Saturday, November 26, 2011
Disorganized Religion
If you're Catholic you've probably heard, starting tomorrow there'll be some changes in the service. I don't know about you but when I go to church I want to rest my weary head, I don't want to work, have to figure things out. Going to Mass should not be like going to school. I got a flavoring of some of the new church songs or singing parts I guess you could call them and I like the old music better. I don't really know what gave impetus to all this but my guess is that after all the clergy sex-abuse scandals they want to rejazz the Church and get folks interested again. Again for me it's an effort and I go by the old adage if it ain't broke don't fix it. For the past few weeks now our pastor who has a passing resemblance to Newt Gingrich btw has been explaining the new translation as they call it and I just tune out. The Church is more like a corporation than a religious institution these days and every so often they feel they have to rejigger it or reset it or something. Some of the ushers look like game show hosts in their suits, all that's missing is the big Gene Rayburn mike. When I went to grade school they made us go to Mass some mornings and before the service there was a rosary group and the woman leading the group did it so fast it sounded more like an auction or a horse race. 'Member they made us go to Confession too and once word got out the strict priest was in the right booth and the good one was in the left all of a sudden the line switched all the way over, I mean you could have killed someone and he'd just go say Three Hail Mary's, maybe an Our Father too. Oh God I got alot more of this stuff like abusive nuns straight out of some Gothic novel but I'll just save it for the Comments Section:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was talking about this with my mom this morning, she's all bent out of shape over it. I don't know, figure it was like 45 years ago-ish that they made the big switcheroo to English... I'm old enough to remember Latin mass and my mother is still pissed off that they changed it then. So maybe this is their way of putting on a fresh coat of paint or saying 'hey, we're hip, we're relevant, we got an app for that' type thing. What I read about it was that the new translations they're using are actually getting closer to the original Latin; like 'et cum spiritu tuuo' does literally mean 'and with your spirit' as opposed to 'and also with you'. So I guess that kind of thing. I don't know, it seems trivial to me but these are the bricks that make up the church. I was also doing some informal polling of people I went to HS with and they're pretty across the board perturbed too about it.
ReplyDeleteI do appreciate the whole having a 'universal language' thing; like, when it was all in Latin, no matter where you went in the world, you knew just what was going on. Same thing with us; I could go to an ISKCON temple anywhere on this or any other planet and it's the same: Jaya Sri Krsna Caitanya Prabhu Nityananada Sri Advaita Gadadhara Srivasadi Gaura Bhakta Vrnda. So that's really comforting in a way, I find it to be and I think maybe other people might, that no matter where you are, you're home.
Eventually it will probably for most people settle out. There are still churches where they (rebelliously, I want to say illegally, I guess in church terms it is illegally or at minimum unauthorized or as we'd say, not bona fide) have never given up the Latin and I imagine there will be churches where they won't make these changes either.
I do think the Church has to take a good long look at itself in the tough questions. What do you do when like 80% of your adherents are completely ignoring your commandment on contraception, and when so many people disagree with celibacy for priests (especially in light of the scandals)? Do you just tell these people to do as they're told, or do you maybe look at your policies, or do you open up some dialogue or what? I think it's important for the future of the Church. It'll always be there regardless, but I think it would be more beneficial if they would open up some talks on these kinds of things and listen to the people (in their vernacular, since we started this talking about Latin).
You know the old saying, it is what it is. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, we don't get a say, but I am not as annoyed as most people. Our church had nice tri-folds with all the changes right there. It will just take time till we're used to it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it was kinda funny, our pastor complimented us on how well we did right before the final blessing, then said his "Peace be with you" and we all replied, "And also with you" and he said "NO!" Oops....
ReplyDelete"and go forth and proclaim the Gospel" or something like that. My pastor said he made one mistake early on but I didn't catch it, said he was quite nervous before the Mass too although you'd never know it. I'm not overly perturbed by it but I don't think it's necessary, whatever.
ReplyDeleteHe Chuckles remembering the time many years ago when the priest said "and do you reject Satan and all his works and promises?" and there was silence among the congregation and he then goes "well I hope so." Same priest, trying to light up the Easter or Advent candles one day and the matches wouldn't work so being a heavy smoker himself he just took his handy Bic out and lit the stubborn things. His Masses were crisp and clean, a 1/2 hour no more nor less, didn't even pause for commas and periods like he had to catch the Big Game after or something. Yeah, you always wanted to go to the Sullivan Mass.
Church bloopers, I'm sure there are lots of stories out there.
ReplyDeleteWell I agree, it doesn't seem necessary, but while at the hospital tonight visiting my Mom, the Catholic chaplain stopped in to visit and we all got to talking about the changes to the Mass. He mentioned that back when they originally translated from Latin that the English version was much more loosely translated, so now our translation is more like other language translations.
"if it ain't broke don't fix it."
ReplyDeleteInteresting Dilemma, Z-man, Some People are Tired and some are Bored. Perhaps it has to do with how much Stimulus Certain Individuals get during the Week. Those who are Tired, Think that "It ain't Broke", but those that are Bored Think that it is Broke, so the "Don't Change it." Crowd are in a Different Place then the "Yes, Please do Change it." Group. It's impossible to Please Everyone, so what are we to do?
On the Other Hand, as I Read a little Further in your Post, you sort of do Appear to be a little Bored. I Guess some are Bored with the New and Some are Bored with the Old, so Again, what's the Solution? No Matter what they do, there is someone who isn't Happy. I Know, cause I was Raised by Parents who were Part of the Church Leadership and even now, I always seem to be aware of all the Politics that go on in Churches.
Since it is Impossible to Please Everyone, I guess that is the Reason why there are so many Different Churches and so much Variety within them. Everyone has the Right to Find one that Moves them, rather then Making them Feel Bored.
Sayavati,
As to those who do not Believe in the Teaching of the Catholic Church, I say, well, there are always the Churches that are Protestant. There is no Point in Trying to be Loyal to that which you do not Believe in.
I'm not so sure, though, that all of the Catholic Churches make as big of a Deal out of the Contraception Issue as you seem to be Claiming, but I guess I should allow the Catholics Present here to Speak for themselves. Protestants don't share this Obsession with the Issue of Contraceptives.
Are all of you from Catholic Back Grounds? I Knew that Z-man was, yet Beth and Satyavati too? I Think I even Remember Soap saying that his Original Roots are Catholic as well. I Never Realized before that this Blog had such a Catholic Following. Interesting.
Not me. I've always been a Protestant. It's a little Less Formal and there's not quite as much Ritual.
I say, well, there are always the Churches that are Protestant. There is no Point in Trying to be Loyal to that which you do not Believe in.
ReplyDeleteIt could be me, but I don't think Catholics change churches like Protestants do and I think it's because most Protestant churches are congregationally based as opposed to Catholicism which is centrally based out of Rome. It's an institution, not a stand-alone thing. My mom is a good example; she can list for you going back generations every fault of the Church and everything she doesn't agree with but she would rather die than even set foot in a non-Catholic church (which is, actually, or was anyway, forbidden for Catholics). She did come to visit the temple one time but would not put more than her head in the door, presumably to avoid breaking the rule.
I'm not so sure, though, that all of the Catholic Churches make as big of a Deal out of the Contraception Issue as you seem to be Claiming,
The contraceptive issue is a very big deal and comes straight from Rome. It doesn't particularly matter what individual churches may think since it's a mandate that comes down from the Pope. And whether an individual believes it, doesn't believe it, whatever, each parish is required to teach it and preach it and stand behind it if they want to be Catholic churches. If they go against it they become schismatic and subject to reprimand and discipline (like the churches who insisted on keeping the Latin against orders). Bottom line for a parish is you stand behind the party line regardless.
So it's not quite like if you're Baptist and you don't like exactly what they teach at First Baptist, you can go to Second Baptist and it's different. The Catholic church has one set of teachings that every church has to teach. If you don't like a particular priest or monsignor you maybe could go to a different Catholic church (though this was always frowned upon, you have to go to whatever church is the parish where you live is how I was brought up), but you're going to get the same teaching from them all, because it all comes from a central authority and I don't mean the Bible.
Another note on how big the contraceptive issue is can be shown by that The Catholic Bishops Association is a major lobbyist in DC for legislation that supports their teachings-regardless of the fact that 80% of practicing Catholics disagree with the legislation (and the teaching) they're trying to promote.
ReplyDeleteThe bishops don't particularly care about the opinion of rank and file Catholics and will never stop putting pressure on Washington to get what they want.
The Catholic Church is not and has never been less than a dictatorship, benevolent or not. I would argue they've been both.
One more thought: It has always struck me funny how Catholic my mom was (my dad was a Christmas/Easter Catholic and endured even that just to keep the peace, you know how that is).. both my parents came out of religiously mixed marriages. My mom's side was Greek Orthodox and Catholic and my dad's side was Anglican and Catholic and somehow the Catholics won out so my parents were raised that way. It seemed real odd to me that when I left the Church there was such a stink considering that I had grandparents on both sides who weren't Catholic.
ReplyDeleteBut that's the teaching: There Is No Salvation Outside The Church.
It seems they have reverse engineered the Nicene Creed in
ReplyDeleteterms of theological translation.
'Consubstantial' is now considered
good. "Consubstantiation" is still
a heresy. ..go figure...
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteProtestant Churches Offer more Variety. The Doctrines are Actually more Similar than some People Realize, but there is Variety in the Degree of Formality vs. Informal Casualness, in the Style of Worship and, of Course, in the Music. It is my Belief that such Variety is Necessary because People are not all Exactly the Same.
The Only Protestant Churches that are Truly "Congregationally Based" and Pretty much "Stand Alone" are the "Non-Denominational" Ones.
Denominations, though, are more Organized and are more like Institutions. The Churches within them are Connected to each other by Common Doctrines. They Hold Denominational Conferences and there are Bishops that Over See the Various Churches by Visiting them, in order to Evaluate the Progress and Offer Assistance if Needed.
There is more Democracy and Voting, though. The Bishop and Pastors are not the Final Authority, yet the People are not really either, for there is always a set of Written Doctrines and By Laws that all Decisions Need to be Compatible with.
To a Protestant, the Bible is the Authority, not the Pastor or Bishop. There are different Opinions about what Certain Scriptures Mean and that is where Doctrine Comes in, but every Believer is Encouraged to Read the Bible for oneself and Choose a Church that they Feel best Represents what the Bible Actually says.
For the "Catholic Bishops Association" to Push their Teaching about Contraceptives Politically is Highly Unconstitutional and, in my Opinion, they are not ever going to succeed, so I am not the Slightest Bit Worried about it.
The Freedom of Religion Clause in the Constitution was Written Specifically for the Sake of Escaping the Control of the Roman Catholic Church way back when it was first written and there is no Way that America is Going to give in to Catholic Control now. It's not going to Happen. You are Worried about something that has no Chance at all of Taking Place.
I was baptised Catholic (why I have no idea as neither of my parents were church going Christians). I've never understood that tradition amongst parents who themselves do not practice.
ReplyDeleteOther than that, I've been to a few Catholic weddings and the like.
Church, religion, etc. isn't my thing. I'm agnostic.
Well, Unfortunately, Soap, just being Baptized doesn't get you into Heaven. Your Parents may have thought so when they had you Baptized, but they were misinformed.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that had anything to do with it as I pointed out. I think it had more to do with a sort of tradition/custom handed down through the ages. I sort of chalk it up with that notion that parents have that all of their children simply must be no more than like 2 years apart.
ReplyDeleteAs for heaven/hell, I don't concern myself with such matters. I've got a life here on earth to live.
I don't Think that you Pointed anything Out, Soap. You just said that you did not Understand the Why and all I have done is Pointed Out One Possible Reason for the Tradition.
ReplyDeleteIf you're wrong about the Heaven and Hell thing, though, the Consequences are Significant.
"I've never understood that tradition amongst parents who themselves do not practice."
ReplyDeleteTradition. Pointing out quite matter of factly that it was done out of tradition.
Your parents did right soap. It seems to go along the lines of what can it hurt? I'm thinking of that classic All in the Family episode where Gloria and Mike don't wanna baptize their new kid but Archie does it anyway on the sly. Why not, what can it hurt? err on the side of there might be something to this baptism thing, hedge your bets.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with that assessment at all. It presumes that I wanted to be baptised into the Catholic faith.
ReplyDeleteReligion is a huge deal for an individual. It's not like some parents feeding their kid broccoli 5 days a week and making a similar presumption the kid likes it.
It's for the same reason I don't agree with parents who pierce their children's ears when they are babies. What if the child didn't wish to have holes in their ears?
As I Understand it, the Parents are Afraid that the Child might Die before the Age of Accountability and end up in Hell if not Baptized. When they are Old Enough, though, a Confirmation is also Required and that is done According by a Child who is now Old Enough to Decide for himself that he wants to Confirm the Decision that was Made by his Parents.
ReplyDeleteFor the "Catholic Bishops Association" to Push their Teaching about Contraceptives Politically is Highly Unconstitutional and, in my Opinion, they are not ever going to succeed, so I am not the Slightest Bit Worried about it.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Bishops Association is no different than any religiously based lobbyist group that pushes their morality legislation onto DC. For example, the Family Research Council is the first one that springs to mind. Anything with Tony Perkins involved. All that Focus on The Family crap.
How is it unconstitutional for the Catholic Bishops Association to go to DC to try to get legislation passed supporting their views on contraception? There are religious groups all over the place trying to get their particular brand of dogma made into law.
You should be cheering them on. They're just as anti-abortion as you are.
In the Catholic Church, Lista, being baptised DOES get you into heaven.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why it is OK for any practicing Catholic, in a life and death emergency, to baptise someone.
Workin another 3/1 double tonight and then going to dance class... it's all good.
ReplyDelete"Well, Unfortunately, Soap, just being Baptized doesn't get you into Heaven. Your Parents may have thought so when they had you Baptized, but they were misinformed."
ReplyDeleteIn Catholic teaching, as long as you have no mortal sins on your soul at the time of your death, you DO get into heaven [if you don't require some time in purgatory first] if you've been baptised.
But that comment by Lista, stated with such certainty, is one of the many reasons that I reject religion. Some other religious person always trumps someone else's religion with their own rules on how to get into an allegorical place. And it's often stated with indisputable certainty until some other deeply religious person comes by and is certain that they're right and you're wrong.
You can't both be right, Lista. The Catholic who believes Baptism and dying without mortal sin absolutely DOES get you into heaven, with a stopover in Purgatory, should you have some venial sins spotting your immortal soul.
And yes, a baptised Catholic, who has no mortal or venial sins on his/her "soul" at the time of his/her death, can get a one-way ticket to heaven without having to say they accept Jesus as their personal Savior. Fact.
You can go to Rome and argue with the Pope on that one.
I don't believe any of this folderol, BTW.
I do Hope that you will Accept my Apologies, Shaw. I did not Mean to be so Dogmatic and in actuality usually I am not. I should have Stated that what I said was what the Protestants Believe.
ReplyDeleteI guess I just get Tired of the Fact that the Catholics, though they are a Religious Group that Claims to believe in the Bible, so much of what they Believe is not supported by the Bible. The Pope says, "This is the Way that it is." and all I want to Know is "Based on What?"
A lot of People Believe what they Believe because that is the Way that they were Raised. I Believe in the Bible because it has Held up to the Scrutiny of Archeologists and Historians better then any other Religious Book.
I was Raised in the Church, but I almost Turned away from it. I Stayed for Rational Reasons, not out of any sort of Loyalty to those who Raised me.
"I guess I just get Tired of the Fact that the Catholics, though they are a Religious Group that Claims to believe in the Bible, so much of what they Believe is not supported by the Bible."
ReplyDeleteI suppose that's not unlike those conservatives that claim to be defenders of the Constitution but who support legislation which is unconstitutional.
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteI guess it is Ok to Lobby for any Crazy Idea that you want to, but if what is Being Pushed is not Popular and not Constitutional, then the Efforts will be Fruitless. The Forbidding of Contraceptives is not a Popular Idea, so it is not Going to Succeed.
No Religious Group, Including Christians, should try and Push their Religious Ideas on Others Politically. Abortion, though, is an Issue of Rights apart from Religion and has to do with the Rights of the Baby, not the Religion of the Mother or of anyone else. We already had that Discussion. Just because you disagree with the Point of View does not Mean that it's Wrong.
Back to Shaw;
ReplyDeleteLots of People are Dogmatic, Shaw. I Find Soap to be quite Dogmatic at times and it has nothing to do with Religion, for he is an Agnostic. It seems Odd to me that Religious People should get Judged more Severely then anyone else for this very Common Human Failing. But Neither the Less, I Apologize again for my Imperfection.
And Satyavati again;
I Never Said that it was Unconstitutional to Lobby for what ever or that the Behavior of Lobbying is Unconstitutional. I just said that that which they are Lobbying for is an Unconstitutional Idea. Once again, it is you who Distorts and Obfuscates.
Dare name a single principle I've held or asserted which is unprovable.
ReplyDeleteThe Purest Form of Libertarianism that you so Regularly Push is just Theory. It has never Actually been Successfully Tested. If anything, the Poor Working Conditions of the Factory Workers in our History is Prove that some Regulation of Businesses is Needed.
ReplyDeleteLista said:
ReplyDeleteFor the "Catholic Bishops Association" to Push their Teaching about Contraceptives Politically is Highly Unconstitutional
THEN Lista said:
I Never Said that it was Unconstitutional to Lobby for what ever or that the Behavior of Lobbying is Unconstitutional. I just said that that which they are Lobbying for is an Unconstitutional Idea.
No.
You said that FOR THE BISHOPS TO PUSH THEIR TEACHING ABOUT CONTRACEPTIVES POLITICALLY IS HIGHLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
"PUSHING THEIR TEACHINGS ON CONTRACEPTION POLITICALLY"
is lobbying.
Going to DC and trying to get legislation you approve of passed is lobbying.
Unless that definition's changed now too?
Perhaps you should distribute glossaries at the beginning of each thread.
Actually Lista, you couldn't be more incorrect in your statement.
ReplyDeletePresumably you are thinking in terms of some grand national experiment or exercise in Libertarianism I imagine.
Such a suggestion shows how little understanding you have of the philosophy of libertarianism.
Libertarianism is antithetical to a centrally planned organizational structure.
Regardless, the philosophy of libertarianism and the subsequent application thereof is alive and well during every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year in every single place on the face of this planet.
Hi Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteI should have stuck with my Original Conviction that it is Better to say you Misunderstood me, than to Accuse of Obfuscation. That is True for everyone, though, not just myself.
I did not Mean what you thought I meant and Finding Out who's at Fault for the Misunderstanding is not a Fruitful Activity. My Usual Approach is just to Apologize for not stating a Particular Sentence in the Precise Manner in which I should have. So if you have a Need to see me as a Person with Faults, Satyavati, for the Sake of your Ego, Well, guess what? I am a person with Faults and I have a Strong enough Self-esteem to be able to admit it.
Ok. So Maybe I Misspoke. So What? You don't have to get all up in a Tizzy about it.
I’m even willing to Apologize for Accusing of Obfuscation. My Original Inclination was that I shouldn’t do that, yet I was Following the Bad Example of some of the People who have been Posting on this Blog.
Soap,
I'm not Following what ever it is that you are Trying to say, but I'm not in the Mood anyway to Change the Subject and Enter into a Discussion about Libertarianism. The Philosophy of Libertarianism is not the Subject of this Post, nor is it even the Subject of my Comment. Libertarianism is also a Political Idea and it is my Belief that it is not a Governmental System that Works.
And No, you can not Prove Otherwise. You may have Opinions about it, yet an Opinion is not the Same as Proof and even providing Evidence for something is not the Same as Proof.
Expect to be Ignored the Next Time you bring up this Subject, because I am not Interested in Talking about Libertarianism with you on this Comment Thread.
Correction:
ReplyDeleteJust in Case I Misspoke again, by Calling Libertarianism a "Governmental System", rather then an Economic One, Here is my Correction:
It is my Belief that the Libertarian Ideas that you Keep Pushing do not Represent an Economic System that Works. Some Minor Regulations are Needed in Order to Protect the Weak from the Strong.
I have to Be Careful how I Talk around you, Soap, or you will catch me on a Word Technicality. Sometimes I like to Call things Like this Word Technicalities, or as Satyavati likes to Put it, it is being Nit Picky. Yeh I Know. You haven't done it yet in this Instence, yet sometimes the Behaviors of the Past cause it to be Necessary to use Extra caution in ones Speech. When it gets Bad enough, it can be like Walking on Egg Shells.
A free-market is not without regulations Lista.
ReplyDeleteThe consumers of the goods and services serve as the regulatory authority. And, they do so much more effectively since it is they who are the best authority in determining what effectively meets their needs at a cost which they will bear.
Well, I did not Predict Accurately what Soap was going to do, but my Prediction that he Might use some sort of Diversionary Tactic was Correct.
ReplyDeleteSatyavati and Soap Work like a Dog Pack against me when I'm around.
First, Satyavati, Falsely Accuses me of having some Weird and Different Definition of a Word; in this Case the Word Lobbying; and then Soap Jumps in and Attacks me as if Satyavati's False Accusation were True.
I Apologized Twice to Satyavati for my Human Frailties and Imperfections, which BTW, I happen to have many, yet Soap's Accusation about "Blabbering *@$#!" is just as Inaccurate as Satyavati's Accusation about me having some Definition of Lobbying that is Different then what she Stated in her Last Comment.
Now just in case Satyavati decides to Continually Push the Issue that I had earlier Misspoke, I have already Apologized. What more do you Want? She may or may not do that. I'm just Guessing because once the Walking on Egg Shells Starts, Guessing is the Only Way to be One Step ahead of your Attackers. Walking on Egg Shells is Caused by Past Behavior, not Necessarily by that which is Happening in the Current Conversation.
I Told Soap that I was Going to Ignore his Next Comment about Libertarianism or the Free Market and This Time I am going to Keep my Word.
Ignorance is Strength!
ReplyDeleteProfuse apologies for all my shortcomings.
ReplyDeleteI Hope that the Audience will Please Note that it was Soap who Brought Up the Subject of a Dictionary Definition of a Word. In this Case, the Word "Proof". If I Respond to it, though, I will be the One who is Accused of being Technical about Words. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to have an Opinion about the Definition, Only Soap.
ReplyDeleteOh Well. If Satyavati Accuses, then she Accuses; Whatever Rocks her Boat. Since SOAP brought it Up, Let's Take a Look at that Definition.
Proof: n. 1. EVIDENCE that ESTABLISHES the truth or validity of something."
The Key Word in the Definition is ESTABLISHES, Soap, Not Evidence. It Takes a Very Large Body of Indisputable Evidence to ESTABLISH something as True.
Your Apology is Accepted, Satyavati, but you are going to have to Work on it cause in our Recent Conversations you have been even more Abrasive then Soap and you Falsely Accuse me Things Often.
ReplyDeleteSoap,
ReplyDelete"Ignorance is Strength!"
I couldn't Help but to Notice that the Root Word within "Ignorance" is "Ignore" and I suppose that that is because Excessive Ignoring will lead to Ignorance, yet there is a Time for all Things. There is a Time for Debate. There is a Time for Study and there is even a Time to Ignore. There is a Balance in all Things and it just so Happens that the Difficulty that I have in Ignoring, rather then Responding to Things, is a Weakness, not a Strength.
I would please like some clarification on what is unconstitutional about legislation regarding contraception.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
The Freedom of Religion Clause in the Constitution was Written Specifically for the Sake of Escaping the Control of the Roman Catholic Church way back when it was first written
ReplyDeleteMay I please have a reference for this?
Thank you.
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteThe Forbidding of Contraception makes no Logical Sense Outside of Religion and Religion is not enough of a reason for Legislation. In Fact, if Religion is the Only Reason, then Pushing such Violates the Establishment of Religion Clause.
As to your Second Question, I don't happen to have a High School History Text Book in my Library. If I'm Wrong, then you Provide the Reference.
Hmmmmm. I Wonder if this is another Nit Picky, Technicality Problem. Let me see if I can be more Precise. The Pilgrims Came to America because they wanted Religious Freedom and Escape from the Tyranny of the Control of the Catholic Church.
If there is more to the Story then that, Satyavanti, then by all Means, Please Educate me. You Tell me why the Establishment of Religion Clause was Written, if it is not as I've said.
I would posit that legislating contraception in no way establishes or attempts to establish religion. It is an attempt by a religious group to legislate their personal moral beliefs, but it does not in itself force any person to change their religion nor to accept a religion.
ReplyDeleteThe Puritans left England (some via Amsterdam) due to their dissatisfaction with the Protestant King James I (he of the KJV fame) and the Anglican church, of which they wanted no part (hence their formal name of Separatists). The Roman Catholic church had no bearing on the exodus from England, nor is there any indication anywhere that the Roman Catholic church was the reason the freedom of religion clause was established.
In fact historically in America Catholics have always been marginalized and discriminated against to some degree even prior to the founding of the nation. Catholics have always been viewed as politically suspect as they pledge allegiance to Rome and to the Pope.
To date, JFK is the only Catholic president ever elected.
Other religious groups, such as the Jews and the Mormons, have also been targets of institutional discrimination and marginalization in America dating back to the first settlements.
I should clarify by pointing out that obviously the Mormons as a religious group did not exist at the time of the first American settlements, but were discriminated and marginalized from their inception. The Jews were discriminated against from the time of the first settlements.
ReplyDeleteNot being here for two days I'm a tad behind.
ReplyDeleteRe soapie's parents baptizing him which I am all for even if he ain't: "I don't agree with that assessment at all. It presumes that I wanted to be baptized into the Catholic faith."
So what is this, a form of child abuse? Parents teach and do things to their kids that when those kids grow up they may not agree with. Circumcision, I can see soapie getting all upset here and the argument holds as it's his organ but a baptism is harmless. Now let me read the other stuff.
History has Never been my Best Subject. I have always Remembered Concepts and Ideas more than Dates, People, Cities, the Exact Names of Groups and a lot of other Details.
ReplyDeleteAs to the Child Baptism Issue. Parents Make a lot of Decisions for Children before they are Old Enough to Make them themselves and Children have less Freedom. That's just the Way it is.
It is not as if they have no Rights, though. There is such a Thing as Child Abuse, but Baptizing a Child, Piercing their Ears or even Circumcision doesn't Qualify.
Well soapie acts like a child should be libertarian from Day One. Not too long ago there was some kid from another country on YouTube smoking cigarettes, is this the essence of libertarianism?
ReplyDeleteMany consider infant baptism important, so much so that under
ReplyDeletecertain circumstances, anyone
can do it. Fairly common for medical folks to do this....
Z-Man,
ReplyDelete"Well soapie acts like a child should be libertarian from Day One."
Chuckle. Well, let's just Remove all Regulations from Children and see how that Works Out. In a Way, we have already done that by Discouraging Spanking and the Results have not been Good.
"Is this the essence of libertarianism?"
Well, Actually, the Absence of Spanking and Regulation is Part of the Problem, so Yes.
Back to Satyavati,
As I Thought about the Issue of Contraception and the Constitution, I Realized that the Focus of the Issue is Wrong. The Constitution is all about Human Rights. So Let me Ask you this, Satyavati. Whose Rights are being Protected by Forbidding Contraception? In Relation to Abortion, this Question can be Answered Easily, for it is the Baby's Rights that are being Protected.
I was also Thinking about the Desire to Escape the Control of the Protestant King James and what I have Learned from Working at a Christian Book Store that Sells Bibles. Basically, what I Learned was that the King James Version of the Bible has some Flaws in it that were Created by the Bias of King James and that it is not Really the most Accurate of the Translations, as so many People Suppose.
The Most Accurate Versions are Still the Original Hebrew and Greek Texts and this is Why Pastors Study Greek and Hebrew in Seminary.
As to Persecution and/or Mistrust of the Catholic Church, they have also been Criticized for their Excessive Allegiance to Mary, as well as also to the Saints. Protestants Worship God and Jesus. Period.
This is not for the Sake of Placing Judgment, but Only for the Sake of Pointing Out the Differences.
I'm curious to know if soapie feels kids should be legally allowed to smoke, in other words no age restrictions whatsoever so long as they reach the age of reason and can decide for themselves. Hell let's throw in a couple shots of Scotch too since it's the Holidays.
ReplyDeleteSoapie is not the least bit interested in wasting his time with hyperbole, juvenile embelishment, and the like.
ReplyDeletethe King James Version of the Bible has some Flaws in it that were Created by the Bias of King James
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware that he personally translated it.
Soapster,
ReplyDelete"Soapie is not the least bit interested in wasting his time with hyperbole, juvenile embelishment, and the like."
Well, maybe not, yet the Fact that Failing to Spank Children does not Produced the Best Results, in that they often just become Spoiled and not well behaved, is not really that unlike the Behavior of some Adults who get away with all sorts of Mistreatment of their Employees in the Work Place. Aside from the Obvious Things, such as Sexual Harassment and the like, I also do not see much harm in having a Few Regulations relating to Humane Treatment and a decent Work Environment.
It's just that I'm never sure with you, Soap, exactly how far you would go with the Removal of ALL Regulations.
Satyavati,
I Need to be Careful that I do not say something that I do not Know for sure, so I'm just going to say that I do not think that King James Personally Translated it. It is more Likely that he just Over Saw the Project, or that the Translation was done at the Request of the King. All I was told is that it contained some Bias Relating to the King and to the Ideas of that Era. I don't have much more Detail then that on hand at the Moment.
The New King James came out in Order to Correct some of these Problems, as well as to Up Date some of the Old Words that no Longer have the Same Meaning that they did when the Translation was First Created.
The King James Version is not a Horrible One, for it does meet the Standards of a Direct Translation, Translated Directly from Greek and Hebrew Texts and is not a Paraphrase, such as the Living Bible. The One I use is the New American Standard.
"...the Fact that Failing to Spank Children does not Produced the Best Results..."
ReplyDeleteDepends who you ask.
Spanking is good
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthenewamerican.com%2Fculture%2Ffamily%2F2701-new-study-finds-spanking-is-good-for-kids&ei=D3HfTsWVIKTg2AX4tuj2Cg&usg=AFQjCNF9YoURN9BZSDumB__dQBhYi7ea1w
Spanking is detrimental
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Farticles.cnn.com%2F2009-09-16%2Fhealth%2Fspanking.children.parenting_1_spanked-new-study-author-and-research-scientist%3F_s%3DPM%3AHEALTH&ei=D3HfTsWVIKTg2AX4tuj2Cg&usg=AFQjCNGgPmdDNSniz9u5UfBCEzy_fQmbdA
I know a flurry of parents who never spanked their kids (my older sister included) and their children are some of the best mannered kids I've ever met.
Soap,
ReplyDelete"Depends who you ask."
Yes, and it also Depends on the Child, for they are not all the same. It is best not to Legislate that which Depends. You will Limit a Parent's Choices when you do that.
I'm not going to Take the Time to Read all of that, but I will tell you what I myself have already learned. In Spite the Presence of Children who do Ok with Minimal, Gentle Discipline, there is also a Personality Type that does not.
Many Strong Willed Children Require Harsher Discipline then the Compliant Ones, yet what's Worse is that there is a Criminal Personality Type, that if Spoiled by Discipline that is too lenient, will be more likely to later Display Criminal Behavior.
The Key, though, is for each Parent to have the Freedom to Find what ever Works for their Own Particular Children.
I Still Smile when I Think of the one Mother who said that she Used to Give Advice about Child Rearing until her one more Difficult Child was born. Then she stopped. Her Children were all Well behaved too, with the Exception of the One who Caused her to Stop Giving other Parents Advice.
The Phenomena of "It Depends", throws everything Off, even Previous Experience, as well as Research.
"Spanking is detrimental."
ReplyDeleteYes, if the Compliant Child is Disciplined with the Same Harshness as the Strong Willed Child, this can Actually be Detrimental, yet for the Strong Willed Child, Excessive Leniency is Detrimental, so once again, it just Depends.
People too Often try to Pigeon Hole both People and Approaches, as if we live in a One Size Fits all World, but Unfortunately, we do not.
"People too Often try to Pigeon Hole both People and Approaches, as if we live in a One Size Fits all World, but Unfortunately, we do not."
ReplyDeletePrecisely why I'm a Libertarian. I don't like centralized economic planning.
Soap should there be any age restrictions on smoking cigarettes or the consumption of alcohol provided the child has reached the age of reason and has some concept of what he's doing? He or she's not a fetus anymore and that seems to be your kind of definition of what a person with rights is or when those rights start.
ReplyDeleteYour questions are extraneous Z.
ReplyDeleteOne can have all the regulations and restrictions their pretty little heart desires. People gonna do what people gonna do.
Just answer the pregunta or cuestion.
ReplyDeleteI just did.
ReplyDeleteZ:
ReplyDeleteDon't you have to first define 'the age of reason'?
Who decides that, and on what authority, and if that's a condition, then you're putting conditions on things, and so you've negated your whole premise of individual rights.
As Troy Polamalu says: 'Isn't it?'
Let me be clear on this point.
ReplyDeleteThere is a widely adopted practice within political circles and such that concerns itself with generalitites, platitudes, categorical classifications and such. You see it in practice during these GOP debates and on the Sunday morning "news" programs.
They offer lead in/gotcha sorts of questions/moments as opposed to facilitating any meaningful or substantive discussion on the issues.
So whereas you would like to know based upon my response to your inquiry whether I would be categorized into this group or that group, I myself would much prefer a meaty discussion on what it is that is attempting to be achieved, attained, or desired by such restrictions and regulations and whether or not such goals are being achieved. And, in the event they are not (and they aren't) why then one would continue to advocate for such nonsense and on what basis/premise.
Imagine how much less time and effort this all would take if we just all agreed that nothing is definite, everything has an exception and no matter what, there will never, ever, ever be a definite position taken on any topic but abortion.
ReplyDeleteThere. Doesn't that make everyone's life easier?
Soap,
ReplyDelete"One can have all the regulations and restrictions their pretty little heart desires. People gonna do what people gonna do."
What you are saying sounds good, Soap, but the truth is that when ever something is Legal, there are a few Additional People Doing it, that may not have, if it had not been Legal. You see, now you are Pigeon Holing and Assuming that everyone responds the Same Way with Disrespect for what is and is not Legal.
Satyavati,
"Who decides that, and on what authority, and if that's a condition, then you're putting conditions on things, and so you've negated your whole premise of individual rights."
The Current Laws about the Age of Accountability are Fine. I don't have any Problem with it. I Mean what are you going to do; Give a Drivers License to a Two Year Old? There has to be some sort of Reasonable Starting Point. Let's be Reasonable here.
Soap,
In your 3:38 PM Comment, I'm having Trouble Figuring Out what you are talking about. What Goals do you Think are not being Achieved? In Relation to Driving, for Example, if there are Fewer Accidents after a Law is Put in Place that Forbids Teenagers from Giving Rides to other Teenagers, until they have been Driving for One Full Year, (New California Law), then the Reduction in the Statistics is an Accomplishment of a Goal.
Also, if Increasing the Drinking Age Decreases the Statistics Relating to Drunk Driving Accidents involving Kids, then that is an Accomplishment of a Goal.
Also, from what I can tell, Z's Question in his 2:40 PM Comment Contained no Categorizing Words or Statements.
Satyavati,
There are Exceptions to the Abortion Issue as well, for Generally, Rape and a Threat to the Mother's Life are Considered Exceptions. If you do not Think this is so, then you have not really been Listening to me.
Soap I was just indicating why libertarianism will never be a majority movement in this country or mainstream. It's not that it should or shouldn't be but the reality is libertarianism always sounds so good in Theory but when you get down to the nuts and bolts (e.g. should kids be allowed to drink and smoke) then people want the limits.
ReplyDeleteIf the people took the time to delve into libertarian philosophy and educate themselves instead of merely adopting as gospel what they hear from pundits and presstitutes they would come to realize that they themselves can place whatever restrictions and/or regulations upon themselves that they so desire.
ReplyDeleteIf however they wish the edicts and directives to come from on high well then libertarianism isn't for them. They are better suited for any of other collectivist "isms".
oooh... presstitutes.
ReplyDeleteThat's a great word.
I can't take credit for it. I believe the term was coined by Gerald Celente.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, it rings true.
Soap,
ReplyDeleteI have not Learned about Libertarianism from Pundits, Presstitudes, Edicts or Directives. I have Learned about Libertarianism from you.
Now that I have Read the Link that Grant Davies left on my Blog, though, I have come to Realize that not all Libertarians are as Extreme as you are, for there were a Few of your Ideas that were Listed as Controversial among Libertarians, such as Government Police and Fire Protections. In his Link, it says that "Most libertarians believe police departments are a legitimate role of government and should be provided by the public sector."
The Restrictions that we are Free to Place on Ourselves is not the Issue. The Issue is the Restrictions that Need to be Placed on Others in Order to Protect us, (or Deter, if you like that Terminology Better), from the Harm and Injustice that Others may Inflict on us.
Oophs! Here's the Link.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/11/100-objections-to-libertarianism-with.html
When I Read another Link that was in the above Link and Related to Fire...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger183.html
...I found another Extreme that Libertarians are not in Agreement on. Here is a Quote from the Link about Fire Protection/Deterrence...
"That's reason enough to reject such collectivist notions as government-owned fire departments, as well as such immoral and destructive socialist programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education grants, agricultural subsidies, bank bailouts, food stamps, foreign aid, and other welfare programs."
The Original Link to One of the Humble Libertarian Pages, though, says...
"Libertarians absolutely do not advocate the government ripping off people who paid into Social Security. They deserve to get back the money that they put in."
If the First Quote is Misinformation, then it came Directly from a Libertarian, not from any Outside, "Pundits, Presstitudes, Edicts" or "Directives".
"The Restrictions that we are Free to Place on Ourselves is not the Issue. The Issue is the Restrictions that Need to be Placed on Others in Order to Protect us, (or Deter, if you like that Terminology Better), from the Harm and Injustice that Others may Inflict on us."
ReplyDeleteI don't quite know how many times I need to repeat it but here goes one more.
A free-market is not without regulations.
The consumers of the goods and services serve as the regulatory authority. And, they do so much more effectively since it is they who are the best authority in determining what effectively meets their needs at a cost which they are willing bear.
Further and as a Libertarian, there's nothing "extreme" about taking a position against public police and fire departments. In fact, were you to forego your "extreme" categorization thus closing your mind and instead do some research on the subject you'd come to find that such services were once provided quite effectively in the private sector.
To this day there are firetrucks in various municipalities that are fitted with a number of adapters because back in the day hydrants were privately owned and in order to use it required that you had the proper adapter.
Also, I visit Lew Rockwell's site every single day among a great many others. It is not necessary to link to it.
Well the Hasidim in NYC employ their own kind of security/police force you could call it and people pretty much know they protect their own when a rabbi let's say molests a kid. In that case the other rabbis or Hasidic community need to know what happened first and then there's some type of discussion about whether or not to notify the police.
ReplyDeleteSoap,
ReplyDelete"A free-market is not without regulations. The consumers of the goods and services serve as the regulatory authority. And they do so much more effectively."
The Subject being Discussed was Restrictions Placed on Minors. How does not selling Cigarettes and Booze to Minors Benefit the Sales of such of any Business? Or for that Matter, how does not Selling Cocaine and Heroine to Minors Benefit the Sales and Profits of Drug Dealers, or if Legal, Pharmacies? The Answer is it does not.
The Only thing that will stop this is a Conscience and since not everyone has one, this is a good Example of something that the Market will not Adequately and "Effectively" Regulate on its own.
"And, they do so much more effectively, since it is they who are the best authority in determining what effectively meets their needs, at a cost which they are willing bear."
Since when has a Drug Addict or an Alcoholic been able to Determine what most Effectively Meets his or her True Needs? People who have a Sickness do not Know how to Determine these things and Accurately Act on them.
And as for Kids, they are Immature, Stupid, Uninformed and Need Adult Supervision in their Decisions. Since Parents can not always be Everywhere their Children go, having a Few Laws out there relating to what they can and can not Purchase is not a Negative, but a Help. If a Parent is Determined to give Kids Cigarettes and Booze, they can Buy them for them themselves and Allow them to Smoke and Drink at Home.
In Cases, such as this, the Market DOES NOT Regulate itself. The Libertarian Claim that you have just Stated is Idealistic and not Correct in all Cases, just as this is a good Example.
Remember Drugs Contribute to Crime and Alcohol Contributes to Drunk Driving Accidents.
"Further and as a Libertarian, there's nothing 'extreme' about taking a position against public police and fire departments."
I disagree and always will and while you are so Busy Accusing me of Closing my Mind by Categorizing Things as Extreme, you are Closing your Mind by Assuming that all Government Laws and Regulations are Negative, rather then Weighing the Costs and Benefits of them before making a Determination on the Matter.
"Also, I visit Lew Rockwell's site every single day among a great many others. It is not necessary to link to it."
Oh for Pete's Sake, Soap. You act as if you are the Only One Reading this Comment Thread.
Thanks, Z-man, for your Report on the High Efficiency, lol, of the Hired Security/Police Force in NYC.
Soap is an idealist Lista. He can sell you on libertarianism as he is very persuasive just give us some time soap. I think with human nature being what it is, Christianity would call it corrupt from the getgo (i.e. the whole original sin thing) that I tend to drift in Lista's direction more, that some most basic and minimal regulations and laws are called for at least in some instances.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding the inherit nature of man's imperfections, it begs the question from a libertarian perspective of why then one would advocate for the political class. What's more, it is a well documented fact and has been stated on record by a number of (call them dissenters I suppose) that these "protections" and "regulations" that you are so want to advocate for are all too often written by and for the benefit of the very corporate institutions you are seeking to be protected from.
ReplyDeleteI think the word I would use is purist.
ReplyDeleteI have very recently abandoned purity for what I consider practicality's sake; I would rather have baby steps in the right direction rather than hold out for the marathon. But I'm getting older, and that's just me. It did involve a change of party, and believe it or not it was a little traumatic (after 27 years).
But I think it was a good move for me. It doesn't mean that the goals aren't the same; they are; ultimately the same work towards the pure ideology is there.. it's just a matter of difference on the proper means.
By the way, here is my kickass guacamole recipe which is today serving as the Breakfast of Champions (with plain tortilla):
ReplyDelete1 avocado must be mashed by hand.
1/2 tomato diced small.
About 2 tbsp or so of sour cream.
Generous bunch of cilantro chopped small (or not if you're a hater but it will be comparatively a bit flat)
Salt/Pepper
Good splash of lime juice (lemon is not as good but acceptable)
Some kind of hot pepper based on your taste. Today it's dried Thai bird pepper. Serrano is also quite good, jalapeno is more mild, ancho brings a smoky flavor but it's hotter when it gets to sit and absorb a while.
Mix everything together except the tomatoes; add those last.
And as for Kids, they are Immature, Stupid, Uninformed and Need Adult Supervision in their Decisions.
ReplyDeleteI am going to very hopefully assume that this is an intentionally sarcastic and facetious comment as I prefer not to believe that such a generalized statement can or could be in any way successfully made in sincerity.
Idealism, purism, beehives, anarchism, wiki-gov, communism, libertarianism; call it whatever you want, the future is about hyper-decentralized but super tight and individually empowered voluntary collectives that achieve order and harmony through emergent means. I'm fortunate to be a participating member of it.
ReplyDeleteAnd how come Christians, who are so fired up about taking care of Israel, don't call it a 'War on Judaism' when retailers don't advertise with 'Happy Chanukah'??? Surely their concern for their beloved Jewish brethren should stretch that far.... yet to date I have only heard that 'Happy Holidays' (which would include those beloved Jewish brethren's holiday) is a 'War on Christianity'??
ReplyDeleteI should point out here that I one hundred percent support 'Happy Holidays' versus 'Merry Christmas' as Christians are not the only group that celebrate holidays in December, and that I believe this 'War on Christianity' as far as holiday advertising goes is a lot of crap designed to keep Christians in a fearful, paranoid 'Us Vs Them' mentality that insists that the entire world is out to get them.
Soap,
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that you Think that the Regulations relating to Minors Purchasing Alcohol and Cigarettes should be Removed?
Satyavati,
Regarding your Reaction to my Words...
"And as for Kids, they are Immature, Stupid, Uninformed and Need Adult Supervision in their Decisions."
Are you Denying that Kids Need Supervision in their Decisions? Maturity takes Time and has a lot to do with how Old we are. Youth is Actually Part of the Definition of Immature and Adult is Part of the Definition of Mature. Also, Most Adults will Admit that they were Quite Stupid when they were Young and became Wiser Later.
Perhaps I should have said Naive, since that Word is a little less Emotionally Charged than the Word Stupid, yet setting the Emotionally Charged Elements aside, all of this is Relative and Kids are Relatively Naive in Comparison to Adults and that is all I'm Trying to say.
Another Thing, Decisions are Made all the Time Based on Statistics. If that's Generalized, then so be it. For the Most Part, Laws are not about Individuals, but about Statistics, yet Improving on Negative Statistics is a Worthwhile Goal to Strive for and the Minor Inconvenience of a Reasonable Law is a Small Price to Pay for it.
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteThe Phrase Merry Christmas has not been Considered Offensive until recently and People who say it are not Trying to be Offensive. There is Really no Valid Reason for Making such a Big Deal about Forbidding the Saying of it.
It's almost like Making a Big Deal about the Tradition of Saying "Break a Leg" to those who are Preforming, rather than "Good Luck". If someone all of a Sudden said that the Statement "Break a Leg" was Offensive and Forbid the Saying of this Statement within the Walls of their Theater, those who have been saying this Phrase in a Spirit of Good Will, rather then Offense, would have Every Right to Feel Offended for having the Tradition Taken Away from them.
In Contrast, "Happy Chanukah" is not a Statement that has been Entrenched in our Culture for many Years, so this is simply not the Same Thing.
Boy, was that ever a Change in Subject.
Perhaps you were not intending to answer my question with your reply. I will take your reply piece by piece in the context of my question.
ReplyDeleteThe Phrase Merry Christmas has not been Considered Offensive until recently and People who say it are not Trying to be Offensive.
I don't believe my question in any way stated the saying of 'Merry Christmas' was offensive.
There is Really no Valid Reason for Making such a Big Deal about Forbidding the Saying of it.
My question referenced retailers' holiday advertising and never mentioned the forbidding of the phrase 'Merry Christmas'. It is true that many retailers make it a policy to respect all their customers' holiday traditions by using the phrase 'Happy Holidays'. This phrase is inclusive and references all holiday traditions, not just the Christian ones.
In Contrast, "Happy Chanukah" is not a Statement that has been Entrenched in our Culture for many Years, so this is simply not the Same Thing.
Jews have been part of American culture since before the establishment of the US as a country. They have also been targets of discrimination. However, in the context of Christians who are intensely and passionately concerned with the US's involvement in Israel and the fate of the Jews, one would expect that those same Christians would be especially mindful of the holiday traditions of a people whom they profess to love and wish to protect on such a large scale as international politics.
It strikes me as strange that these people would not be as equally concerned about the recognition of Jewish traditions as their own, and who would call the use of 'Happy Holidays' a 'War on Christianity', rather than themselves also insisting that Chanukah deserves equal respect and recognition.
I maintain my opinion that this is propaganda designed to keep Christians defensive and paranoid about non-Christians, and to enable the mentality that everyone is out to get them.
Satyavati
ReplyDeleteOk, Let's Take a Look Specifically at your Question.
"And how come Christians, who are so fired up about taking care of Israel, don't call it a 'War on Judaism' when retailers don't advertise with 'Happy Chanukah'???"
Reason #1:
Because Jews have not been Told that the Statement "Happy Chanukah" is Offensive. Whether you Personally have Said that it is Offensive or not is Irrelevant. The Fact that it has been said is Part of the Answer to your Question.
"My question referenced retailers' holiday advertising and never mentioned the forbidding of the phrase 'Merry Christmas'."
I was Corrected at a Walmart Once because I said "Merry Christmas", even though I have every Right, as a Customer, to say it. The Reason why I was Corrected for what I said is because the Employees were Instructed not to say it. This Restriction was then Passed on from an Employee unto me.
Reason #2:
Because "'Happy Chanukah' is not a Statement that has been Entrenched in our Culture for many Years, so this is simply not the Same Thing."
Both of my Reasons are about the Contrast between the Statement "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Chanukah". Jews may have been Part of our Culture, but the Statement "Happy Chanukah" has not been.
And anyway, the Original Complaint about the Statement "Merry Christmas" was not Made by a Jew, but by an Atheist and the Jews are not the Ones that are Making an Issue out of it. Instead, you are Mentioning them because it is Convenient to do so, even though they are not in anyway Asking for your Defense in Relation to the "Merry Christmas" Greeting.
And anyway, the Original Complaint about the Statement "Merry Christmas" was not Made by a Jew, but by an Atheist
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, I'm not sure to whom you refer by the word 'atheist'. Could you please clarify that for me?
Instead, you are Mentioning them because it is Convenient to do so, even though they are not in anyway Asking for your Defense in Relation to the "Merry Christmas" Greeting.
First of all, your 'because it is convenient to do so' sounds suspiciously like an 'assumption of motive', as it infers that you somehow know the inner workings of my thought process.
Secondly, I'm not 'defending the Jews'. I'm asking why Christians who want billions of dollars sent to Israel in foreign aid, and who trumpet how much we must love Israel, would not be concerned about the blatant non-inclusiveness of their Jewish brethren when they claim that to say 'Happy Holidays' is a 'War on Christianity', and why those same passionately Israel-loving Christians aren't recognizing and respecting the holidays and traditions of those Jews they claim to love so much.
And let me throw out another question while I'm at it: why is not specifically referencing Christianity by saying 'Merry Christmas' and instead choosing to be inclusive of all traditions by saying 'Happy Holidays' a 'War On Christianity'?
I have already Answered your Question, Satyavati. I can't help it that you do not Like my Answer.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a Different Motive then the One I have Guessed at, then you will have to Enlighten me. I Promise, though, not to Try and Support a Political Point based on my Guesses relating to your Motives.
Really, Satyavati, "blatant non-inclusiveness" is a Bit of an Exaggeration. The Statement "Merry Christmas" has not been Considered a Statement of Exclusion until Recently. It has also not been Considered a Form of Disrespect for their Holiday Traditions. The Holiday has been Called Christmas for Centuries and No One has Ever Complained about it until more Recently in our History.
You are Over Reacting, Satyavati, and Exaggerating the Significance of a Phrase that is in No Way as Disrespectful towards Jewish Traditions as you Claim.
Once again, it is not the Jews who have been Complaining about the "non-inclusiveness" of the Phrase, "Merry Christmas". How exactly is it, though, that Defending their Right to be Included is somehow Different then Defending them? Even if you aren’t Defending them, since they have not been Complaining about the "Non-Inclusiveness" of this Common Christmas Greeting, this makes it a Non-Issue.
The "War on Christianity" involves all sorts of Things such as the Phrase "in God we Trust", Political Songs that Include Words such as "God Bless America", Attacks on the Rights of Students to Mention God in Graduation Speeches, Privately Sponsored Nativity Displays on Public Property, the Removal of any Mention of God from any Public Place, Etc. Etc. Etc.
The Merry Christmas Issue is just One of Many Things that the Christians are Reacting too. If it was the Only Issue Taking Place, then by itself, it probably wouldn't be such a Big Deal. For the Most Part, Satyavati, You are just Judging and not really Trying to Understand my Answer to your Question.
Lista,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how using an exclusively Christian phrase can be anything less than blatantly noninclusive. The phrase 'Merry Christmas' does not include the religious traditions I celebrate at this time of year, nor does it include those of Muslims, pagans, or Wiccans as well as the Jews. Is there a way to explain the use of a phrase that only pertains to one group as being otherwise than blatantly noninclusive?
Second, I don't believe that a group needs to advocate for itself in order to be worthy of advocating for. Plenty of marginalized groups don't speak up for themselves out of fear or whatever reason, and if it weren't for others who are concerned about them, nothing would ever get done.
But the real point here, Lista, is what appears to me to be some serious hypocrisy. These same Christians want the United States to pledge millions and billions of dollars to support their beloved Israel, but if retailers say Happy Holidays in an effort to recognize traditions other than Christian (like Chanukah), then those Christians perceive this as a 'war on Christianity'. I'm not talking about prayer in schools or anything like that in the context of this discussion, I'm talking about the mass calls for boycotts of stores that use Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. If you haven't seen this in your local paper's editorial columns, I have. It goes on every year. Recognizing any tradition apart from the Christian one becomes a 'War on Christianity'. The fact that these same people profess to love Israel apparently doesn't stretch this far, because apparently recognizing Jewish traditions by using Happy Holidays is equivalent to 'War on Christianity'.
And quite honestly, it doesn't matter that these issues were brought to the fore only recently. Just because something persists for a time doesn't make it right, and it isn't a legitimate defense of any wrongdoing.
But Lista, you have still failed to explain how a people who claim to love another people can marginalize (and, effectively, demonize) them by claiming that a phrase that recognize those people equals a 'War on Christianity'?
If you love someone, don't you want to honor and respect them and their traditions?
I'm not seeing it.
I Feel as if I’m Repeating myself.
ReplyDeleteThe Statement Merry Christmas has not Always been Considered Exclusive. Lots of Non-Christians have been Using the Phrase for Years and not Really Thinking about, Noticing or Paying much Attention to the Fact that the Word Christ is Contained within the Word. For Centuries it wasn't an Issue.
"If you haven't seen this in your local paper's editorial columns, I have."
I have in no Way made any Indication that I am not Familiar with this Issue.
Once Again, Satyavati. This is NOT a Jewish Issue and it is not Primarily Jews that have been Complaining.
Yes, it was Christians who Named the Holiday, yet No One Complained. It was just an Accepted Tradition.
I do not Believe that this is an Act of "Marginalizing", nor do I see it as Disrespect for Israel. Instead, I Think it is an Act of Over Reaction on your Part.
I have Explained my Position and Answered your Question. I do not Believe that the Jews have been Injured by the Phrase Merry Christmas. If I am Wrong, then Please Allow a Jew to Correct me.
Just because you have Excluded some of the Issues that I mentioned from YOUR Discussion does not Make these Things any less a Part of the Answer to your Question and the Explanation for the Christian Reaction.
People have the Right to Boycott Retailers for whatever Reasons they Choose to. That is Part of the Free Enterprise System.
More for Satyavati:
ReplyDelete"But the real point here, Lista, is what appears to me to be some serious hypocrisy."
It is Only Hypocrisy if the Motive is to Exclude, Marginalize and Disrespect the Jews. Once again you are Basing a Conclusion on an Assumption of Motive.
Now if you Wish to make Guesses about Motives, that is Fine, but you can not Use these Guesses to Support additional Points and Accusations about Hypocrisy. I am a Christian and I Know what the Motives are in this Issue.
The "War on Christianity" did not Begin with the "Merry Christmas" Greeting. It Began with the "In God we Trust" Phrase on the Dollar Bill and this Complaint was not Made by a Jew, but by an Atheist.
Later, this same Man Made an Issue about the Phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Whether or not you Desire to Allow this Issue to be Part of the Discussion or not is Irrelevant, for it is Part of the Explanation of the Christian Reaction to the "Merry Christmas"/"Happy Holidays" Issue. Just because you are not Willing to Accept this, does not Change the Fact that it is True.
Ok, Now..., If it Turns Out that the Christians are now Incorrectly Assuming the Motives of the Retailers, I'm Willing to Consider that, yet for you to Assume that you Know the Motives of the Christians does not Help to Restore the Involved Parties to a Place of Understanding. If there has been a Misunderstanding, then let's call it a Misunderstanding not a "Serious Hypocrisy". Exaggerated Accusations Rarely Ever Add in the Restoration of Relationships.
Let me just boil this down, Lista:
ReplyDeleteWhy are Christians simultaneously passionate about being best friends and bosom buddies with Israel at the same time that they don't want people to include Jews (or anyone else) in December holiday traditons by saying 'Happy Holidays'?
How fitting considering the Republican Jewish coalition excluded Ron Paul from their debate forum even though Ron Paul's position echoes Netanyahu's and also recognizes the two key tenets of Zionism (Independence and Self Reliance).
ReplyDeleteI guess if you're not willing to submit blood and treasure for Israel then the Republican Jewish coalition doesn't care what you have to say.
"Why are Christians simultaneously passionate about being best friends and bosom buddies with Israel" Excellent question considering that 74% Evangelicals
ReplyDeletevote Republican, while 78% Jews
vote Democrat. (or better yet,
make that conservative and liberal) These are two different
populations with two different
values...and I see no rapproachment in the near future.
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteI have Answered your Question. You just don't want to Hear and Understand what I'm saying.
Actually, though, no one Present has heard what I have Said. You are all Convinced that you Know the Motives of the Christians. Even BB. Huh?!
I've Explained it and really can't add anything more then I've already said. Christians Connect the Issue with all the Other Issues that I Mentioned, as well as Issues relating to the Removal of all Mentions of God from Public Places and also a bunch of Freedom of Religion and Speech Issues. Perhaps they shouldn't be Making that Connection, but they do and no other Explanation of their Motives is Accurate. You guys are all just Guessing and Judging.
Even BB, who Appears to be Implying that the Motive has to do with the Two Political Parties. Sorry, BB, but I really thought that you would do better at Hearing what I've said then the others. Your Comment has actually Surprised me.
I Guess to Answer BB's Question, I should Point Out that the Jews have some of the Same Scriptures are the Christians, for their Scriptures are nothing more then the Old Testament and in it, the Jews are Called God's Chosen People.
ReplyDeleteChristians also see the Jews as God's Chosen People and though God Decided to also Include the Christians, as the Result of Christ Dying on the Cross and Offering Salvation to all who Believe, including those who are not Jewish; even so, the Jews are Still God's Original Chosen People and He loves them. This is the Reason Why Christians have a High Respect for the Jews.
With all your Knowledge of Religious History, BB, I'd be really Surprised if you do not already Know this, so why are you Acting so Puzzled?
People do not Need to have the Same Religious and Political Views in Order to be Friends and the Same Holds True of Groups of People. I Like you quite a bit, BB, even though you are a Liberal. I guess that's quite a Mystery as well.
I just got to the rest of this long long comment section now. Saty speaking for myself I have no problem with folks saying "Happy Holidays" so as to be more inclusive but it shouldn't be mandated as Walmart apparently has done with their employees. Just shopped there btw, the one in Mohegan Lake NY. Great deals on cat food.
ReplyDeleteThe Walmart Incident that I Mentioned Happened Quite a few Years ago. They are more "Christmas Friendly" now, what ever that Means. If it is Only Referring to Advertizements relating to the Phrase Happy Holidays, rather then Merry Christmas, then that is not enough Reason for a Boycott.
ReplyDeleteI just happen to Like it, when I Actually go into the Store, to Hear the Words Merry Christmas Once in awhile, spoken to me by one of the Employees. Once that Happens, the Happy Holidays Sign Outside comes across as Cheery as well. When People are Reluctant to say the Word Christmas, though, as if it is some Taboo Word, this Makes me Feel Sad. So I guess I'm agreeing with Z-man.
You nailed it Lista and I think Saty's missing the point. I'm a fan of "Happy Holidays" but it shouldn't be politically coerced and it also has the effect if you say the more traditional "Merry Christmas" you're doing something wrong. We CAN be more inclusive, I got no problem but again it shouldn't be mandated dig?
ReplyDeleteBTW Merry Christmas Lista.
ReplyDeleteThank You and the Same to you and to Satyavati and Soap, Happy Holidays.
ReplyDelete