diana

This is an Editorial written by an American citizen, published in a local Newspaper. He did quite a job; didn't he?

Indeed. Freedom of speech, First Amendment, Bill of Rights.

IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture.

Right. We do what we like, you do what you like, and nobody dictates what anybody else likes or believes. Such is the nature of the "melting pot."

Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans.

Long overdue. What a pity it took this to make us find it again.

However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct" crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.

Objection, Your Honor. Oversimplification. I've witnessed no one offended by "our patriotism." I have, however, witnessed many people who do not hold Christian beliefs left out in the cold. Patriotism and Christian beliefs are not synonymous.

I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely comprised of descendants of immigrants.

"Almost entirely" because the good Christian folk who founded this nation "almost entirely" obliterated the wicked heathen Indians who already inhabited it. But who cares about such details when one is on a good rant?

However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand.

The basic ideas behind that "freedom of religion" clause, to begin with.

This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.

Objection, Your Honor. I submit that our multiculturalism is an inherent part of our "national identity" because we are "almost entirely comprised of descendants and immigrants." It does your case no good to contradict yourself.

As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle.

Somewhat, yes. But if the person who'd written this had spent any time overseas, he would see that what we are is a mish-mash of other cultures, societies, languages (don't get me started) and lifestyles.

This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

Hooah. And while they sought freedom, they struggled to maintain their own identities, their own cultures in this Land of the Free.

Which culture, I wonder, that you find between our shores do you label distinctly "American"?

We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language.

We are egocentric. Hear us roar. We are not ashamed of being mono-linguistic! We are proud!

(I do agree, for the record, that English is our national language and that anyone who wants to succeed in our country must master Standard American English, but I don't find our incredible linguistic deficiencies--as compared to the rest of the civilized world--something to be proud of.)

Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

Because you can bet we don't speak yours.

"In God We Trust" is our national motto.

Other popular variations include, but aren't limited to, "In Gold We Trust," and "In God We Rust."

Ironic, really, that we "trust God" more and sing "God Bless America" more after the 11 Sep 01 attacks? Nothing like a good catastrophe to make people cling to their faiths, is there?

(No one's given me a good answer yet as to where that God--that we supposedly trust--was on the date in question. He obviously wasn't here. Maybe he was in the shower.)

This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan.

No matter how much it might look like one. It was begun by someone during the Civil War who was afraid that we would be remembered as "a heathen nation." Read all about it <a href="http://www.ustreas.gov/opc/opc0011.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented.

Several responses to this:

1. Clearly documented where?

2. Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of Independence, was not a Christian--he was a deist (i.e., he believed in a higher power but rejected the Christian god).

3. The people who founded this nation had "Christian principles" that would make almost anyone today look immoral in comparison.

4. Christian principles are in turn founded upon the ideas of Mithraism, Confucianism, Judaism, and various ideas that were popular in the first century BC. To give credit where credit is due, perhaps our coins should say "In Mithra We Trust"? Check it out: <a href="http://www.crystalinks.com/mithra.html" target="_blank">Mithraism</a>.

5. I was under the impression that who founded this nation and what they believed isn't nearly as important as the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. The first amendment guarantees us, among other things, freedom of religion. That includes, but is not limited to, the freedom to believe in the Christian god, the Jewish god, the Muslim god (all one in the same, really), the Zoroastrian god, the Wiccan gods, no god, or even Satan and his minions.

If you have a problem with this basic guaranteed freedom, you may exercise one other great American freedom: THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.

Right next to the Muslim belief--in English, for all to read--that there is only one god, and Muhammad is his prophet. And that right next to the Wiccan belief of...whatever they believe. And that right next to the atheist's notion that there is no god at all.

Ain't freedom of religion grand?

None of this is appropriate to display on the walls of our schools. You teach your children what you want them to believe at home and at church/synagogue/temple/mosque. Leave it out of our schools.

The reasoning is simple. You have the right to believe and preach whatsoever you wish. However, when people are required by law to be anywhere in particular, you are not allowed to preach to them there, because they aren't allowed to leave. You probably wouldn't have a hard time seeing this clearly if someone presumed to teach your child the Koran at school, where you weren't there to answer his innocent questions and where he didn't have the right to walk away. Why do Christians have a hard time seeing this when it comes to spreading what they believe?

If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

Au contraire. God is part of your culture. "Freedom of religion" is part of mine. And as it is part of the Constitution of the United States, I am sworn to uphold and defend it, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

If Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.

If this is an oblique reference to flag-burning, it's out of place. If it isn't, it's still meaningless in this context.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from.

I.e., we were doing fine before you came along. Even if we stand to learn something from you, we're far too hard-headed to do so.

This is OUR COUNTRY, our land, and our lifestyle.

Might makes right. We can't improve from your suggestions, so just shut up. We've always been right, even when we owned slaves, denied women the right to vote, and burned witches at the stake.

Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so.

The author of this article clearly has a misconception about the other rights afforded by the first amendment. Pity.

But, once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other great American freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

The author clearly thinks that the fact that he was born here, into the predominant religion, makes him right. Sadly, it just makes him uneducated, biased, and gullible. He hasn't done his homework on the foundations of our country or the rights afforded to all by our Constitution.

I also notice he sneaked "the pledge" into this list. That "under God" thing wasn't added until 1954 (under pressure from the Knights of Columbus), although the original pledge was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister. Why didn't he put "under God," in it...do you wonder? Maybe because he realized that not all Americans shared his beliefs and possibly because he recognized that "freedom of religion" is part of what makes this country great. Read all about it: <a href="http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm" target="_blank">A Concise History of the Pledge</a>.

Perhaps he didn't cotton to the idea of legislating people into heaven.

Please pass this along if you agree.

I don't, so I'm passing it back.

pd
2Lt, USAF
Who takes any affront to the Constitution seriously

Cheers.

****

There are a couple of preachers on the "reply all" list, if not more. I eagerly await their responses (but don't really expect them to grace me with one, for some reason.)

d

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

diana

Wow. A reply already, from one Larry Hafley (a preacher who has published a book or two, which I've learned about from my father).

Somebody tell me how it is I always end up tangling with preachers?

I didn't bother to reprint his message to me, as I quote it back in my answer, as follows:

Larry,

You said:
While you reject the articles' premises, you would likely not have the freedom to let your rejection be known in many places of the world without suffering social and civic isolation and persecution.

No argument there. That's one of the beauties of this country.

Though your comments betray a misunderstanding of several points to which you objected, and though it is clear that you have no understanding
of the origin, nature and character of the faith of Christ, it is those very principles that guarantee you peace and safety to make your views,
however unfounded, known to others.

You're probably right that I have no understanding of the origin, nature and character of the faith in Christ. You are welcome to educate me, at your leisure and at length.

Meanwhile, please take the time to back up your comments that I "betray a misunderstanding of several points." Which points, and how am I misunderstanding? While it is quite possible that it is I who misunderstand, it is just as possible that it is you who misunderstands them. I'm happy to discuss.

I anxiously await the evidence you produce which demonstrate how "unfounded" my views are.

So, as a free citizen who appreciates the general sentiments to which you take exception, I greet you as a fellow member of our community and trust that its freedoms will always be yours.

It is quite possible that the sentiments to which I take exception are "general." This is known as Appeal to Popularity. Just because something is popular does not make it any more or less right.

I greet you, in turn, as a fellow member of our country, and work to ensure that its freedoms will always be ours--regardless of religious belief or affiliation.

d

Toto

Is this Larry Hafley?

<a href="http://www.watchmanmag.com/bio.htm#larry%20ray" target="_blank">Larry Ray Hafley </a>

diana

Yeppers. That's the one.

This should be an interesting exchange. He fancies himself a debater.

What a coincidence. Me too.

d

diana

Larry Hafley, it seems spends almost as much time online as I do. Here's his terse response:

And my reply follows:

Good morning, Larry!

Thank you for your swift and courteous reply.

I am happy I live where you and I can have such a discussion, which was the thrust of my initial remarks.

We agree on this. We disagree on the basis of our country's principles. I'm not sure which principles that are outlined in our Constitution you consider clearly "Christian," so if you could delineate them for me, you could probably clear up my confusion.

I hear the comment that America is based on "Christian principles" a lot, but have never understood where people get this or how they back it up. Perhaps you're the man to help me.

As to where you were wrong:
1) The faith of Christ originated in the mind of God, not in the religions of men (1 Cor. 2:6-15; Eph. 3:3-5, 8-11; 1 Pet. 1:10-12).

So you "know" this because the bible tells you so. How do you know, then, that the bible is the word of God? By faith, I assume. So then how do you know that your faith is right and all the others are wrong? (The adherents of every other religion in the world "know" they're saved through faith, as well.)

I note the absolute certainty in your tone (i.e. "you were wrong"), which leads me to ask: Do you know, or do you believe? Or do you even see a difference?

2) That Jefferson was a Deist has nothing to do with whether or not this country was founded on principles that are often called, "Christian principles."

Oh...I thought that the fact that he penned the Declaration of Independence and was a bona fide founding father counted for something. My mistake. Just a handful of non-Christians (see link below), regardless of the parts they play, don't affect the adoption (or not) of "Christian principles," I guess.

In my initial response, I objected (among other things) to the assertion that "Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented."

You responded with: "Though your comments betray a misunderstanding of several points to which you objected, and though it is clear that you have no understanding of the origin, nature and character of the faith of Christ, it is those very principles [emphasis mine] that guarantee you peace and safety...." Here you seem to be saying that this nation is, in fact, founded on "Christian principles." At least, that's how I took it.

I challenged you to support this assertion. After all, you dismissed my views out of hand by calling them "unfounded." However, you now appear to be changing your stance somewhat by calling them principles that are often called, 'Christian principles.'

In a nutshell, you accused me of blowing smoke without even asking if I could support my claims--and when I politely asked you to support yours, you did not. This strikes me as hypocritical.

Although you didn't ask if I had any support for my position, I'll offer it, anyway.

Please take a few minutes to peruse this link:

<a href="http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/tripoli/tripoli.htm" target="_blank">Treaty of Tripoli</a>

Again, thanks for your input. Larry

Likewise. Have a great day!

d

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

diana

I thought Larry was a professional Christian (preaching, writing books, debating). Considering all, he doesn't seem to have much to say.

I think I've figured out why I usually end up having these discussions with preachers, and why it's going the direction it is.

Preachers are the proverbial "knights" of the Christian collective. When the atheist steps up and challenges the status quo, the preacher goes out as the chosen representative. (This seems odd to me because I was taught that everybody has to "study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

So in this vein, Larry responded to my message with a REPLY ALL. From the start, he wasn't so interested in discussing as he was in setting me straight in the sight of all. Heap big he-man.

Assuming he doesn't drop it (which would look very bad indeed), he's about to go into an unrecoverable nosedive in the sight of all.

d

diana

Yes...I continue to post stuff on a thread that appears to be exclusively mine. Keeps a running record, and there's a chance something might come of it. Doubt it, though. Here's the latest:

My reply:

Good morning, Larry!

I'll make this brief. I can appreciate your shortage of time.

I'm still not clear which principles our nation is based on that are distinctly Christian, and this is the crux of the matter. It makes no difference what the predominant religion of our forefathers was, as they came here to escape religious persecution and set up our republic so no one could tell anyone what to worship. This is all extra-biblical. The fact that the Constitution does not identify us as "a Christian nation" despite how many people you claim were trying to set it up as such is strong evidence that in fact we are not a Christian nation.

Neither did you offer any reason I should accept the Bible over the "pretenders, fakes and quacks" out there. You merely asserted that it is truth and the rest are false. I need something more than assertion.

I will check your website for more information, although I seriously doubt these questions will be addressed.

Thank you for your time. Merry Christmas to you and yours!

Diana

diana

This thread is beginning to feel a bit like autoeroticism....

The things I didn't say, but wanted to:

Many, many quotes could be taken from the "founding fathers" which show that they attempted to form and found a nation based on principles found in the Bible, or what the world calls, "Christian principles."

"Attempted to form"? Isn't this tacid admission that they weren't successful?

I also note another slight shift into what the world calls "Christian principles." Still not the faintest clue what that means, though.

No, I don't have them before me, and, so, cannot submit them now. I am surprised that you have never read them.

And I, in turn, would be surprised if you've ever actually had them before you or have ever actually read them.

But since I've already produced plenty in my favor, what would such quotes prove, anyway? At the very best, they might level the playing field somewhat.

The same is true of statements made by the founders of Yale and Harvard Universities and of various and sundry institutions of our country. They were founded upon religious principles in the Bible.

More bald assertion, and completely beside the point.

Regarding the Bible, the empty tomb declares Jesus to be the Son of God with power (Rom. 1:4; Cf. Acts 2:22-41).

I.e., "I don't have any clue why I accept the bible over everything else available, so I'll completely ignore your question and assume you accept the bible as truth in the hopes you'd eventually forget you had a question."

As there are pretenders, fakes, and "quacks" in the medical and legal professions, the same is true in religion and revelation.

I.e., "The fact that I'm willing to imply that one must be discerning in these matters means I have nothing to fear from you doing your homework and asking questions. In short, I know mine is the right one, so I don't have to offer proof."

We are glad that immigrants and others can enjoy the blessings of liberty that exists in the principles upon which our country was founded. Those who don't like it are the hypocrites, especially they who reap the benefits of our system, then trash it, knowing they could have nothing or be nothing if they went back from whence they came.

I.e., "I know we weren't even discussing this, but I'm hoping I'll throw out something you're sure to agree with so you'll feel a kinship and leave me the hell alone. And forget you were asking questions I can't answer."

I must again be brief--family, grandchildren, my work, and holiday issues press upon me.

And they are all more important that answering the questions of a non-believer.

Please see our web site below for articles on a number of Bible subjects.

I.e., "They won't answer your questions, either, but it'll keep you out of my hair and by the time you finish, you'll have read John 3:16 so many times you won't be able to think."

***

Ah....that's better. Now I need a cigarette....

d

Edited to add link for the curious: <a href="http://www.biblework.com" target="_blank">Baytown Church of Christ</a>

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

Darwin's Finch

Since he's already offered you his "out" (family, holidays, etc.), I would wait until after the new year before engaging him further. Imagine his surprise when it turns out that the pesty infidel hasn't gone away! IMHO, though, this guy is a cipher and probably a waste of time.

diana

Hi, Darwin's Finch. Imagine my surprise to learn that I had a voyeur.

I sent him one last note, to show that I had gone to his site and disagreed with what I found. I've already given him an "out," I think--that I understand his time pressures, so he's clear until after the holidays, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not letting up on him because (1) he's had a superior air from the beginning, (2) he has pretended to produce something in his favor, but has actually delivered nothing, and (3) my father recognizes him as a bible authority, well versed in scripture. So I thought I'd ask some questions.

I wrote the following note that I had, indeed, gone out to his website, read some stuff, and disagreed (and also I recognize a brush-off when I see one). He thought he could stand up to me, say my thoughts were unfounded, look good in front of his peers, and walk away a winner.

I get the impression he's never actually had a real conversation with an infidel before. (I also wonder what e-mails he and my father are exchanging as we speak.)

Here was my last e-mail:

d

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: diana ]</p>