problem at all celebrating Christmas, or the frindge benefits of the the festivities.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, what we celebrate as Christmas is actually a mashing together of The Feast of the Son of Isis, the pre-christian roman holiday of Saturnalia, the traditional pagan winter solstice celebration of the Yule, and the Celtic people across europe in those days celebrated the evergreen tree as a reminder that their crop would soon begin to flourish again.
It was in 350 a.d. that Pope Julius I declared that Christ's birthday will be celebrated on 12-25, to correspond with the many pagan, celtic, and roman holidays that fell in that general time of the year, and Christmas as we know it today started in presnt day Germany (the Germanic people where the ones who had the yule festival), and the first recorded instances of a decorated evergreen tree in conjuction with Christmas was not until the early 1500's.
So, what ever reason a person has to celebrate this time of the year, enjoy, be merry, and use this as a time to spread peace, whether you are celebrating Christmas, Chanukah, Saturnalia, Kwanza, or even FESTIVUS!!(for the rest of us), make sure you spend the holidays with your friends and family, and remember our Men and Women who are serving over seas!
Apparently, bayernfan has "orator" confused with another word.
ReplyDeleteHis marketing outline is attractively devilish, though, and opportunities to wear my Merry Kris*Moose hat are admittedly scarce.
Good man, bluegill, just let bookseller know what time you and Kris*Moose will be there!
ReplyDeleteUh oh. Christmas started in Germany huh? Bayern? Now are you the one that's embarrassed?
ReplyDeleteI still think you're fundamentally flawed in your observation. People may celebrate pagan holidays and what not around Christmas, but it's not Christmas. Christmas is a religious holiday. We don't get pagan holidays off. I.E. Halloween. You know why? Because the majority of Americans still believe in God, and Jesus. If the majority celebrated paganism, then we would rename our holidays.
While a minority in any belief should be respected, unless it's of course murder or racism or whatever, the majority still thankfully stands for something in America. 2000 election aside.
With as much alcohol as my family drinks at the holidays, it wouldn't be surprising at all that it started in Germany.
ReplyDeleteLogical fallacies galore today. I know this because I've been researching them as an antidote to Dave Matthewss drivel.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the appeal to the majority is one of them. Most Americans still believe in God and Jesus. This does not mean that the belief if valid. Five hundred years ago, most people believed in flat earths, witches and other superstitions. The overwhelming vote total did not provide proof.
But I readily concede that there are such things as religious holidays in the USA, which does not imply that I accept them as offered, although it also does not mean that I or anyone else should turn down a day off.
As the USSR proved, a country need not have religious holidays in order to have holidays.
Certain aspects of the holiday impress me, mainly the music. But because they impress me doesn't mean I must accept the supernatural connotations. I'm impressed by the new Dallas Cowboys stadium, and have no intention of becoming a fan.
While the usage of the term Pagan was not intended to be literal, (but some may veiw it as fitting) I strongly feel my spirituality belongs more in the "wilds" than in a money driven, man made building.
ReplyDeleteIt's just that there is a lot of underlying history behind the season and the Christianizing of the holidays and festivals that were around for millenia before Constanine I got to work, rolled up his sleeves and changed the course of the spiritual collective.
(Halloween can be tied into this as well in a way, Samhain turned to All Saints Day, not to mention Easter being "declared" after the Council of Nicea Easter in 327, another holiday that gets its roots from the Pagan celebration of the Vernal Equinox).
The bottom line is we all believe how we choose to believe, and thats what makes this country great. Fundamentally we should not be splitting hairs of which relegion is the most popular or which one hold the most power in our society.
After all we may all one day find out that the practitioners of Sikhism were "right".
But I digress, ranking in at number 3 in the world's "relegions" with an estimated 1.2 billion followers,(or nonfollowers if you will) is the Agnostic, Athiest, Non-relegious group which represents nearly 20% of the worlds population.
Of course, thats why FESTIVUS! was created, isnt it?? :)
(personally I dont think any one group is "wrong" or "right" I think it is a very personal choice in whom, what, how and when a person chooses to believe or not)
So basically as long as you can benefit from it, it's cool whether you believe in it or not? Strange, I guess actually not really, that's a pretty accepted practice in America these days. Back home farmers gripe about welfare, but they eagerly stick their hands to receive their government subsidy checks.
ReplyDeleteBut as you stated, 500 years ago people believed some strange things, many of which were touted by the scientific geniuses of the day. But the Bible has not changed, nor the story of it that is more than 2,000 years old.
But the Bible has not changed, nor the story of it that is more than 2,000 years old.
ReplyDeleteReally?
Which translation/re-translation do you mean? There are Greek, Roman, Assyrian and Egyptian stories just as old, and presumably, they haven't changed (much) either.
But I am glad you used the word "story."
Yes, I agree with you Chris. In this country we can celebrate how we see fit, and that's a great thing. But I've always found it somewhat comical to see how those that don't believe in God celebrate holidays that in America, are based on Him. We don't live in Rome, we don't live in Africa, we live in America. And in America, the holiday is to celebrate the birth of Christ.
ReplyDeleteAside from a few word changes to translate into a language that people actually speak these days, nothing has changed from the King James Version. And yes, it tis a story, stories aren't all false. And honestly, many great scientists were also Christians. You show great disdain for religion, yet you become apathetic when people poke at atheistic viewpoint? Why?
ReplyDeleteI know I know, people have done horrible things in the name of Christianity. People have done much more positive things in the name of Christianity. People have done horrible things without Christianity and at the same time, non believers have done really positive things. You can't generalize.
In this world, it's much easier to believe in nothing. That's what faith is all about, because there's so much we can't prove. And the Egyptian, Roman and Greek countries you speak of all ended up falling...to Christianity in some regard. Even Egypt...i.e. Moses.
And in America, the holiday is to celebrate the birth of Christ.
ReplyDeleteI hope I live to see the day when violations of church/state separation are no longer scoffed at by the superstitious among us. Until then, I'll eat, drink and be skeptical.
According to Biblica.com, translations of the bible in the middle ages mentioned unicorns which were believed to be real back then. I'm assuming that has changed.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but it ain't going to happen anytime soon. Mainly because the Constitution doesn't promise freedom from religion, only freedom of it. Separation of church and state, easily the most misused statement concerning the Constitution.
ReplyDelete"We don't live in Rome, we don't live in Africa..."
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
Not trying to gang up on ya here, but i beg to differ.
We do live in rome (the US was created on the foundations of roman society), and we live in Africa, Germany, England, Russia, China, Japan, and every other country in the world that immigrants came here to come together and create a "new" nation.
As far as the bible goes, the "New Testement" was "written" by William Tydale some 1500 years after the Birth of Jesus, and he did so under great pressure and threats from the church NOT to give an english translated version of the bible to the "common people", so that only the Chruch Hierarchy could be able to interpret the bible.
We must remember that the same Church Hierarchy who did not want a "laymans" bible available was also responsible for the inquisition, the crusades, and many other oppressive campaigns performed in the "Name of God".
So, while not trying to play devils advocate here, again, I think the important thing is to believe how we each feel it is right for us to believe, and for us each to not try and take away from other beliefs.
Just as you are obviously a strong faithful Christian, and as I believe in God, but just not as you would see in a fitting way, and just as others are just as free to believe that it is just us, a biological happening zipping through a cosmic void on a little blue speck, and when our reign of terror is over on this planet, the next in line will evolve and take over.
Its all okay, to each their own, and we're a much better place because of that
For the record, The New Albanian is scheduled to read at 10 a.m., not 11 a.m.
ReplyDeleteLet's have a referendum. Make a dollar a minute donation to C.A.P.E. for Roger's reading slot. Specify whether you think the Constitution includes freedom from religious views being promulgated by the government, or not.
I hate to disagree with you Chris, but you're a bad person. Just kidding.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible was translated by him, but it was written by apostles. I guess that's where the faith comes in.
Yes, in the name of God people have declared wars, driven planes into towers and oppressed races and women.
At the same time, those who don't believe in God have shot up churches, had abortions and also started wars and committed murders. It's a straw man.
But I agree halfway with your first statement. People came here to form a new nation, not repeat the nation they came from. and the majority of those people celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday. If they didn't, they would be shunned by Santa.
Just show me in the Constitution where it says separation of church and state. You'll be looking for quite awhile. There's the part about no religious test shall be required for a federal position. Absolutely nothing about God influencing decisions, holidays or anything of the sort.
ReplyDeleteI wish God would quit calling my cell phone. Omnipotent as he's supposed to be, you'd think he could save a guy a few bucks every once in a while. My neighbors have some ugly bushes that need to be cut back anyway.
ReplyDeleteActually, the Constitution doesn't mention God at all, not once. An awful lot of the founding fathers weren't even religious.
ReplyDeleteThe seperation of church and state was what Thomas Jefferson (as well as many of the founding fathers) wanted to have erected.
I think a reasonable person could read "Freedom of religion" to mean freedom from it as well. It is a free country, right?
Bayer,
ReplyDeleteYou made so many assumptions in that last post I don't know where to begin. A reasonable person could also say freedom of religion means i can freely persecute those that don't see things my way. But like what you've said about assuming intentions, that would be adding language that's not there.
That took so much time crafting the document, why wouldn't they have added that?
And the separation of church and state you mention was to protect churches, not non religious people.
God is a fundamental part of our country, always has been and probably always will be.
God is a fundamental part of our country...
ReplyDeleteand damned chatty when someone else is footing the bill, too.
If it wouldn't cost me, I may be inclined to ask him how a fundamental part of our country didn't even get a mention in its most important document.
Cost you what?
ReplyDeleteWhat about one nation under God...
In God we trust...
IMO, God has seen so many self proclaimed superpower countries come and go that He's just waiting for us to fall into the blueprint. Funny how many believers there were after 9/11. Like they say, there aren't any atheists in foxholes...
Actually that didn't come out right. I don't think he's surprised that we're to a point where many people don't believe in Him. It's happened in several instances in the past. Funny what happened to those countries if you think about it.
ReplyDelete"What about one nation under God..."
ReplyDeleteAdded in 1954, God wasn't mentioned in the original pledge written in 1892.
"In God we trust" - first appeared on coin in 1864 on the two cent coin only. It was not mandatory on US coins until 1908.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteYou touched on a very important fact in one of your posts.
It is in fact about faith. But faith is a personal thing.
It can heal, physically, mentally and emotionally. it can inspire, it can drive a person to do both wonderous as well as hideous things.
But the one thing that human faith can not do is be put into a single entity.
For you, your faith is based in God and Jesus, for others that faith, just as powerful, my be placed in God, but not Jesus, but Muhammad, or God and the yet unborn Mashiach, who will be from the bloodline of David.
Yet there are countless others who faith is based on the Four Noble Truths as tought by Siddhartha Gautama, or as we know him today Buddha (the awakened one).
I mean the list can go on and on. But there is a common thread that connects all of the worlds major and minor faiths. The human condition and the fundamental moral and ethical lessons to live by that will lead the "faithful" to Heaven, Nirvana, or what ever else the "afterlife" is labeled depending on ones faith.
So while I strongly commend you for your strength of Faith in Christian Doctrine, I also urge you to keep an open mind, and learn from others, and dont feel that anyone who does things that are not endorsed by Christian Dogma, that they are not a "bad person".
The bottom line is this have faith in your fellow man, all of them, regardless of what they may do, or say, or think or believe, because until such a time that you get to discover if your faith is based on real destinations after death or not, we are all here together!
If it wouldn't cost me, I may be inclined to ask him how a fundamental part of our country didn't even get a mention in its most important document.
ReplyDeleteThe founders obviously thought we should have faith, as when SteveK attacks Dan Coffey's bad acting on faith, having seen no indication of it in his newspaper's own news articles, and not being present himself physically at the meeting.
NAC = faith. Groovy bumper sticker.
Ah, but Roger, that's what they don't pay you for.
ReplyDeleteRoger thinks he should be accepted as an atheist yet he shows no respect for those(coffey) with differing opinions than him.
ReplyDeleteAs for faith, if it twasnt for those of us that report the truth, how misled your readers would be by constantly having to digest your slanted tantrums. Blah blah we know, all that matters is being able to sell beer blah blah insert big word to give the impression of intelligence blah whatever.
As for pay, if it was up to me you wouldn't get a cent. You write to make people mad, not to bring anything beneficial to the table. I don't know of anybody except your friends that find your columns worth reading. I tell them you're a good writer, but you forget rule number one in writing-communication. I work with plenty of people who deserve to have whatever you make split among them because they deseerve it. If I was making the call, that's who'd get it. Go ahead, make some more predictable comments about sixth grade reading level, I'm sure one of your lap dogs will be along to stroke your ego and tell you that you are more than a beermaker.
Hmm. Wonder what Jesus would say?
ReplyDeleteProb that chris d is the only one that's posted on here with the right intentions and a clear thought, including me. I enjoy getting under your skin as much as you do mine.
ReplyDeleteThe founders could have written into the Constitution any of the following phrases:
ReplyDelete1. We shall be a Christian nation;
2. We hereby establish a national church;
3. No citizen shall disrespect the church;
4. The freedom of speech shall be protected, except for speech that denies the existence of the Lord;
5. Prayer shall be allowed at all government sponsored events.
They could have written any such statement. But they didn’t. What did they write?
In the Constitution, the only document that really matters on this point as it supersedes all other sources of law, the founders wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]
There are two points here. If Congress thought “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion was the same as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” they would not have worded the first line of the first amendment this way.
I would think small government conservatives would love this. It says that Congress cannot use tax dollars to support a church and cannot force views on people. Just like businesses should be free from government interference, churches and individual citizens are free from government interference, I’d think the true conservative would argue.
“In God We Trust.” Doesn’t that exclude not only atheists but also people from polytheistic religions? Should the Hindu-American not insist on “In Gods We Trust” on their coins? Should the Shinto-American not insist "One Nation Under Gods" in his pledge? Even these simply slogans choose sides. They say that Hinduism and Shintoism are not as valid as Christianity, Islam and Judaism. When you choose a religious slogan that supports some religions and not others, is that not respecting the establishment of the favored religions and this violating the plain language of the First Amendment?
Let’s think about the “Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion” statement. If a citizen cannot be free from religion, the state has to choose which religion from which that citizen is not free. Is that not the way it would work? When the state chooses a religion for its citizens, that’s called establishing religion. How would that work? What laws can the state pass that says non-believers are not free from religion? Are you going to force people to pray? Force people to attend church? In practice, how can the Constitution guaranty freedom of religion without guarantying freedom from religion? It can't.
That is, it can't unless the state establishes one or more religions, which violates the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteding ding dan you get it. It doesn't establish a religion, nor does it remove religious influences at any level. That's it. End of story. There's no separation, as there's no establishment.
ReplyDeleteHuh?
ReplyDeleteMore simply, if the state says a citizen cannot be free from religion, then in practice the state must choose (establish) an alternative to no religion.
When the state chooses a religion, it denies other religions. Some one will be left out. People who believe that a god is on their side don't like it when their religion is left out. We have thousands of years of violent history to illustrate this sad point.
Christianity has does pretty well in the US over the past 200 years, absolutely no worse than in other nations where church and state mix. Let's just avoid all the problems that come with that volatile mix, operate our government by the plain language of the Constitution, and be happy.
Maybe I credited you too quickly. There's no state religion because there would be no consensus. Baptists wouldn't like a catholic run government, for example, just as Methodist wouldn't accept a church of Christ government. You are trying to lump all of them together, this you misstate the few things we agree on, I. E. The birth of Christ, for meaning we are trying to establish a national religion. Jefferson knew there would be no religious agreement among 13 colonies, so the Constitution forbids the establishment of a national religion. It does mean elected officials are forbidden from allowing their religious views to influence their policy. Ultimately the voter decides if they accept it or not. The majority wins, the basis of democracy. You can disagree, because we are free, but you can't change it unless you gain that majority. Most who feel God isn't a dirty word aren't trying to turn us into the Taliban, they are not trying to establish a national religion.
ReplyDeleteI think if you look at the world today, the countries that have national religion and strict rules regarding that religion are Muslim, not Christian.
Should say does not mean politicians can't let their religious beliefs influence their policy.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary chris said earlier belief in no God accounts for 20 percent of the world's religious views. So could eliminating God from politics not also be depicted as religious influence?
Ultimately the voter decides if they accept it or not. The majority wins, the basis of democracy. You can disagree, because we are free, but you can't change it unless you gain that majority.
ReplyDeleteThis is true as long as the official elected by the majority does not try to go against the Constitution. The Constitution says no establishment of religion. We have a process for amending the Constitution; without an Amendment, any action by the public official that chooses sides in the religious debate is unconstitutional, no matter how many people voted for that elected official or on what platform he or she campaigned. Unconstitutional is still unconstitutional. Yes, it's majority rule BUT it's always been majority rule with minority rights.
How much influence from his or her religion by the public official is OK? Well, if we have a government that claims religious neutrality, but public policy says we're still going to teach something other than evolution when still no independent, scientific support for anything but evolution, then the state is acting to support a religious belief. I argue that there's no difference between state support of a particular set of religious belief and state support of religion as a whole.
A state can punish people for murder, but it's because there's independent, non-religious rational for punishing murderers. If a belief cannot be supported by independent, non-religious rational, than state support of it is establishing at least an element of a religion. The fact that the elected official's religious belief says "punish murders" is coincidence.
Then again, doesn't the New Testament teach us to turn the other cheek? What punishment did Jesus seek for the people who murdered him? Who would Jesus send to the electric chair?
If our government policies are motivated by religion only, then we have, in effect, a state religion by another name. Again, the Constitution says can't establish a religion. State policies must be motivated and/or justifiable by non-religious means.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDaniel S,
ReplyDeleteMuch like Kentucky allows small areas(not sure if it's precincts or what)to determine "wet" and "dry", what if one of those areas decided not to allow churches?
BREAKING NEWS
ReplyDeletePlease note that "remebercharlemagne" (omitting an "m", and not "remembercharlemagne", as it was signed in August when this issue first arose), posted twice and removed both of them, thus tacitly acknowledging the blog policy on anonymous postings, and saving me the trouble of deleting them.
Self-policing works wonderfully, even in Atlanta.
AND NOW WE RETURN TO OUR REGULAR PROGRAMMING AND ANOTHER STELLAR EPISODE OF "THE DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN FIVE EASY STEPS."
RemCha was right, kind of. The First amendment states that Congress cannot establish a religion. It was totally OK for an individual state(not Congress) to establish a state religion. But that was then.
ReplyDeleteThis distinction has not applied since adoption of the 14th Amendment. Because of the 14th Amendment, the First Amendment now applies to actions of Congress and to actions by states and their political subdivisions, like cities, counties, school districts, etc.
Ah Geez Grinch is alive and well
ReplyDeleteWhere's the joy?
You can't fool me. There ain't no Sanity Clause.
ReplyDeleteRemember, some of us are G. Marxists.
Mark, you're being silly. The Constitution guarantees religious freedom. It does not guarantee the right to drink, you know that.
ReplyDeleteDan said "any action by the public official that chooses sides in the religious debate is unconstitutional"
Not even in the least bit. Most public officials opposed to abortion will tell you straight up it's because of their religious beliefs. Once again, the Constitution only says there will be no establishment of religion. There's nothing, absolutely nothing, that says public officials can't base their decisions on religion. Same with your comment on evolution. Sorry man, there's definitely not solid evidence that's true. People find it hard to believe there's a God but they believe we crawled out of swamp, took the shape of monkeys and then became what we are today. Now that sounds like a sound theory...not. Why has this not happened on other planets? Why are we still not evolving? By saying there's no difference between supporting one religious belief and religion as a whole, you're showing a very limited knowledge of the religions practiced in America and worldwide, because there are BIG differences. That's why most church goers in the U.S. don't want a state run religion. Think about it, that's why we got away from Europe in the first place.
Daniel S., what is the difference between (1) a state religion and (2) a state where all policies are religious policies? It's a difference in name only.
ReplyDeleteThen again, if you think "creation science" is real science because of the name, then you probably don't care.
"Why has this not happened on other planets?"
ReplyDeleteHow do you know it hasn't? We've observed a grand total of, what, nine planets? There's a fairly large universe out there that we'll never know about. There could be people just like us a million light years away.
And how do you know we aren't still evolving?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDaniel S, you might be interested in Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, and his more fascinating two-volume set Lost Christianities.
ReplyDeleteThese books trace the history of the bible and other forms of Christianity that didn't win out. Volume 2 of Lost Christianities contains other gospels and Christian texts not found in the "Bible". Great reading for believers and non-believers alike.
I'm fairly certain people have been celebrating the winter solstice far longer than the birth of Jesus. That said, I would think even non-Christians can find something to celebrate in the birth and life of Jesus, regardless of how his followers seem to practice his teachings.
ReplyDeleteB.W.
ReplyDeleteI'm familiar with what you're talking about. Many of those books were reviewed and ruled to not be divinely inspired. In the end, who knows? I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I know with absolute certainty that the authors of those books didn't witness Jesus. I guess that's where the faith I spoke of earlier comes in. If you don't have faith, there will always be some angle of detraction to take. There were other books, I've never seen God, all this stuff happened thousands of years ago, why have the signs stopped, etc...
Bayern
I for one think there could be life on another planet, but it still doesn't have much to do with the gospel. Second, man has been pretty well documented for the past 1,500 years. Not much evidence evolution is still going on.
Dan,
The difference is a state religion would be akin to the Taliban. You have to worship this way or else, or at the least it's frowned upon. We're neither 1 or 2 that you described. Public officials can be inspired by whatever they want: Morals, religion, lobbyists...etc. Just because you think abortion is wrong doesn't mean you want people thrown in jail for missing Sunday service.
Remember, some of us are G.Marxists
ReplyDeleteHorsefeathers
I guess that's where the faith I spoke of earlier comes in.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. It is a matter of faith.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteSorry that you think I'm silly(get in line)but believe that you missed my point.
I was going after your "majority rules". That is not an absolute by any means, and you know that. That's why there are so many parts of the Constitution and subsequent laws that attempt to protect the "minority" against the majority.
I have much repect for "faith". A little less for organized religion.
"Second, man has been pretty well documented for the past 1,500 years. Not much evidence evolution is still going on. "
ReplyDeleteReally? That would be a big surprise to the human genome researchers who completed a study showing that human genes are absolutely still evolving over the last 10,000 years or so. You can read about it at LiveScience.com, also there was a more recent study completed and reported by Time magazine.
"reSpect"
ReplyDeleteYou trying to take HB's place? vbg
I mean I guess Mark if the majority of Americans decided they wanted to eliminate the practice of religion and Congress supported changing the Constitution, then that's how it would be. But it wouldn't stop its practice. Early Christians met in the catacombs to escape Roman interference.
ReplyDeleteWhat do the Taliban do when you don’t do things their way? They punish you.
ReplyDeleteWe have many laws on the books which have no justification outside of religion. Take blue laws for example. In Indiana, if I own a grocery store, and I sell you wine on Sunday, I have to pay a fine. If my religious beliefs don’t forbid selling wine on Sunday, and I choose not to pay the fine, I go to jail. If I don't want to go to jail and attempt force out of the situation, I could be shot by the state.
Laws which are justifiable only on grounds of one or more religions can cause people of other belief systems to act in ways that is contrary to their religious beliefs or face punishment from the state. That's not too different than how the Taliban does things.
It’s state religion by another name.
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by THEIR Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
ReplyDelete(notice usage of the words "THEIR" creator)
This little ditty came out 13 years before the Constitution and was the foundation block for the "new" American Nation.
But Daniel S., along the lines of "majority rules", the social majorities in the country once backed things such as Slavery, boutnies paid for the bones of Native Americans that "good Christian people" murdered, no voting rights for women and minorities, McCarthyism, internment of Japanese Americans, and yet another list that can go on and on.
All we can do is interpret the intentions of our founding fathers based on the documents they left behind as blueprints for future generations to build this nation on, and as society, culture, and economics change, so do the accepted interpretations of those documents.
Periods of time when we sat back idly and allowed a few to demand that their way was the way the founders intended, we ended up in situations I previously mentioned.
I think its pretty clear, that unless every religion of every citizen is represented equally in governmental proceedings, then it is no more than exclusionary.
I am not trying to go all ACLU on this issue, but my opinion, and it is mine alone, is that I have FAITH in the fact that we as a nation are not to collectively see any one belief system as more correct, or right than any other, so long as the practice of that religion does not infringe on the abilities of others to excercise their freedoms to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
Where my fundamental issue with organized Christianity lies came to me in the days of Catholic School: we learned the bible and the "history", and the messgaes contained in the bible regarding religious tolerence (for other religions) is all but absent, save a few vague passages in the old testiment, but plenty exposing messages of intolerance.
Who ever said anything about you(or anyone else)not practicing your religion? Something smells fishy--like herring. Red herring. (Are you sure that you aren't doing an audition)
ReplyDeleteIt's a good thing Joseph was such a mellow, understanding dude. Otherwise, Jesus would've been a latchkey kid from a broken home.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine the trouble he could've caused running unsupervised in the streets? Luckily, he funneled his energy into learning a trade.
Damn. There goes that phone again...
BTW..there are only 5 spots left for the reading relay for anyone interested. We have late night and very early morning slots available...
ReplyDeleteRight, and saying Merry Christmas doesn't infringe on anybody's rights. Just like if you say I don't believe in God, I'm not going to change how I feel.
ReplyDeleteMark I'm saying religion is just too powerful to be stopped by government. That's been proven.
ReplyDeleteNow let's just say hypothetically no religious influence could be used in government. How could that be enforced? It would be impossible.
No one’s saying government should stop religion. On the contrary, government suppression of religion by others would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteHow so we stop religious influence on government? Independent courts are a good start. They've not been doing a bad job lately. Social conservatives' attacks on our "Godless Court" (as one book title called it) don't help.
Need we count the examples of when someone has wrapped themselves in a flag, called others un-American, and then advocated for policies plainly contrary to our Constitution?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEarly Christians met in the catacombs to escape Roman interference.
ReplyDeleteI've been inside one of these (more like a grotto) in the middle of Paphos, Cyprus. Very cool, and it is still an active Eastern Orthodox religious site where people go to light candles, place wooden icons, and pray. The evangelicals would hate it.
off topic, but does anyone have an info on Loop island wetlands?
ReplyDeleteThe entrance gate is closed to the property with a variance sign to permit assisted living apartment complex?
Brandon stated it well:
ReplyDeleteI would think even non-Christians can find something to celebrate in the birth and life of Jesus, regardless of how his followers seem to practice his teachings.
Is it too much to ask people to think? Support of blue laws was mostly, "Doesn't god deserve a day". (My response: Okay, how about Thursday?)
ReplyDeleteThat is strictly just religion with no other basis. In those cases, "you" do what your religion tells you. Leave those of us who do not believe as you do, the hell alone. My opening my shop on Sunday or buying something somewhere else on Sunday in no way intrudes on your religious rights.
Most of those laws are gone now. We've grown(somwhat)as a society. Still, that same kind of thinking(really, a lack thereof) is still in use today in areas such as gay marriage.
Chris-whoa, I'm looking into it.
ReplyDeleteDan
I just think you're wasting your time. Religious groups are just too organized, they will always influence American government. Look at ROCK. Any issue that is brought up that they have an opinion on, they pack the council chambers. Some might find that annoying, but I'm sure most elected officials find it intimidating. It's just hard to rally people around believing in nothing.
The far out "Christian" whackos have given a bad name for many, though they are few and far between. Most Christians want to worship, help others and basically just be left alone by government. They don't consider this world their home, so they don't put too much stock in what the government does. I.E., Jesus. He didn't spend his life lobbying the government for change. He focused on winning souls, not winning votes. At the same time, many don't want to live in a country where basically anything goes. Take abortion for example. Throw religion out of it and there would still be people that see it as murder, and you said yourself murder predates religion. I don't think our forefathers ever intended for us to just be able to do whatever we please just because they didn't establish a national religion.
Why did our Founding Fathers take so much time to write the Constitution? I think they only had a dial up internet connection.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the silly club, Daniel.
Hoosier as I'll affectionally call you. I fought that battle at my last job through a series of editorials that had the religious calling for my head. I don't care if you sell/buy beer on Sunday, it doesn't keep me from doing what I'm going to do. Just like have the 10 commandments posted at a courthouse wouldn't impact you, see how both sides twist things?
ReplyDeleteNot the same thing. Think about it.
ReplyDeleteBut back to your original comment way up above. You are at Council meetings. Why do I stand for the prayer? Should I not?
Also, I didn't mention beer or alcohol. Perhaps you are too young and your UK education was slightly deficient, but blue laws were implemented on practically any business. Couldn't sell cars...
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, though, the same religous thought process continues today in the archaic liquor laws.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteposting the big ten at a court house sets the precidence that the "impartial" justice system is not impartial.
If we are to post the 10 commandments, we should also post the four noble truths of Buddhism, I humbly submit that if we are to accept and incorporate the Decalogue of Judeo-Christian Dogma, then we must include all other religions ,oral guideposts as well.
But it would not be long before satanists would want theirs up as well, and justly should be allowed under equal representation under the law.
So I personally think its best to subscribe to the idea of admit none and omit no one.
Forget about what Jesus would say.
ReplyDeleteWhat would Copperhead Coffey say?
With all the preachers, atheists, and attorneys around here, I cannot believe some combination making a trio of them hasn't walked into a bar yet...
ReplyDeleteParaphrasing Pastor Manzo:
ReplyDeleteA preacher, and atheist and an attorney walk into a bar.
The bartender sez: "What is this, a joke?"
For what it's worth, I think the Christians should buy. They have an eternal reward coming that the rest of us will all pay for.
ReplyDeleteIs that a record for number of comments to a posting?
ReplyDeleteNo, there was one with over 100 posts not too long ago. If memory serves, it was fueled by Daniel S as well. The guy just loves NAC!
ReplyDeleteChristmas symbolism:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.brotherraven.com/?page_id=3
Jesus-like Gods of yore:
http://www.brotherraven.com/?page_id=30
I guess I do fit in. I went to law school for three years (check). I'm an ordained minister (check), and I sit, along with The New Albanian, when city council meetings dare to inject the Lord's prayer into an official public meeting. While that doesn't qualify me as an atheist, it sure would get me lumped in with them. In perhaps an ironic turn, I'm an historical Baptist, subscribing to the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message. Did you know that the Baptists filed a "friend of the court" brief arguing along with the atheists that sacred prayer had no place in the schools?
ReplyDelete