Religion

[casimir]

10 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

 Reupping the need to start taxing churches 

 

Separation of church & state?

[oblong]

9 minutes ago, casimir said:

Separation of church & state?

don't be silly.  That idea only exists so that white christian evangelicals don't have to see any weird Hindu stuff in their lives.   They don't want any L Ron Hubbard crazy talk interfering with their stories about Arks and 7 day creations and Dinosaurs lived with man talk.

[CMRivdogs]

They claim the reasoning of offering the “alternative” schools is to offset the “poor quality” public schools in some communities.

What really happens is the communities that need really need the money to improve the quality of education get shafted when the school funds get moved around.

Funny since the era the MAGA’s want to “return to” private schools, both religious and secular, were paid for by private funds.

[Tigermojo]

We have this in Canada but everyone can choose which school board gets their taxes, public or separate.

[LaceyLou]

Interesting article on what it means to be a 'cultural Christian.' Personally I think Musk is only saying this for personal gain but the rest of the article is good.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2024/1218/elon-musk-cultural-christian-richard-dawkins?utm_medium=Social&cmpid=FB&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawHQG7tleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHWXE1eK95u_3SIE98_i3lLmBOcy3w9cKzVs458wsIfrGUAMOkkf4B5NN6g_aem_PMvf0oPWURx7ze5ak519jQ#Echobox=1734534997

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, LaceyLou said:

Interesting article on what it means to be a 'cultural Christian.' Personally I think Musk is only saying this for personal gain but the rest of the article is good.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2024/1218/elon-musk-cultural-christian-richard-dawkins?utm_medium=Social&cmpid=FB&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawHQG7tleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHWXE1eK95u_3SIE98_i3lLmBOcy3w9cKzVs458wsIfrGUAMOkkf4B5NN6g_aem_PMvf0oPWURx7ze5ak519jQ#Echobox=1734534997

Ever since the species began to think, it has struggled with a way to justify a set of ethics/morals that seem to have a level of universal appeal. In religious systems this is easy - you don't have think too much about why something is right if God told you it was right. But as religiosity fades in Western culture, we'd sort of like to get to a way to argue for that system of morality that we are all comfortable with,  that has evolved from the Hebrews and Greeks and for the last 2 millennia, to the western Christian church, by some non-religious means, but philosophically it's not that easy, though folks have been working at it for hundreds of years. To me when you say you are a 'cultural' Christian what you are saying is that you'd like to keep living in the moral milieu of the western Christian church but without the old man in the sky and the Church's downside baggage but you don't have a totally clear idea how to argue for your morality without them.

(yes - I'm being a little arch - but just a little)

Edited December 18, 2024 by gehringer_2

[LaceyLou]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

Ever since the species began to think, it has struggled with a way to justify a set of ethics/morals that seem to have a level of universal appeal. In religious systems this is easy - you don't have think too much about why something is right if God told you it was right. But as religiosity fades in Western culture, we'd sort of like to get to a way to argue for that system of morality that we are all comfortable with,  that has evolved from the Hebrews and Greeks and for the last 2 millennia, to the western Christian church, by some non-religious means, but philosophically it's not that easy, though folks have been working at it for hundreds of years. To me when you say you are a 'cultural' Christian what you are saying is that you'd like to keep living in the moral milieu of the western Christian church but without the old man in the sky and the Church's downside baggage but you don't have a totally clear idea how to argue for your morality without them.

(yes - I'm being a little arch - but just a little)

I always thought of it as people who didn't really practice their faith, except that their ancestors were Christian and they have presents and a lot of decorations at Christmas. Although since many of the traditions at Christmas have pagan origins, are they really cultural Christians?

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, LaceyLou said:

Interesting article on what it means to be a 'cultural Christian.' Personally I think Musk is only saying this for personal gain but the rest of the article is good.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2024/1218/elon-musk-cultural-christian-richard-dawkins?utm_medium=Social&cmpid=FB&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawHQG7tleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHWXE1eK95u_3SIE98_i3lLmBOcy3w9cKzVs458wsIfrGUAMOkkf4B5NN6g_aem_PMvf0oPWURx7ze5ak519jQ#Echobox=1734534997

This is what I was alluding to in the other thread yesterday. A lot of people who call themselves “Christian” lately are doing so as a virtue signal of their cultural beliefs, rather than as a reflection of their spiritual beliefs.

[CMRivdogs]

This article is about 18 months old, but it seems to fit what seems to be going on today. Especially considering recent discussions 

https://newrepublic.com/post/174950/christianity-today-editor-evangelicals-call-jesus-liberal-weak

Quote

Russell Moore resigned from the Southern Baptist Convention in 2021, after years of being at odds with other evangelical leaders. Specifically, Moore openly criticized Donald Trump, whom many evangelical Christians embraced. Moore also criticized the Southern Baptist Convention’s response to a sexual abuse crisis and increasing tolerance for white nationalism in the community.

 

Quote

Moore told NPR in an interview released Tuesday that multiple pastors had told him they would quote the Sermon on the Mount, specifically the part that says to “turn the other cheek,” when preaching. Someone would come up after the service and ask, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?”

“What was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,’ the response would not be, ‘I apologize.’ The response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak,’” Moore said. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”

 

[Tigeraholic1]

Oh boy NPR in the religion thread....

[CMRivdogs]

1 minute ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Oh boy NPR in the religion thread....

How about some constructive criticism for a change. Or is that too difficult for you?
 

[Tigeraholic1]

Nah, looks like all the biblical scholars have it handled. 

[gehringer_2]

39 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Oh boy NPR in the religion thread....

actually I would say that over the years,  NPR has done more coverage of religion in the US than most national media.

Edited December 19, 2024 by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

This article is about 18 months old, but it seems to fit what seems to be going on today. Especially considering recent discussions 

https://newrepublic.com/post/174950/christianity-today-editor-evangelicals-call-jesus-liberal-weak

 

David French recently wrote that the "#me too" movement was initially getting a warm reception in evangelical circles, particularly since so many Hollywood types were early targets, but it started catching out evangelical leaders, then suddenly it became commie-socialist pinko and had to be opposed by anyone with true theology.

Edited December 19, 2024 by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

On 9/19/2024 at 7:27 AM, oblong said:

don't be silly.  That idea only exists so that white christian evangelicals don't have to see any weird Hindu stuff in their lives.   They don't want any L Ron Hubbard crazy talk interfering with their stories about Arks and 7 day creations and Dinosaurs lived with man talk.

apropos enough, today's mail contained a solicitation from a 'separation of church and state' lobbying group.

[CMRivdogs]

We attended a performance the other night, a one man show entitled Conflict Between Church and State: An Audience with Henry VII. A bit weird for Jamestown Settlement since the date Henry VIII  was portraying was about 50 b years before Jamestown was settled

Anyway, the premise was the creation of the Church of England because of the conflict with the Pope over divorce laws (among other things). It all sounded very Trumpish, right down to justifying the closing and confiscation of the Monasteries and land owned by the Vatican that was redistributed to the Lords and rulers of England. Henry called giving it to the people, and since the monarch and the lords were the rich, they knew better how to manage it than the "Commons"  

As we were leaving one of the patrons commented, "It wasn't the last time a working person got hoodwinked by a crooked politician".  

[gehringer_2]

10 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

We attended a performance the other night, a one man show entitled Conflict Between Church and State: An Audience with Henry VII. A bit weird for Jamestown Settlement since the date Henry VIII  was portraying was about 50 b years before Jamestown was settled

Anyway, the premise was the creation of the Church of England because of the conflict with the Pope over divorce laws (among other things). It all sounded very Trumpish, right down to justifying the closing and confiscation of the Monasteries and land owned by the Vatican that was redistributed to the Lords and rulers of England. Henry called giving it to the people, and since the monarch and the lords were the rich, they knew better how to manage it than the "Commons"  

As we were leaving one of the patrons commented, "It wasn't the last time a working person got hoodwinked by a crooked politician".  

I've listened to parts of Tim Snyder's Yale course on Ukrainian history, and one of the points that he comes back to often is that rulers move into and out of religions (and even languages FTM) when it becomes convenient for other reasons. No doubt the reformation had become very convenient for H VIII!

Edited December 19, 2024 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

Merry Christmas, everybody!

This is a political forum, so, obviously, I have thoughts. 😁

Everyone once in a while we might hear about how someone who's Jewish says they do not celebrate Christmas, or how Jewish kids feel left out when the rest of their class have Christmas activities, things along those lines. We probably don't hear as much of that as we used to, but it still comes up occasionally.

But I have been wondering for some time now—well, why can't they? Why can't Jewish people, Muslim people, people of other religions or no religion, celebrate Christmas? Because it doesn't take a long time examining it to conclude that Christmas is actually two separate holidays, not just one.

Yes, of course there's the religious Christmas, the one with the Jesus and the creche and the religious songs and the church services and all that. That's important to a lot of people, maybe even the most important aspect of the holiday. (Or holy day, if they prefer.)

But there is also the secular Christmas, the one with the Santa and the tree and the ornaments and the presents and the caroling and all that, none of which literally have anything to do with Jesus or Christianity or any of it.

It's true that many people mix the religious and the secular elements to suit themselves—they sing religious and secular carols back to back, put a manger scene under the tree, sing "Deck the Halls" as the recessional song during midnight mass, etc.—and that is certainly their right to do so. That's what makes them feel good about Christmas, and what can be wrong about that? Nothing that I can see.

But you certainly don't have to mix the two. They can be kept completely separate.

After all, Christmas Day is a federal holiday. That's not because we're a Christian country—after all, Good Friday and Ash Wednesday and Epiphany and All Saints' Day aren't federal holidays. But Christmas is, because in 1870, business and labor were each clamoring for federal holidays to help stanch worker burnout, and also, the Grant administration sought to promote national unity in the days after the civil war. In fact, the bill creating the federal legal status of holiday did not specify "Christmas"—only the date December 25th.

So if December 25th is a federal holiday, shouldn't all people, regardless of religion, feel free to celebrate at least the widely-beloved, culturally-resonant secular aspects of the holiday in whatever way they choose? Shouldn't Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, whoever, feel free to celebrate Christmas however they wish, to express their feeling and conviction that they are part of the intrinsic fabric of this country, instead of being othered by people who identify themselves with the religion professed by the majority? Why can't they?

Certain jackass types—usually the types who associate being Christian with cultural and political codes rather than moral or ethical values—sometimes demand that people must "put the 'Christ' back in Christmas'", meaning, if people don't elevate Christ to the center of it all, even when sitting on Santa's lap at what used to be the mall, then they're doing it all wrong, the implication being that people shouldn't be allowed to celebrate Christmas without the Christ, or at least they should be ashamed to do so, and maybe even be ostracized for it. I fear we might start seeing and hearing a lot a lot more of that kind of thing during the next few years.

But in my view, that's the kind of thinking that seeks to keep us apart and at each other throats, to distract us with hatred of one another. They want us to fight over religion, among other things, while they and the rest of the upper 1% runs away with all the money. I'm pretty sure that is an explicitly expressed strategy.

My hope is that one day all demands that everyone must christfy Christmas can be set aside, and that all people will be able to enjoy the awesome secular aspects of the holiday without guilt, shame, or otherwise pressure to conform with anyone else's standards. I think that's one small way we could find common ground and come together as an American people.

[romad1]

13 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Merry Christmas, everybody!

This is a political forum, so, obviously, I have thoughts. 😁

Everyone once in a while we might hear about how someone who's Jewish says they do not celebrate Christmas, or how Jewish kids feel left out when the rest of their class have Christmas activities, things along those lines. We probably don't hear as much of that as we used to, but it still comes up occasionally.

But I have been wondering for some time now—well, why can't they? Why can't Jewish people, Muslim people, people of other religions or no religion, celebrate Christmas? Because it doesn't take a long time examining it to conclude that Christmas is actually two separate holidays, not just one.

Yes, of course there's the religious Christmas, the one with the Jesus and the creche and the religious songs and the church services and all that. That's important to a lot of people, maybe even the most important aspect of the holiday. (Or holy day, if they prefer.)

But there is also the secular Christmas, the one with the Santa and the tree and the ornaments and the presents and the caroling and all that, none of which literally have anything to do with Jesus or Christianity or any of it.

It's true that many people mix the religious and the secular elements to suit themselves—they sing religious and secular carols back to back, put a manger scene under the tree, sing "Deck the Halls" as the recessional song during midnight mass, etc.—and that is certainly their right to do so. That's what makes them feel good about Christmas, and what can be wrong about that? Nothing that I can see.

But you certainly don't have to mix the two. They can be kept completely separate.

After all, Christmas Day is a federal holiday. That's not because we're a Christian country—after all, Good Friday and Ash Wednesday and Epiphany and All Saints' Day aren't federal holidays. But Christmas is, because in 1870, business and labor were each clamoring for federal holidays to help stanch worker burnout, and also, the Grant administration sought to promote national unity in the days after the civil war. In fact, the bill creating the federal legal status of holiday did not specify "Christmas"—only the date December 25th.

So if December 25th is a federal holiday, shouldn't all people, regardless of religion, feel free to celebrate at least the widely-beloved, culturally-resonant secular aspects of the holiday in whatever way they choose? Shouldn't Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, whoever, feel free to celebrate Christmas however they wish, to express their feeling and conviction that they are part of the intrinsic fabric of this country, instead of being othered by people who identify themselves with the religion professed by the majority? Why can't they?

Certain jackass types—usually the types who associate being Christian with cultural and political codes rather than moral or ethical values—sometimes demand that people must "put the 'Christ' back in Christmas'", meaning, if people don't elevate Christ to the center of it all, even when sitting on Santa's lap at what used to be the mall, then they're doing it all wrong, the implication being that people shouldn't be allowed to celebrate Christmas without the Christ, or at least they should be ashamed to do so, and maybe even be ostracized for it. I fear we might start seeing and hearing a lot a lot more of that kind of thing during the next few years.

But in my view, that's the kind of thinking that seeks to keep us apart and at each other throats, to distract us with hatred of one another. They want us to fight over religion, among other things, while they and the rest of the upper 1% runs away with all the money. I'm pretty sure that is an explicitly expressed strategy.

My hope is that one day all demands that everyone must christfy Christmas can be set aside, and that all people will be able to enjoy the awesome secular aspects of the holiday without guilt, shame, or otherwise pressure to conform with anyone else's standards. I think that's one small way we could find common ground and come together as an American people.

Its two holidays for sure.  My Jewish boss celebrates it because she's into the secular/santa version.  Why would she deny that to her kids.  The comedian Alex Edelman's riff on this in his act is really good.  Look that up on HBO/MAX if you have time.  

[Tigeraholic1]

Nothin says Merry Christmas more than calling people Jackass’s! 🎄 

[Tigermojo]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Merry Christmas, everybody!

This is a political forum, so, obviously, I have thoughts. 😁

Everyone once in a while we might hear about how someone who's Jewish says they do not celebrate Christmas, or how Jewish kids feel left out when the rest of their class have Christmas activities, things along those lines. We probably don't hear as much of that as we used to, but it still comes up occasionally.

But I have been wondering for some time now—well, why can't they? Why can't Jewish people, Muslim people, people of other religions or no religion, celebrate Christmas? Because it doesn't take a long time examining it to conclude that Christmas is actually two separate holidays, not just one.

Yes, of course there's the religious Christmas, the one with the Jesus and the creche and the religious songs and the church services and all that. That's important to a lot of people, maybe even the most important aspect of the holiday. (Or holy day, if they prefer.)

But there is also the secular Christmas, the one with the Santa and the tree and the ornaments and the presents and the caroling and all that, none of which literally have anything to do with Jesus or Christianity or any of it.

It's true that many people mix the religious and the secular elements to suit themselves—they sing religious and secular carols back to back, put a manger scene under the tree, sing "Deck the Halls" as the recessional song during midnight mass, etc.—and that is certainly their right to do so. That's what makes them feel good about Christmas, and what can be wrong about that? Nothing that I can see.

But you certainly don't have to mix the two. They can be kept completely separate.

After all, Christmas Day is a federal holiday. That's not because we're a Christian country—after all, Good Friday and Ash Wednesday and Epiphany and All Saints' Day aren't federal holidays. But Christmas is, because in 1870, business and labor were each clamoring for federal holidays to help stanch worker burnout, and also, the Grant administration sought to promote national unity in the days after the civil war. In fact, the bill creating the federal legal status of holiday did not specify "Christmas"—only the date December 25th.

So if December 25th is a federal holiday, shouldn't all people, regardless of religion, feel free to celebrate at least the widely-beloved, culturally-resonant secular aspects of the holiday in whatever way they choose? Shouldn't Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, whoever, feel free to celebrate Christmas however they wish, to express their feeling and conviction that they are part of the intrinsic fabric of this country, instead of being othered by people who identify themselves with the religion professed by the majority? Why can't they?

Certain jackass types—usually the types who associate being Christian with cultural and political codes rather than moral or ethical values—sometimes demand that people must "put the 'Christ' back in Christmas'", meaning, if people don't elevate Christ to the center of it all, even when sitting on Santa's lap at what used to be the mall, then they're doing it all wrong, the implication being that people shouldn't be allowed to celebrate Christmas without the Christ, or at least they should be ashamed to do so, and maybe even be ostracized for it. I fear we might start seeing and hearing a lot a lot more of that kind of thing during the next few years.

But in my view, that's the kind of thinking that seeks to keep us apart and at each other throats, to distract us with hatred of one another. They want us to fight over religion, among other things, while they and the rest of the upper 1% runs away with all the money. I'm pretty sure that is an explicitly expressed strategy.

My hope is that one day all demands that everyone must christfy Christmas can be set aside, and that all people will be able to enjoy the awesome secular aspects of the holiday without guilt, shame, or otherwise pressure to conform with anyone else's standards. I think that's one small way we could find common ground and come together as an American people.

Mandatory Consumer Holiday falalala

[Tiger337]

36 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Nothin says Merry Christmas more than calling people Jackass’s! 🎄 

At least he kept you readng to the 11th paragraph.  That's pretty impressive.😃

[Tiger337]

8 minutes ago, Tigermojo said:

Mandatory Consumer Holiday falalala

The greatest capitalist holiday of all.  

[gehringer_2]

23 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

The greatest capitalist holiday of all.  

That shouldn’t really be a surprise. The winter solstice celebration is far older and has deeper roots than Christianity. People always felt the need to throw a party and have a celebration when days finally stopped getting shorter. The church just co-opted the existing cultural practice because that’s how cultures work. 
 

Any excuse to be nice to people, give gifts to your children an eat well is OK by me. 😊

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Nothin says Merry Christmas more than calling people Jackass’s! 🎄 

It’s a shame anyone had to take the post personally.