Where Is The Outrage??

[nbcrusader]

I completely agree with you about instituting religion or forcing people to believe. However, there is a wide range of interpretations of what constitutes establishment of religion.

Moore took it way too far. However, there are other displays that are challenged as "establishment" when the display is as passive as Feinstein's Vishnu.

 

[deep]

Moore got a piece of wood and burned the ten commandments in it, then posted it in his office.
He never had to take it down.

After that he ran for Chief Judge as ?The Ten Commandments Judge? and won.

In the middle of the night he had that two and one half ton rock placed in the foyer of the pubic courthouse to create controversy.


There is no reasonable comparison here.

What they mean "We support separation of Christ and State."

What the heck does this mean?

Moses received the Ten Commandments a long time before the birth of Christ.

 

[Angela Harlem]

What they mean "We support separation of Christ and State."

Is that in itself a problem?

Have you ever been in a public government funded building and been affronted by a depiction of the Hindu Trinity? Have you ever seen one is more the point though here.

 

[verte76]

If Feinstein had been talking about Hindu gods and/or the Hindu religion *and* had the statue on with her I'd absolutely think she'd flipped her lid. I'd want to know what on earth was going on, why, etc, etc. Since the thing was alot more passive this situation is more cryptic. People outside of California probably don't even know she did it. Thus the lack of controversy. For whatever reason it didn't make it into any of the newspapers or whatever.

 

[nbcrusader]

Which goes to my point. If the Vishnu is in her government office, it will be explained away, rather than be held to the "no religious symbols on government property" principle.

 

[pax]

But we don't know that the Vishnu is even in her office!

This is kind of a moot argument unless we know where the statue actually *is.*

 

[nbcrusader]

Even the lack of questioning is an issue (i.e., wanting to evidence that it is not in her office). This thread has been interesting to see where different people create different presumptions.

 

[anitram]

I hardly think it's presumptuous to assume that a JEWISH woman is not endorsing HINDUISM by placing Hindu statues in public buildings in plain view. I might be wrong, but somehow I don't think so.

 

[nbcrusader]

A nice distinction, but the lawsuits to force removal of religious objects are based on the object, not the beliefs of the people connected to the object.

 

[verte76]

Well, for better or for worse the media decided not to make an issue out of it. Hypocricy? Maybe. Where on earth is this statue?

 

[Angela Harlem]

This might be inaccurate nbc, but I'm getting the feeling you are veiwing this thread as a kind of experiment to back up a suspicion there lies major hypocrisy here and among the members of this thread in particular.
This thread may very well be going around in circles and not achieving anything, but I really would like to see this from your point of view. I cant see how the statue in the original discussion has any place in a court building of all places. A court is not just a regular office, government funded, public or not. Everything it is, you are I'm sure very clearly aware. Where or how is there hypocrisy in the belief that outside that, in just an ordinary office, icons of whichever persuasion are somewhat different? If it were a replica of the same statue as the courthouse debate which was in her office, do you think there would still be an outcry? We can only presume, no one knowing for sure, so if anyone is presuming, it is no more or less than everyone else who has offered their opinions in here.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Isn't there a difference between a public official choosing to decorate his office with religious symbols and a public official choosing to have such a symbol placed in a public area of the building he works in? Judge Moore made comments along the lines of "the Ten Commandments are the foundation of America's laws and we should acknowledge them as such." Whether you agree or disagree with him, I think that is a far more obvious endorsement of religion than merely appearing in a commercial in an unidentified location with a religious statue behind you.

 

[deep]

I think someone with a certain belief is trying to make comparisons that just are not there.

I have a 32-inch TV and TIVO.

To find the ?outrage? I did TIVO this 15 second spot and analyze it frame by frame.

Yes, there is a Hindu statute on the bookshelves.

Beside this statue is a stone object in a holder. A holder that a book or antique plate might be displayed in.

This stone object or tablet appears to be a reproduction of ?The Ten Commandments?

 

[anitram]

A nice distinction, but the lawsuits to force removal of religious objects are based on the object,

And the object's LOCATION.

BTW, thanks deep, for Zaprudering the commercial. Very interesting. Where is the outrage indeed.

 

[deep]

oops,

it is a 30 second spot.

you can view it

here <--------

 

[nbcrusader]

Deep

I didn't know you cared so much

All that effort, you see what you want to see

Classic misdirection

 

[BVS]

Nbcrusader,

I have much respect, but I think you are trying to make a crusade out of this. You have to understand the difference here, I would think.

Well I respectfully bow out because you are outnumbered here and I don't want to turn this into a majority liberal vs. the minority conservative debate here in FYM. I would hate to see us lose another one.

 

[nbcrusader]

BonoVoxSupastar,

Thank you - I see the differences. I hope everyone does.

You won't lose me. I find the debate worthwhile, not a personal offense.

I look forward to future exchanges.

 

[melon]

nbcrusader, with all due respect, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill with this. What is the difference? A large one. I don't see tenets of Hinduism being threatened with legislation in the U.S. If a political party starts earnestly debating as to whether to pass a constitutional amendment to institute the caste system, then I will agree that Hinduism is a threat to separation of church and state.

But, as we both perfectly know, it is neither that Vishnu statue nor Hinduism, which is threatening our secular humanist foundations, while Christianity does. In case you didn't realize this, the GOP is currently running hearings to start a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage--a ban which is fully out of Christian revulsion to the idea, running contrary to all mainstream scientific and psychological studies, which sees it as natural. When Hinduism starts threatening my right to life, liberty, and happiness, then we can both join a crusade to stop Vishnu from using his seven arms to crush us. In the meantime, perhaps it is time that we started dealing with the very real problem that Christianity poses. Where is your outrage on that? A statue is the least of our problems.

Melon

 

[pax]

In the meantime, perhaps it is time that we started dealing with the very real problem that Christianity poses. Where is your outrage on that?

Melon, I know about your issues with the Church, and you have good reason for those issues. However, I thought you still considered yourself a Christian. If you don't, that is your business. But I think it is misleading and unfair to say that Christianity poses a problem for our country. Certain Christians, and people who purport to call themselves Christians, have some viewpoints that I think are problematic. But Christianity retains at its core a basic respect and love for all people and a moral code that is certainly good and reasonable to live by. I don't like the implication that ALL of Christendom is trying to make this country an insufferable, intolerant theocracy. That is not what Christianity means to me, and I doubt it means that to most Christians assembled here.

Please remember that in FYM we want to avoid making blanket statements about ANY group--religious, social, ethnic, racial, political, or otherwise.

 

[deep]

The meaning of words change over time.

It is not a necessarily a good thing or a bad thing.

One example is the word ?gay?.

When I was a kid in 60s it was understood to mean: cheerful, happy.

As in the Ginger Roger's movie ?The Gay Divorcee?


We all know that Gay has been co-opted to mean homosexual.

And it is seldom used in its original meaning.


Today, in American politics especially, the term ?Christian? is being co-opted by the conservative right
They seem to believe they have ?the truth? on all things moral. This reminds me of the Taliban.


I describe myself as a ?follower of the teachings of Jesus?. People who truly do believe in the ?teachings of Jesus? should use this term.

Let the homosexuals be ?gay?.

We heteros can be happy and cheerful.

Let Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Judge Moore and his followers, and their ilk be ?Christians?
Jesus and the people who followed his teachings never called themselves Christians.
They were simply the people who followed his teachings.

 

[sue4u2]

Was this Vishnu statue placed in her office, without her knowledge or under the cloak of darkness? With no one's permission? Did she ever use it a pulpit to say all other religions can't be displayed, just the Hindu because this country was founded on this religion? Roy Moore ventures to far into the fanatical. He's almost giving Christianity a bad name. Besides, this isn't the only thing about him I don't like. I haven't seen anything concerning laws or legislation he has sponsored for the state of Alabama that would impress me otherwise. Again, I say it's nothing to do with the 10 comandments themselves, it has to do with Moore and what he want's the courts to ignore, just for him and his beliefs. He IS a politician promoting his own agenda, only this also involves his personal religious fanaticism. This state - still- has enough to overcome and deal with, we don't need people like him to set us back again. IMHO.

 

[maude]

The meaning of words change over time.

It is not a necessarily a good thing or a bad thing.

One example is the word ?gay?.

When I was a kid in 60s it was understood to mean: cheerful, happy.

As in the Ginger Roger's movie ?The Gay Divorcee?


We all know that Gay has been co-opted to mean homosexual.

And it is seldom used in its original meaning.


Today, in American politics especially, the term ?Christian? is being co-opted by the conservative right
They seem to believe they have ?the truth? on all things moral. This reminds me of the Taliban.


I describe myself as a ?follower of the teachings of Jesus?. People who truly do believe in the ?teachings of Jesus? should use this term.

Let the homosexuals be ?gay?.

We heteros can be happy and cheerful.

Let Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Judge Moore and his followers, and their ilk be ?Christians?
Jesus and the people who followed his teachings never called themselves Christians.
They were simply the people who followed his teachings.

I'm afraid I must disagree. As a believer and follower of Christ and His teachings, I will take on His name and not be ashamed of it. Just because some prejudiced individuals have decided to associate the term Christian with the behavior of a few extremists who happen to call themselves Christians does not mean I should term myself anything differently. If you use this logic Muslims ought to not call themselves Muslims anymore so that they are not associated with the insane extremists that caused so much suffering across the world on 9/11.




If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you......
1 Peter 4:14

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

But I think it is misleading and unfair to say that Christianity poses a problem for our country. Certain Christians, and people who purport to call themselves Christians, have some viewpoints that I think are problematic. But Christianity retains at its core a basic respect and love for all people and a moral code that is certainly good and reasonable to live by. I don't like the implication that ALL of Christendom is trying to make this country an insufferable, intolerant theocracy. That is not what Christianity means to me, and I doubt it means that to most Christians assembled here.

Thanks for saying that paxetaurora-my sentiments exactly

 

[verte76]

I'm afraid I must disagree. As a believer and follower of Christ and His teachings, I will take on His name and not be ashamed of it. Just because some prejudiced individuals have decided to associate the term Christian with the behavior of a few extremists who happen to call themselves Christians does not mean I should term myself anything differently. If you use this logic Muslims ought to not call themselves Muslims anymore so that they are not associated with the insane extremists that caused so much suffering across the world on 9/11.

Well said. I agree 100%.

 

[melon]

Melon, I know about your issues with the Church, and you have good reason for those issues. However, I thought you still considered yourself a Christian. If you don't, that is your business. But I think it is misleading and unfair to say that Christianity poses a problem for our country. Certain Christians, and people who purport to call themselves Christians, have some viewpoints that I think are problematic. But Christianity retains at its core a basic respect and love for all people and a moral code that is certainly good and reasonable to live by. I don't like the implication that ALL of Christendom is trying to make this country an insufferable, intolerant theocracy. That is not what Christianity means to me, and I doubt it means that to most Christians assembled here.

Please remember that in FYM we want to avoid making blanket statements about ANY group--religious, social, ethnic, racial, political, or otherwise.

So what am I supposed to say? I don't see one Christian religion that has truly spoken up against what I have written. Sure, you have your maverick clerics, but when push comes to shove, they all cower when the Religious Right starts to threaten to secede. You know what I say? Let them.

Perhaps it is semantical. I still believe in Christ and all that, but I have lost my faith in religion and that word, "Christianity," that labels it. It is in a similar vein that the swastika, which, for thousands of years, was a peace symbol, is now permanently a symbol for hatred. Now, despite my best judgment, I cannot help but look at "Christianity" and all the semantics that embody it to be nothing more than a symbol for oppression and reactionary beliefs (for those looking for a fight, I'm not comparing Christianity to Nazism; but, rather, showing how a word or symbol's connotation can be changed over time).

The best thing I could have done, though, was separate Christ from "Christianity." Christ is no longer part of that entity, usurped by tradition and fear of change...

...I don't know. I feel nothing but betrayal at the hands of "Christianity." I have nothing but anger at the Religious Right, being nothing more than modern Pharisees, declaring a monopoly on God in the same manner as their 2000 year-old predecessors, and similar anger at the "Religious Left," which, if nothing else, is guilty of inaction and cowardice in the face of the Pharisees.

I would like to hope that things will change for the better, but, after seeing things get progressive worse since the election of Dubya in 2000 (and all the fanaticism that has surrounded him), I really have little hope.

Since this is mostly a rant of mine, rest assured, I agree with what you have written.

Melon

 

[pax]

I share some of your frustrations, for sure. As someone who used to refer to herself as a "Jesus enthusiast" instead of a Christian, I can sympathize. I just want to avoid the use of blanketing statements and generalizations in FYM.

Maybe it's time to start a new thread on this subject? FYM Christians, how do we feel about this? Or FYMers of different faiths who might be facing the same issues (Muslims probably have a lot of the same problems, I would imagine)?

 

[deep]

Pax,


We all have different life experiences and live in different environments.

I actually head a Minister say he chose to call himself a ?follower of the teachings of Jesus?.

He believed the ?Right? was co-opting the word ?Christian? for political reasons.


Where I live the majority of people I interact with are very political and blur the lines between Conservative politics and their concept of what ?Christian? means.

I believe I understand how ?Melon? feels.
Many times I am in discussions where people use what they believe are ?Christian? arguments that are not in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.

I will go on the record and say I believe the examples I gave

Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Judge Moore

have made political statements that go against the teachings of Jesus.

 

[sharky]

agreed deep. but there is a difference between the two. If I'm talking about myself in a political forum, I'm a believer of Christ. If I talk about myself in a religious forum, I am a Christian. I think the title has alot to do with people trying to put a label on those who base their conservative political beliefs strictly on their religion.

 

[sue4u2]

Two excellent point's, deep and sharky, for making sure Christianity and Christian ARE NOT hijacked as a political word for the right. It seems great strides have already been made to make a perfectly good word like 'liberal' into, very nearly a derogatory slur.