CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

I've been on both sides of this issue myself. The question boils down to:

Are these people genuenly questioning any religion they come across or just badmouthing whatever is closest? If the ladder, then probably christianty IS closest. If they have to bash something, it will likly be that. If not...

Well...

You have to meet everyone on their own ground.

one thing that really steams me is how people have twisted the seperation of church and state. It was meant for the government to stay out of the church, now they're using it so the church cant do anything with the government. AND the ten commandments that were removed from that courtroom that gets me mad too!

RobertMuldooJP wrote:one thing that really steams me is how people have twisted the seperation of church and state. It was meant for the government to stay out of the church, now they're using it so the church cant do anything with the government. AND the ten commandments that were removed from that courtroom that gets me mad too!

I hate to tell you, but when the church gets into the government, the government also gets into the church.

While I agree that there needs to be more Christian influence in America (as well as in the rest of the world, IMHO we are not any better or worse in God's sight than any other of the Gentile nations), I believe that such influence needs to issue from the lives of individual Christians rather than monuments and displays. A single act of forgiveness will provide much more an example of Christ than would any monument ever would.

If we rely on society to enforce our beliefs, or insist that it does, then do we really have beliefs? Or do we just have a fear of societal change?

[quote="MillyFan"]I believe that such influence needs to issue from the lives of individual Christians rather than monuments and displays. A single act of forgiveness will provide much more an example of Christ than would any monument ever would.QUOTE]

I agree with you on that part, however, I do feel monuments should be left up, if nothing else, for their historical value in our country. To tear them down just because a few people have a problem with its relation to religion is just...sad.

I'm not talking about historical monuments that were already there, I'm talking about things like the Ten Commandments monument set up by Roy Moore.

IMHO, it is amazing how easily so many people are so in favor of the Ten Commandments that they fail to practice the first two.

IMHO, it is amazing how easily so many people are so in favor of the Ten Commandments that they fail to practice the first two.

"You shall have no gods before me" and "you shall have no idols"? I don't get it.

Didn't you hear the people who were proclaiming that if that monument was removed, it was removing God from the courthouse?

Maybe I misinterpret, but God isn't contained in a few of His words engraved in stone. ^sigh^

Oh, I get it, now.

"Didn't you hear the people who were proclaiming that if that monument was removed, it was removing God from the courthouse?

Maybe I misinterpret, but God isn't contained in a few of His words engraved in stone. ^sigh^"

I am quite sure they did not mean that God was contained in those stone tablets...however I must agree with the statement 100% By taking them down, its just another step in hiding anything to do with God. Soon In God We Trust will be pulled from everything...Seeing God offends some people...and in this PC world if something has to do with Jesus or God and it offends someone...then darn it I guess it should be destroyed. (sarcasm) To me its no shock they took it down. Just makes me sad more then anything...watching the nation go down slowly...

I don't want to debate you here, because I don't want to get any bad feelings going on or anything.
-^.^-
I will leave it at saying that Christianity doesn't need state support to be a strong faith.

this country is getting messed up. alot of people are trying to get God out of tons of stuff like school and the workplaces and things like that, out of their lives and stuff. but then everyone blames Him when something like 9-11 happens or something bad like that. whats with that? just somethin ive been thinkin about lately.

The government is lenient about some things....the state motto for Ohio is "With God, all things are possible."
In my opinion, this means:

a. God can do anything.
Or:

b. You never know what he is up to because all things are possible for him.

I suspect a little of both. What do you think?

Yeah... but didn't they make us change the motto a couple years ago? I know they talked about it, but I'm not sure if they ever actaully did...

CobaltAngel wrote:Yeah... but didn't they make us change the motto a couple years ago? I know they talked about it, but I'm not sure if they ever actaully did...

No, the people of Ohio refused to change it! Yay for us!

Taslin_Jewel wrote:No, the people of Ohio refused to change it! Yay for us!

That's nice to know! ^_^ I love our motto!

The problem with the ten commandments issue is that it has nothing to do with historical interest. The monument was privately paid for by Roy Moore's friends and brought in during the middle of night without any input from the court's management. Moore has also led public Christian prayers in his courtroom, but has said that he would not permit public prayers that are not Jewish or Christian. He has also refused to allow similar monuments of other faiths. Clearly, Moore's intent was to establish his court as a personal pulpit- does this indicate the impartiality that is essential in a judge? While he is perfectly free to do whatever he wants in private, even put the monument on his front lawn, the fact remains that as a judge he is a representative of the government. Thus, he cannot show preference to any one religion without undermining the constitution and the judicial system. Taken another way, had Moore been a muslim, would you still support his right to impose his religion on the court?

It may be nice to say that you want Christianity in the government. But whose Christianity? The Orange Lodge's? Tim LaHaye's or Jerry Falwell's? And, while we're on the subject of the ten commandments, does anyone know what the Eliot School Rebellion was?

One of the purposes of the monument was a reminder of the fact that our laws, our constitution, and our basic ideals of freedom and liberty are based on the Ten Commandments and other Biblical principles. And no what was this school rebelion?

blank

The Eliot school rebellion occured in Boston back in the 1850's (I'll have to check the date on this). Basically at that time, students were required to repeat the ten commandments in class, and to do so in order. This was a problem because Protestants and Catholics order the ten commandments slightly differently. In the schools the "official" version was the protestant version, although during these sessions the Catholic students usually mumbled their own version. At Eliot school, however it was decided that this would not be acceptable, and that the Catholic students would be required to use the same version, which they balked at doing. One of the trustees singled out a student and demanded that he comply. When the student refused, he was whipped to the point of unconciousness. This would lead to some disturbances from his fellow students.
As an interesting aside, a proposed Florida public school curriculum for teaching biblical history/literature asked the same question, and also asked students to state the number of books in the bible. There was only one right answer there too.

It is a rather dubious proposition to say that the ten commandments are the basis of the constitution. Compare the two for a start. Could anyone justify enforcing the first commandment as law? Ditto of the second. It should be clear that however valuable to personal conscience, when enforced by the state they establish theocracy. Most of the other commandments run into similar problems with respect to personal liberties guaranteed under the US constitution. That document ultimately owes its nature to Enlightenment era thinkers like John Locke and others. There is also an enormous debt to English common law, many of the principles of which are ultimately descended from pre-Christian Germanic legal traditions.

I rather doubt that's it St. Peter. People are more concerned with others using their government office to enforce their particular religious views on those who do not share them. Can those who do not share Moore's religious views expect the same level of treatment asthose who do? When he installs a monument made to serve a religious purpose in a public building with the express exclusion of other religious views, one would say not.

blank

In the nicest way possible

In a way you're right

Let us compare the secularist's attitudes. They are pushing for the removal of the words "under God" from the pledge of alligence, which it has already been established that no one is forced to say if they choose not to, they have forced any kind of Christian prayer out of our schools, they are forcing the removal of Judge Moore's 10 Commandments monument as well as several others, but they did not raise one complaint when a school in California spent a week after 9/11 teaching children Muslim culture religion and prayers. If the ACLU and Americans for the Seperation of Church and State are serious, they should not play favorites. Either that or they should just admit that their goal is to remove only Christianity from America.

Your complaint against the ACLU is baseless. They have defended the religious rights of Christians many times in the past. I'm sure if you had looked you could have found many examples in addition to this (such as one I recall, when they went to defend an afterschool bible club). This list BTW was compiled by the poster "notto" on CF. The ACLU, in most cases won't get involved until there is an actual complaint. If the school did cross the line (which it certainly seems to have), the ACLU could easily have been brought in (as it stands the plaintiffs had assistance from the Thomas More Law Centre). Note that the ACLU has been silent, and not supporting the school either.

ACLU of MA Defends Students Punished for Distributing Candy Canes with Religious Messages
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=11876&c=159

Jewish Student Allowed to Wear Star of David Pendant as Mississippi School Board Reverses Policy
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=8660&c=162

In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142

ACLU of PA Files Discrimination Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit for African American Baptist Church
http://www.aclu.org/RacialEquality/RacialEquality.cfm?ID=11083&c=28

ACLU of Pennsylvania Supports Congregation's Fight for Religious Freedom
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9298&c=141

I'm not going to start an ugly argument over the ACLU here. However, as a last comment I will say look at the lawsuits they have filed over baccaluarete (individual students) praying at graduations, voluntary moments of silence in schools, the national motto, and sex ed programs that focus on abstinence and ask yourself whose side they are one. Check out the American center for law and justice (aclj.org) for more information. Also if you listen to thier program (which you can do on the net) you hear frequent cases of school officials squelching any kind of religious activity on school grounds at any time becuase of the state of fear the ACLU and other groups have created.
That is my two bits on the ACLU, I shall attempt to refrain from bring up the subject again in the name of argument avoidence.

CobaltAngel wrote:...that if something christian is displayed in public people make a real big deal about it like we're trying to take over the world but if its any other religion, its considered 'diverse'.

THere are only two kinds of people in this world: Those who fallow the Christ and those who don't. And the worls hates those who fallow Christ. Simple as that

I think you mean "follow." "Fallow" has a different meaning. . .

Well, i'll have to go

On the same token though, there's another part of the establishment clause (i.e. the freedom of religion part of the constitution)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (emphasis added). So while yes, the government cannot promote one religion, nor can they prevent another one.While I don't think taking down a Christian monument is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", it's pretty close to it to me.

How would you like it for a muslim to put up a religious monument in court, hold only muslim prayers, without the authority of anyone else.

But we're not talking about enforcing prayers...it's a simple monument. Let's compare apples to apples here. No one's forcing you to look at it, nor are they forcing you to be anything. It's just like having that moment of silence in school...if someone gets offended by seeing me with my hands folded and my head bowed, they can look at something else. I don't think having a piece of stone in a building is the same as persecuting/torturing people of other religions (which is why the first admendment is in place).

You can NOT go forth forcing people to see only your beleafe and praying only your prayers.

Well, last time I checked, there WAS only one belief. Went something like, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." Jesus never taught toleration...that's purely an American invention, I think. At least we're the ones to abuse it the most often. Toleration to the point of political correctness.

But you know, as great as it is, America is a part of this fallen,cursed world. I really am not suprised to see this kind of "Christian persecution" going on...let's be frank, Christianity scares people. It reminds them what sinful creatures we are, and they don't like being reminded there's a higher power in this world. So of course people in general, coupled with the spiritual warfare going on, are going to try to stop Christianity from spreading. That's just the nature of this world.

Tech, in refference to your ACLU claims, regardless of what they've done to support some Christians in the past, most of their actions have been very anti-christian... They have stood to prevent us from preaching homosexuality is a sin, from our free excersise of our beliefs and have stood agains many, many Christian efforts... It is not baseless because they are constantly opposed to Christian efforts... Just because they had a few good cases does not get rid of the bad ones they had as well. The pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-evangelism (despite that candy cane thing, that's a very rare thing and they have stood AGAINST evangelism efforts in the past) and many other issues... Sorry to say, these good marks aren't enought to wipe out their previous malfeasances... Not a chance in Helsinki.