The holidays

[pointreyes]

Part of the problem is the complete mockery the judicial branch of the U.S. Federal Government has made of the First Amendment. It does not say separation of church and state, it does say that a church cannot rule over the government nor can the government rule over the church. How in the world did the judicial branch screw that up is beyond me. Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson was against the power given to the judical branch and he was a deist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible).

Being a Reformed Christian (http://www.apocalipsis.org/reformed.htm) I'm probably a miniority among the people here but I'm pleased to see that others don't like Christmas being done away with. Ever since my employer became PC, I have stopped attending what I consider anti-Christ Holiday parties and I will verbally tell a person why if asked. Yes, I do it nicely. :p

[-mogwai]

the statement in the first amendment is "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." that, by definition, is a separation of church and state. that's what jefferson wanted. he wanted people to have freedom of religion, but not from it. jefferson's main fear was power of the minority. if the minority (being government) made laws in support of a specific established religion, it could cause unrest and a shift towards a revolution (because of lack of freedom). jefferson knew a theocracy would be the worst thing for a country made of unified states.

[pointreyes]

the statement in the first amendment is "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereo." that, by definition, is a separation of church and state. that's what jefferson wanted.

Hmmm, then basically a person must separate all their religous strings from all they do within government. I don't believe that is truly possible and I wonder if the writers of the bill of rights thought the same way. The wording that captures my attention is, "make no law respecting." That makes me think that we must be careful from allowing any establishment of religion from gaining a control over any other religion and for that matter from any establishment of religon from gaining a foothold over the government of the nation. This allows for a person of any belief to run for office and even use their morals as a guidepost for running the government. To actually think that separation of church and state is necessary would require for a person to check all their religous beliefs at the door before preceding to work. Wouldn't it? I'm sorry but I honestly can't see how this is "by definition" means separation of church and state. Maybe it's "by definition" of the current judicial minds but is separation of church and state truly possible when you have to consider what drives many of people's morals? By stating "by definition" it means separation of church and state makes me wonder why it was not clearly stated that way then, I hold on the idea that maybe, just maybe we should be a little more careful with taking the wording down to five words as if that is the law especially since it appears to me that it makes certain absolutes that do not appear so absolute in the original text provided to us.

Anyway, didn't want this to change into a debate that obviously is still in a state of confusion between different viewpoints within our nation. I hope I have not offended you. I know that I'm not offended. It's good to get viewpoints from a debatable level. Sorry for going off topic in the off topic section.

[rayoflight]

I guess all that is left to say:

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Hannukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Festivus and Feliz Navidad!!!

[-mogwai]

the statement in the first amendment is "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." that, by definition, is a separation of church and state. that's what jefferson wanted.

Hmmm, then basically a person must separate all their religous strings from all they do within government. I don't believe that is truly possible and I wonder if the writers of the bill of rights thought the same way. The wording that captures my attention is, "make no law respecting." That makes me think that we must be careful from allowing any establishment of religion from gaining a control over any other religion and for that matter from any establishment of religon from gaining a foothold over the government of the nation. This allows for a person of any belief to run for office and even use their morals as a guidepost for running the government. To actually think that separation of church and state is necessary would require for a person to check all their religous beliefs at the door before preceding to work. Wouldn't it? I'm sorry but I honestly can't see how this is "by definition" means separation of church and state. Maybe it's "by definition" of the current judicial minds but is separation of church and state truly possible when you have to consider what drives many of people's morals? By stating "by definition" it means separation of church and state makes me wonder why it was not clearly stated that way then, I hold on the idea that maybe, just maybe we should be a little more careful with taking the wording down to five words as if that is the law especially since it appears to me that it makes certain absolutes that do not appear so absolute in the original text provided to us.

Anyway, didn't want this to change into a debate that obviously is still in a state of confusion between different viewpoints within our nation. I hope I have not offended you. I know that I'm not offended. It's good to get viewpoints from a debatable level. Sorry for going off topic in the off topic section.

it is, by definition, a separation of church and state because congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. that is to say that congress can't make laws according to the koran, bible, veda, book of mormon, etc. they cannot say "based on what is taught in the <insert holy book here>, blankity blank shall remain illegal" or something like that. it also cannot pass laws to force daily prayers or anything or any other kind of religious act. it can, however, pass laws allowing people to pray daily or perform whatever religious act they wish (as long as it doesn't harm anyone). therefore, there's a clear separation between church and state so that people can have the freedom to practice their religion without persecution.

i think you might feel this way because of personal bias towards religion (christianity, to be specific). the fact is that just because someone may be athiest or agnostic or non-christian doesn't mean they are immoral or unethical people.

i'm a christian and very proud of it... however, i don't like seeing such exclusivity and discrimination towards those who aren't. it just makes us all look ignorant and more willing to follow some fundamentalist pastor/reverand's teachings rather than Christ's teachings. something that is lost in the haze of all this crap is the fact that other people live here, too. not everyone is a christian, not everyone wants to be a christian, not everyone cares about anything, etc. because of this, we've got to take into account that "merry christmas" is pretty exclusive and alienating. however, happy holidays is all-encompassing and doesn't lose it's meaning or sincerity.... people take it how they wish, according to their holiday. how would you feel if everything said "happy hannukah"? that's where the separation of church and state comes in. unless it's a faith-based organization (like wal-mart), "happy hannukah" or "merry christmas" should be changed to "happy holidays."

i'm in favor of wal-mart saying "merry christmas"... they're a christian-based goliath of a company (i can't wait for a david of a company to kill it), so they can say it.

[pointreyes]

i think you might feel this way because of personal bias towards religion (christianity, to be specific). the fact is that just because someone may be athiest or agnostic or non-christian doesn't mean they are immoral or unethical people.

Yeah, I know. That's why I was very careful in not using the word Christian in my previous response to ya. There does seem to be a bias towards Christians but I'm used to that since I live in the "darkest" region in the United States when it comes to the Christian faith-the Pacific Northwest. :D However, I'm truly a minority based on my beliefs. I live in Dallas Oregon, the most churched place in the Pacific Northwest and I travel 15 miles to a bigger town/city because that is the closest place that practices Godly teachings. I have grown sick of the humanism that has entered into many of the Christian churches. Yes, I'm picky with the first amendment because I believe the Christian church as well as many of the other beliefs in our land need to take charge of being part of the government again. I can't help but wonder if part of the reason for the problems Christians are having with their rights is that they are not as active as they should be in government. Yet many of the other beliefs are quite active in government and do have a growing voice in this country. I'm not aware of any piece of Scripture that denotes that Christians are to allow the government to be ran by all beliefs except for the Christians but yet modern Christians seem to think that or even worst believe that the Republican party is Christian.

[killswitch83]

all I can say is thank goodness someone in here is truly Christian, been feeling like my soul's on fire for the past couple of days. I personally believe humanism and moral relativism, both of which is rampant in today's society, threatens to break it apart. that's all I have left to say.......

[-mogwai]

i think you might feel this way because of personal bias towards religion (christianity, to be specific). the fact is that just because someone may be athiest or agnostic or non-christian doesn't mean they are immoral or unethical people.

Yeah, I know. That's why I was very careful in not using the word Christian in my previous response to ya. There does seem to be a bias towards Christians but I'm used to that since I live in the "darkest" region in the United States when it comes to the Christian faith-the Pacific Northwest. :D However, I'm truly a minority based on my beliefs. I live in Dallas Oregon, the most churched place in the Pacific Northwest and I travel 15 miles to a bigger town/city because that is the closest place that practices Godly teachings. I have grown sick of the humanism that has entered into many of the Christian churches. Yes, I'm picky with the first amendment because I believe the Christian church as well as many of the other beliefs in our land need to take charge of being part of the government again. I can't help but wonder if part of the reason for the problems Christians are having with their rights is that they are not as active as they should be in government. Yet many of the other beliefs are quite active in government and do have a growing voice in this country. I'm not aware of any piece of Scripture that denotes that Christians are to allow the government to be ran by all beliefs except for the Christians but yet modern Christians seem to think that or even worst believe that the Republican party is Christian.

for one, i'm very christian and very proud of it. however, i don't let that cloud my view of what i believe to be fairness and what God wants. something i believe you guys have lost sight of is that God doesn't wish for everyone to be made into christians.... he wants them to willingly become christians. there's a difference. force will not produce a favorable outcome.

also, when you say, "i'm not aware of any piece of scripture that denotes that christians are to allow the government to be run by all beliefs except for the christians," i think you need to reevaluate your thought process. 1, what's it matter?.... 2, government is here for THE PEOPLE. if "the people" are not ALL christian and does not abide by christian dogma or doctrine, then your argument is void.... 3, since when does being a christian give you the power to dictate what happens in government? being a christian has nothing to do with having the power to dictate what happens in american government. if it did, we'd all be screwed. thankfully, BEING AN AMERICAN (which means being a multicultural and multiethnic society) has something to do with dictating what happens in government. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND SAUDI ARABIA!

all I can say is thank goodness someone in here is truly Christian, been feeling like my soul's on fire for the past couple of days. I personally believe humanism and moral relativism, both of which is rampant in today's society, threatens to break it apart. that's all I have left to say.......

what do you mean by "it"? if by "it" you mean "closed-mindeness" or "ignorance," then bring on more humanism! there's nothing wrong with humanism... humanism is one of Christ's most profound and sacred teachings (love thy neighbor as yourself). moral relativism means jack-ass-crap to me because i already know where my morals lie. although i know that others might disagree with my morals and beliefs, it's got nothing to do with me OR my relationship to God. my purpose in life is not to enforce God's existence or live by God's biblical rules (in the bible, it even states that man must abide by man's law), but to have God live THROUGH me. there's a difference. i'm not to preach to people in a futile attempt to bring them to God... that only pushes them away. what i am to do, however, is to do great things ("i can do all things through Christ who strengthens me") and when if and when someone asks me about my beliefs, i profess my faith. curiosity about God and Christ will bring people closer to them.... not annoying people who keep nagging them to join in a circle and sing in worship and vote for a candidate based on their party's faulty platform of beliefs.

[infinitevalence]

Well, its been fun, but i think its time for this to stop. No finger pointing it was not any one person but i want to nip this in the butt before any one gets hurt.

This is an open forum, we accept all types of people, except jews. k totaly kidding about that we like jews too.