Oshkosh WI has church/state issue on their hands

Constitution, Schmonstitution.

On edit: http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060315/OSH0101/603150444/1128

To honor fallen war dead.

They would have no basis to object.

getting caught in this trap of being "against Christians", we need to simply propose our other religious symbols, customs and practices into the same format. Watch them scream about Muslim children being allowed to take a prayer rug out several times a day to pray in school!

"War on Christmas" didn't they think that forcing everyone to bow to their religious connotations could end up biting them back on the butt? I have no problem with an angel. . .because anyone can assign their own meaning to the statue - however, the faux "christians" have forced everything to become symbolic of their recognition and thus even the smallest expression turns into some deep cultural statement. This is what happens when they run around the country screaming that every school needs a picture of Jesus in the hallways and every student look for a weeping Madonna on every plate of food in the lunchroom.

Put the damned statue up.

Cause we have to save all that power for when Bush puts a complete fucking whack job on the Supreme Court. Oh, wait, that happened already. Yeah, we need to save it for something even worse.

So at what point do we start to worry about the erosion of our constitutional rights, then? AFTER the theocracy is in place? Because that seems like it is a little late.

statue/object replaces it, will you?

Put the statue up. I don't see that being a separation problem unless it was there to promote Christianity or provide a stamp of approval on it.

It's not though, so just let it be. It's not hurting anybody.

but how can it not be hurting anyone.

1. It is a violation of the 1st amendment establishment clause.
2. My tax dollars are going to this and I am a member of no religion, much less one that has angels in it.
3. It is on government property which seems to indicate that the government supports those religions with angels and not those without (hence the violation of the establishment clause).

When do we start objecting to violations of the 1st amendment? When the theocracy is completely in place? 'Cause then it's a little late.

Would they be able to put a statue up of a hero who was also a priest?

I say the line is drawn when it promotes religion (instead of having incidental religious imagery). Putting the ten commandments in the courthouse promoted religion by implying that the US laws are based off of Judeo Christian laws.

Putting a statue of Jesus with his arms spread would be promoting religion.

But I don't see how this statue promotes religion. Not saying it doesn't, just don't see how it does from that article.

Is that somehow not a religious symbol? I know the jibberjabber in the article says it isn't, but come on, seriously. When you think of angels, what do you think about? They are god's right hand creatures. A priest who was a hero (Father Hennepin comes to mind) is SOOOOOO different from a religious creature.

You might get away with saying a statue of Jesus isn't religious - it's possible to believe he was a man who actually existed (against that, no-one has the faintest idea what he looked like, but there is a 'traditional' representation). An angel is purely a religious symbol. It can do nothing but promote religion - the most you can say is that angels belong to all Abrahamic religions.

And still, the militant theists continue to pretend as though this continual blurring of the boundaries between church and state is imagined and that the threat is exaggerated.

How much do you want to bet that the city will eventually sell a 10'x10' plot of land to a private organization? Some group will own this tiny plot... right in a prime location of the park... and naturally, after the sale it will be "private property" and the owners can do anything they please. Eh? Eh? How about that, eh?

Or has this been tried before?

And yeah, that was tried before. I believe it was in San Jose, over a similar situation, and thankfully the court nixed the sale.

Anything mentioned in the Bible must be BANNED from the public square.
After the angel is removed from Oshkosh, B'Gosh, there are a few other church-state entanglements that would need to be addressed, like changing all of these Christian place names established by the government:

Los Angeles, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Diego, CA
San Andreas Fault
San Jose, CA
San Dimas, CA
San Onofre State Beach, CA
Santa Monica, CA
Santa Maria, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
Sacramento, CA
St. Paul, MN
St. Louis, MO
St. Augustine, FL
St. John (U.S. Virgin Islands)
St. Croix (U.S. Virgin Islands)
St. Thomas (U.S. Virgin Islands)
Bethlehem, PA
Corpus Christi, TX
etc.
etc.
etc.

How about a statue of a pagan goddess?

Can you say you would honestly be OK with those?

Try, just TRY to look at things from someone else's perspective, won't you?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure that angels are not specific to Christianity. Seems to me that Jews, Muslims, Catholics, even new-age spiritualists believe in angels.

Putting up an angel statue to commemorate children hardly seems the equivalent of using government money to build an Islamic shrine.

You think there are no government depictions of pagan goddesses? Wake up. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors recently REMOVED a tiny image of a cross from their county seal, but left a huge depiction of the pagan goddess Pomona on the seal.

How about the city of Vestal, NY - an entire city named after the pagan goddess Vesta?

What about Themis the blind Greek Goddess of Justice, holding aloft the scales and armed with a sword? Statues of this pagan goddess appear on hundreds, if not thousands, of courthouses around the U.S.

What about the celebration of Halloween in public schools throughout the country, including numerous images of witches and other pagan characters?

Take a dollar bill out of your wallet. Look on the back. What do you think that eye above the pyramid is? It's the Eye of Horus, a pagan god worshipped by the Ancient Egyptian civilization.

And speaking of the pyramid - what do you think those Egyptians built pyramids for? (Hint: it was for religious worship, but not of the Christian God.)

Were you unaware of all of these things (and countless more I could list), or you are pretending that they don't exist? The fact is that "my tax dollars" are used to depict pagan gods and goddesses all the time. In fact, the dollars themselves have a pagan god's eye on them!

And you accuse ME of being unable to look at things from someone else's perspective? Sheesh!

Ummm, Catholics are Christians. Why do you need to point them out distinctly? Freudian, perhaps?

instead of nitpicking?

I realize that my post was directed to trotsky, but as long as you have taken the time to participate in this little side-discussion by replying to my post, why not address the substance of my post?

And give me a break with the accusations of "bigotry." Good grief.

And I don't think it is nitpicking to point out that you are writing a post which basically says that Catholics aren't Christian. You talked elsewhere about the fact that you aren't bigoted. I saw an another example where I felt you were and pointed it out to you so you could realize it.

Now I have to get your OK as to what I include in my posts? Do you want me to PM you each time I am thinking of responding to someone to get your approval? I mean, Jesus, first you start telling me what I do and don't believe and now you want to control the content of my posts? I hope you aren't a boss, because I bet you would be the biggest micromanaging pain in the ass there ever was.

And I realize your post was directed at trotsky, but you certainly feel comfortable jumping into people's subthreads so I thought it was OK. Plus, in case you didn't notice, it is my OP, so I felt it was all related to what I had to say.

Finally, as to the point of your post, if you don't see the difference between the names of cities which were around from the first settlement of those towns and the placement of an angel, TODAY, on public property, you have to come back to reality. But, hey, I'm more than fine with eliminating all those things you talked about. I think the pyramid on the dollar bill is stupid and just fuels the tinfoil hat crowd. I don't think there should be pagan symbols on public property either. I'm fine with that.

would that somehow make me bigoted against Catholics? I don't see how.

Catholics have beliefs that are very different from my own. So do Jews. So do Muslims. So do new-age spiritualists. Yet all of us believe in angels. That was my point - that angels are not specific to any one religion. Putting up an angel memorial does not establish a government religion.

I am not bigoted against Catholics. I think they have some beliefs that are very wrong. They think I have some beliefs that are very wrong, I'm sure. But they profess to worship Christ, and in that sense, they are Christian. In that sense, maybe Mormons are too. After all, they call their church the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Oh - and Mormons believe in angels, too. Oops, did I just reveal my bigotry toward Mormons?

As to the place names, you draw a distinction based on the date when the cities were established. So if I wanted to establish a little town now, today, and I wanted to call it, say, "Pueblo de San Salvador" or "El Nino" or "St. Martin" or "Lake Angel" or any other name referencing a religious figure, you would be opposed to that like you are opposed to the Oshkosh angel statue?

And you call ME micromanaging and controlling?

How kind of you to acknowledge that Catholics and maybe even Mormons may actually be Christians. No, I'm sorry you aren't bigoted at all :sarcasm:

Putting up an angel memorial gets government entangled in religion. That is unconstitutional.

And if you want to buy some land and start a town, you can call it whatever the fuck you want. You can call it "I'm not a bigot" for all I care. But when MY town, which is INCORPORATED in the STATE OF WISCONSIN and collects MY TAX MONEY is going to put up a religious symbol ON PUBLIC LAND that isn't the same. Or don't you get that? See, your example is a private "town" and mine is a governmental body.

There is no such thing as a "private town." Tom Monaghan (founder of Dominos Pizza) is trying to establish a town in Florida with Catholic-based rules, such as no pornography. He had to back down when people pointed out that it would be unconstitutional.

Any town I established would be run by a government, just like the government of Oshkosh. So you are saying I could not call my town "Los Angeles, New Mexico"?

I am talking about an angel on public property. That just ain't right.

that you don't like it. Well, I don't like statues of pagan goddesses like Themis on public buildings, either, but I don't let it ruin my day.

Big deal if there is an angel statue in the park. Come on, is an angel really, truly offensive to you?

Why is the goddess there. Is it religious? Then it shouldn't be there.

When do we actually start worrying about the seperation of church and state being eroded? When the theocracy is in place? I fear that will be too late.

the trend is markedly away from theocracy - at least Christian theocracy. You have nothing to worry about. If you told the founding fathers that the First Amendment would be interpreted as not allowing an angel statue in a public park, they would laugh their asses off. They were concerned with the establishment of a state religion -- like England had. Banning a statute of an angel, it seems to me, is more dangerous than allowing the statute.

Banning all references to religious figures, characters or personalities from the public square would be the establishment of atheism as the official government religion - which would be unconstitutional, IMHO.

Here is where you tell me that atheism is not a religion. I know, I know. Call it whatever you want - a set of beliefs or principles or a world-view or whatever. Whatever you call it, it is YOUR POSITION ON RELIGIOUS ISSUES. You seem to want your position on religious issues to be enshrined into law as the official position of the government. That shouldn't be allowed.

we are moving closer to a theocracy every day. Hell, we even have a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court. That should scare the hell out of you. We have gone from a time when Jefferson talked about a WALL between church and state and Adams wrote in a treaty that we weren't a country founded on Christianity to a time where students in Wisconsin must pledge their loyalty to a country "under God" every single day of their school lives. Moving away from theocracy indeed!!

The founding fathers would not have wanted an angel in a public park. They wanted government to have no part of religion. Hell half the founding father were either atheist or gave no concern to religion and the other half were deists.

And your argument that not having any religion is establishing atheism is laughable. It is the same convoluted logic that the fundies use to say that we shouldn't teach evolution in schools because that is just part of secular humanism. and that is a religion, so you can't teach it, sputter, sputter, sputter.

I know it makes you feel better to think that atheism is a collection of beliefs or, better yet, a religion, but it isn't. get over it. It is the lack of religous beliefs by definition. I know it scares you to think that people can actually lack those beliefs and not be out killing and raping people on a daily basis, but it is true. Get over it. The founding fathers would have mocked you endlessly for making the argument that "banning all references to religious figures, characters or personalities from the public square would be the establishment of atheism." That is an argument from ignorance and it takes a complete twisting of anything logical to even get there.

you contend that the government should be atheist. Remember all those posts where you pointed out that the prefix "a-" means "without"? You contend that government should be without religion, hence, according to your own definition, the government should be atheist.

Well, unfortunately for you, most people in this republic (including an overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party) disagree with you, and don't want your atheism to be established as the official position of the government. Atheism is YOUR set of principles by which to live. Can't you see that imposing atheism on other people in this democracy by making it the official policy of the government is just plain wrong?

I mean seriously, is your religion going to fall apart if it is not sponsored in some way by the government?

Atheism is not a position, or a set of principles, or a religion, or a set of beliefs. It is just the absense of a religion. That is what the founding fathers wanted. Most of the people in this republic are fucking morons. Most of the people in the republic wanted Bush to be their President. Most of the people in the country supported us going to war against Iraq. You want to be in bed with those people, go ahead, but I, personally, have better taste in my bed partners than that.

On edit: Having the goverment be void of religion is NOT the same as having people "live by" that. It is just the governement. I have said over a hundred times here on DU that people can believe/worship/think whatever the fuck they want. Having the government be part of the equation is the problem. An absence of religion in the government will IN NO WAY affect you being able to be Christian. Having Christianity in the government does create problems for those in the country that aren't Christians. Don't you get that or is it just all about you? I think I know that answer.

You are the one trying to get your viewpoint on religion enshrined as the official viewpoint of the government - not me. Your own definition of atheist is "without religion" and you have expressed your desire to have government be "without religion." You are advocating the establishment of atheism as the official government position, and that, my friend, is not OK. Government should not have an official position on matters of religious belief.

And now you are reduced to a ridiculous claim - that atheism is not even a "position." Why are you running from your own atheism? Embrace it, defend it, argue it, but don't try to claim that it is not a position or a point of view or a belief or anything else.

I have told you, and others have told you, how offensive it is to refer to atheism as a belief system and as a religion, but you continue to do it.

You are rude, boorish, and you are these thing consciously and with malice.

If you wish to apologize and stop using these offensive terms, I will continue our discussion. Until then, piss off.

My, you have some thin skin there, Goblinmonger.

I asked if your religion was that fragile. You replied with "is yours?" You are, again and again and again, referring to atheism as a religion. It isn't that my skin is thin, it is that things have been explained to you and you keep doing it. That is rude and I want nothing to do with it.

The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”
June 28, 1813; Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson

“We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!”
John Adams April 18, 1775, on the eve of the Revolutionary War after a British major ordered John Adams, John Hancock, and those with them to disperse in “the name of George the Sovereign King of England."

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man." Alexander Hamilton

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." Thomas Jefferson

“ O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”
“ I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.”
George Washington; from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752
William J. Johnson George Washington, the Christian (New York: The Abingdon Press, New York & Cincinnati, 1919), pp. 24-35.

etc.
etc.
etc.

How about these:

A scholarly discussion of Deism from Christianity in America, a Handbook


Thomas Paine said in The Age of Reason


George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr


Treaty of Peace and Friendship authored by President Adams


Jefferson said


Ethan Allen said these two gems



Ben Franklin, who I would have classified as not giving a crap, said


James Madison, the guy responsible for the consitution, I'm sure you've heard of him, said these words of sheer beauty:


Hmmm, wonder what Madison would have to say about the angel?

Deism was championed by Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire and some of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are among the most well-known of the American founding deists. There is debate as to whether George Washington was a deist or not.Thomas Paine published The Age of Reason, a treatise that popularized deism throughout America and Europe. Paine wrote that deism represented the application of reason to religion, finally settling problems that formerly were thought to be permanently controversial. Deists hoped to also settle religious questions permanently and scientifically by reason alone, without revelation.

The first six and four later presidents of the United States had strong deistic or allied beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism



President's Affiliations

Deist
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Tyler
Abraham Lincoln (also listed as without affiliation)

Unitarian—Unitarian Universalism is the religion generally associated today with those whose ideology developed from Deism.
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Millard Fillmore
William Howard Taft

Presidents without affiliation
Abraham Lincoln (also listed as Deist)
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Grant (also listed as Methodist)
Rutherford Hayes



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations#List_of_Presidential_religious_affiliations_.28by_religion.29



And exactly where did the Founding Fathers stand on Christianity and separation of Church and State?


Jefferson didn't just reject the Christian belief that the Bible was "the inspired word of God"; he rejected the Christian system too. In Notes on the State of Virginia, he said of this religion, "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites" (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, "Politics and Religious Illiteracy," Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33). Anyone today who would make a statement like this or others we have quoted from Jefferson's writings would be instantly branded an infidel, yet modern Bible fundamentalists are frantically trying to cast Jefferson in the mold of a Bible believing Christian. They do so, of course, because Jefferson was just too important in the formation of our nation to leave him out if Bible fundamentalists hope to sell their "Christian-nation" claim to the public. Hence, they try to rewrite history to make it appear that men like Thomas Jefferson had intended to build our nation on "biblical principles." The irony of this situation is that the Christian leaders of Jefferson's time knew where he stood on "biblical principles," and they fought desperately, but unsuccessfully, to prevent his election to the presidency.

snip

James Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion. This paper, long considered a landmark document in political philosophy, was also cited in the majority opinion in Lee vs. Weisman. The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly, and in 1786, the Assembly adopted the statute of religious freedom of which Jefferson and Madison were the principal architects. The preamble to this bill said that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." The statute itself was much more specific than the establishment clause of the U. S. Constitution "Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities".

snip

As a matter of fact, the document that was finally approved at the constitutional convention mentioned religion only once, and that was in Article VI, Section 3, which stated that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Now if the delegates at the convention had truly intended to establish a "Christian nation," why would they have put a statement like this in the constitution and nowhere else even refer to religion? Common sense is enough to convince any reasonable person that if the intention of these men had really been the formation of a "Christian nation," the constitution they wrote would have surely made several references to God, the Bible, Jesus, and other accouterments of the Christian religion, and rather than expressly forbidding ANY religious test as a condition for holding public office in the new nation, it would have stipulated that allegiance to Christianity was a requirement for public office. After all, when someone today finds a tract left at the front door of his house or on the windshield of his car, he doesn't have to read very far to determine that its obvious intention is to further the Christian religion. Are we to assume, then, that the founding fathers wanted to establish a Christian nation but were so stupid that they couldn't write a constitution that would make their purpose clear to those who read it?

Clearly, the founders of our nation intended government to maintain a neutral posture in matters of religion. Anyone who would still insist that the intention of the founding fathers was to establish a Christian nation should review a document written during the administration of George Washington. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared in part that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." (Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States, ed. Hunter Miller, Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365). This treaty was negotiated by the American diplomat Joel Barlow during the administration of George Washington. Washington read it and approved it, although it was not ratified by the senate until John Adams had become president. When Adams signed it, he added this statement to his signature "Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof." This document and the approval that it received from our nation's first and second presidents and the U. S. Senate as constituted in 1797 do very little to support the popular notion that the founding fathers established our country as a "Christian nation."

snip

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html




BTW, that lovely prayer of George Washington's-- An unfinished book of copied prayers attributed to him (as a youth) by a collector was rejected by the Smithsonian Institution for lack of authenticity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations

and these sources are just propaganda. I am tiring of this debate with kwassa. The deliberate twisting of logic is frustrating.

crickets chirping. Can't find anything on the internets to refute our two posts? Probably because we are right. Any credible source lists the religion of the first presidents as deist. Several atheists in the founding fathers, too. Bet that chaffs your ass.

subthread has no further point. You have your quotes, and I have mine (and there are plenty of others). I guess the poor founding fathers are going to be turning in their graves, no matter which of us is "right" about their views.

It seems to me that many Protestant traditions were created in reaction against Jewish traditions. If you attend a Catholic Mass (Roman, Orthodox, even Episcopal) many aspects of these are very similar to Jewish tradition. Jewish weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, etc., have a very familiar feel to anyone practicing Catholic traditions.

I can't say the same about many of the Protestant services I've attended. Certain Catholic Masses have also made me very uncomfortable, especially some of the homilies I've heard in very conservative parishes. Right wing Catholics can be worse than right wing Protestants, and if I lived in such a place I might not go to Mass. Maybe in such a place they wouldn't want me to go to Mass.

The last major blowout I had in my own parish was over a state "protection of marriage" initiative the church was supporting. Despite my very vocal opposition, including letters to the editor, letters and phone calls to our Bishop, etc., I haven't been shunned yet.

Currently I'm rather fond of the church's politics. They are in the front row promising civil disobedience if any of the right wing's draconian anti-immigrant legislation is passed.

The first post I ever had deleted here on DU was in response to a typical Catholic bashing thread. After that angry post I figured I was out of the closet, so whenever it has seemed appropriate to speak of my own religious beliefs and practices, I have.

Do depictions of angels bother me? No. Do I understand that angels are almost secular figures to most people? Yes. But the right wing Christians have a long history of stealth violations of the separations between church and state, and whenever you call them on this they squeal like pigs.

In fact, they actually originate in Babylon, before Jews, then Christians and Muslims adopted them. Hail Marduk!

Some of what you say is misinformed, to put it mildly, I'll see if I can dispel them. Some of your information is good, other stuff isn't, so this is just an FYI, no insult intended.

What about the celebration of Halloween in public schools throughout the country, including numerous images of witches and other pagan characters?

Take a dollar bill out of your wallet. Look on the back. What do you think that eye above the pyramid is? It's the Eye of Horus, a pagan god worshipped by the Ancient Egyptian civilization.

And speaking of the pyramid - what do you think those Egyptians built pyramids for? (Hint: it was for religious worship, but not of the Christian God.)

First, Halloween is, to put it mildly, a secularized copy of a harvest festival, hence the iconagraphy, most of the "pagan" aspects predate Christianity, and then the religious holiday All Hallows Eve took over, though the celebration remained the same. Then again, you can say the same about Christmas and the Tree or log most people put in their homes, talk about paganism!

As far as the symbolism in on the dollar bill, thats Masonic Iconography, the All Seeing Eye represents providence, hence God, and the pyramid represents stability, if that. You have to realize that most of the Founding Fathers were Masons, a fraternal organization that was based on a large amount of Christian and Egyptian symbolism, and embraced the Enlightenment wholeheartedly.

Onto the Pyramids, they weren't centers of worship, but tombs of pharohs that were supposed to be "Highways to Heaven" in our terminology, I guess would be the best way to put it. There were temples of worship for many of the Gods of Egypt, but most weren't even near the pyramids. Another little know fact, Monotheism may have actually been first practiced by the Egyptians, the Pharoah Aktenaten declared all the other Gods false and that the Aten was the One and Only true God. After he died, his son, the infamous King Tut, repudiated his beliefs and restored the old religion back to its primacy in Egypt. Some Archeologists think that its possible that the Jewish people first practiced Monotheism due to influences from Aten Worship.

Two wrongs make a right!

Zeb, your religion is the majority. I find it hilarious that you can actually sit there and be indignant about these things. In fact, I don't even think it's worthy of a response. You go ahead and fume and feel that government shoving your religion is just fine. Nothing's going to penetrate your shield.

I don't really care about all the Themis statutes and Pomona images, etc. I was just responding to a post where I was asked if I would really be OK if the government put up a statute of a pagan goddess -- as if that would never happen!

It happened, it continues to happen, and it will happen in the future. The government is not supposed to be some kind of anti-religion force.

While I think it is folly to worship pagan goddesses, the fact that statues of them are put up by the government is of no concern to me.

Just as a statue of an angel should be of no concern to anyone who doesn't believe in angels.

BTW, I use "Red Devil" brand lye drain cleaner. It really works!

I know that you and most right wingers have a tough time seeing that.

Themis is a symbol of justice. When it is displayed, it is used to represent justice. Likewise for your other "examples."

When a cross, or an angel, or the 10 commandments are displayed, they are intended to represent religion. And in most cases, a particular flavor of religion.

The Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot use government resources to promote religion in general over non-religion (or non-religion over religion, Zeb! This works in your favor, too!). But remaining religion-neutral is NOT being hostile to religion.

So did you join O'Rielly's "Save Christmas" brigade, too?

Are you saying that Christians are not welcome in the Democratic Party? If so, you'll have to exclude John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, JFK, Harry Truman, FDR, and on and on.

You'll also have to exclude about 70-80% of the rank and file members of the party.

And why? Just out of anti-Christian bigotry?

As to the substance of your post, you try to downplay all of the statutes and pictures of pagan gods and goddesses on our public buildings by claiming that they all represent "justice." Yet an angel statue is an unconstitutional imposition of a "particular flavor of religion." :rofl:

As you know, I mentioned all the statues of pagan goddesses in response to this post of yours:



You apparently were unaware of all the statues of pagan goddesses on government buildings, and then when I point out that there are thousands of them, you move the goalposts and say: "Well, those just represent justice."

Tell me, what does the goddess Pomona whose picture takes up 1/3 of the Los Angeles County seal "represent"? What did the tiny, tiny cross on the Los Angeles County seal "represent," before it was removed?

Look, I don't want the government to be expressly promoting Christianity as the official religion of this country. Nor do I want atheism established as such. The government SHOULD be neutral as to matters of religious faith. But erecting an angel statue is NOT equivalent to endorsing Christianity -- any more than erecting a Themis statue is equivalent to endorsing Themis-worship.

I said that both you and right-wingers had something in common: confusing secular with anti-religion.

So you can take your outrage elsewhere, since you completely misinterpreted what I said.

But I would like to know, did you join Bill O'Reilly's Christmas Crusade?

*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=45804&mesg_id=46501

Interesting sub-thread, no?

Makes one wonder why a theocrat would belong to a liberal website in the first place.

the·oc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.


theocracy

Would you be so kind as to point to any post of mine in which I advocated that the government of the United States, or any state, commonwealth, county, parish, or any subdivision thereof, should be "ruled by or subject to religious authority"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=55294&mesg_id=55460

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=55294&mesg_id=55679

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=55294&mesg_id=55714

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=55294&mesg_id=55809

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=55294&mesg_id=55958


Every time you argue against a secular or "atheist" government, you advocate the removal of church/state separation.

Religion has no place in science or government.

Either you believe in secular government or you don't.

Your choice.

I bet he doesn't agree with you though. I bet he says something about atheism being a religion (but it will be really sneaky like).

A legend in his own mind.

0 for 5.

You found five posts of mine, and in not one of them did I advocate for "A government ruled by or subject to religious authority," which is the definition of theocracy.

What I said in my posts was that atheism should not be established as the official government point of view on religious matters. Neither should Christianity. The government should be neutral about such things. For expressing that view, you call me a theocrat. The accusation is unwarranted.

A secular government is an atheistic one.

It means no religion.

Just like science is atheistic.

No room for your god or anyone else's.


Changing the definition of atheism is a tactic usually used by people who are trying to hide their religious intolerance.



You're not fooling anyone.


Your use of right wing talking points and sources, incessant proselytizing, condemnation of non-christians and shrill cries of christian bashing are so obvious it's laughable that you think no one would notice.


But then, logic was never your strong point, as is evidenced by your feeble attempts to pimp science in order to promote your god.

I don't know what makes you so hostile all the time, but all I can say is I wish you the best.

As well as other forms of intolerance and hatred.

It's nothing personal.

It would help to know how our conversations with you are likely to develop. Do you vote Republican, Democrat, or neither? Your only interest here on DU seems to be religion, so it's rather difficult to tell.

not just Jews and Christians

I honestly don't see this as a big deal

Telling us to wait until there's something worth fighting for.

I guess the Constitution just means more to those of us who don't expect help from an invisible deity and aren't willing to give the Amerikkkan Talibornagain the benefit of the doubt.

Good to have you back. And, hey, that powder has to stay dry, damn it. You never know when something REALLY important is going to pop up. :crazy:

ATTABOY, GOBBY!!!

Your posts kicked butt this week.

I'll meet you back at the secret location so we can start the mystical atheist back slapping ritual.

:blush:

I like the little "peanut butter demon time" smiley.

Evoman: I don't think we should put state-paid crosses up by the highway

Theist: Oh stop. Whats the big deal...just let it go. Its a memorial

Evoman: Fine. But I really don't think its right to put up religous imagery like angels up in public either

Theist: These people are mourning. Just let it go.

Evoman: FINE. But I feel really uncomfortable with the 10 commandments place in courts and schools

Theist: Oh c'mon. Whats the big deal. Most of our laws come from the commandments. What harm does it do to you?

Evoman: Jeez..if its that important to you,whatever. However, I have to stop you when you try to change laws. I heard congressman Jerry Falwell put forth a bill to put some of those other commandments into law.

Theist: Oh stop. They already passed that bill. Why do you always have to be anti-theist. That law is going help our decrepit society.

Evoman: Yeah, but now the punishment is stoning. Don't you think you have gone too far

Theist: You never tried to stop us before. Besides, I still think this is good for society

Evoman: God, I dislike religion.

Theist: *stones Evoman*

END

I was hoping that Pat would be a reoccurring character. Very nice. :applause:

My favorite line is "You never tried to stop us before."

Oh so true.

Is your play named "Bend Over", by any chance?

Oh my poor spit drenched keyboard! :spray:

:applause: