The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

[unofan]

Not that anyone is remotely interested in such a thing, obviously. But I know that's a popular boogeyman people trot out.

Bull farking shiat.

Anyone who says "We're a Christian nation" is advocating for a state religion. I'd say that's the calling card of the entire evangelical wing of the GOP.

 

[MissThundercat]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Bull farking shiat.

Anyone who says "We're a Christian nation" is advocating for a state religion. I'd say that's the calling card of the entire evangelical wing of the GOP.

Didn't the "Christian nation" stuff start with the Eisenhower admin? That's when the motto was changed to "In God We Trust" and "Under God" was added to the Pledge, all to distinguish us from those heathen communists.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Didn't the "Christian nation" stuff start with the Eisenhower admin? That's when the motto was changed to "In God We Trust" and "Under God" was added to the Pledge, all to distinguish us from those heathen communists.

That was Round 2. Round 1 was when the Pentecostals wrapped themselves in the flag in the 20s and 30s when it looked like Polite Christianity was going to pole-ax them. They protected themselves by playing the God Bless America gambit even louder and heavier-handedly than that jackwagon painter with the Marine Todd Jesus stuff.

The funniest part of this is that American socialism springs way less from that olde tyme German atheism and far more from the leftist branch of the English labor movement, which was heavily influenced and supported by religion. As the saying goes, Jesus was a brown-skinned liberal Jewish community organizer.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Not that anyone is remotely interested in such a thing, obviously. But I know that's a popular boogeyman people trot out.

You were saying?

In wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage, Republicans are pushing legislation that aims to protect Americans who oppose these unions on religious grounds. But critics say the language is so broad, the bill creates a license to discriminate that would let employers fire women for getting pregnant outside of wedlock.

The First Amendment Defense Act prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person -- which is defined to include for-profit corporations -- acting in accordance with a religious belief that favors so-called traditional marriage. This means the feds can't revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status or end a company's federal contract over this issue.

The bill specifically protects those who believe that marriage is between "one man and one woman" or that "sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage." Ian Thompson, a legislative representative at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that in addition to targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the bill "clearly encompasses discrimination against single mothers" and would hobble the ability of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal body that protects women from sex-based discrimination, to act.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

You were saying?

I'm not wasting my time on this with you once again. Protecting peoples' freedom of religion isn't the same as creating a state religion, to put on my Captain Obvious cape. But I know you're not that big on that angle and don't think it applies, blah, blah, blah. There, I've saved us a dozen posts where neither buys into the way the other person describes things.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Didn't the "Christian nation" stuff start with the Eisenhower admin? That's when the motto was changed to "In God We Trust" and "Under God" was added to the Pledge, all to distinguish us from those heathen communists.

The stuff like that under Eisenhower happened because up to that point people didn't think the obvious needed to be stated, but it gradually became clear that it did need to be. There is a long and detailed history of this nation and some will recognize it and some are busy rewriting it to serve their purposes. One thing I'd suggest taking a look if you have an interest is the New England Primer, a primary textbook used widely in schools throughout America from the 1600s until even the 20th century in places. It uses Biblical references, stories, etc. very extensively, so much so in fact that some folks called it "the little Bible of New England." And it's what was used to teach millions of American schoolchildren across the centuries.

 

[LynahFan]

The stuff like that under Eisenhower happened because up to that point people didn't think the obvious needed to be stated, but it gradually became clear that it did need to be. There is a long and detailed history of this nation and some will recognize it and some are busy rewriting it to serve their purposes. One thing I'd suggest taking a look if you have an interest is the New England Primer, a primary textbook used widely in schools throughout America from the 1600s until even the 20th century in places. It uses Biblical references, stories, etc. very extensively, so much so in fact that some folks called it "the little Bible of New England." And it's what was used to teach millions of American schoolchildren across the centuries.

And yet, you somehow fail to make the connection that this is tantamount to establishlment of religion, or at the very least endorsement of one. That is unequivically unconstitutional. Don't like it? Put forth an amendment allowing the state to sponsor Christian values and see how far you get.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I'm not wasting my time on this with you once again. Protecting peoples' freedom of religion isn't the same as creating a state religion, to put on my Captain Obvious cape. But I know you're not that big on that angle and don't think it applies, blah, blah, blah. There, I've saved us a dozen posts where neither buys into the way the other person describes things.

And to be equally obvious, "freedom of religion" doesn't mean you get to deny people their civil rights because of one of the spells in your magic book. Your religious rights end where other people's civil rights begin and no amount of crying "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!" changes that. I see your and raise you a .

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Didn't the "Christian nation" stuff start with the Eisenhower admin? That's when the motto was changed to "In God We Trust" and "Under God" was added to the Pledge, all to distinguish us from those heathen communists.

Actually it was started during Lincoln's administration and has been on US currency as one of the country's most iconic statements ever since. At the time, there was general acceptance that Christianity was a defining characteristic of the US. In the end, Christianity, Judaism and Islam in their many iterations believe in God (with Buddhism being philosophy based) which means the vast majority of religions align with the idea anyways.

And yet, you somehow fail to make the connection that this is tantamount to establishlment of religion, or at the very least endorsement of one. That is unequivically unconstitutional. Don't like it? Put forth an amendment allowing the state to sponsor Christian values and see how far you get.

The courts have ruled time and again that like the flag 'In God We Trust' is both ceremonial and tied to the American tradition. It does not require a Constitutional amendment. Pretty much those upset are not the average non believers nor folks of differing religions (who get the ceremonial nature of the phrase)...but rather those at the extreme who have a proactive distain for religion all together.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I've always thought "In God We Trust" was just the snarky preamble to "All Others Pay Cash."

FTR, it doesn't bother me at all, despite being an imposition of a particular religious perspective on all the non-believers in the country. It doesn't hurt anything and it makes the mooks happy, so, whatever.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

And to be equally obvious, "freedom of religion" doesn't mean you get to deny people their civil rights because of one of the spells in your magic book. Your religious rights end where other people's civil rights begin and no amount of crying "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!" changes that. I see your and raise you a .

Hey, I understand you've got this new novel way of looking at things. Just not buying it. And your bogeyman of oppression doesn't fly either, as it hasn't in the past. Not spending another post on this unless there's something new to respond to, which I don't think there is.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Hey, I understand you've got this new novel way of looking at things. Just not buying it. And your bogeyman of oppression doesn't fly either, as it hasn't in the past. Not spending another post on this unless there's something new to respond to, which I don't think there is.

So you just responded to tell me you aren't responding. Is this a riddle?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

So you just responded to tell me you aren't responding. Is this a riddle?

To you apparently.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

To you apparently.

I know this one. The doctor is the patient's MOTHER!

You see, it's funny because it exposes unconscious bias...

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I know this one. The doctor is the patient's MOTHER!

You see, it's funny because it exposes unconscious bias...

No idea what you are trying to say, as is often the case.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

No idea what you are trying to say, as is often the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOuUi8NTG_8

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOuUi8NTG_8

Not watching a 63 minute video to try to understand whatever you're trying to say.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Not watching a 63 minute video to try to understand whatever you're trying to say.

The explanation was in the title of the linked video: It's a Joke.

ETA: Subtitle would be, "Something Almost Everyone Understands."

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Not watching a 63 minute video to try to understand whatever you're trying to say.

Tin Cup version

 

[LynahFan]

Actually it was started during Lincoln's administration and has been on US currency as one of the country's most iconic statements ever since. At the time, there was general acceptance that Christianity was a defining characteristic of the US. In the end, Christianity, Judaism and Islam in their many iterations believe in God (with Buddhism being philosophy based) which means the

The courts have ruled time and again that like the flag 'In God We Trust' is both ceremonial and tied to the American tradition. It does not require a Constitutional amendment. Pretty much those upset are not the average non believers nor folks of differing religions (who get the ceremonial nature of the phrase)...but rather those at the extreme who have a proactive distain for religion all together.

Not sure how we went from talking about use of a religious text in public education to "In God We Trust," but whatever.

Apparently the new standard for acceptability is no longer the Constitution, but whether that practice had been in place for centuries before Lincoln? I mean, what could possibly be wrong with slavery, denying women's suffrage or property rights, etc. They're tradition! And goodness knows nothing should ever change.