Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Please input your username and password.
   
Keep me logged | Forgot your password?
Opinion|Sun, Sep. 27 2009 01:09 PM EDT

Why Do the Heathen Rage? - International Blasphemy Day

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.|Christian Post Guest Columnist

Ready for a day to honor blasphemy? According to press reports, September 30 is set as the observance of the first-ever International Blasphemy Day. This could be interesting.

The choice of September 30 looks back to that date in the year 2005, when the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad's face sparked outcry and protests in the Muslim world and threats toward the West.

Now, as Religion News Service reports, the Center for Inquiry is planning a day of observances to mark the occasion. Ron Lindsay, a lawyer who serves as president of the Council for Inquiry International, said that the day was part of the group's effort to expose religious beliefs to investigation. In the words of the RNS report, the goal is "to expose all religious beliefs to the same level of inquiry, discussion and criticism to which other areas of intellectual interest are subjected."

Here is one feature of the day as planned by CFI:

You've never seen Jesus like this before: dripping red nail polish around the nails in his feet and hands, an irreverent riff on the crucifixion wounds. The provocative title of the painting: "Jesus Does His Nails." Blasphemous? Absolutely. Deliberately provocative? You bet.

Artist Dana Ellyn told RNS that she is an "agnostic atheist" whose purpose is to be provocative. "My point is not to offend, but I realize it can offend, because religion is such a polarizing topic," she said.

Among other things, CFI International also plans a "blasphemy contest," "in which participants are invited to submit phrases, poems, or statements that would be, or have been, considered blasphemous." Winners are to receive a t-shirt and mug.

Bet you can't wait to see those.

More seriously, participants are also to be encouraged to take up the "Blasphemy Challenge" in which individuals register their blasphemy in the face of Mark 3:29. In that verse, Jesus warns, "whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" [ESV]. Those who take up the "Blasphemy Challenge" record video submissions which must include the words, "I deny the Holy Spirit."

The Blasphemy Day events are certain to draw media attention, which is no doubt the whole point of the observance. That is how a group like CFI can gain publicity for itself and its cause.

How should Christians respond?

First, take no offense. Refuse to play into the game plan of those sponsoring International Blasphemy Day. The Lord Jesus Christ was and is despised and rejected of men. Our Lord bore the scorn heaped upon him by his enemies. Christianity is not an honor religion. Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are not commanded to defend his honor, but to be willing to share in the scorn directed to him. Is the servant greater than his master?

Islam is an honor religion, and the major forces in the world today seeking to criminalize blasphemy are Islamic. The riots on the streets of many nations in protest of the Danish cartoons do represent what faithful Muslims believe their religion requires them to do. Not so for Christianity. We must be those who take to the streets with the Gospel - not with a defense of our honor or the honor of our Lord. When Christians forget this, we lose our Gospel witness. The history of the church includes far too many instances of this loss. We dare not add another.

Second, mourn the blasphemy. The warning of Jesus is clear - blasphemy has eternal consequences. The worst form of blasphemy is the refusal to hear and believe the Gospel. For that sin there can be no forgiveness. We must mourn the blasphemy, not because honor is at stake, but because souls are at stake with eternal consequences. God will ultimately and perfectly defend his honor. On that day, there will be no escape for unrepentant blasphemers.

Third, see this observance for what it really is - an unintended testimony to the existence of God and the foolishness of those who deny Him. The sheer foolishness of a blasphemy contest with t-shirts and mugs betrays the lunacy of it all. They can do no better than this? One testimony to the power of God is the fact that his self-declared enemies come off as so childish and manic. The heathen rage and God sees the foolish grasshoppers.

International Blasphemy Day will come and go. Take note, ponder its meaning . . . and skip the t-shirt.

Adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s weblog at www.albertmohler.com.
___________________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com. Original Source: www.albertmohler.com.
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Alockslee »
    Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Here is the Lemon Test:

    1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
    2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
    3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.


    Take the fact here and apply them to each step of the test. That is what the court will do with this test and then decide based on their conclusions with regard to prior posts I commented on.

    You can do the same and post your findings. After that we can discuss the decisions each made and then determine whose decisions fit with the law.

    TFR

  • Alockslee »
    Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Continued from last post
    "Religious messages on public buildings do not force anyone to join a specific religion and most of the major religions hold certain truths across the board. It does not impose anything - and these things were usually done by the architects who designed the buildings, anyway. The government didn't mandate it."
    --------------------------------------------------------
    In response: it proposes a belief in a deity and by doing so establishes and promotes said belief and that is a violation of the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE!
    --------------------------------------------------------

    "Again, most major religions refer to their deity as "God." The word "God" on buildings, documents or currency does not promote any specific religion over another nor does the word itself require anyone to join a religion.
    -----------------------------------------------------
    In Response: Your words "major religions", that says it all! Stop and think about what you wrote. Does the words on the plaque have anything of a religion on it? If yes it can't be on a government building since it establishes a belief and promotes that belief and causes people who see it on the government building to think the government had it put there and endorses it which is yet another violation of the clause.

    -----------------------------------------------------
    "No one is persecuted by the government in our country for their choice in religion or lack of one. No one is asked to identify their religion as a prerequisite for a government job. No one is denied their rights simply because they subscribe to one religion or another or none. You Establishment Clause argument is, therefore, unfounded. Hope you had a great weekend. Take care."
    ------------------------------------------------
    In Response: Really? How about the people who want to prevent the LGBT Community form having equal rights just because they don't follow your religious beliefs?

    If people aren't required to profess a belief in religion then why does the GOP have so many people professing a belief in religion and making comments about LGBT members not being entitled to Civil Rights and then only offer bible verses to support their positions?

    You confuse reality and fail to see that your beliefs have so affected your thinking that you can't recognize how intrusive your religion is in your arguments. You first say god is a world recognized term for all religions and then can't understand why the term when used on a plaque of a public building is a violation of the Constitution. IF it has a religious basis then it isn't secular and if it isn't secular then it can't be on it. Look at the Lemon Test:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
    Three prong and just plug your facts for each point into it and then conclude for each of them.

    TFR

  • Alockslee »
    Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Continued from last post:

    "ID is a scientific theory that has proponents from ALL faiths - including some atheists and agnostics. So, that does not promote any specific religion or require anyone to join one."
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: No Id is NOT scientifc theory it is nothing more than repackaged and renamed creationism. That fact was proven in the Federal case wherein Behe and others who support and push this nonsense were given ample time and were completely unable to prove any of it was based in science nor was any book or materials shown to have any basis in fact. It was found to be religious dogma and nothing more.

    Please stop referring to it as if it were science, the matter was settle the case closed.

    Not one instance was shown where anything from their efforts met even the basics for scientific adherence.

    So in the future please recognize the fact that creationism and/or Id is not science and don't pretend it is. You need to acknowledge that you understand the ruling and give up on this as a point since you have nothing to support your position as to this.

    TFR

    Continued on next post

  • Alockslee »
    Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Continued from last post:

    "Teaching about Christianity in schools is not establishing religion because schools teach about all the major religions. It is a matter of educating students on the basic tenets of each major faith. It does not promote one religion over another or force anyone to participate in any specific religion."
    -------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: It depends on how it is taught and the intent behind why it is taught, the purpose of teaching it alone and omitting any other religion is a direct intent to proselytize and indoctrinate the captive students and prevent them from having alternative religions and philosophies taught concurrently with those of christianity.

    Lessons including the following would be preaching, not discussion of religion:
    Our children will learn that if parents do not obey God, he will send wild animals to kill their children:

    Deuteronomy 26:21-22 ” ‘If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve. I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted.

    They will learn the if parents do not obey God, he will cause them to eat the flesh of their children:

    Deuteronomy 26:27-29 ” ‘If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.

    http://de-conversion.com/2007/03/23/the-case-against-teaching-the-bible-in-public-schools/

    The link is one site opposed to inclusion of christanity in curriculum.

    Would you agree that if the children were told that it would have in effect one similar to that if they were in a church during a sermon? What purpose could be given for them to endure something like that? don't knee jerk in your response and claim it can't happen, read the Texas School board's enactment and then show where they prohibit those passages from being taught and then post the specific language from the act that proves it.

    Continued in next post

    TFR

  • Alockslee »
    Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    amaranth, lets take your comments one a t a time and show you where you are incorrect.

    "Pretty much every religion prays to some deity or another. So, saying that the National Day of Prayer violates the establishment clause would mean that the government was establishing almost every religion as a main religion and requiring people to join them. Wow. That's pretty interesting. I would imagine that would be a pretty hard feat to accomplish. Especially considering that the day itself is not something that people are required to observe in any way, shape or form."
    -------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: The Establishment Clause prohibits not only establishing religion but promoting it as well by the government.

    The NDOP, is a day where government officials meet at prayer breakfasts, prayer meetings, etc., and while representing their governmental duties and in their official capacities as such, engage in praying.

    That is in effect a direct violation of the EC.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    "Praying before a council meeting is not establishing a religion as no one is forced to participate. Also, most religions call their deity "God." So, technically, all religious persons could be represented in that saying of a prayer - which is generally why none of them complain. Only the atheists - who can leave the room or ignore the act - ever complain. Again, no one is forced to participate in the prayer."
    -----------------------------------------------------
    In Response: Once again any promotion including even an acknowledgment of the existence of a deity, god, God, or what ever is a violation. It doesn't matter if people in attendance don't have to participate or can leave, sit quietly or something else while this happens, it is a violation of the EC.

    You can't seem to grasp the difference between the person as a private citizen in a church acting only as a private citizen praying and the same person who then dons the mantle, or title as a governmental official acting during an official meeting on behalf of everyone in the city he was elected from to instigate prayer.

    It is the conduct and intent of the act during the public event that is the distinction. It is no longer a private person acting private, they are choosing to knowingly to violate their oaths of office and the very Constitution that gives them the right to practice a religion under the guidelines laid out in the 1st Amendment.

    Continued in next post, please be sure to address each point individually.

    TFR

  • Alockslee »
    Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    amaranth » Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:41 am I think it's interesting that Alockslee got all bent out of shape because no one went point by point to refute his establishment clause argument and then disappeared after I did just that.
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: I didn't get bent out of shape, I was just recovering from laughing at you for proving my point.

    When you are challenged to defend your positions and given the necessary information to do so, then fail to back up your statements knowing full well you can't, that renders your arguments worthless.

    The discussion stops when you have to face the reality of the real world and have to admit that your fantasy doesn't allow you deal with real world issues. You can only complain about how you are treated by people who recognize your instability when challenged to prove your words. You never do, your fall back to to post something from a book filled with contradictions and then you can't even explain what it means to you in context let alone to anyone else.

    The problem is not with the folks who aren't like you, the problem inherent with you is you.

    Since you don't respond timely to my challenges and have not once refuted the facts,it necessitates checking over the treads often months after I posted initially to find something related to the topic to respond to. You rarely offer anything other than some ridiculous verse which is neither on topic, nor make any effort to show its relationship to the topic, so it is futile to make reference to it. It isn't the verse that is problematic, it is your misquoting and miscomprehension of it that is to blame and the reason that you along with others who practice such habitual nonsense cause so many people to ignore what would otherwise be helpful to them.

    In your particular case, you have not demonstrated the ability to provide any valid, verifiable factual data to support your positions, so anything you do post is not relevant to the discussion nor requires a response to it.

    When I post it is relevant, directly on point, unless a tangential comment must be dealt with, but I always return to the topic in any case. And the majority of those tangential comments are mostly ad hominen attacks which tell me that the respondent has absolutely nothing to argue with so they try to discourage me from posting.

    That has never worked and only inspires me to post more and more often.

    The topic: Why Do the Heathen Rage? - International Blasphemy Day

    Try discussing the topic instead of failing in your attempts to discourage me.

    TFR

  • amaranth »
    Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:49 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    I was leaning more towards amusement at the situation. lol Thanks, though. :)

  • mathetes »
    Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:32 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show amaranth, That's just his typical behavior: post a long, rambling rant, demanding someone provide evidence or respond to his statements. Then when a Christian does, he either ignores it and moves on to something else, or he insists they have not refuted him and proclaims that he won the debate. After you've watched him do this 3-4 times, you move past bewilderment to sympathy. hide

  • amaranth »
    Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:41 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    I think it's interesting that Alockslee got all bent out of shape because no one went point by point to refute his establishment clause argument and then disappeared after I did just that.

    :)

  • amaranth »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:53 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 0

    Al,

    In response to what you wrote about TLC and Mathetes...

    Any true Christian would fully acknowledge and understand that the roots of Christianity lie in Judaism. The God of the Jews IS the God of the Christians. The only difference is that the Jews do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the savior they were told of. Regardless of the name we call Him, He is still God. No matter what. So your comment only demonstrates your ignorance of the Christian faith. Hope this helped to clear things up a bit for you.

  • amaranth »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:49 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 0

    Al,

    Pretty much every religion prays to some deity or another. So, saying that the National Day of Prayer violates the establishment clause would mean that the government was establishing almost every religion as a main religion and requiring people to join them. Wow. That's pretty interesting. I would imagine that would be a pretty hard feat to accomplish. Especially considering that the day itself is not something that people are required to observe in any way, shape or form.

    Praying before a council meeting is not establishing a religion as no one is forced to participate. Also, most religions call their deity "God." So, technically, all religious persons could be represented in that saying of a prayer - which is generally why none of them complain. Only the atheists - who can leave the room or ignore the act - ever complain. Again, no one is forced to participate in the prayer.

    Teaching about Christianity in schools is not establishing religion because schools teach about all the major religions. It is a matter of educating students on the basic tenets of each major faith. It does not promote one religion over another or force anyone to participate in any specific religion.

    ID is a scientific theory that has proponents from ALL faiths - including some atheists and agnostics. So, that does not promote any specific religion or require anyone to join one.

    Religious messages on public buildings do not force anyone to join a specific religion and most of the major religions hold certain truths across the board. It does not impose anything - and these things were usually done by the architects who designed the buildings, anyway. The government didn't mandate it.

    Again, most major religions refer to their deity as "God." The word "God" on buildings, documents or currency does not promote any specific religion over another nor does the word itself require anyone to join a religion.

    No one is persecuted by the government in our country for their choice in religion or lack of one. No one is asked to identify their religion as a prerequisite for a government job. No one is denied their rights simply because they subscribe to one religion or another or none. You Establishment Clause argument is, therefore, unfounded. Hope you had a great weekend. Take care.

  • mathetes »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:57 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Alockslee, you wrote: "For a christian you sure like to consistently invoke the deity of the early Hebrews. You hoping to hedge your bets just in case your reliance upon Jesus wasn't well placed or just looking to avoid dealing with the topic at hand?" Earlier I stated that you talk a good game about the Bible, but you really don't understand it as well as you think you do. Here is another case in point. If you want to understand God and His Word better, just ask; we'll be glad to answer your questions. "Perhaps mathetes can step in and write a response for you since it is obviously his job to follow around and mention off topics posts to delay you answering direct questions." Uh... no. You don't even recogize your own tactic, do you? I am doing as you do: you demand a person respond to your post, no matter how the discussion has moved on. Long ago Believer answered your (false) assertion regarding the examples you gave; everyone here recognizes that he rebutted you quite handily - everyone, that is, but you. I think TLChild pegged you pretty well regarding her post: you cannot grasp that she used "if" in her sentence, so you foolishly argue on, while all who observe just shake their heads and say, "That's just sad...." Seriously, if you want to learn about God, the Bible or Christianity, just ask us - we will be glad to help you understand. But if you just want to argue, why not look elsewhere? hide

  • believer »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:22 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 0

    al. from the Britannica Concise Encylopedia, "Clause in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbidding Congress from establishing a state religion. It prevents the passage of any law that give preference to or forces belief in any one religion. It is paired with a clause that prohibits limiting the expression of religion." Now that we have a definition, please show how any of the examples you cited violate this clause.

  • believer »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:14 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    al, acknowledging one's religious beliefs or God is not promoting any religion.

  • believer »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:12 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    al, plus, I'm not the one having a problem making a distinction here, it is you who have yet to show us how any of the examples you cited establish a religion as opposed to them being expressions of people's religious freedom.

  • believer »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:09 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    al, wrong again, the National Day of Prayer has been around since 1775 and in fact the Obama Administration asked that the present case be dismissed based on that fact. It was created as a floating holiday in 1952 and the first Thursday in May by President Ronald Reagan.

  • TLChild »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:38 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    Alockslee,

    Until you are able to prove to me that you understand what "FAITH" means, you will stop asking for scientific information. Therefore, it is imperative that you do this first, because then, you will discover the answers to the questions that you keep asking Christians. However, if you keep asking Christians the same questions in regards to providing secular sources, I will have to assume that you do not understand the word "FAITH".

  • Alockslee »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

    TLChild » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:08 pm Alockslee,
    I need for you to study the word "FAITH," and let me know what you believe it means. After you figure out what it means, then we can discuss the word "PROOF."
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: No actually you can put up what was asked for since if was first in line.

    As for you faith question, you give me what I asked for first and I will answer yours provided of course you actually stop being slow in responding and slow in your posting and slow in getting to it for once.

    Until you provide the substantiated proof that can be verified independently by scientific sources which we all know you can't....

    Nothing happened.

    TFR

  • TLChild »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:08 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    Alockslee,

    I need for you to study the word "FAITH," and let me know what you believe it means. After you figure out what it means, then we can discuss the word "PROOF."

  • Alockslee »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

    believer » Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:46 pm al, I have to agree with TL, you talk a good game, but you are not all that knowledgeable when it comes to differentiating between establishing religion and a person simply exhibiting their religious freedom that we are allowed in our nation.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: What exactly are you having trouble with here?

    You seem to think that the events are exactly the same when they are completely different.

    One is a private observance by a single individual and the other is a PUBLIC Ceremony that is an official observance and that is a violation per se under the Establishment Clause.

    The NDOP was instituted under the Bush regime but that doesn't make it any less of a violation.

    What is the problem with you making the distinction?

    Just because the NDOP was enacted doesn't mean it is Constitutional anymore than the Lodi City Council voting to continue their illegal prayers during council meetings.

    IF the event is a public event and done in an official capacity then it is a violation period, regardless of any NDOP statues or not.


    Let me add the following to the last post, The Establishment Clause also forbids the "PROMOTING" of a religion which is praying in an official event or activity. Perhaps that portion which you continually leave out will help you and get you to think about the entirety of the LAW. Does that help you to understand it better. I can repeat it again if you don't get it the first time.

    TFR

  • TLChild »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:05 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

    Once again SLOW alockslee,

    My prayers were answered, Yahweh had mercy on those on international blasphemy day.

  • Alockslee »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

    TLC read my post again and then tell everyone what happened in response to your prayers.

    Did anything happen and was there any proof that any deity whatsoever did anything and provided uncontravertable proof that the response to your particular prayers and your prayer alone resulted in something that you can provide valid verifiable proof of?

    The answer for you since you are so inane and refuse to admit to your shortcomings and merely try to play it off means you don't get it and never have.

    Thanks for the evidence that your mind controlled brain washing prohibits your ability to recognize the fact of reality when I give it to you from the fantasy you exist in.

    TFR

  • Alockslee »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    believer » Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:46 pm al, I have to agree with TL, you talk a good game, but you are not all that knowledgeable when it comes to differentiating between establishing religion and a person simply exhibiting their religious freedom that we are allowed in our nation.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: What exactly are you having trouble with here?

    You seem to think that the events are exactly the same when they are completely different.

    One is a private observance by a single individual and the other is a PUBLIC Ceremony that is an official observance and that is a violation per se under the Establishment Clause.

    The NDOP was instituted under the Bush regime but that doesn't make it any less of a violation.

    What is the problem with you making the distinction?

    Just because the NDOP was enacted doesn't mean it is Constitutional anymore than the Lodi City Council voting to continue their illegal prayers during council meetings.

    IF the event is a public event and done in an official capacity then it is a violation period, regardless of any NDOP statues or not.

    TFR

  • TLChild »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:52 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 1

    Alockslee,

    May be it would help you if you quote two sentences instead of one. Notice that I put the word "IF" in my comment, therefore, I did not state that Yahweh will do something. Man, you are really slow and it keeps showing. However, you think that since you write books instead of simple comments, people will assume that you know what you are talking about--let me help you out, I THINK NOT.

    Here are my first two sentences Alockslee, and if you comprehended the context of my comment, then you would have known that I was not stating that Yahweh was going to do something--I think you need to study the word "IF" before you try to respond to other's comments.

    "I am praying that Yahweh has mercy on those people on international blasphemy day. September 30 is going to be a very interesting day to see if Yahweh sends something down from Heaven, because we know that there will only be heathens attending; therefore, Yahweh does not have to hold back His wrath."

  • believer »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:46 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    al, I have to agree with TL, you talk a good game, but you are not all that knowledgeable when it comes to differentiating between establishing religion and a person simply exhibiting their religious freedom that we are allowed in our nation.

  • Alockslee »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    believer » Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:07 pm al, at our National Day of Prayer we asked a local Recruiter to come and lead a prayer for our military. He was both in uniform and on duty, so are you saying by doing that he established religion? I'll answer that for you, NO!!!
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: believer, from your recent posts I am seeing you are sincere in your understanding of what you heard and observed but you are confusing two different issues here.

    First the private matter at a meal by a single person not engaged in affecting anyone else is not a violation since he/she was not acting on the part of the government in carrying out the RELIGIOUS activity on behalf of the government.

    The second one however is a violation and regardless of the "national day of prayer or not, it is a violation. The NDOP is in fact a violation as the government cannot promote, establish, or engage in a religious observance during any official activity. The NDOP is being challenged concurrently and a ruling should be handed down soon.

    If the court follows the law it will be found unconstitutional and ended, if the court follows the pressure from the f&e squad it might limit the ruling.

    Hope that explains it better for you.
    TFR

  • TLChild »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:41 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    Alockslee,

    You crack me up when you try to be so intelligent, but then, I realize how slow you are when you quote someone's statements and still do not get the point. I stated that I hope that Yahweh has mercy on those people on international blaphemy day, and OBVIOUSLY YAHWEH DID since there were no news programs reporting anything major occurring. Next time you try to make a point, make sure you understand the other person's point and context, because just copying someone's statements and responding to them is not working for you. As a matter of fact, I was not speaking to you, and you still failed to understand my first sentence.

  • believer »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:14 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    al, I need to correct myself there were some religious events that involved the use of drugs that when I was in military members were not allowed to participate in and if it was known that any military regulations were being violated they would not be permitted to attend as a minimum in uniform and/or while on duty if at all.

  • believer »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:07 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    al, at our National Day of Prayer we asked a local Recruiter to come and lead a prayer for our military. He was both in uniform and on duty, so are you saying by doing that he established religion? I'll answer that for you, NO!!! he didn't he simply prayed for the protection and safety and safe return of our brave men and women serving in our military and especially those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan protecting the very freedoms people like you would like to take away from some. He did not establish religion, he simply showed an example of religious freedom that we can enjoy still in our country!!

  • believer »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:02 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    al, and once again you have not shown us how a government official saying he/she is religious or praying in public establishes religion rather than is just an expression of their religious freedom.

  • believer »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:58 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    al, once again you're wrong, any time a member of the military is in uniform and on duty they represent the military, our nation. That is why there are several events that they are either not permitted to attend either on duty and/or in uniform, or they need special permission to attend, but I know of no religious events they are not allowed to paricipate in.

  • Alockslee »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    believer » Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:24 pm al, to support how ridiculuos your statement is let me cite an example of establishment of religion using your faulty definition. If a military member goes to the Dining Hall in uniform for lunch and it is their religious belief or tradition to pray before meals. Since they are on duty and in uniform they would according to your faulty definition be violating the establishment clause if they said grace before they ate.
    ------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: NO it is not the same thing. They are doing a personal activity whereas the City Council is engaging in an activity on BEHALF of the CITY COUNCIL and as part of the Public Business.

    Do you now understand the difference? The example of the person in the Air Force is a private PERSONAL matter not on behalf of the Government, whereas the Mayor and City Council are proclaiming a belief in a religion, using a name of a deity in a public meeting
    (Governmental business) and praying (a religious observance) while conducting Governmental business.

    Got it yet? It is quite simple if you recognize that one is private business not involving any other person and the other is done affecting the entire town.

    For someone who purports to know about this issue you sure prove otherwise.
    TFR

  • believer »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:24 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    al, to support how ridiculuos your statement is let me cite an example of establishment of religion using your faulty definition. If a military member goes to the Dining Hall in uniform for lunch and it is their religious belief or tradition to pray before meals. Since they are on duty and in uniform they would according to your faulty definition be violating the establishment clause if they said grace before they ate.

  • believer »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:19 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    al, wrong as usual, a government employee can indeed express their religious beliefs as long as they don't force their religious beliefs on others or allow their religious beliefs to keep them from treating others fairly, most specifically any of their subordinates. I know this because in the U.S. Air Force, I was a Chief of Social Actions and our agency oversaw the Equal Opportunity and Treatment Program on behalf of the Senior Commander which included dealing with those who felt they were being discriminated against because of religious reasons. And once again the only thing you have cited is your opinion with regards to the examples you have cited and have yet to show how any of them do indeed establish religion as opposed to acknowledge it which falls under the freedom of religious expression.

  • Alockslee »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    TLChild » Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:30 am I am praying that Yahweh has mercy on those people on international blasphemy day. September 30 is going to be a very interesting day to see if Yahweh sends something down from Heaven,
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: So TLC what happened with September 30, 2009?

    Anything newsworthy on a supernatural level occur that had the signature and personal stamp of your deity du jour? Anything that would be considered on the scale would have stopped the presses and even FOX didn't spew anything.

    For a christian you sure like to consistently invoke the deity of the early Hebrews. You hoping to hedge your bets just in case your reliance upon Jesus wasn't well placed or just looking to avoid dealing with the topic at hand?

    Perhaps mathetes can step in and write a response for you since it is obviously his job to follow around and mention off topics posts to delay you answering direct questions.

    I know you won't answer my questions so back to the topic which should be why do the f&e squad continue to force religion on everyone. Or was it let's make up a article so the minions following rhetoric can play cut and paste bible verses.

    Have fun
    TFR

  • Alockslee »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    believer »Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:13 am Alockslee, please show us how any of those establish religion and I notice you convienently leave off a very important part of the establishment clause with regards to not interfering with the freedom of religion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: Notice how I fixed your post? the name is ALOCKSLEE please be sure to write it out in full.

    Next you and yours engage in a practice of avoidance. You don't admit when the answers are given and then expect the rest of us to allow you to continue this practice.

    I provided examples of breaches and violation of the Establishment Clause and you don't grasp them.

    When are you going to respond to the questions I an other have asked? You have to show why the examples given which promote a belief in a deity in public involving a governmental entity or activity which is forbidden via the Establishment Clause from either promoting or even expressing a belief in a religion is somehow exempt.

    ANY Governmental entity, employee, worker, mayor, councilperson, etc., MAY NOT express a belief in a religion during the time they are engaged in activities carrying out their duties and/or business in that capacity PERIOD!

    The test is simple: IF your are one of the above parties then you can't even express a belief in religion during the period you are doing the work of a public servant or agency PERIOD!

    Got it? Now personally on non governmental time that is while not involved in any work for the government, city council meetings or at events such as schools, awards ceremonies etc., they are private citizens and they can engage in it as long as it has absolutely no connection with their positions in any official capacity.

    Now your turn to show that expressing a belief in religion while conducting a city council meeting is somehow not in violation with the above.

    After you respond then others can do so as well and help you to understand that you won't be able to argue it isn't but please go ahead and try so at least the topic will be somewhat on point.

    TFR

  • mathetes »
    Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:01 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Alockslee, "So, again please in the future address what I have written and don't bother with personal attacks it won't work." This is my first time back in a few days: I see you never addressed what TLChild and I wrote to you last Monday. You must have realized you could not refute the facts, so I take your silence to mean you have conceded the truth of the Bible's prophecy and history. As for personal attacks: while you've made your share in the past, I'll be the first to say you've done better since you've been back this time, though you still talk down to people (which looks silly given the errors in your posts). Glad to see you're growing; I hope we can keep these discussions civil. hide

  • believer »
    Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:23 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    al, no one said your examples didn't deal with religion, but just because they speak to religion does not mean they are considered establishment of religion as opposed to the freedom of religion, acknowledgment of God which is by no means the establishment of religion. So please feel free to show us how any of your examples are indeed the establishment of religion.

  • Alockslee »
    Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    Thierdaddyhisson » Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:20 am al may I also ask as to why the religion(believing of)of humanism (that you appear to believe) would not fall under the establishment clause.
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: first off the name is Alockslee, not al or some abbreviation, in the future please try to use the full name as I will do the same for you.

    Next, you assume something about me and you have no evidence I have provided any statements that I am of one belief or another, I simply argue positions and support them factually. I purposely don't provide details such as that since people will simply argue and attack on that basis and forgo the topic at hand.

    So, again please in the future address what I have written and don't bother with personal attacks it won't work.

    Lastly, secular Humanism is a philosophy and not a religion, thus it can't be by definition in violation of the Establishment Clause.

    http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/secular%20humanism

    http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what

    Two links that define and explain the terminology for you.

    Thanks for the question and hopefully I have responded sufficiently to address your question.

    TFR

  • Alockslee »
    Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    believer » Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:13 am al, please show us how any of those establish religion and I notice you convienently leave off a very important part of the establishment clause with regards to not interfering with the freedom of religion. The reality is we don't need to show you how these issues you cite don't establish religion, but rather you must first show us how they do establish religion as opposed to simply acknowledge God and allow people the freedom of religion!
    --------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: Let me make it easy for you, I was asked in a prior post to give examples of where the establishment of religion took place.

    I gave some examples. Those examples by your omission prove I was correct so you then tried another tack and injected "Freedom of Religion" to avoid discussing the evidence I presented.

    Lets start with what I gave you and have you, believer, discuss and show how the examples are not religion and how their implementing into the public sector doesn't not violate the Establishment Clause.

    Take them one at a time and prove your position. Once you have done that I will address you secondary question as it does need to be dealt with but only after you have addressed mine.

    I seriously doubt you will either engage in said attempts as you already know I am correct but more importantly you feel to do so will demonstrate that you lack the skills necessary to put forth a logical and compelling argument capable of even supporting your position and fail when you try.

    Seriously, give it a try as it will help you and others here to recognize and learn that you have misunderstood the Establishment Clause and by undertaking the challenge you will then be able to educate others as you gain the insight you lack,

    This is not a put down, it is a simply statement of fact. Don't be so stuck in your ways or remain so stubborn that it prevents you from being honest and learning something new.

    So how about it I asked first and it is about time you played by the rules and participated truthfully and honestly but if you don't that is nothing new nor anything unexpected.

    TFR

  • believer »
    Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:12 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    rev, and once again neither you nor al has shown us how any of the events he shared establishes religion, but simply allows for the freedom of religion.

  • believer »
    Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:10 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    rev, as far as I know that is allowed and indeed does happen, perhaps not on all occassions nor is the God of Christianity acknowledged every time, but allah is acknowledged such as when the muslim Congressmen who was allowed to use the koran when he took his oath.

  • lpepperw »
    Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:36 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
    6Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
    7but made himself nothing,
    taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
    8And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    and became obedient to death—
    even death on a cross!
    9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
    and gave him the name that is above every name,
    10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
    11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father.

  • RevShnorrRocks »
    Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:37 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    believer: "...but rather you must first show us how they do establish religion as opposed to simply acknowledge God and allow people the freedom of religion!"

    OK believer. For the sake of argument only let us assume that your argument is 100% correct.

    Following your argument to its logical conclusion our government should be acknowledging Allah at every opportunity.

    And if you disagree then "... you must first show us how they do establish religion as opposed to simply acknowledge Allah and allow people the freedom of religion!"

    The epitome of doublethink is to believe that mentioning God or Allah isn't about religion or establishing religion.

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

  • Thierdaddyhisson »
    Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:20 am Agree: 7   Disagree: 1

    al
    may I also ask as to why the religion(believing of)of humanism (that you appear to believe) would not fall under the establishment clause.

  • believer »
    Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:15 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    u4, let's wait a year and then we'll speak to this new discovery, considering the jury in many ways is still out on this one!

  • believer »
    Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:13 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

    al, please show us how any of those establish religion and I notice you convienently leave off a very important part of the establishment clause with regards to not interfering with the freedom of religion. The reality is we don't need to show you how these issues you cite don't establish religion, but rather you must first show us how they do establish religion as opposed to simply acknowledge God and allow people the freedom of religion!

  • Thierdaddyhisson »
    Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    I wonder why they dont do that with the Bible ..
    Oh thats right .. whenever that is done The Judeo Christian Bible as usual has always been proven the most Reliable Historical record ever written.

  • Thierdaddyhisson »
    Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:53 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

    u4eee
    Ohhhh!! Ahhhh!! Hey Guys we just found another arthritic and diseasesd ravaged monkey to make the usual Fairy Tales about missing links which as usual will be debunked the next day by REAL Scientists.
    Their are allways people with more money than sense to get milked for $$$Billions$$$ in GRANT money to research for something that is constantly froven false.

  • u4eeeahhh »
    Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:12 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 6

    READ THIS - there goes the 10,000 year old Creationist's Earth
    a group of international scientists has recovered the partial skeleton of an extraordinary prehuman creature who lived in an area of East Africa 4.4 million years ago. Her bones were found in a trove of fossils just as old, revealing the earliest known stage in the long drama of human evolution.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/01/MNAQ19TAD8.DTL#ixzz0SmOSbDYw

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
More Opinion
Advertisement
CP Shopping
Shopping Home>>
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
CP BOOK
CP Books Home>>
Double Minds
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links