When Does Religion Become Illegal?
Is it illegal to be a Catholic in the United States? That’s kind of a grey area, after Barack Obama’s Health and Human Services Department issued an Aug. 1 order requiring all employers offering medical insurance to cover “reproductive services,” including contraception as well as abortion drugs (hat tip: www.politicaloutcast.com). Under the “required health plan coverage guidelines,” HHS lists:
All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.
That includes abortion-inducing drugs. If you manage a Catholic institution, you either violate your most basic religious principles or fail to comply. The correct answer, evidently, is that you can be a Catholic at home with closed shutters, but you can’t have Catholic institutions.
It’s still legal to be a Jew in the United States, but not in some parts of Europe. After a June 26 ruling by a Cologne court defining infant circumcision as “inflicting grievous bodily harm,” you can go to jail (at least in theory) for performing Jewish ritual circumcision. Although German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other political leaders have promised to find a legislative way around the court and uphold religious freedom for Jews and Muslims, policies against circumcisions are proliferating. Two Swiss hospitals have stopped circumcisions (although they continue to offer euthanasia). One Austrian province banned circumcision before the Justice Ministry intervened. Now Norway’s ombudsman for children’s rights demands that circumcision be replaced with a “symbolic ritual.”
While a ban on kosher slaughter was narrowly averted in the Netherlands, European rabbis warn that a new wave of attacks on this basic Jewish practice is in the offing. Jews who stand by while America’s largest religious community, the Catholic Church, is persecuted should remember that we’re next. The Catholic Church is the only European institution that has consistently defended Jewish religious freedom in Europe. It would be hypocritical as well as self-damaging if we Jews failed to do everything in our power to support Catholics against this new persecution.
Make no mistake. These are revolutionary proposals, as revolutionary as Robespierre’s short-lived attempt to replace French Christianity with a new “Cult of the Supreme Being,” or the Bolsheviks’ effort to ban religion altogether, or the Nazis’ campaign to introduce “Aryan Christianity.” The vehemence and thoroughness of the campaign against religious practice bespeak a world in which our lives will be scientifically engineered by a benign and all-encompassing state.
Raising children, the Left believes, is too important to leave to families. The Left believes that the patriarchal family is the root of all evil. (I’m not exaggerating. I come from the Left. The witches’ brew of Freud and Marx and Frankfurt School and identity studies that the Left imbibes at our universities center on the evils inherent in the patriarchal family.)
And family structure is weakening of its own accord in a culture that makes personal gratification the highest good.
Household Size Shrinks in the United States
America used to be a land of families; increasingly we are a country of singles and elderly living alone in tiny cubicles. The natural constituency for religion — the traditional family — is weakening. Fifty-one percent of births to women aged 20 to 30 occur out of wedlock. If individuals abandon family responsibilities, they will fall to the state by default. It’s not surprising that the true believers in a utopian state believe that their moment has come and that it is time to toss the remnants of traditional society into the dust-bin of history.
***
Sir,
A cogent clarion call.
May all of whatever political stripe take heed, since as Americans we believe our core rights are inalienable and NOT up for renewal or revocation at the whim of the Imperial whim of the State, notwithstanding the megalomaniac aspirations of Ozymandias-on-the-Potomac and his sycophant courtiers.
Respectful USAF vet (and USN wife vet) regards!
We don’t just believe we know who it is that gives us our rights to be individuals. The US (and the world) is entering a very dark period, but even if we waver and forget into whom we put our hope and trust, He is faithful
I agree with you. God is ultimately in control no matter how arrogant we humans become.
Of course, privately held businesses who violate certain political canons that reflect religious beliefs can also be punished, even if no action or policy in the deployment of the business is involved. In the big picture, this is as significant as those other things.
Examples? I’m not disagreeing, I just don’t understand what you mean.
I believe they are referencing Chik Fil A
JcPenny?
Right now it’s only illegal to be a Catholic employer in the United States. You can still function as a worker or as a business owner who only employs himself and his family. Next year is when the problem arises: next year the schools and hospitals run afoul of the mandate. These are the times that try men’s souls.
When is religion illegal? When it’s Christianity or Judaism today here.
Progressivism is a secular religion that is totally opposed to the Judeo-Christian religion. They will not quit their fight and I suggest that those who oppose progressivism fight to win.
It also owns many denominations, including the Episcopalians, for example.
And Methodists BIG time! I believe the Clinton’s Methodist church stated that they believed in social justice, abortion and gun control as part of their doctrine.
America is as it should be. Our founding fathers were progressives who believed in a secular government that would protect all Americans from religious intrusion while protecting the citizen’s religious beliefs. Every American deserves the same as all Americans are afforded and if the “church” is opposed to it then too bad because the rights of Americans come first. Once that is done then if the American chooses to adhere to their religious beliefs then the government cannot force it upon them. The only concern is that they can have it if they want it. The reason why America was not founded as a theocracy? Y’all have provided the easiest reason. As Christians it seems that y’all promote your beliefs over others, not only do we non-christians lose our rights in favor of your beliefs, but you’ve already excluded other christian denominations. Just where does it stop? Eventually you’ll keep voting out groups of Americans who don’t believe exactly as you do until just a small ruling group is left and 98% of Americans will have lost our inalienable rights. You may believe that your god gives you the right to do so, but my god is secular and it ensures that all Americans retain their rights as Americans first and religious belief second.
Keith, I’m a Mormon but have to agree with your comment, to the degree that you stated even. But make sure that you stand for the rights of all Americans; not just those who agree with you. Personally I see nothing wrong with insuring the right to contraception to all of us…but this 10 dollar a month bill should not be paid by all of us.
Actually it’s time to toss the current regime in that historical dust-bin.
I’m not so sure it’s still legal to practice Judaism in the US, at least without serious compromise. My high school, for example, only had male teachers (all public-school moonlighters teaching the standard NYS curriculum). Now when you add the Gay Rights rules… Remember the photographer who was bankrupted for refusing to cover a homosexual wedding? What about photogs who won’t cover a religious intermarriage? Reminds me of the fact that all Yeshivos in Czarist Russia were technically illegal, and any rabbi was automatically liable to arrest for sending money to support the Jews in “Palestine”.
We do try to get some crumbs from the education table, in particular help for children with learning problems. Thanks to the discrimination rules, we may very well at least be entering gray areas, even when we are trying to be honest about it (as Rabbi Moshe Feinstein insisted, calling the U.S. “the empire of kindness”).
We get by largely because of sympathetic state governments (at least in New York). I should add that the legal aspect in complicated by the view, for example, of Antonin Scalia that the government could not, for example, ban Jews or Catholics from using wine (IIRC).
Frankly, I think we might be better off wothout all of these protections, given how they work against us, the “Gentlemen’s agreement” days notwithstanding.
Of course, here in Israel this happens all of the time, long-standing practices declared illegal, since the Left completely controls the courts.
No surprise then, that the Orthodox Right declared support for the Catholics. Now if someone can wake the OU up….
Here’s another problem. American Jews are the least religious group in the US. This is not surprising; my reading of the official statistics here in Israel is that Jews are becoming more religious and Arabs less so.
Also, the majority of Jews who are affiliated (a big “if”) belong to denominations that, like the Christian Left, are Democrats by religion, using a distortion of an obscure mystical concept called “tikun olam”. (What Tikun Olam actually means is that you help the world by serving God (which includes helping others).)
Tikkun Olam was redefined by “liberals” to mean the imperative to work for “social justice”, but that is not the historic meaning at all. Tikkun Olam is about the individual Jew taking responsibility for her actions, repenting, and making reparations to those harmed. In general, antisemitism is distorted by the new brand of liberalism as I wrote about here: http://clarespark.com/2009/07/11/multiculturalists-and-wilsonians-cant-diagnose-the-new-antisemitism/. It is lengthy but very informative.
BTW, this is one place where I tihnk Wikipedia got it right.
I think many years studying in both right-wing and left-wing Orthodox “seminaries”, and I don’t recall ever hearing the term. I don’t think you will find it in the Bible or the Talmud. I do understand it is big in the thought of Rav Kook, the great thinker of Religious Zionism.
My understanding is that is a concept that appears elsewhere without that name – that when a Jew serves God, whether by praying, studying, helping others, keeping kosher – whatever, he (or she) brings down divine blessing on the whole world and brings it closer to its final restoration. What the Christians call “salvation”.
Up to this point in our history, the majority of the American people who raise their families, work their jobs, pay their taxes, and generally keep the country viable have watched the lunacy of the left grow ever more strident and extreme. Those Americans who follow the law, respect its traditions, and defend it in war, have continued to maintain the system during the growth of the Leviathan state and are now seeing the collapse of the rule of law. What will happen when the government begins to persecute the “bitter clingers” who value their religion more than their continued participation in an illegitimate social order? I expect we will see something like what happened in Mexico in the 1920s or another American Civil War. At that point, this current political configuration that we call the United States will cease to exist. In fact, it may already be gone.
I have been saying the same thing. Actually the Mexico reference is apropos. Though we may end up dividing by State or region. California is not long to make the Bible illegal. The lever is homosexuality to root out Christianity. 60 years ago no one would have ever guessed that Evangelical Christians, Evangelical Catholics, and Orthodox Jews would be brothers in arms, raging against the Leftist propaganda machine!
This is what we Christians have been screaming about for the last ten years only to be dismissed as fanatics who want a American theocracy. They call us the American Taliban as they go tiny town by tiny town suing to remove any sign of Christianity from official seals or war memorials.
We actually don’t particularly care about such outward signs but recognize the danger of removing all vestages a Higher Being from the public square. Humanists worship themselves and as we’ve seen they don’t valve the lives of those who don’t adhere to THEIR religion.
Christians may have been worrying for the last ten years, but the secularist left has been out of its mind with fear since the late 1970s. I’m sorry, but people like Falwell and Robertson trying to bulldoze their version of Christianity into American politics was what really set the leftists off. True, these men and their followers were responding to the negative changes brought on by the counterculture and liberal political policies. But their message was clear: “God is on our side and we’re taking over.” They handed the secularists the “theocracy” brush with which all Christians are now being tarred.
Absolute nonsense, except for the secularist feigned paranoia.
As I liked to put it, if Falwell had his way, the media will be as censored as, what, 1960? Was New york’s legendary Mayor LaGuardia a religious fanatic? He went way past anything like that.
Hogwash! The Falwells and Robertsons were only doing what the left have been doing for ages – telling Christians they could no longer stay in the shadows and pray to God to save America. That it was their DUTY as Christians to go out and VOTE their conscience.
I don’t care how you see Christians. It is telling to me that every election cycle democrats (rabid leftists) can go into a black church and campaign in the full light of day, but if a republican ever even THOUGHT of stepping into a church the left would be SCREAMING to have that church’s tax exemption pulled for crossing that oh-so sacred line between church and state.
You got that right lolly.
In Bugs mind, Christians should know their place, but have gotten all uppity, thinking that they could participate in governance and government, via the democratic institutions of the Constitutional Republic.
But alas…
We shall overcome.
Don’t get me wrong: I have no problem with Christians being Christians however they see fit. I know Jesus said people would attack Him, His teachings, and His followers. But that was a prediction, not a command to go out and pick fights with heathens or to imitate their behavior.
In my opinion, putting your religion out there in a political campaign is THE classic violation of Matthew 7:6 “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.” I can’t think of a better description of how leftists, humanists, and atheists treat Christians. If there’s one thing we know, it’s that the left doesn’t want to know. Why bother trying to tell them anything? They’ll just use it against you.
I’d say, vote your conscience, practice your religion, but always be careful to insulate both from the dogs and the swine.
Standing up to them and for Christian morality and social order is not picking fights with them.
Sorry, try selling battered wife syndrome to someone else.
I agree with you, as a christian I too was appalled at all that Moral Majoriety stuff. Jesus is our example and He was not intrested in confronting the politiacal world. He worked then as He does not with the individuals and their souls.
Sorry that was to read He works now with individuals and their souls.
Personally I think introducing people to the real historical Jesus ( Not the Gentile Hollywood version) is the best way to change society. Through an Individual conversion by the Holy Spirit out of love for God In honor of Gods gift of free salvation. I dislike politics as a worldly pursuit, ultimately futile as fads rule this Kingdom. As as a citizen though I am am commanded to be a good one as well. To make the right choices to give Glory to Gods Law, & by doing His will praise Him.The ballot box is this societies way. No Matter what people think. God is always in Control even when it looks like Chaos, or evil reins.
That said I think MR Falwell is being a bit maligned. Even he realized this his last years.
That the Messiah coming was the center of History & His word the true Gold given to Mankind.
The Quest for the Historical Jerry
You can tell a lot about someone by what he says about Falwell.
Ted Olsen
The penultimate item in U.S. News & World Report’s list of “10 Things You Didn’t Know About Jerry Falwell” explained that “Falwell had been controversial throughout the years.” The article then quoted his “I point the finger in their face” remarks, made on The 700 Club two days after the September 11 attacks.
Some rightly bemoaned that this was the only thing people did know about Falwell—except perhaps for his supposed “outing” of Tinky Winky the Teletubby. Conservatives rued how the “liberal media” treated Falwell. Focus on the Family headlines included “Media Warped Young Conservatives’ Views of Falwell” and “Assassinating the Dead.” Then again, liberals said his frequent television appearances evinced a conservative bias in the media. Religion journalist-turned-academic Gustav Niebuhr said Falwell gained media prominence largely because he “returned reporters’ phone calls ahead of deadline, sat through countless interviews, and was always blunt, succinct, and consistent— thus, eminently quotable.”
Blunt and succinct, yes, but without nuance, and consistency was a problem. The Falwell who spoke of Christians’ political duty also said, “Preachers are not called to be politicians, but to be soul winners.” The Falwell who said he was tired of being a “lightning rod” for criticism told CT that the reason “the general public thinks of me as a ‘John the Baptist, confront-the-culture, nuke-the-earth’ kind of person” is because he deliberately played one on TV. At the same time, he often befriended his sparring partners off camera. And gay-rights groups’ favorite villain also called for churches to do more to combat anti-gay violence and “to bring down the rhetoric and the stridency” in fights over sexual ethics.
Usually, Falwell’s seeming contradictions stemmed from truths Christians hold in tension. Falwell just preferred to state these truths separately and starkly, sometimes months or years apart. So with more than three decades of archived blunt quotes to choose from, Falwell gave activists of every stripe ample evidence to prove whatever point they wanted to make. He wasn’t a caricature; he was a Rorschach test on which we could project our fears, wishes, and ironies.
You can see it in the tributes: Rick Warren praised Falwell as the founder of “dozens of other compassion projects,” a ministry innovator, an encourager of thousands of young pastors, and a devoted pastor who stuck with the church he founded for 50 years. In short, Falwell was Warren without the acronyms. Ralph Reed saw him as a “groundbreaking progressive” who “awakened the slumbering giant of the evangelical vote” and oversaw “the marriage of that vote to an ascendant, confident Republican party.” In short, Falwell was Reed with a church.
Cynical demagogues saw him as a cynical demagogue. Wide-eyed zealots saw him as a zealot. And, as The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto noted, “His foes portrayed him as a hater, in large part because of the hatred he inspired in them.”
An unexpected tribute came from pornographer Larry Flynt, the subject of Falwell’s most prominent legal battle, which ended in a landmark Supreme Court decision. “I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends,” Flynt said. He told Larry King, “He cared about people. And I don’t think that Falwell was mean-spirited at all.”
Flynt, along with James Dobson, suggested that Falwell’s weight might have hastened his death. “He was close to 400 pounds. And at 70-odd years, anyone knows you don’t carry around that kind of weight,” Flynt said. “I talked to him [about it]. I gave him a couple of diets. I even faxed them to his wife. He just loved to eat, you know. [He was] one of these guys that don’t like to … stop eating, so they just let it kill them.”
The modern secular reaction goes back further to the 1950s when governments at all levels across the United States began a policy of promoting Christianity as an alternative to godless Communism.
This was when the national motto was changed from “E Pluribus Unum” to “In God We Trust”.
This was when “In God We Trust” was added to paper currency (it had been on coins since the Civil War).
This was when the Pledge of Allegiance was modified to include the words “Under God”, ironically dividing the words “One Nation Indivisible”.
To people who were not Christians, these efforts had the unintended effect of making the officially secular Communists look more American than the mainstream American culture of the time. Overreach tends to have that effect.
There was also a significant movement for secularism in the 1960s, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair
Original Intent and the Free Exercise of Religioin
(Note the date of Everson vs Board of Education 1947.)
Moreover, the Framers intended the powers and limitations contained in the U.S. Constitution to apply only to the federal government and not to the States. For example, in the famous case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Plaintiff sued to apply the Fifth Amendment to the City of Baltimore. In its holding, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:
The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. * * * If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states.22
For over one-hundred and fifty years, this was the original intent regarding the scope and jurisdiction of the Constitution, the national government and the Bill of Rights.
However in 1947, the Supreme Court, in Everson v. Board of Education,23 used Jefferson’s Danbury letter as a pretext to disregard centuries of legal tradition in the common law, the Declaration of Independence, the writings of the founding fathers, the notes and records of the Constitutional Convention and over a century of American constitutional jurisprudence. With the stroke of a pen, the Court created a new “law” by incorporating the Fourteenth Amendment (which dealt exclusively with specific State powers) with the First Amendment’s federal provision against an “establishment of religion”.
The result of this legal hocus pocus was devastating: first, the Court reversed 150 years of Constitutional precedent which limited the First Amendment’s application to Congress, i.e., the national government; second, the Court declared that federal courts were now empowered to restrict not only the religious activities of the national government, but the religious expressions of the people and the States as well. Five years later in Zorach, the Court tried in vain to resuscitate the First Amendment’s original intent:
We are a religious people who institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. When the state encourages religious authorities. . . it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people. . . . To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious group. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. . . .[W]e cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion.24
“There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition,” wrote Chief Justice Rehnquist in his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree,25 “that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson. But the greatest injury of the ‘wall’ notion,” continued Justice Rehnquist, is the mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The “wall of separation between church and state” is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.26
Ultimately, however, the Everson case and its progeny prevailed.27
Although the First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ., ” most of the Court’s recent decisions in this area involve neither Congress nor the “making of a law.” For example, in Lee v. Weisman, the Court equates a Rabbi at a high school graduation ceremony with “Congress” and Rabbi’s prayer during the graduation ceremony as the “making of a law.” Indeed, using the Court’s criteria, the First Amendment is internally inconsistent: a person’s right to “free exercise” of religion may now collide with the prohibited “establishment” of a religion.
Moreover, contrary to the intent of the Framers, the Court now believes that it alone has “secret knowledge” 28 to decide what is “constitutional” for the rest of the nation. For example, in Boerne v. Flores29 decided July, 1997, the Court held that Congress’ attempt to protect the religious liberties of the people by passing the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) was “unconstitutional.” In its holding the Court opined that RFRA was “not a proper exercise of Congress’ enforcement power because it contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal-state balance.”
Finally, the Constitutional Framers understood that government encouragement of religion was not equal to the establishment of religion; that, as George Washington said, “religion and morality were indispensable supports” to political prosperity.30 Indeed, on the day the First Amendment was passed by the Congress in 1789, Washington accepted Congress’ charge to proclaim a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.” As Chief Justice Rehnquist opined in the Jaffree case, “History must judge whether it was the Father of our country in 1789, or. . . the Court . . . which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.”31
The fears of the Danbury Baptists have come true . The Supreme Court has become, in Jefferson’s words, a “despotic branch.” By rejecting natural law and the doctrine of original intent, the Court now assumes: first, that the State–not the Creator–grants men their fundamental (unalienable) rights, and second: since our rights are no longer “unalienable” they can be regulated or even abridged with impunity.
Two centuries after the First Amendment was approved, the Court now sits in judgment of our beliefs as a “national theology board”32 and uses the First Amendment as a “bulldozer of social engineering”33 to remove all religious expression from the marketplace of ideas. The Court no longer feigns adherence to the Founders’ original intentions regarding the object of the First Amendment or the natural rights of the people found therein. Ironically, as predicted in Zorach, the Court now protects the rights of “those who believe in no religion over those who do believe” by engaging in the methodical religious sanitization of our institutions and communities. The Court has guaranteed freedom from religion as opposed to freedom of religion.
There are these things called amendments to the constitution. Which means we can deviate from the original constitution. The framers were wise enough to put a mechanism for altering the constitution because they understood that time does not stand still and the world changes. I know there is a radical idea for you, but it is true, we are no longer living during the time of the framers. Anyway, you ignore the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in your analysis, which is crucial to understanding why the things are now applied to the states.
Im pretty sure Chief Justice William Rhenquist was aware of those.
Conflating the 1rst Amendment with the 14th, is the error (aka incorporation).
Of course they’re out of their mind with fear; they’re evil, and evil people are paranoid even when there’s nobody out to get them.
“…a world in which our lives will be scientifically engineered by a benign and all-encompassing state.”
States – governments – by their very natures seek to become all-encompassing, but seldom, if ever, are they benign. States consume, they do not produce. They are things-within-themselves, sufficient unto themselves. They become their own reasons to exist. Their rise and fall are as predictable as the sun’s journey.
I have never read nor known of a socialist society that did not fail to fail, nor of a progressive who would not, in your time of need, gladly give you the shirt off his neighbor’s back.
And yet, the only thing worse than the State is the absence of one.
Depends on the state.
We’re spoiled. We don’t understand what true anarchy is like.
Under Islam the worst was when you were far from the center of authority, and the local Sheikh could, for example, take one if your wives (*) if he felt like it.
(*) Assuming you’re Jewish. This is not referrign to something far in the past.
What is amazing to me is how many Catholic priests and other Christian men of the cloth support the so-called “progressive” poloicies of our Esteemed Annointed One. It seems akin to using poisoned wine to serve communion.
That’s slowly changing. Try to find a young liberal priest; most of the worst are old. imo, JPII was personally a holy man but he had absolutely awful judgement in choosing bishops (part of it was that he chose corrupt men as his closest advisors, like Sodano and Dziwicz), as did John XXIII. Benedict is much wiser in that regard, and the seminaries are also improving their formation.
It’s interesting that in Judaism – well, Orthodox Judaism – it’s the opposite of the Catholic Church – the academic clergy is more conservative than the lay clergy. Although this may be changing.
I’ll believe that when Benedict starts a serious campaign to rid the priesthood, and especially the seminaries, of homosexuals. As long as that cancer remains, there’s not going to be any meaningful change.
And while he’s at it he should be firing people who won’t stand for truth. How long did it take to get Matthew Fox declared a heretic? Many, many years too long. That was a no-brainer.
JPII was a nice man. Too nice. He didn’t want to rock any boats.
There are some boats that need to be sunk.
I’m under the impression that the worst seminaries have been shut down. I’d like the Vatican to move faster than “Vatican speed” on problems too; I’m involved in helping ex-members of the Legion of Christ/Regnum Christi cult and in spreading awareness of its dangers and I would really like Rome to Shut. It. Down. Msgr Scicluna has his wits and faith about him but he can only do so much.
The 3,000 year stance of the Judeo-Christian faiths against sexual sin (adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, incest, bestiality) is at great risk. The reading in public (worship services?) of Leviticus or Romans may soon be prohibited as “hate speech” and the outright banning (burning?) of Bibles will not be far behind.
Right now they are ignoring Hebrew. (It probably is illegal in the military for a chaplain to sermonize against.)
One of the two most important synagogue honors is the reading of the book of Jonah on Yom Kippur afternoon. Since he is “only” reading from the Prophets, we also give him the final reading from the Law, which Yom Kippur afternoon is from the Prohibited Relations (Arayot).
And so this most important honor starts with the reader chanting: “And a male, do not sleep(*) as one does with a woman, it is a abomination”.
So far it is still legal, at least in the U.S.
(*) Active verb, a euphemism. There is no word for the sexual act in Hebrew (or in normal English). There are many euphemisms for it, and “love” is not one of them.
I mean legal to read it!
But back in February, the US Army did interfere with Catholic sermons on the HHS mandate, by prohibiting Army chaplains from reading their archbishop’s letter (Broglio).
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13231
Yes, this is what I meant. I was only surprised that anyone was surprised; I know the senior chaplains listen to the sermons of the junior ones, even if they are not of the same religion.
So far they are sticking to censoring English.
It’s an interesting question. In a society that claims freedom of religion are there limits to religious freedom? Of course the answer is yes.
If Catholics can deny birth control in health insurance, can Christian Scientists deny everything?
Are Rastafarians free to smoke pot?
How many wives can a Mormon have?
If female circumcision is a bad thing (and it is) can it be banned? If female circumcision can be banned does that also mean that male circumcision can be banned?
It’s obvious that there are limits to religious freedom. The question is where do we draw the lines. Any time lines are drawn saying “This limit is acceptable but that limit is not” somebody is going to feel their religious rights are being denied.
I know my comment is full of questions and pretty weak on answers, but I’ve been thinking about this long before the current controversy and I still haven’t figured it out. I just thought I’d mention the questions because nobody else is.
These questons immediately came to my mind upon encountering Mr. Goldman’s post.
You forgot Native Americans use of peyote.
I repeat what I said about Scalia suggesting (I forget the exact details) that the government could not impose Alcohol Prohibition on Jews and Catholics. (There WERE exceptions during Prohibition.) Also note Goldman’s statement about circumcision, a matter for which Jews literally gave their lives during various periods of history.
I suggest longstanding religious practices should be left alone. Polygamy may be longstanding, but it was new to America, and the CJC-LDS was a new religion.
The main issue of Peyote is when they “adopt” members or take in guests. Indians have a sort of autonomy, so one can work from there.
Also, just because it’s Constitutional doesn’t mean it should be done.
I’m Catholic so you’re of course going to get some bias here. I don’t see why someone who decided to work for a religious organization would expect to get health insurance that covered something the group considers “sinful” so I don’t see why anyone would expect medical insurance from his Christian Science employer.
As far as Mormons having more than one wife, there are a few specific problems. One is that women who have escaped these situations report that there is coercion for them to accept their arrangements and also to lie about their happiness with their state. Second, children in any household arrangement other than a marriage between one man and one woman, don’t do nearly as well. A state has to look out for the society at large, and if children from “less successful” household types are encouraged, the children with their higher rates of problems (incarceration, drug abuse, alcoholism, teen parenthood, suicide, divorce) devolve the community. See inner-city America…
Comparing Catholics’ use of “wine” aka “the Blood of Christ” to the religions you mention, I think it’s important to again look at the effect on society. If the religions’ adherents are using large amounts of a drug that impair their ability to function, then the state has a right to stop that practice. We don’t drink that much “wine” at Mass, just a sip, but it’s optional, and I don’t think anyone would complain if a Catholic got arrested for drunk driving if he consumed so much that it impaired his abilities. But wine is legal to possess in the US; I wonder what they do in the ME? If the religion was Aztec (or the worship of Moloch), then it seems like we should be able to limit their sacrifice of children (unless you called it “choice” instead of religion but that’s another rant).
As far as the mutilation of women, I don’t think it’s required in Islam.
Oh dear,
“and if children from “less successful” household types are encouraged” isn’t quite right. It will work better if you take out “children from”.
If you look carefully, your argument on polygamy can be used to prohibit any religious practice, based on “logic”. The simpler point is that it had been accepted in the US (based on Christianity!) as wrong, before LDS existed. If we were to start banning polygamy today, that would be religious persecution.
Female mutilation – it is NOT circumcision – is rather different and not required by Islam. Male Circumsicion is inherent to Judaism; in the time of the birth of Christianity it defined it (and was sometimes outlawed on pain of death).
The question is, does it harm someone else? Is it real (historical etc.)?
Whatever you do to make that determination, in this case is irrelevant. Why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else’s birth control in the first place? This kind of crap is the camel’s nose, next it will be counseling mandates, all the politically correct clap-trap will be FORCED on business. First through health care (which will be quickly dropped leading to single-payer . . .their desired outcome) then directly.
If someone isn’t using her “girl parts” for procreation, then they should be classified as “recreational use only” and I don’t believe I should have to pay for someone else’s recreational equipment’s upkeep.
First, it should be understood that Jews aren’t the only ones who circumcise males. It was a Catholic tradition was I was a young man, though maybe it isn’t so much anymore. But Catholics will be a target, too.
Second, there is no valid comparison of male circumcision to female “circumcision” because the latter is a euphemism for clitorectomy. That’s not cutting some loose skin off (as in male circumcision), thats mutilation. That’s destroying a major part of the girls ability to experience sexual pleasure.
No it wasn’t; Catholics have never cared one way or the other about circumcision. What it was was a common practice in America’s hospitals for health reasons.
Let me take a stab:
If Catholics can deny birth control in health insurance, can Christian Scientists deny everything?
Answer: Nice rhetoric but a Christian Scientist hospital is a non-sequitor. If C-Scientis want to set up a facility where there brand of medcial treatment (denying everything I suppose) then nobody is going to stop them.
Are Rastafarians free to smoke pot?
Answer: Not sure if this has been decided yet but probably not. Government can usually stop you from doing something unless there is a longstanding religious exception.
The difference with the hospitals is they are not stopping the hospitals from doing something- they are FORCING them to take actions (i.e. distribute contraceptives, perform abortions) that violate their religious practices. I say bring it on, there is no way Obammy is going to win this case.
How many wives can a Mormon have?
Answer: 1- that was required way back when Utah was admitted into the union. Did you miss that day of High School or was this purely gratuitious.
If female circumcision is a bad thing (and it is) can it be banned? If female circumcision can be banned does that also mean that male circumcision can be banned?
Answer: Female Circumsision- or more properly Female Genital Mutilation is an extremely harmful practice and is NOT recognized by any major religion. This is an ancient tribal custom that is not Islamic (although the Islamists apparently have not done enough to stop the practice). Male Circumsision is NOT harmful and is a ritual recognized for thousands of years by major world religions.
I recall reading my insurance policy years ago, and it paid for a C.S. practitioner.
re. Rastafarians.
The Supreme Court ruled that Rastafarians have no right to smoke marijuana.
Okay, that’s sounding familiar; the “one wife” rule was a condition of statehood?
The relationship between the state and church is tearing our nation apart. It will continue. For those who care, I recommend a recent opus, American Grace, Putnam and Campbell, which studied the sociological changes in US religion over the last century. Many of the comments here are considered in this complex text.
When our nation began, when our Constitution was approved, a large minority would not sign it, without a firm promise to quickly amend it, with guaranteed rights for the individual. The first right was the freedom to speak, assemble, and practice religion without fear of government coercion. Neither this right, or any right is absolute, but this one is under direct attack by the unchecked power of the federal government. Persecution is not far away, first by legal confiscation of wealth and property, later by imprisonment. The concept of family, and one’s relationship with God, is under constant assault. The notion of live-and-let-live for other’s religious prohibitions, are now tarred with the brush of discrimination. The conflict is not new, the direction is new, over the last generations (the text terms it the long 1960s). The agents were sex outside of marriage, abortion, homosexuality, and dope. There was a counter movement in the 1980s (e.g. Pat Robertson et al) but since the mid 1990s, a counter-counter movement, anything goes. The concept of personal restraint, self discipline, has ceased to exist in America, “all of my problems are your fault”. Example: Catholic employers must pay for my abortion, or face ruinous fines to stay in business. Homosexuality has split the Anglican church, and boils others. Fewer nuclear families exist. Hence the responsibility to pay for parents’ old age, has shifted from children to future tax payers. One enormous change has been the segregation of religious conservative people into one political party, the Republican. Oddly, the two most socially conservative groups, Catholic Latinos and Black Protestants, vote against their core beliefs, for liberal Democrats.
Basic American axioms have shifted, unnoticed. Our nation is tearing itself apart.
Tearing itself apart, or building something new? I feel rather uncomfortable with a lot of what’s happening, but I’m not willing to say that what’s coming may necessarily be bad. The Civil Rights Act brought change and dysfunction where there had been stability – but the ultimate upshot of it was overwhelmingly positive.
I see nothing positive from the 60′s. So civil rights passed – big deal. All that means to a lot of people is that legalized discrimination has shifted from black people to white males. That’s not a step forward – that’s just moving the goal posts. Discrimination is still legal in this country.
Women’s lib? Shoot! All that means is women are all expected to be whores for men now. ladies get sneered at and are ostricized as something freakish.
Need to go find yourself? Just tear your entire family apart for no good reason and leave scores of scared children in your selfish wake.
Bastards are legitimate and the legitmate has been bastardized.
God has been driven out of school and the religion of the homosexuals has replaced Him.
Screw the 60′s.
And the ghost of Antonio Gramsci is having a good laugh at our expense.
In his deathbed signore Gramsci returned to the Catholic faith of his infancy just like that other scumbag Voltaire did. The nearness of DEATH clarifies the mind no doubt.
Fair enough. Yet, I suspect that if you were black, or of another minority, you might think differently.
Th Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s led directly to the social change in the 1970s. Racism did not go away – that old horror is still with us – but it ceased to be socially acceptable. Minorities found a voice, and demanded equality – demanded that a promise made two hundred years ago actually be kept. And I honestly believe America is the better for it.
I think that you will find that racism and sexism is perfectly acceptable and accepted, from minorities of all stripes. Identity Politics is alive and well, and lauded and given awards and great honors.
Minorities demanded more than equality before the law, and their civil rights to vote.
They demanded and got, racist voting districts which are drawn for the purpose of disempowering groups based on race and empowering groups based on race. Just one example. They demand racial and sex discrimination.
This is the Wonderful World that we live in now, according to you. The new Jim Crow is much better than the old Jim Crow, because tyranny of the minority is morally superior to the tyranny of the majority.
But alas…
I think the expansion of “civil rights” beyond the original bill is gettign to the point where it isn’t worth it, even if I have to go back to the old “Gentlemen’s agreement” days of anti-Jewish discrimination.
70% of black children being raised in single parent homes = overwhelmingly positive.
White families are also heading that direction.
Kevin R. Cross welcomes the hope and change of government replacing fathers and families. A Brave New World is being created by Leftwingers, sit back and enjoy the dystopias…..lest Kevin slander you as a theocrat (which is one of the many slanders meant to silence conservative critics of the Left including racist, fascist, sexist, etc)
No, I call you a theocrat because you’ve basically stated you are one.
And as usual, you have tried for “what I believe” and missed by a mile. I don’t support the breaking up of families. I don’t support government being any larger than it needs to be to do it’s basic jobs – but I also acknowledge that the world today is a more complex and dangerous place than it was in the 1770′s, and that government does need to be a little larger than it once was (though most of that should really be dealt with on the state level).
What I see is a society in transition. We are changing – and change is always traumatic, but change is not necessarily bad. I don’t know what the end point of this will be, and I want to get through it without losing the important stuff – liberty and freedom, patriotism, th social bonds that hold us together as a nation. I am cautiously optimistic about the future – the changes will be painful, but that isn’t reason not to reach for the sky.
Yeah, those bitter clingers are in for quite a ride….but the glorious New Dawn is on the other side.
We just need to socially engineer the people, and failing that import new different people. Re-educaiton is the key. The future looks bright says the staunch supporter of freedom and liberty….Kevin R. Cross.
Just have to smash the old order to get there. You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette.
Tell us Kevin.
In this free and libertine Brave New World you propose to support, are Christians allowed the freedom to practice their religion in their basements?
And everybody out there, dont think for a minute that what Kevin Cross says about my promotion of theocracy is legit.
He merely has a twisted view of theocracy, in which any participation by the majority Christian population in informing legislation and policy is beyond the pale.
Basically Kevin is an Anti-Religious bigot, who supports the suppression of religion by a secular state.
Christians are not even to be allowed to express themselves in the institutions. Keep that stuff in your basements.
Some liberty that, heh?
Anyway, this guy is a concern troll. Best to ignore him. Ill keep challenging him on threads until he tires of his shenanigans.
Then you’ll be here a long time, theocrat. I’m not going anywhere.
What you don’t get (and to be fair, you’re not alone in this) is that nobody is oppressing your religion.
In fact, you’re in a privileged position. Christianity is the single largest, most powerful and general religion in the United States. There are more Churches then there are Mosques, Synagogues, Temples and Shrines put together.
Anyone not a Christian has real problems being elected to any position; that’s not discrimination, it’s just people preferring to elect someone they believe shares their values.
Is there a problem with this? None that I can see.
What you (and many others) don’t like, though, is that you aren’t being allowed to lord it over everyone else. You’re not being allowed to force your religion on others, as you used to, with mandatory school prayer, or appropriating public land. One of America’s most important ideals, Equality before the Law, is being applied to you, and you just can’t stand it, can you?
No, it’s not enough for you to have the perfect and complete freedom to worship however you want, wherever you happen to be. You have to be able to shove it in the faces of everyone else, to dominate and control, to be special.
Well, special is exactly how I’d describe you, theocrat. But not in a good way. And I’m thankful every day that more Christians AREN’T like you.
Equality before the law means everybody has the right to freedom of religion. Not merely freedom of worship, but freedom of religion. But you won’t have any of that. No, you feel the need to persecute us because you feel threatened by our existence. It is not us you tremble in fear of; rather it is God who terrifies you, and rightly so, for whoever persecutes the Church persecutes Christ, and Christ will condemn to Hell those who persecute Him.
Wont be long now Kevin, before the Supreme Court starts ruining your day on a daily basis and rolling back the Leftwing assault on Christianity that was the later half of the 20th century.
Then you will truly have to come to grips with what it means to be tolerant of Christians.
Of course you are an intolerant bigoted would be oppressor, so it will really rub you the wrong way. Shake your fist in the air….”Those darn uppity Christians! Dont they know their place!”
Myth Buster, I’ve asked this of EV, and he’s either unable or unwilling to answer: How are your freedoms actually being circumscribed? You can worship wherever you wish; you can pray wherever you wish; you can live your life as you choose; you can proseltyze to anyone you can get to stand still. Honestly, where is the persecution? I’m not trying to be clever or sarcastic, here, I honestly want your view on this, because I feel I must be missing something. Despite EV’s lies to the contrary, I hold no opprobrium to Christianity (that would in fact be difficult, being a Christian myself, even if I’m not hugely devout). But this whole “Christianity under attack” thing doesn’t make any sense to me.
Kevin,
“Persecution” begins on a small scale. Right now, there’s an HHS mandate that says we have to offer insurance coverage of practices that are completely against our beliefs. Many, many Catholics and other people of faith recognize that this is Step 1. A reading of history legitimizes our fear that this is only going to get worse. Last week, we saw attempts to punish Mr Cathy’s “wrong” beliefs.
Just so everybody knows this supposed Christian thinks that prayer in public schools led by adults = theocracy, and is an oppressive imposition of religion.
He is a concern troll.
Jeanette – so it’s a “thin edge of the wedge” argument? I can see people being concerned about that. At the same time, though, isn’t that imposition of beliefs on others? I’m for freedom of belief and conscience – but if your conscience honestly won’t let you do a certain job, surely the answer is to find another job?
And EV hits yet another foul ball. No, I have no problem with prayer groups in schools, even ones led by adults.
What I have a problem with is compulsory prayer, either through school rules or peer pressure, in PUBLIC schools (you know, the ones paid for by taxes, where the teachers are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES?) I have a problem with this because it violates the rights of parents to give their children the religious education they consider appropriate, and, in youths old enough to make their own decisions, their right to decide for themselves. I would be seriousl POd if someone tried to get me to pray according to the dictates of any denomination other then my own – so I don’t see anything wrong with sticking up for others on this matter.
Oh, by the way, this is one of the main reasons why I keep calling EV “Theocrat”. He’s stated that he wants Christians to have special rights to force the gospel down the throats of everyone – and yeah, that is theocracy.
Of course I never stated that I support compulsory prayer in public schools, which I dont. This Kevin fellow is quite a piece of work. He probably thinks that morning prayers in the classroom led by the teachers is compulsory prayer.
He is just playing word games.
You can also see that he is quite intolerant of other Christian denominations, if he really is a Christian, as well.
As I said, he is quite a piece of work. Obviously a concern troll. You should have seen what he had to say about how dangerous Christianity is and was to other peoples liberty. Here Ill post a link to his ruminations about how dangerous Christianity and Christians are to liberty and freedom. And you can judge for yourselves if this fellow is a concern troll…or just a self hating Christian.
Here it is with one selected quote, though please read the whole series of comments from the concern troll Kevin R. Cross.
http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/07/23/the-wages-of-willful-blindness-is-it-time-for-defenders-of-liberty-to-abandon-the-gop/
The founding fathers were hardly “Judeo-Christian.” They were either Deists (which today we’d call either Atheists or Agnostics) or Protestants in the greatest amount, a few Catholics. Some were activel anti-clerical, and none of the major leaders were highly religious.
They created a nation for ALL religions. To forget that is to lose the most important aspects of religious liberty – and to hand the country to the theocrats (Muslim, Christian – there is no true difference, they all only want power) on a plate. – Kevin R. Cross
This guy sound like a Christian to you? You make the call.
There we have it. Christians are the majority, and therefore they are the oppressor and can never be oppressed. It’s the same BS argument they use with blacks and whites.
aharris, of course it’s possible tbe the majority and be oppressed. Just ask the blacks of South Africa. But I ask you (as I have asked EV, repeatedly): Where is the oppression in equality?
So the question then becomes…
Should the few percent of the population tolerate having to listen to the 95% majority express themselves freely as they pray aloud together in schools.
Or should the 95% be silenced and forced not to have vocal prayers in fellowship as they would prefer, but rather silent prayers to themselves, so that the few percent wont have to be forced to listen to the majorities free expression of their faith. In other words, should the few percents intolerance of the majorities right to free expression win the day.
Kevin R. Cross thinks that Christian prayer is such an afront to “the Other” that it is unbearable to hear it, and intolerable.
We can clearly see who the intolerant are, here. And it isnt Christians.
Theocrat, you have repeatedly shown that what you think “I believe” is nothing more than a projection of your own inadequacies. Given that, and the fact that you seem unable or unwilling (and I’m willing to bet the former) to either answer simple questions OR respond to my actual arguments (hear that scraping? That’s EV moving the goalposts yet again), and that your entire set of responses seem to boil down to “Wah, wah, mommy, that nasty man doesn’t like christians!”, I have little reason to consider you anything but the troll you have repeatedly accused me of being, rather than any sort of serious commentor or debator.
Nevertheless, I am going to respond here: NO, I DON’T have a problem with christians praying, Or doing so loudly, save in certain circumstances.
Those circumstances are where they are basically forcing themselves on others. And that’s not just Christians – I oppose the forcing of religion on others by ANY group. A group praying in the street? Even loudly? No problem. Anyone who objects can just walk away. In a Church, a prayer meeting, a private function, a PUBLIC function – anyone who’s there wants to be. You’re not forcing your beliefs on others, they’re there of their own free will.
Where do I object? Two circumstances: Government involvement, and captive audiences. The former, because it is illegal. You might consider that interpretation of the Constitution wrong, and if you do, more power to you, but until you can get the SCOTUS to agree, it remains the law of the land, and I feel it is my duty as both a citizen and a Christian to obey that. And for captive audiences, well tht should be obvious – that really IS forcing your beliefs on others. When I go to church, it’s MY church. I do not care what other churchs’ interpretations of scripture are, and I DON’T want to be bombarded by them when I go to a football game. To heck with your “95%/5%” argument (not that those are even close to the actual numbers) – I’m talking other christian denominations. Mormon, Catholic, Adventist – whatever. When you force me to listen to you, against my will, you’re stepping over the line.
You are intolerant of even other Christian sects…as you have already stated.
You cant bear to have your worldview challenged. If you hear some other derivation on Christianity your world will shatter, so thin skinned and shallow…..so you clamber for the state to protect you from having to hear others freely express themselves. The right not to be offended…the death of free speech. Yet you claim to be pro liberty and free speech.
How pathetic.
We’ve got this atheist Christian concern troll, quoting captive audience right out of the atheist play book….to deny a Christian valedictorian from giving a speech which concerns their faith and how that has helped them to succeed.
However this charlatan Kevin R. Cross, is unconcerned about having to listen to any other speech by a valedictorian in front of a captive audience. Clearly you see that he is unconcerned about having to sit through others Free Speech in a captive audience, just Christians. Go ahead and bloviate about any subject, praise whatever for your success and promote whatever values and principles you would like to…but as soon as you burden Kevin R. Cross with having to listen to you bloviate about Jesus and Christianity, well that right there is unforgiveable and must be prohibited by the state.
Likewise Kevin R. Cross believes that any idea should be able to inform legislation, as long as it didnt derive from a religious tradition. Hedonism, Communism, Marxism, all welcome to inform legislation, but Christianity is a bridge too far, and must be prohibited. (Still think Kevin R. Cross is a Christian?)
Sorry Kevin R. Cross, nobody here is buying what you are selling.
As for the Supreme Court…..wont be long now. You’ll be gnashing your teeth in uncontrollable rage at having to listen to others Free Speech, which you do not approve of. At least Voltaire would defend to the death our right to say it…but not Kevin R. Cross.
You just don’t get a word I’ve said, do you?
I have no more time for your BS, Theocrat, and we have gone for enough from any actual argument that I doubt anyone but you cares anymore, so I shall leave this here.
I’m sure that somewhere in your tiny mind you’ll find some ridiculous twist of logic to allow you to call this a victory, but the fact is I just can’t stand your lies anymore. You have no interest in what anyone has to say, and choose to twist others’ words in the worst possible light. So I just don’t care what you have to say – it’ll all be falsehoods anyway.
Take your tyrannical anit-free speech douchebaggery back to the “Freethinker” Society whence you came, Kevin R. Cross, Christian concern troll.
We are not changing. That’s the laughable naiveté of agenda driven individuals with a lack of historical hindsight. We are repeating a vicious cycle, as the adage goes, of freedom to prosperity, prosperity to decadence, decadence to apathy, apathy to dependence, dependence to slavery.
I *certainly* sympathize with those running Catholic institutions in the US; as their dilemma is indeed a great challenge to their core beliefs.
However:
“The Catholic Church is the only European institution that has
consistently defended Jewish religious freedom in Europe.”
You are going to have to bring me *Several* substantiated proofs before I believe the above quote from the article.
Civitas hominis est America democratica; est locus ubi potestas diaboli regit et Americani amatores malorum sunt et morituri in profundis Tartari. Extra ecclesiam nemo salvus erit.
Part of the problem is that “secular jews” (how’s that for an oxymoron) in the Democratic party have been at the forefront of the drive to de-legitimize any expression of religion or religion-derived morality in public for a very long time. They are a big part how we got to our insanely politically correct society, where truth is no defense, no right is more important than the right not to be offended if you are a visible or self-proclaimed minority, and The State should be the arbiter of how we live.
Mr. Goldman,
There appears to be something not quite right about the chart of household size. Since the sum of values in each line at any time should always be 100, the two lines should be mirror images of each other, but they are not, This is more noticeable from the mid 90′s.
Jeannette,
Most muslim countries tolerate Christianity to greater or lesser degrees, but there are relatively few in which alcohol is banned. I know of three for sure in which it banned, Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Despite the ban, there is a Catholic church in Kuwait, they get whatever wine they need.
In Iran, import and sale of alcohol is illegal, however the word was that it was OK for Christians to make and consume alcohol for themselves but it was impossible to get a definitive legal opinion. Most Christians there are Armenian Orthodox, there is persecution, but they get wine for use at Mass.
In Saudi Arabia, the practice of any religion other than Islam is absolutely prohibited. This extends to the display and or possession of religious symbols. Customs officers will confiscate bibles, rosaries, crosses and other religious items they recognize during bag searches on arrival. Raids and arrests at prayer meetings held by Indian, Filipino and African Christians are routine. Similar meetings of US/Euro expats in their compounds are left alone.
Thank you!
Religion is just a detraction. The problem isn’t how this affects a particular region, the problem is that HEALTHCARE IS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S DAMNED BUSINESS. Regardless of forcing catholics, protestants, or Harvians to do something, it’s all the same and it’s all wrong.
See #24
Isn’t it obvious: It’s ALL ALWAYS about RELIGION EVERYWHERE.
When is Religion illegal? When Obam & his liberal, Muslm allies say it is. Take into consideration that they are a bunch of socialpaths, liars.
What we have is the religion of the institutional state, that is you have your total life defined by that institution.
What we have is a new totalitarianism competing against other more decent institutions which really don’t understand what is being suggested.
That is why Obama is not being laughted to scorn at this very moment. People love this sort of pseudo-religious sense of inclusion. The end result is simply: “Be my brother or I will kill you.” Chamfort.
Would Obama or his homie The Reverent Mr. Wright agree?
America’s In Trouble (OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AK-Hzajs_0
Carman We Need God In America Again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4JMGSBI5Os&feature=related
First Prayer in Congress http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrBs0JDqNic&feature=related
Congressional Call To Prayer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KgsQtu8MY4&feature=related
“Prayer for America” by JoeDanMedia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDrRVlm5HOw&feature=related
If Loving God Was A Crime http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nor18-uR5ZU
God Wants you!.wmv http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R77jzAalQ5Q
How about the Marxist Revolutionary Theory?
1, Destroy religion and all other belief systems.
2, Replace with Socialistic collectiveism stateism.
3, Infiltrate all media, educational, governmental structures.
NEED I CONTINUE?
Paraphrased, no spell-check.
When the Religious Right began its political muscling in the late 70′s early 80′s, there were warnings to what the end game would look like and we are watching it play out before us today.
The poster that got it right is monycali, Jesus never ventured into politics. He is the example that unfortunately few Christians follow.
Pat Robertson is a businessman. He worked closely with Zaire’s president Mobuto through his company “African Development Corporation”. Robertson and sheep provided the perfect cover to smuggle equipment and launder Zaire’s blood Diamonds using airlift flights of “aid”. He also invested heavily in Liberian Gold mines with president Taylor of Liberia , a convicted war criminal. We call this Blood Diamonds and Conflict Gold today.
He is no more a spiritual leader than anyone else on this board, and has the blood of thousands on his hands.
What would Jesus Do……
Alex, why do you have a problem with Christians being in politics? Our founding fathers were mostly Christian, many were pastors and preachers, they propogated the bible, instituted public universities suited to studying the Christian religion, and encouraged and even financed missionary trips to the indians. Is it not the Christians right, and even their duty as citizens to be involved in the government? And just because Christ did not enter the government during His first visit, it wasn’t part of God’s plan for Him to do so at that time. His purpose for coming the fist time was to be the lamb of God, to take away the sins of the world. And when He returns, it will be to rule from Jerusalem. Or do you not read enough of the Bible to understand it’s meaning?
I’m totally opposed to forcing Jews to give up circumcision but I also believe that the Jewish people are adult enough and smart enough to renegotiate their contract with their Lord so as to remove the physicality of circumcision, leaving only a symbolic ritual. To some extent, the circumcised penis can be viewed as an idol promoting worship of a false god.
Applying a knife to the body of a small baby is barbaric. It does not belong in the modern world. However, nobody is perfect. In most other ways, Jews do fulfil their function of being “a light unto the nations”. In this practice – and also in kosher slaughter – they are failing.
Legislative “solutions” like banning either of these practices is totally wrong-headed, though: two wrongs never did make a right.
“I also believe that the Jewish people are adult enough and smart enough to renegotiate their contract with their Lord”
Great. Let’s appoint a committee of “Rabbi” Michael Lerner, Rahm Emmanuel, Harvey Fierstein, Barney Frank, Thomas Friedman and Barbara Streisand to re-write the Ten Commandments. What could go wrong?
Very funny. However, a committee was not used in the first place. Why not do things like they were done then? Just talk with God, it’s as simple as that. A committee is no good for that, I would agree there.
We’re not Mormons. The revelation at Mount Sinai was an entire people directly experiencing their creator. You can duplicate that?
No prophet can overrule that; we were warned about this by Moses. That’s why Jesus supposedly duplicating some of the miracles performed by Elijah and Elisha does not impress us. You could open the heavens and split the Atlantic from end to end, and it would mean nothing.
See that’s where you and I part ways. I believe that the ministry of Jesus does indeed surpass the Great Theophany at Sinai, for at Sinai, only Moses was allowed to gaze on the Lord directly, and even he could not look at the Lord’s face. Yet we believe that the Messiah is God in human flesh; that indeed the common people saw the face of God and lived, and not only saw the face of God, but conversed and ate with Him as His brothers. That surpasses Sinai.
And what did Moses say? “A prophet like me, the Lord will raise from among your brethren.” And to which King of the Jews did the Lord say, “Your throne, O God, stands forever,” and “You are My Son, this day I have begotten You?” It is the Messiah, the Son of David, who is the Son of the Living God. All the prophets spoke of Him who would ransom Israel from her sins. Indeed, Isaiah records the Lord saying, “It is too little for You only to gather the lost sheep of Israel. I will make you a light to the Gentiles.” What the Lord promised to Israel, the Messiah has opened up to the whole world, so that there need not be any distinction between Jew and Gentile, for the Son of Adam has redeemed them all, serving as the Kinsman Redeemer of Adam and Eve, and all of their descendants until the end of time.
Of course. You are Christian, I am Jewish. But the poster was discussing Judaism.
P.S. Taking your first quote, it is completely out of context. Moses is clearly referring to ALL of the prophets.
Um, we are talking Judaism here? Detailed laws, with millenia of discussion about their details? No, it ain’t gonna happen. The rules for circumcision, including how much to take off, are well woprked out. Jews have literally dies in great numbers to maintain it, and will again if necessary.
That option has already been on the table for them for 1,989 years. As in, the New Covenant has already been offered to them, but until they accept it, they have no part in it. A remnant has accepted it, but the rest still place their identity in the Old Covenant.
We suffered under Christendom for 1500 years. It was worse than Islam – as bad as that was – but not as bad as the atheists of the USSR. We aren’t impressed with what we saw.
Not in 2,000 yesrs.
Not in 20,000.
Not in 200,000.
By the way, you basically confirmed a post that circumsicion is barbaric. that is insulting our Creator.
I did not say that circumcision was barbaric. Indeed, I am circumcised myself, and I consider it no loss. What I said was that since the coming of the Messiah, circumcision is no longer relevant to salvation, for baptism has replaced it.
Circumcision was never required by Judaism for salvation. Do hemophiliacs go to Hell? Don’t the pious of the Nations have a share in the World to Come? How about women? (Actually, we don’t believe one needs to be “saved”.)
What you are referring to is conversion to Judaism, which requires circumcision as well as baptism (full immersion). People thought that to become a Christian, one had to convert to Judaism first. Paul told them they didn’t need to. That’s all.
For Western Jews, the rejection of Christianity is the central identity marker, as you so readily display in your comment here.
Christian Evangelism is so offensive to Jews, because it is a direct assault on their core identity, their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, and thus they see it as an existential threat to their core being….genocidal even.
You dont get the same level of visceral and over the top hostile reaction from Jews when say they are treated to dawa from a Muslim or a scientologist attempts to persuade or what have you.
I want to be clear – I am very pro-Christian, pro-evangelical. I consider myself a member of the religious right, and I love discussing religious issues with evangelicals who are receptive.
But missionizing is a red line for us. And I will defend my Bible against those who attack it.
The issue is not so much rejecting him as the messiah, as it is rejecting him as God (Heaven forbid). In fact, rejecting the very idea of capitalizinng “the messiah”, who is after all is just a person, a human being like you and me. As decribed in the prophets, he will rule, and have children in the usual way (the reading for next Sabbath, in fact).
By the way, while this is not a basic belief, it appears from the Rabbis that Cain and Abel (and their three sisters, whom they married) were conceived (in the usual manner) and born (without a gestation period) in the Garden of Eden before Adam and Eve sinned.
Islam is not Idolotry; a Jew does not have to give up his life to reject it.
But you should see how I react to the atheists!
I think you are mistaken about a great many things (like the relative treatment of Jews by Christendom and Musseldom). BTW, it is interesting to look at the treatment of Christians in Israel as a baseline for Jewish criticism of Christians treatment of Jews in Christian nations. But that is for another discussion.
It is clear that Christian missionizing gets a much stronger reaction from Jews than say, Islamic dawa and other faiths missionizing to and amongst Jews.
This Anti-Christianism is a fact, not a fiction. And the rejeciton of idolatry has very little to do with this visceral reaction.
Here is an excerpt from Michael Medved’s contribution to the Why are Jews Liberals – A Symposium by Commentary Magazine.
======
Anyone who doubts that rejection of Jesus has replaced acceptance of Torah (or commitment to Israel) as the eekur sach—the essential element—of American Jewish identity should pause to consider an uncomfortable question. What is the one political or religious position that makes a Jew utterly unwelcome in the organized community? We accept atheist Jews, Buddhist Jews, pro-Palestinian Jews, Communist Jews, homosexual Jews, and even sanction Hindu-Jewish meditation societies. “Jews for Jesus,” however, or “Messianic Jews” face resistance and exclusion everywhere. In Left-leaning congregations, many rabbis welcome stridently anti-Israel speakers and even Palestinian apologists for Islamo-Nazi terror. But if they invited a “Messianic Jewish” missionary, they’d face indignant denunciation from their boards and, very probably, condemnation by their national denominational leadership. It is far more acceptable in the Jewish community today to denounce Israel (or the United States), to deny the existence of God, or to deride the validity of Torah than it is to affirm Jesus as Lord and Savior.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/why-are-jews-liberals%e2%80%94a-symposium/
mzk, if the Messiah were only a human being, why do the Scriptures say otherwise? Psalm 45 has God addressing the King, saying, “Your throne, O God, stands forever.” To which of the kings of Judah did the Lord refer to as God? No, this could only be His Son, the Messiah, that He is addressing (“What is His Name? What is His Son’s Name, if you know it? -Proverbs 30:4).
Thanks, I think.
Kosher slaughter is very humane, especially with the new pens. It just looks bloody. You are not thinking with your head.
I hope you see the irony here. For most of history, no-one in the West cared about being humane to animals, except Jews. Finally, the Christians accepted it, and the first thing they do is use it against Jews. (You are aware that animal rights was used in the holocuast? See the book “to Vanquish the Dragon”.)
The West always goes to extremes. First no divorce at all, then divorce at the drop of a hat. Ignore child abuse, then convict the innocent. Ignore pain to animals, then overdo it.
to mzk1: you’ve added quite a few posts to this thread since I last visited and I’m not sure I can do justice to them all, but I’ll try to address your main points.
First, I agree with myth buster that Moses was alone in communicating with the Lord and it is from that premise that I believe that a similar charismatic leader could direct the Jews in a more modern direction.
I don’t agree with myth buster regarding the New Covenant. I think there are grave problems with the New Covenant and that the Jews that failed to accept it had a good deal of merit on their side.
It would very much sadden me if it were true that Jews have sacrificed so much just for the sake of being able to cut off a bit of a baby’s penis. This is where the circumcised penis becomes the object of idolatrous worship.
I feel strongly commanded by a divine power to express my views on circumcision, even to the point of calling it “barbaric”. The divine power that commands me identifies itself with Genesis 1:1 and I felt its presence most powerfully inside a synagogue. That presence has more power and authority for me than does any current human institution.
As I wrote above, I deem the Jewish people to be smart and adult. Contentious discussion is welcome and my right to voice my opinion is not cut short by an over-zealous moderator. This is as it should be.
The main conflictual fault line confronting humanity is that between the West and Islam but the Jews are in grave danger of being caught in the crossfire. Correction: of continuing to be caught in the crossfire, since this has been going on for a long time.
I am convinced that it would help things along if Jews eased up on the circumcising of babies, even if they simply allow a free and forthright discussion of the topic without raising anti-semitism as a strawman. I can feel compassion for the Jewish people while also feeling compassion for the baby.
As for kosher slaughter being “humane” I am not an expert in animal rights but I have yet to meet such an expert who would countenance kosher slaughter even in its more modern and supposedly “humane” forms. If you can direct me to such an expert opinion (not, of course, coming from a Jewish and therefore biased source) then I would be happy to promulgate it in any further discussion I have on this matter.
It is explicit in the Bible (we just read it in the Synagogue last week) that the entire nation heard God, not just Moses. I’m not into the Christian chapter system, but it’s in Deut. around where Moses repeats the story of the Golden Calf.
By the way, piercing a baby’s ear is also putting a knife to a baby’s skin, and probablhy more painful.
The Rabbis tell how when, during one of the periods circumcision was illegal, mothers (who don’t technically even have an obligation to circumcise their children) would stand on a wall, circumcise the youngster, and jump off the wall with the baby; I assume to avoid being tortured to death. This is how strongly we feel about it. Anyway, it’s good for the baby and much cleaner and simpler than the medical method. As an adult it would be difficult.
For Shechita, I recommend animal rights supporter Temple Grandin, who works with rabbis on the issue.
Thanks for all that info, I’m sure it’ll prove useful to me in future.
(and I don’t approve of ear piercing of babies either)
Yes, we are caught in the middle. This is why I get nervous at some of the attacks on Islam I read.
However, if you want real “caught in the middle”, take a look at what happened to the Jews caught between the Catholics and Protestants during the wars. Or the Poles and Ukranians after WWI.
I fear it’s worse than you think. Yes, the criminalization of jewish ceremonial practices like circumscision is one thing (though compare it to the disgracefully ambivalent attitude of the chattering classes towards what is euphemistically called “female circumcision”, ie clitorectomy, in some muslim cultures – now that’s REAL violence).
But there’s more on the way. Already people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris call orthodox christian teaching on hell “child abuse”. How long will it be – 10 years, 5 years? – before there are calls by legislators, social welfare bureaucrats and others for such teaching to be criminalized and banned, on pain of removal of the abused children from their families? After all, it’s child abuse, and abused children should be put into care for their own protection.
Is this hyperbole? Not at all. When hugely influential people like Dawkins and Harris equate traditional religious teaching with violence and sexual molestation of children – note the absurdity of the parallel – you know that persecution is a real possibility, and not far behind.
You think that in the US, at least, there will be some constitutional protection against such a scenario? Maybe. But for how long? Child abuse (the real kind) is not constitutionally protected. All you need is a majority of supremes to sign up to the Harris-Dawkins line, and that’s the end of it.
It is vital that religious people should stand together and support each other, as you suggest.
From Cleon Skousen’s “The naked Communist” circa 1963:
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
I wish I were making this stuff up.
Yet in the end evil is ALWAYS defeated. Evils are even used by God to advance His cause: “Do not fear I have conquered the world.”
Check out “The Naked Capitalist”.
we have come to a place of global hysteria. the physical world is changing in our own lifetime,in our own experience and it doesn’t seem as though there is much we can do about it. we can do what we can do, but yesterday south africa had snow and that had never happened in any documented histories, there is a glacier on its way somewhere having melted enough to disengage itself and float freely, purportedly the size of a continent, there is also the rubbish, everything that was swept away in the tsunami headed for the entire california coast expected to arrive in about two years, and strange tropical weather in places that aren’t tropical.
I suppose we will make of it what we will.
I stopped reading at South Africa has never had documented snow.
The first time in history that fire has melted steel!
It’s called….weather.
I see you live in the city. You need to get out in the country more often, and you would realize that these “unheard of” phenomena you talk about are not so unusual. Even as hot as it’s been out here in the midwest, it’s been getting unusually chill at night these last two nights, when you go out in the morning, you can already feel the bite in the air. Make no mistake, fall is on its way … and it’s hardly mid August. This, too, is simply weather.
We are still to see many strange things and yet we seem to be at the moment when the unholy thing, the cause of desolation is standing where it ought not. That in my view is great news because it is a sign that our liberation is near.
This is the end of Modernism. The beast is finally eating itself. Nations, economies, currencies, political classes, cultures lie dying everywhere. The world is about to turn. We have known for quite a while that we cannot continue living like this.
There is only one thing we can do: repent, turn around and return to Natural Law. We have realized as a species that we cannot subvert Mother Nature and replace God’s ways with ours.
Just wait a few months and see. It is going to get quite interesting.
It’s NOT “illegal to be a Jew” in those parts of Europe where they forbid parents from inflicting ritual mutilation in the name of superstition on their infants: since Jews have traditionally circumcised even consenting octogenarian elders who wanted to fulfil Abraham’s only allegedly G*d-given conditions of getting into heaven, (not to mention corpses) it isn’t too much to ask that they delay their idolatrous group-rights imposition on those individuals too young to consent to it until same have reached an age of maturity and agree to it! Where group rights trump the rights of the individual human members of those groups, it’s called totalitarian Conformity!
The left believes in group rights, not individual rights – exactly the sort of nonsense you are arguing for here. Is it an abusive parent’s right as owner of his child, to inflict ritual mutilation and pain on it in the name of his superstition (or other delusions)?! Of course not!
Secondly: As for the Kosher and Halal means of slaughter: they are both barbaric, Period.
In general, ‘Faith’ (as opposed to an honest expression of general hope or specific, contextual trust) is really only prejudicial bias; idolatry, and probably should be illegal, because even expressing one’s fact-free opinion as if it were fact is a form of lying fraud, which is already a crime.
Here’s the quick difference between philosophy, science, and religion:
Philosophy is sppeculation, presented AS speculation.
Science is tested speculation, presented AS tested speculation.
Religion is speculation, presented AS FACT.
Thus only one of these (religion) is a LIE… and lying is only the most basic form of theft: it’s the theft of the Truth.
At best, religions are collections of metaphysical and psychological observations, phrased as helpful warnings and advice (i.e: “Don’t do X, or Y will occur”)! At worst, they are threats (aka: psychological attacks, coercion, duress; terrorism) and all non-defensive attacks are already crimes.
That being said, at worst, all ‘real’ religions only say:
“Obey our silly rules, or GOD (/’the gods’) will get you!”
But ONLY (atheistic, faithless) islam says:
“Obey our silly rules, or WE will get you (‘for god’)!”
Thus, islam is NOT a religion (at all, much less one ‘of peace’) it’s only an ancient, ongoing extortion-racket CRIME0syndicate, because the only ‘religious’ part in it, is where they say:
“God told us to commit these crimes!”
(Capicse?)!
Torah says that a boy is to be circumcised when he’s a week old, or else he’s cut off from Israel. While I believe that circumcision is no longer relevant to salvation, I defend the Jews because any government that can ban infant circumcision can ban infant baptism.
That’s not how we read the verse. And certainly a child is not liable until adulthood (puberty, usually at 13). But this “gentleman” is a prefect example of the reason atheism is the most barbaric, murderous, and intolerant religion in all of human history. It makes Islam look harmless by comparision.
Never mind that he doesn’t have facts. He KNOWS the truth.
Well, you’ve proven his point.
Let’s be practical. What you will do is drive the practice underground, and thus lead to children being mutilated.
Also, imagine a 13-year-old studying the laws and realizing that he is now personally responsible for a severe sin. (No, it doesn’t keep you from heaven. Where do you get this garbage?) Is it not probable that some teenagers will try to solve the problem themselves, and heaven forbid castrate themselves?
I have a solution! We can prohibit the teaching of Judaism! And burn all Jewish books!
Been there, done that.
================================
“As for the Kosher and Halal means of slaughter: they are both barbaric, Period.”
After your whole dissertation on what facts are? Where’s your scientific proof? Kosher slaugher looks bloody, but it is extrmely humane. The veins are cut and the blood pressure drops precipitously, so the animal does not fell much.
If society were to fail tomorrow, and you were suddenly in the position of having to slaughter and prepare your own meat, I’d like to see you find a more humane way to do it with the tools you would have to hand. Have you ever had to kill and butcher anything on your own? I’ll bet not. I’ll bet all your meat comes in nice little packages pre-prepped.
I studied the laws of Shechita as theory in 12th grade and on a couple of occasions parts of the steer were brought in. I always wanted to see it done.
Until recently, the housewife would take the chicken to the Shochet to slaughter, then check it herself and bring it to the rabbi if she she saw a defect that might render it “torn” (treif). She then did the entire procedure (soaking and aalting) herself to remove the blood (the directions may still be on boxes of “kosher salt”). Nothing was hidden.
If it wasn’t commercial, the normal procedure would be for everyone to learn how to do chickens. Howver, my hand is not steady enough to do it properly.
To quote animal rights activist Temple Grandin, “When the cut is done correctly, the animal appears not to feel it.”. I might add that she is speaking of Halal also, and from the descriptions, some of the rules and partices in Kosher slaughter avoid some of the problems.
If civilization were to fall, we would slaughter chickens using normal shechita. You think wringing their necks is more humane?
P.S. When we were studying it, my friend brought in some chicken knives. I tested it (for nicks which would render it non-kosher) on my finger, felt nothing. Then I saw small cuts there. In spite of this, the knife could not have been used for kosher slaughter, because it did have some small nicks I did not feel.
These are the times that try men’s souls. One cannot be surprised by all of this after all. As I sit here typing this, God has been calling me to come closer to Him, and He will come closer to me. As I do, He reveals that I am not to walk according to my own understanding, or by my own strength, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, which is a process of continuing to rely upon Him day by day, as He reveals the way in which I must go. The just shall walk by faith, and that is a process that plays out from faith to faith, walking with Him step by step, learning to rely and trust in Him daily for my every need.
It is the way that He is preparing me to deal with the calamity that is to come, even as He directs my steps to speak out, to call the nation back to Him and giving me what it is that I should say in order to call the nation back to Him. But He is calling me to do more, not just be the voice, but to walk in the power and strength of His Holy Spirit, the Spirit of love, of power, and of a sound mind. To reach out to those that are hurting, and reveal to them His desire to bless them or to heal them and how it is that they are blocking Him.
I do not know the day or time of His return. I know that I am called to resist until the time comes when He (the Holy Spirit) will be taken out of the way, and the man of sin is revealed.
The man of sin [lawlessness] has been revealed. He is Modernism born first of an extreme rejection of fatherhood that eventually gave rise to an extreme rejection of all authority in the summer of 1968. It has no more fools to “liberate” because they have all gone mad. Now they are sitting in the White House and have in excess of 25,000 nuclear warheads at their disposal not to mention the approval of millions of drones that voted them there. It is in the nature of the culture of death to beget more and more death. The Progressives are in charge in most of the world now: if they are not stopped no flesh will survive.
There was no mention of how conservative groups in Tennessee filed suit, claiming that Islam is not a religion, in an attempt to keep a mosque from opening. Does that mean it is ok to suppress religions that are not Jewish or Christian. Lets not forget that over 90% of Catholic women use some form contraception (birth control). I wont speck to freedom of religion in Europe, but they have their own constitutions.
You attempt to make a grey area black and white. The line between state and religion is hard to keep. It is a constant balancing act. To think other wise is naive.
“Lets not forget that over 90% of Catholic women use some form contraception (birth control).” Not. You took a misleading statistic and have twisted it into a falsehood. A survey was taken in which 90% of the female respondents said they had at some point in their lives used a form of birth control. I don’t believe the survey was terribly accurate but even if it was, this would include me and almost every other revert, and it would include converts who after conversion decided to follow Church teaching. Adding in the number of Catholic women who are not in their childbearing years whether or not they ever did reject Church teaching makes this statistic almost useless.
It’s true that many Catholics rejected Humanae Vitae in what turned out to be a very bad bargain with corrupt priests and bishops (“You go ahead and ignore the inconvenient parts of Church teaching on sexual behavior, and we will too”), but catechesis is improving, and as we see Paul VI’s warnings in HV’s section 17 bearing fruit (and a Roe Factor-type effect), more Catholics are embracing church teaching.
We also have an unfortunately high percentage of Catholic priests who rejected Church teaching on sexual abuse of children. Should this number be a factor in whether the Church can oppose laws protecting children from abuse?
You are correct, that is not a particularly strong part of my argument. However, if the church supported child molestation, I do not think that it should be exempt from the laws, which is what the church is asking for now. I know contraception and child molestation are not the same thing, but we as a society through our government now say that everyone should offer contraception and the Church is upset, so should the Church always get what it wants, or does our society get to the final say. Also, the regulation did give religious organizations the ability to not implement the law themselves, but to pass the responsibility on to the insurance company. So I would say this whole argument is moot point.
Many Catholic institutions and dioceses are self-insuring so no, it’s not moot; in addition, it’s “laundered” money when the Catholic group has to offer insurance. Are you going to be okay with Catholic hospitals closing their doors when the mandate goes into effect next summer?
“should the Church always get what it wants, or does our society get to the final say.” Looks like your Communist society will get to squash Catholics’ practice of religion and the First Amendment won’t apply to us. But there’s a difference between getting your way and being right, though bullies rarely see that.
Whenever government and religion clash, so long as the religion is engaged in no violence, government must yield. This is not even up for debate; government MUST yield to the Church.
Study this Gramscian planned destruction of religion in We The People’s America. Then see how many coincide with White House and Obama’s goals.
Religion – Its destruction in America
It all starts with an obscure Italian philosopher called: Antonio Gramsci (1891 – 1937)
His writings (1910 – 1920) occupy America’s elementary, high school, college and graduate schools academic thought in:
a.Cultural studies
b.Critical theory
- A leftist communist who was in regular contact with Joseph Stalin.
- Saw the formation of Italian Communist Party(PCI), forerunner to present day “Eurocommunism.”
1) His basic thought is a power struggle through ideas.
2) There are two opposing elements in any capitalist state: 1) Political Society and 2) Civil Society
a. Political Society is the Realm of Force.
b. Civil society is the Realm of Consent.
Gramsci’s “Capitalist State” in America
-Capture mind of its society
-Persistent, quiet transformation of America’s: 1) Traditions, 2) Families, 3) Education, 4) Media and 5) “support institutions on a day-by-day basis.”(ex: social media, MSM, ACLU, New Left and a host of larger and smaller left leaning organizations).
- Gramsci’s “Cultural Marxism” main goal is total destruction of:1) all Religion, 2) and shaping of western culture’s: a. forms, b. activities and
c. expressions.
Gramsci’s vehicles for achieving these goals;
I.Print Media: The Christian Century – A Chicago based, leftist publication.
II.Organizations: 1)National Council of Churches (NCC) – a collectivist church organization for sectarian cooperation. 2) Ecunemical Church – or secular collectivism, promoting secularization of religion.
III.Redesigning Faith: Remove the differences between “secular and Sacred.” Do this by: 1) Removal of Sin and its Punishment and 2) Redefining the work of Christ upon the Cross.
IV.Political correctness: defining what is “appropriate” and “unsettling.”
V. Eco-Justice, Immigration, Justice for Women, Health, Racial Justice, and a Living wage (increase Federal Minimum Wage)
VI. NCC joined “ Institute for Policy Studies” for the sole purpose of influencing U.S. and Foreign Defense Policies.
Subsets of Gramscian Marxism
I.Liberation Theology – The New Testament is a call for: a. “social activism,” b. class struggle and c. revolution aimed at collapsing capitalism by the “poor unseating their oppressors.”
II. Black Liberation Theology (James Cone, founder) – as contained in the “Black Manifesto”
a.Participants and leaders: James Foreman, Malcolm X, Stokley Carmichael, Black Panthers, Ron Karenga, Jeremiah Wright(Trinity United Church and “Trumpet” publication) and lastly Angela Davis.
III. All white men are responsible for white oppression.
IV. Nation of Islam – Louis Farrakahn
V. Religious Left – a.1998 Chicago Black Radical Congress (Obama in attendance), b. Cornel West, Michael Dyson (Democratic Socialists of America- DSA, a congressional caucus in the House and socialist commission.
VI. Sojourner publication – created by Jim Wallis, leader of Radical Christian Movement.
a.He says,“More Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes”
Conclusion: Religious Left since 1930’s has successfully, for decades, penetrated organized religion. They worship a Marxist state instead of God.
They have successfully used “faith as a weapon” to attempt to destroy religion in We The People’s USofA. Amen. God Bless America.
I think the prevalence of “born again” Christianity and “in your face religiosity” is causing a backlash. I’m a Christian but I am tired of
Bible thumpers and pro lifers wanting their way. I do not believe the same things you do and I hate being preached at.
You would have REALLY hated the abolitionists.
Short and realistic answer to the question in the title-
Religion [*] will become functionally illegal at the point that:
a) some form of “emergency” cancels or indefinitely delays the elections.
b) if elections are held, if Buraq Hussein Obama “wins” by hook or by crook.
c) or if Buraq Hussein Obama and/or the Democrats in Congress lose the election; the moment that they refuse to leave office as scheduled.
It will become de jure illegal as soon as they can make it so after a), b), or c) become fait accompli.
For the record, and the benefit of those above who claim that this is a beneficial extension of the Civil Rights Act that only “minorities” understand, or that those who object only do so because they are of the Judeo-Christian persuasion:
1) I am of Chinese ancestry. My father came here, alone, as a 12 year old before the Depression. At the time, because of the doctrine of Extraterritoriality, Chinese in this country were literally defined as not being human under American law. The US was the last country in the world to give up Extraterritorial status for Chinese in 1943. When he became a human being here, he immediately enlisted in the Army even though he was in a draft exempt defense job AND he was in his 30′s [which is awful old for an infantryman]. He earned his citizenship by crossing Europe as a combat infantryman in Patton’s Third Army.
In the 1950′s as a kindergartner I was literally stoned by older kids in Wichita, Kansas while walking to school; because I am Chinese. I have the scars on my scalp. In 1968, I first had to carry a gun in my life [not the last or only time] in high school in Hastings, Nebraska. When we moved into then-lily-white Hastings, the locals refused to differentiate between an American born Chinese straight A student who was trying get into the Naval Academy and a Viet Cong; because we both had epicanthic folds. I note that the country has changed, and my children have not had any problem. But yes, I am a minority and have been the target of White racism. And I do not expect it to return unless the Left wins.
2) I am not of any Judeo-Christian faith tradition, and specifically abjure belief in such. But if the Left succeeds, acting through the Democrats, in suppressing any one belief in a higher being; they will surely attack any other.
3) I do not look to the Courts, or the legal system, to stand for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. When the Supreme Court accepted Chief Justice John Roberts’ formulation that the government could impose unconstitutional mandates so long as someone, somewhere, could hallucinate the formulation that it was just a tax; the Courts became agent of brute force and not law.
4) If the laws, the Courts, and the Constitution do not defend liberty; then the only thing that remains is the ultimate check in the system of checks and balances. If that day comes, though I am not Christian or Jewish; I am a free-born American. I will stand with my Christian and Jewish fellow citizens. I don’t think I will be alone. And if we prevail, it will not be status quo ante bellum. Those who make war on and betray the Constitution and the rule of law will be outside its protections.
[*- Religion = the Judeo-Christian tradition. Specifically exempt will be Islam and any other faith tradition that preaches submission to the State in all matters.]
Subotai Bahadur
Dinner for wolves?
@ Subotai – Awesomely stated. Just had to give props where they were due. Also a few other well-stated and informative posts in this comments section. Boy, do I love PJ Media! Too bad the awake are a severe minority…I doubt we can do much in the face of the forces at work, but at least we can bear witness and warning. It’s heart-warming to see otherwise dissimilar people come together to defend their liberty. Wish I could get my Hindu Indian husband to pay attention…he thinks it’s all Christian doomsdaying -to be fair I am rather vocal about my beliefs- but an attack on traditional values, freedom (of any kind), and common sense is an attack on everyone. I LOVED your concise explanation of the difference between Islam and most other beliefs, in that Islam literally means ‘submission’ or ‘surrender’ to a statist theocracy. Odd bedfellows of the elite, but it makes perfect sense in light of their similar goals.
“The Catholic Church is the only European institution that has consistently defended Jewish religious freedom in Europe.”
Well, color me ‘wishful thinking’. Did you really think that writing this makes it so?
David — ” I come from the Left. The witches’ brew of Freud and Marx and Frankfurt School and identity studies that the Left imbibes at our universities center on the evils inherent in the patriarchal family. ”
What are you talking about? Where? Where on the campus? When? In classrooms, where? In electives students select?
In a 22-year span of attending 5-6 different universities in Texas, of all places, and as a Unitarian-Universalist, NEVER ONCE was I subjected to ‘the witches’ brew’ you’re describing. If I had, I’d walked out or planted a fist in someone’s mouth! It’s called freedom.
You are right to be vigilant against the use of legal pretexts to suppress particular religions. However, you should mention the other side of the coin, which is that religious belief or tradition cannot be allowed to trump all societal values. There are practices in certain parts of the world, based on certain religious doctrines or traditions, which I assume you would assail as infringing the rights of wives or children or others. If that’s true, then you should acknowledge that and explain how you draw the line between those two situations–pretextual suppression of religion versus protection of people notwithstanding religious belief.