Hehe. I"m getting paid for my writing so I'm totally comfortable with my style. My apologies for the unwarranted accusation. But you'd have to admit you tend to write with a more, shall we say, arcane style than what you wrote up there. It was remarkably lucid.

More of the same if you please monsieur Guy!

It depends upon the subject matter. I have been fascinated by Hinduism since I had to research and write the paper on it back in HS (I threatened to do a paper on Alexander the great as I was more into European history at the time - and my teacher said I could - although he said that was kind of cheating), but decided to do it on India and Hinduism.

So in that, I am dispassionate, and can write without injecting my feelings into it. Where I write mostly, on issues of the day (I dont see this one as being an issue, just a chance to discuss the subject I am interested in), I do tend to editorialize more.

I accept your appology, and offer my own for perhaps taking your statement too personally.

As an aside, perhaps my views of Hinduism are colored by my belief in one God and message, and that it is man, the imperfect factor in the equataion, that hears things slightly different. And thus we have many religions (beliefs if you want), but with a common theme, just different traditions and trappings.

KFC WRITES:

I'm glad that AFA brought this to our attention and called for a boycott in 2006. I think that both the boycott and Ford's product and service figure into the equation for Ford's dropped sales figures.

SCONN1 Posts:

This may be true, Sean, but Ford is blatant about its advocacy by sponsoring the promotion of homosexuality and "homosex marriage".

So Christians using the power of the purse to stand up for Jesus Christ and His commands in the workplace is a "disgusting expression" to you Kingbee?

You want "disgusting expression", I'd suggest go to the next Ford sponsored "gay pride" parade or festival (but keep your little ones at home!).

there is no such thing...and this lil term you made up just shows how much of a hateful fraud you are.

it's "gay marriage" or "same sex marriage" or "homosexual marriage"

"homosex" is not a word. it's an infammatory term you and your buddies made up. the only people who use this term are you and the other militant religious zealots who want to impose their so-called morality on everyone.

and if you fools think that your lil protest had thing 1 to do with Ford's numbers, you are truly nuts.

and if you think ford is the only company that does things for the gay community, you are truly stupid. go pick up a copy of the advocate or other gay publications, where you will find ads from just about every company you can think of.

most big companies offer and some require diversity training. most big companies include groups that work for gay causes when giving to charities every year. many of them sponsor events, particularly social or sporting events that are gay oriented.

what ford does is nothing out of the ordinary in corporate america.

Just a few comments as I was reading your comments:



No, and I didn't say or give any indication that I do believe this.



and I've read as you stated, they were loud. I gave one example of the Navy Chaplain who was there and witnessed the whole thing. He never mentioned "shouting" only that they prayed out loud. I read and heard on the news both as well. So I suppose it's depending on which side you're on. Were they shouting or were they just praying aloud?



No. This is a case of Shades jumping to conclusions. First off did you even ask if I agreed with these protestors? I happen NOT to agree with their approach. I would have much rather they "silently" prayed with a group OUTSIDE the courthouse. That would have been my way. God could have heard them just as well.



I actually agree. I don't agree with a Hindu praying in our United States Senate, but I do agree the Christians that disrupted the service were rude. I understand their feelings completely, but their approach didn't glorify God as it could have.



As a Chrisitian I would have to respectfully strongly disagree with you on this one. I think James Madison also as Father of the Constitution would also disagree given the above quote I mentioned.

It goes God and County......not Country and God.

God is always or should always come first. Not the other way around.

Sean, what's the diff between saying "homosex" and "homosexual" in the big scope here? Isn't it just semantics?



let's look at the word "gay" for instance. When I was a kid, I had my nose in a book most days. In these old books the word "gay" was used alot! But it wasn't ever used for homosexuals ever. It mean happy, carefree, joyous. It was a positive word to explain one's emotion.

Now when I go to my dictionary I see the word gay as SLANG for homosexual and it's like the 5th definition of the word. So you yourself just uesed a "slang" word for homos.

This word gay was taken from us and used instead of the word "fag" which is what was more commonly used when I was growing up. My uncle was a homosexual. He always referred to himself and the Homosexual community as "fags." Somewhere along the way somebody decided to hijack the word "gay" and use is to describe homosexuals...and I find they are anything but "gay" so I try not to use the word gay when I refer to them.

Can you explain this Cacto? Not sure what you mean by this? Jesus IS God. THe HS is God. They are not disassociated from God at all.

As far as the Hindus I agree with the Doc on what little I do know. It's a rather infinitely complex set of beliefs and practices bound together by their link with the social system of caste.

The main point at issue between Hindus and Christians is the uniqueness of Christ. Many Hindus can accept Jesus as a divine teacher but not as divine Saviour. Christians are not able to accept the basic Hindu belief in transmigration (belief that every person lives many times on earth) and rebirth and insist that God is one and personal (a view held by some but not all Hindus).

Our country is ONE Nation founded under ONE God. Therefore, my belief is we should have representatives in our Senate that do follow that common belief. At the same time, we should NOT violate the Hindu's freedom of religion in this country. That's what I believe our founding fathers meant when they said "freedom of religion." I do not think they would look favorably at a Hindu praying to his many gods in the United States Senate. They had enough problems with the Catholics.

Or you could watch the video and decide for yourself. Rather than believing someone elses account, why don't you watch it. I found it rather distasteful.



My apologizes, I didn't realize you represented the entire Religious Right. I was actually referring to the folks who protested, who in fact did represent the Religious Right. I jumped to no conclusions -- the act was, by definition, intolerant.



Well, when you quote this (see below), you imply that you think it was becuase they were praying in Jesus's name rather than the fact that they were being disruptive.




Just to keep facts straight, they weren't in a courthouse -- they were in the Senate chambers.



You are, of course, entitled to that opinion. I'm a little confused about your use of the possessive. Are you saying that it is yours rather than the Hindu's? As I said before, they are just as American as you are, and it is their United States Senate as well.

First of all, this was the Navy Chaplain's words, not mine. His shock was that one who prayed in the name of Christ was the one arrested, not the one who was breaking the first commandment for which our whole constitution was built on. There's a reason why this hasn't been done for all these years. Do you think we're better off now with all these beliefs chipping away at our foundation than we were 100 years ago? Talk to a very old person, ask them. Ask them the changes they've seen over the last 40 years or so. Is our world better as we lose our focus on the belief in the 10 Commandments and the God who handed them down?



exactly who are the "religious right?" Have you heard any of them speak out praising these Christians? As far as I know, there's no way to be a card carrying member to this group.



yes, you're right, my mistake. But you got my drift.



Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I don't expect that any of the Jews or Christians can go into a Hindu Temple or Muslim Mosque in say India and Iraq and just start to pray to Jesus. I expect that and would respect that right there. So I expect the same curtesy here in my own country founded upon the beliefs and principles that I hold true and dear.

I clearly understood that KFC which is why I said WHEN YOU QUOTE.



They dont' have to praise them, they WERE them. From my understanding the three were part of Operation Save America--are you going to tell me this group isn't part of the Religious Right?


If we were talking about a church, you might have a point -- but we aren't. We are talking about a government building and since this country does not have an established religion -- this shouldn't be a problem. If Christians can pray to Jesus in these spaces others should be albe to pray to whatever god they so choose.

If you don't like it--try to change the constitution, but until then, your sort of stuck with it.

With freedom of religion being a cornerstone of that foundation. This is NOT a theocracy.



I'm pretty sure the Senate is not a temple or mosque or church so your point here is invalid in this context.



The country was founded upon the beliefs and principles of freedom for all people of all faiths and ideologies, not just the Christians. That's why they made sure of it in the Constitution that frames our way of life here. You may not like it, but that very freedom is what gives you the right to follow whatever religion you choose.

Sometimes I think we'd be better off being just a Christian nation. And then I remember how many denominations there are, and all the denominations that some think are, and some think aren't, and how the law would have to legally define who and what a Christian is, and how the law never worked even for the Isrealites and Moses... So I'm glad we have that freedom to practice whatever religion we want. We'd be better off if everyone with that freedom chose Christianity, though. So I'm aiming for that instead.

All forced Christianity would do was force people to pretend to be Christians, and that's the worst thing to do. We already have enough pretenders without a law.

So I cherish that freedom. But I don't have to like it that other religions are, at long last, finally starting to push Christianity out of government, leaving government without a moral standard to hold on to. A hindu prayer one day, a budhist the next, a wiccan ritual the next... They all have moral standards, but they're all DIFFERENT. So now what should the government do? And more laws will be created, and more freedoms will be taken AWAY from people because the people have cast off restraint.

Jythier Writes:



Let's see, one prayer out of how many since the congress was founded? Christianity is not in government to be push out of it in the first place. Its "H"indu prayer and "B"uddhist prayer and if as you so graciously point out have moral standards then how is it that prayer of one of these will leave our government withoput a standard?

How are these moral standards different? Buddhism, for example, has a set of precepts that are very much like your decalogue. And Hindus follow very strict moral and ethical standards based one the highest moral precept: do no harm.

With such high standards, what is there to fear? Is Christianity so weak or shallow that it cannot survive in a free religious market?

Be well.

No, the point is that this nation is so weak and shallow without Christianity that the nation cannot survive. Christianity will be just fine.

Do no harm is all well and good, but loving your neighbor is a better standard. You know, back when we were proactive to love people instead of just not doing bad.

Just had to mention, I loved this line. Props to So Daiho Hilbert. (At least, I think I remember it's Hilbert. Sorry if I'm off. )

Yes, well you may want to review how well that has worked out through history. It doesn't have such a sterling track record ya know and doesn't leave a lot of ground for Christians to be going around insulting other people's religions.

Loving your neighbor works great. Pretending to love your neighbor does not.

Forcing your belief system on others is pretending to love them.

That was the point there, yeah. But having a government based in the moral principles of the Bible isn't forcing the belief system on them so much as it is trying to keep them from doing harm.

I'm pretty sure that it's dharma who says it (or maybe its is someone else here on JU, but it's not a "shades" original is what I'm trying to say), but Christianity does not have a monopoly on morals and values. I know plenty of moral and ethical people who are not Christians. In fact, just from JU -- I'd say that JillUser, Draginol, Karma, and Tex (among others) are all shining examples of productive moral members of our society who are not practicing Christians. (PS. I hope I didn't offend anyone for singling you out).

In fact, just from JU -- I'd say that JillUser, Draginol, Karma, and Tex (among others) are all shining examples of productive moral members of our society who are not practicing Christians

I agree with you here Shades. I have lots of "moral" friends that are not Christian. They are very nice, kind, lovely people. I enjoy their company and have great relationships with them. But at the same time, it's not the same or at the same deep level that I share with my brothers and sisters in Christ. We have a connection (regardless of denomination) that supercedes any other kind of human relationship outside of marital or parental. Most of us are in complete agreement that the relationships with our non-Christian familiy member pale in comparison. The spiritual connection runs deeper than the physical blood ties do.

No, the point is that this nation is so weak and shallow without Christianity that the nation cannot survive.

actually many of the founding fathers believed this to be true and wrote about it. They believed if we swayed away from these principles we would surely collapse. It's like me taking a shovel and ax, furiously chopping and chipping away , to the foundation of my house. How long do I expect the underpinings of the house without the foundation to stay stable and upright?

Yes, well you may want to review how well that has worked out through history. It doesn't have such a sterling track record ya know and doesn't leave a lot of ground for Christians to be going around insulting other people's religions.

ya know Mason....gotta luv ya! Why do you always take this side of the so called "Christian" history or so called Christian behavior? I don't think or see that anyone really has insulted anyone's religion here. This was a watershed moment in the Senate and many people are outraged. Only a couple or a few Christians showed up to protest. The rest were all home, like me...praying for our nation.

I believe all religions should be treated fairly and respectfully, but I believe that we should honor our beginnings and continue in the faith of our fathers as far as the Nation is concerned. I don't believe anything unconstitional was done here but I am disturbed that NOT one Senator (to my knowledge) has spoken up. As far as I know they are all avoiding this subject like the plague.

sooooooo what do you think about the guy who made like a tree and branched out....all the way to the bank....?

Always? Interesting. Perhaps because it's the truth?



Really?



This implies that the moral standards of other religions are somehow inferior, and happens to be the comment to which I was responding. If that isn't insulting I don't know what is.

You may wish to forget the factual history of Christianity but most of us prefer to remain in reality so stop assuming that I am somehow attacking all Christians and tossing out your poorly veiled personal attacks. Frankly, it just makes you look foolish.

See, I look at this the exact opposite way. I say, "Thank goodness my Senators (who are otherwise pretty useless political hacks) have stood up for the traditions this country was built upon - freedom and tolerance."

As far as I can tell, yes.



I thought so too.



well, I wouldn't say so, that's why I mentioned it in the first place.



ya, really. Unless you believe every protest is an insult. Then I'd agree with you.



Well then show us differently. It seems that way to us Mason including what you said here.



Nobody is forcing anyone to worship in a Christian way SC. We've opened the Senate session with a monotheistic prayer since the 1700's with one exception (I believe) before this. Why the change now?



well the founding fathers thought so.

"The ethics, doctrines and examples furnished by Christianity exhibit the best models for the law." DeWitt Clinton, Signer of the Declaration; address to the American Bible Society May 8, 1823

All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon (the Bible)
must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the
wreck of these systems but the world itself."

– Benjamin Rush, Jan. 23, 1807

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world."
-- President John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, Dec. 25, 1813