Thumping for Nothing - the Year of the Bible

[Tycoon101]

Well it better be the King James version and not that heretic catholic one or Jesus will damn America. And heaven help us all if it's the Ethiopian version

Peter and co. were a Catholic. If you claim that Jesus' crew (after his death) weren't Catholic, then your understanding of Christianity's evolution is warped indeed.

 

[Dachs]

Peter and co. were a Catholic. If you claim that Jesus' crew (after his death) weren't Catholic, then your understanding of Christianity's evolution is warped indeed.

Any claims for the existence of a "Catholic" Church anytime in the first three centuries of Christendom point to a warped understanding of Christianity's evolution as well.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

What a waste of time and resources. That's all there is to it, a lot of noise and flame signifying nothing.

 

[Camikaze]

Yes. However, a lot of people don't care about the Constitution. And many of them are conservatives in Congress. They see the Constitution as an obstacle to their power and prejudices.

Wrong. Separation of church and state is about protecting Christians. There are fundamental differences of doctrine between many Christians. The First Amendment was a law for Christians and also by Christians, for the purpose of not making any law whatsoever that interferes with the worship of some or makes some act in the specified by the religion of other people. That's why the school prayer and other laws have been struck down as unconstitutional. Because they are, and this is too. And so are 100 other issues that people have just been unwilling to fight through to their Constitutional conclusion yet. The fact that we've been ignoring the Constitution for 100s of years on many issues does not change the fact that the Constitution does not allow certain things.

And it is flat out false to claim the opponents hate Christians. The truth is that the supporters hate freedom of faith.

How 'bout a swap? They can have the year of the Bible, so long as they give up guns. Unless, of course, they are picking and choosing their amendments.

No. That's the "establishment religion"/separation of church and state amendment.

There is no amendment against stupid grandstanding. (In fact, there's arguably one that protects it.)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" seems pretty definitive to me. Unless it means 'regarding', instead of what it literally says. I mean, sure, individual politicians can agree with it as much as they want, but they should not be making it a state-sanctioned thing.

Absolutely not. The First Amendment was meant to protect against the US Government doing what our mother country did and creating an official "Church Of The United States" where the Head of State was also the official head of the church. People have so horribly twisted it over the years, it is pathetic.

Christianity is not a specific religion. Church of England is. We have a National Cathedral, we have various denominations giving prayer for Congress. There would have been nothing wrong with this, but a small minority of cry-babies that hate Christianity have to rear their heads.

Again, it seems to me (I'm no constitutional scholar or lawyer) that it is favouring one religion over another, and therefore, in a sense, denying the right, to a degree, of people to practice their own religion. As soon as you get some sort of official recognition, or appraisal, of something, it diminishes other religions.

Also, your second paragraph is void, 'cause I'm a Christian (who doesn't hate Christianity) and I object.

 

[Tycoon101]

Any claims for the existence of a "Catholic" Church anytime in the first three centuries of Christendom point to a warped understanding of Christianity's evolution as well.

There was a Christian Church. It went on to be called the Catholic Church after numerous councils defined what was and wasn't in Christian doctrine.

 

[Miles Teg]

There was a Christian Church. It went on to be called the Catholic Church after numerous councils defined what was and wasn't in Christian doctrine.

And that was long after Peter. You can't apply labels retroactively.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Jefferson's

Didnt he have the coptic (greek) Orthadox (latin), King James and several others whos names escape me ?

 

[Gooblah]

Absolutely not. The First Amendment was meant to protect against the US Government doing what our mother country did and creating an official "Church Of The United States" where the Head of State was also the official head of the church. People have so horribly twisted it over the years, it is pathetic.

Christianity is not a specific religion. Church of England is. We have a National Cathedral, we have various denominations giving prayer for Congress. There would have been nothing wrong with this, but a small minority of cry-babies that hate Christianity have to rear their heads.

Ima haveta disagree with you on this one, VR.

Forerunners to the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause included a similar statement regarding religion in Maryland colony (the Toleration Act) and the various free religion laws passed in Pennsylvania and the other Middle colonies.

The Act allowed freedom of worship for all Christians in Maryland but sentenced anyone to death who denied the divinity of Jesus.

(from Wikipedia, but sourced)

So..Quaker, Catholic, Puritan, whatever, so long as you heart Jesus, you were fine. Jews, 'heathen' native americans...damn. I love the First Amendment as much as anyone else, considering I'm an outlier to the white Protestant stereotype of America, but I believe that the initial value of the freedom of religion was to ensure that Catholics wouldn't flip out and Baptists wouldn't revolt against the new system (and to appease the anti-Federalists ).

I'm simply uncomfortable with the idea of my government making a law that celebrates or recognizes one specific religion (or in fact, any religion whatsoever) over any other. The idea that just because the majority believes in one faith the government should recognize that faith for a year is IMO bullcrap. Not because I hate Christianity, or you, or the Bible, or Jesus, or whatever. I just find it odd and disturbing. I know that you probably feel the same way over the yearly debate about "ohmigod(s) we needz a menorahs + an om + three crosses and a crescent and a yin-yang and a chinese character and a fat smily buddha next to the manger!11!" (from your POV ) debate, so I hope you understand.

 

[Tycoon101]

And that was long after Peter. You can't apply labels retroactively.

And yet they still shared the mythos, the rites, the tradition, and, heck, the same bible as those who we would call "Catholics."

 

[Cutlass]

How 'bout a swap? They can have the year of the Bible, so long as they give up guns. Unless, of course, they are picking and choosing their amendments.

You have to keep in mind that the majority of Democratic elected officials, as well as the majority of Democratic rank and file, do not want guns banned. Some minimum restrictions for law enforcement and public safety, but not an outright ban.

 

[JollyRoger]

And yet they still shared the mythos, the rites, the tradition, and, heck, the same bible as those who we would call "Catholics."

Did Peter sell off splinters from the cross to get people out of limbo?

 

[CaptainF]

Christianity is not a specific religion. Church of England is. We have a National Cathedral, we have various denominations giving prayer for Congress. There would have been nothing wrong with this, but a small minority of cry-babies that hate Christianity have to rear their heads.

Yes, in other words, we have a bunch of free-thinking individuals who do not like the gubbamint telling us to pay any special regard to a religion that we don't believe in.

So shoot me.

 

[Shadylookin]

Peter and co. were a Catholic. If you claim that Jesus' crew (after his death) weren't Catholic, then your understanding of Christianity's evolution is warped indeed.

I think you completely missed the point.

The point is that Christians have a gajillion denominations for a reason and that reason is they can't agree on hardly anything not even on the bible.

The separation of Church and State wasn't made for atheists like me(2% of the population probably less in the 1700s) but rather for Christians. So I just find it amusing all these people that want to establish Christian theocracy when Christianity is immensely diverse and they would probably revolt as soon as a denomination whose rules they didn't jive with got into power.

 

[Miles Teg]

And yet they still shared the mythos, the rites, the tradition, and, heck, the same bible as those who we would call "Catholics."

Debatable. Early Christian beliefs aren't well documented, but what we have presents a different take on things that's at least as big as divide between Protestants and Catholics, and almost certainly much bigger.

 

[Dachs]

And yet they still shared the mythos, the rites, the tradition, and, heck, the same bible as those who we would call "Catholics."

Well, ma boi Pete didn't have a Nicene Creed, or hell even an Apostle's Creed. He didn't have the writings of the Church Fathers, or many of the rites eventually associated with what is now a Catholic Mass. And he sure as Hell didn't have the same Bible. Athanasios' Letter is the first formulation of that, though it doesn't get set officially in stone until the Council of Trent. So yeah...lolcatholicpeterwut?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Didnt he have the coptic (greek) Orthadox (latin), King James and several others whos names escape me ?

"Jefferson's bible" was a collection of the moral teachings of Jesus with all the miracles and claims of divinity removed. Jefferson admired Christ's teachings but he viewed him as a great philosopher instead of divine. His political rivals often painted him as an ardent atheist (instead of a Unitarian Deist) who wanted to ban all bibles but his own. Right before he took office bible sales soared as people wanted to make sure they had plenty hidden, often buried away, in case the rumors were true.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Who tagged this "Only in America?"

Let's try and remember that Norway, Denmark, Iceland, England, and Greece all retain state churches. Glass houses.

Go Figure. Some of the most atheistic nations in the world, with the exception of Greece, have an established religion, while a nation well know for having a secular constitution is quite religious.

 

[civ_king]

Absolutely not. The First Amendment was meant to protect against the US Government doing what our mother country did and creating an official "Church Of The United States" where the Head of State was also the official head of the church. People have so horribly twisted it over the years, it is pathetic.

Christianity is not a specific religion. Church of England is. We have a National Cathedral, we have various denominations giving prayer for Congress. There would have been nothing wrong with this, but a small minority of cry-babies that hate Christianity have to rear their heads.

well, Christianity is as much a religion as Judaism or Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism... do you see were I am going (btw any religious group can use the "National Cathedral" including Mormons J/K)

Didn't the 1st Amendment kind of make this unconstitutional?

hmm lets see "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I believe you are correct..

 

[Imperialmajesty]

well, Christianity is as much a religion as Judaism or Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism... do you see were I am going (btw any religious group can use the "National Cathedral" including Mormons J/K)

hmm lets see "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I believe you are correct..

And yet we have "In God We Trust" on our money. Oh sure, the Supreme Court called it ceremonial deism, meaning it has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content". Bullpoop, for the sake of argument, if we had on our motto "In Jesus We Trust", would they say it was ceremonial christianity?