Why do Liberals typically attack and pervert Christianity?

[mac]

It's not an irrelevant issue. Many atheists, and quite a few people of certain religious faiths, take this sort of thing very seriously, and for good reasons. I'm curious, how do you imagine the oath being a part of the classroom experience on a regular basis and not be, in some sense, coercive? Even where individual children can theoretically opt out, there's a fair amount of social pressure to fit in, and of course children (particularly the young ones) tend to do what their teachers are telling them to do. Moreover, setting aside class time to recite the oath gives official imprimatur to the practice. This is also coercive.

Lastly, if the oath doesn't mean anything, why waste time by having it in the classroom?

There are a whole lot of things in a student's day, and indeed life, that could just as easily be described as "fairly coercive". In one simple explanation, public schools (in America) are funded to educate young Americans so that they can be good productive Americans. These schools are paid for by the taxes of Americans, many of whom either don't even have kids or have kids in private schools. The argument is that it serves all Americans and American society to educate it's youth, and therefore all Americans should fund it.

I didn't say that the oath doesn't mean anything, I said that it is not binding on a minor.

 

[Thunder]

I think you can live with a little discipline..

Well, then, I guess we'll just assume some kid got "fussed" at and go from there. So what? Someone allegedly got punished in that last 200 years for not saying the pledge of allegiance, I bet they moved past it.

..In short, I feel that any attempt to force the pledge is misguided, at best. I also feel that all the hoopla over a mostly irrelevant issue is simply hyper-sensitive nonsense. From what I've read, any student with a note from their parents must be excused from the pledge, any authority in the schools that fails to abide by that should be reprimanded, or dismissed as the situation warrants.

don't believe in being consistent with your views, ay?

 

[Thunder]

It currently is, it's the squeaky minority that opposes it..

again, with the callous disregard for religious, moral, and political objections of fellow citizens.

nice.

 

[Aderleth]

There are a whole lot of things in a student's day, and indeed life, that could just as easily be described as "fairly coercive". In one simple explanation, public schools (in America) are funded to educate young Americans so that they can be good productive Americans. These schools are paid for by the taxes of Americans, many of whom either don't even have kids or have kids in private schools. The argument is that it serves all Americans and American society to educate it's youth, and therefore all Americans should fund it.

I didn't say that the oath doesn't mean anything, I said that it is not binding on a minor.

The oath isn't binding on anyone. It carries no legal weight. It is, and should be, important to pretty much everyone and I think that's especially true of minors, who may not fully appreciate the import of the words they're being asked to speak, but, via repetition, might be lead to reach some basic conclusions about the nature of our society, and, more importantly, the role of God in that society. Of course it's the words under God that raise the spectre of establishment clause issues. Even without those words, having the pledge in a classroom setting potentially creates free expression issues (as some religions prevent their members from pledging allegiance to anyone other than their notion of God).

Obviously quite a lot of things are coercive. You, however, were making the argument that no one should be forced to say the pledge of allegiance, but seem to be advocating for its presence in schools. I'm simply pointing out that you probably can't make the pledge a part of one's educational experience without, in some sense, forcing them (i.e. coercing them) to say it. This, by the way, is fundamentally the same as the reasoning of higher courts on this issue in the last 30-40 years.

 

[Geo Patric]

Considering some values that christians are suppose to hold VS some values that they support by being Liberal - it seems ot conflict.

??

like what?

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

Socially liberal christians? Is that like socialist libertarians? I find it difficult. If it ain't the word of god, then who they talkin' to?

liberalism was begun and bought to fruition by religious folks, though mostly christianity based deists in the latter part. this is such a stupid argument.

geo.

 

[winston53660]

Before someone states, "Huh? What are you talking about?", I have collected a plethora of instances in which liberals do indeed attack and pervert Christianity. Ergo, don't try to deny that liberals typically do this.

The question now is...

...why?

You are asking a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question.

 

[Geo Patric]

Sangha, you're opening yourself up to ridicule. Jesus was not a socialist; He didn't believe in big government and redistribution of wealth. You shouldn't make such an outrageous claim.

well, THAT is not THE definition of 'socialism'. you are ignorant of what you suppose to be 'the enemy'.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

Jesus did believe in redistributing wealth and socialists don't believe in big govt.

you are overstating it, sangha. jesus was not a materialist at all (socialis IS a theory of materialism).

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

Show me where he professed a desire to redistribute wealth. He believed in charity and he believed that relentless pursuit of money pulled one away from God. Neither of these supports your claim.

you, too, are overstating the facts. the judaism of the time was based in a simple premise of distribution NOT based on charity but on the premise that no one could rightly claim more than he could use nor deprive others of what they need. this is where those Liberals of the 17th and 18th century (eg: Locke) got THEIR essential premise.

the essential premise of tithing had its origins in leaving a portion (ie. in the field), in some instances stated as 'a tenth part,' for foragers - NOT out of the goodness of your heart but because it does not belong to you, it belongs to God.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

The oath . . is, and should be, important to pretty much everyone and I think that's especially true of minors, who may not fully appreciate the import of the words they're being asked to speak, but, via repetition, might be lead to reach some basic conclusions about the nature of our society, and, more importantly, the role of God in that society. .

thanks... THAT is a well put claim for the virtues of involuntary religio-political indoctrination.

i could not have put it better myself.

geo.

 

[sangha]

It's not an irrelevant issue. Many atheists, and quite a few people of certain religious faiths, take this sort of thing very seriously, and for good reasons. I'm curious, how do you imagine the oath being a part of the classroom experience on a regular basis and not be, in some sense, coercive? Even where individual children can theoretically opt out, there's a fair amount of social pressure to fit in, and of course children (particularly the young ones) tend to do what their teachers are telling them to do. Moreover, setting aside class time to recite the oath gives official imprimatur to the practice. This is also coercive.

Lastly, if the oath doesn't mean anything, why waste time by having it in the classroom?

Because, to the befuddled, it is "pointless" to mention infringements to the constitution and it is "harmless" to punish students who do not say it, and it's "waste of time" trying to stop students from spending time reciting a "useless" oath and .....

Oh **** it.....I cant make sense out of it either, Aderleth

 

[sangha]

There are a whole lot of things in a student's day, and indeed life, that could just as easily be described as "fairly coercive". In one simple explanation, public schools (in America) are funded to educate young Americans so that they can be good productive Americans. These schools are paid for by the taxes of Americans, many of whom either don't even have kids or have kids in private schools. The argument is that it serves all Americans and American society to educate it's youth, and therefore all Americans should fund it.

I didn't say that the oath doesn't mean anything, I said that it is not binding on a minor.

You said the oath means whatever a person wants it to mean, but now, if a person thinks it means nothing then it still means something :roll:

"I didn't say that the oath doesn't mean anything"

So which is it? Does the oath mean something, or does it sometimes mean nothing?

And why did you start out explaining why the oath was not a waste of time by pointing out that people with no children pay taxes for schools? How in the world is that relevant to the question you were answering?

 

[sangha]

You, however, were making the argument that no one should be forced to say the pledge of allegiance, but seem to be advocating for its presence in schools.

That's exactly what he's doing, while insisting that it makes sense, and that he understands all about constitutional rights. :lol:

 

[sangha]

you are overstating it, sangha. jesus was not a materialist at all (socialis IS a theory of materialism).

geo.

I don't understand what you are saying

 

[Geo Patric]

I don't understand what you are saying

jesus told folks to give away their wealth NOT as a means of 'wealth distribution', not as a matter of economic or political fairness NOR as a matter of 'charity" but because he saw possessions as a spiritual hindrance. material possession distracted the individual from more important things, like the saving of one's soul and paying attention to virtue.

geo.

 

[mac]

The oath isn't binding on anyone. It carries no legal weight. It is, and should be, important to pretty much everyone and I think that's especially true of minors, who may not fully appreciate the import of the words they're being asked to speak, but, via repetition, might be lead to reach some basic conclusions about the nature of our society, and, more importantly, the role of God in that society. Of course it's the words under God that raise the spectre of establishment clause issues. Even without those words, having the pledge in a classroom setting potentially creates free expression issues (as some religions prevent their members from pledging allegiance to anyone other than their notion of God).

Obviously quite a lot of things are coercive. You, however, were making the argument that no one should be forced to say the pledge of allegiance, but seem to be advocating for its presence in schools. I'm simply pointing out that you probably can't make the pledge a part of one's educational experience without, in some sense, forcing them (i.e. coercing them) to say it. This, by the way, is fundamentally the same as the reasoning of higher courts on this issue in the last 30-40 years.

I agree, and yes I think that no-one should be forced to say it, and I still think everyone should be given the opportunity to say it as part of the normal school day. In the long run, this voluntary participation would have a greater affect on the developing young American in terms of engendering patriotism than would forcing participation.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

jesus told folks to give away their wealth NOT as a means of 'wealth distribution', not as a matter of economic or political fairness NOR as a matter of 'charity" but because he saw possessions as a spiritual hindrance. material possession distracted the individual from more important things, like the saving of one's soul and paying attention to virtue.

geo.

that's one interpretation.

 

[Aderleth]

I agree, and yes I think that no-one should be forced to say it, and I still think everyone should be given the opportunity to say it as part of the normal school day. In the long run, this voluntary participation would have a greater affect on the developing young American in terms of engendering patriotism than would forcing participation.

Everyone does have the opportunity to say it (during, e.g., lunch or recess or whatever), but I think you'll run into the basic problems I've been talking about if you specifically set aside a time during the school day for the purpose of saying it. If students want to set up a group for that purpose on their own time (even if on school property) more power to them.

 

[Geo Patric]

that's one interpretation.

no, it is simply reading and explaining what was read. most folks would call ME a socialist.. but, i do not intend to appropriate the ideas of another in the mistaken hope that doing so will help MY cause. if MY social views have merit, i can show that without distorting the message of a great soul. jesus expressed NO specifically political or economic views. as close as he ever came to a political view was in protesting the polluting by others of his faith with politics and money.

to try and claim his legacy in one's own politcal or economic interests is to do precisely what he spent the latter part of his life fighting.

geo.

 

[sangha]

jesus told folks to give away their wealth NOT as a means of 'wealth distribution', not as a matter of economic or political fairness NOR as a matter of 'charity" but because he saw possessions as a spiritual hindrance. material possession distracted the individual from more important things, like the saving of one's soul and paying attention to virtue.

geo.

Regardless of intent, he did promote the redistribution of wealth, and if he thought that material possessions distracted people from more important things, then why did he say to give those possessions to the poor. IMO, I don't think he was in favor of distracting the poor. IMO, while Jesus certainly did not approve of accumulating wealth, he most certainly did favor a redistribution from the rich to the poor in order to relieve the suffering of the poor. To me, this indicates that Jesus was aware that material possessions could help (to a point) to relieve the suffering of the needy

For me, the redemptive power of relieving other peoples' suffering was at the center of Christs message, and he certainly did support the redistribution of wealth, at least to the extent it would releive suffering of the needy

 

[sangha]

no, it is simply reading and explaining what was read. most folks would call ME a socialist.. but, i do not intend to appropriate the ideas of another in the mistaken hope that doing so will help MY cause. if MY social views have merit, i can show that without distorting the message of a great soul. jesus expressed NO specifically political or economic views. as close as he ever came to a political view was in protesting the polluting by others of his faith with politics and money.

to try and claim his legacy in one's own politcal or economic interests is to do precisely what he spent the latter part of his life fighting.

geo.

Render unto Cesar was both political and economic. IMO, though he was not partisan, and did not promote any political ideology, Jesus was aware of the political aspects of his teachings

 

[Geo Patric]

Regardless of intent, he did promote the redistribution of wealth, and if he thought that material possessions distracted people from more important things, then why did he say to give those possessions to the poor. IMO, I don't think he was in favor of distracting the poor. IMO, while Jesus certainly did not approve of accumulating wealth, he most certainly did favor a redistribution from the rich to the poor in order to relieve the suffering of the poor. To me, this indicates that Jesus was aware that material possessions could help (to a point) to relieve the suffering of the needy

For me, the redemptive power of relieving other peoples' suffering was at the center of Christs message, and he certainly did support the redistribution of wealth, at least to the extent it would releive suffering of the needy

i cannot see it. he advocated 'minimalism' to purify the soul. ... sure, give what you do not need to the poor as long as you are giving it away, but that is not a political impulse. i mean, you are not going to be very successful in refuting materialism if you advocate giving wealth away to the wealthy.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

Render unto Cesar was both political and economic. IMO, though he was not partisan, and did not promote any political ideology, Jesus was aware of the political aspects of his teachings

no, it was specifically ANTI-political. you really think Jesus Of Nazareth SUPPORTED roman fascism, roman occupation and oppression? the politics he WOULD have supported (and likely did) was judean resistance. telling his followers to obey the law of the powers that be was to emphasize the preeminence of God's law and the irrelevance of temporal law and storing up wealth in heaven... where it really counted.. render unto Caesar.. AND render unto GOD.

geo.

 

[sangha]

i cannot see it. he advocated 'minimalism' to purify the soul. ... sure, give what you do not need to the poor as long as you are giving it away, but that is not a political impulse. i mean, you are not going to be very successful in refuting materialism if you advocate giving wealth away to the wealthy.

geo.

He may not have had political motives, but his teaching had a political effect, and he was aware of that effect. It's what led to his execution, which was his fate.

I don't think that Jesus rejected materialism. He never said that everyone should give all his possessions away, only the rich. For the poor, he provided material possessions (ex fish)