View Full Version : Obama wants “non-religious Christmas”?
Warrior-Mentor
12-08-2009, 14:35
Obama wanted “non-religious Christmas”?
7 December 2009
FOX News
Todd Starnes
President Obama and the First Family were planning a “non-religious Christmas,” according to Social Secretary Desiree Rogers. Ms. Rogers reportedly told a gathering of former social secretaries that the Obamas did not intend on putting the Nativity scene on display – a longtime East Room tradition.
The account was reported in the Fashion and Style section of The New York Times. The White House confirmed to the Times that there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive – but in the end – tradition won out – and the Nativity scene is once again in its traditional East Room spot.
I just received an email response from the White House for comment.
Here’s what the First Lady’s office says:
“It has been a part of White House Christmas decorations in the past, it is on display in the East Room for all to enjoy and it will continue to be a part of White House Christmas decorations moving forward.”
“The President spoke movingly about the scene the crèche depicts in his remarks at the lighting of the National Christmas Tree last week: Tonight, we celebrate a story that is as beautiful as it is simple. The story of a child born far from home to parents guided only by faith, but who would ultimately spread a message that has endured for more than 2,000 years – that no matter who we are or where we are from, we are each called to love one another as brother and sister. While this story may be a Christian one, its lesson is universal. It speaks to the hope we share as a people. And it represents a tradition that we celebrate as a country – a tradition that has come to represent more than any one holiday or religion, but a season of brotherhood and generosity to our fellow citizens.”
As for whether there had been discussions about “inclusiveness,” the White House replied, “Discussions about inclusiveness did not include whether or not to display it but rather how to display it during the Hannukah party.”
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, accused the president of trying to “neuter” Christmas.
“Unlike almost all Americans—including atheists—the Obamas do not give their children Christmas gifts. We know this because Barack bragged about this last year to People magazine. So it should come as no big surprise that he and his wife would like to neuter Christmas in the White House. That’s their natural step—to ban the public display of Christian symbols. Have any doubts? Last April, Georgetown University was ordered to put a drape over the name of Jesus as a condition of the president speaking there.
If the Obamas want to deprive their children of celebrating Christmas, that is their business. It is the business of the public to hold them accountable for the way they celebrate Christmas in the White House. We know one thing for sure: no other administration ever entertained internal discussions on whether to display a nativity scene in the White House.”
In related Christmas controversy:
The United Nations has banned Christmas trees from its global climate summit. Officials said the UN must remain religion-neutral.
In Ashland, OR, students at Bellview Elementary School erected a “giving tree.” The tree featured tags soliciting Christmas gifts for needy children. Principal Michelle Zundel removed the tree over the weekend after some families complained.
However, the Supreme Court ruled a Christmas tree is not a religious symbol. That didn’t matter to Ms Zundel. “If you are entering a public school and your family does not celebrate Christmas, then it feels like a religious symbol.”
And in Waterbury, CT, students have been told to say, “Happy Winter,” instead of “Merry Christmas.” Erik Brown is the principal of Walsh Elementary School. He has banned all religious festivities and decorations. He told the Republican-American newspaper that he’s just following state law. “This is not a church,” he said. “It’s a school and it’s a public school. I have to do things that include every child. So what we do is celebrate winter.”
Read more:
http://www.foxnewsradio.com/2009/12/07/obama-wanted-non-religious-christmas/#ixzz0Z8DACjXo
SOURCE:
http://www.foxnewsradio.com/2009/12/07/obama-wanted-non-religious-christmas/#axzz0Z0y3jUoo
olhamada
12-08-2009, 14:46
Unfreakin' believable. This guy's a real card (I'd like to say idiot, but he is our CInC, so I'd better not). I guess we really shouldn't be surprised.
Oh, and he's a Christian, right? And the Pope's Buhddist.
GratefulCitizen
12-08-2009, 14:59
The "one" can't stand sharing the spotlight.
Perhaps he can give an address to the nation on Christmas day where he can talk about himself some more.
MackallResident
12-08-2009, 15:10
Christmas- Christ's Mass?
Who would have thought, you just can't have Christmas without Christ?
Next we will have a National Anthem without reference to nationality.
hmmmmpppff
Warrior-Mentor
12-08-2009, 15:12
December 07, 2009
Jesus Nearly Banned at White House Inn
By Eric Metaxas
FOXNews.com
Is the Obama administration so afraid to offend people of other beliefs
that they will seriously consider obliterating basic American traditions?
Reuters
I can see the headlines now:
"Gate-crashers Enter White House; Jesus Kept Out!"
Except it almost happened.
Really.
I was reading the New York Times Sunday Styles section yesterday (yep, I'm straight) when I came across an article about embattled White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers -- she's the one who broke with previous White House tradition by inviting herself to the state dinner when she should have been at the door keeping out the loopy riff-raff.
But in the twelfth paragraph of the article there was a real bombshell: It said that earlier this year at a luncheon with other previous White House social secretaries, Ms. Rogers claimed that this year the White House would have a "non-religious" Christmas celebration. (For those of you confused by that, it's just like a "non-religious" Yom Kippur celebration, or a "non-Irish" St. Patrick's Day celebration, or an "international" July 4th celebration.)
The Times article continued:
"The lunch conversation inevitably turned to whether the White House would display its crèche [the Manger Scene], customarily placed in a prominent spot in the East Room. Ms. Rogers, this participant said, replied that the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display — a remark that drew an audible gasp from the tight-knit social secretary sisterhood. (A White House official confirmed that there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the crèche.)"
In the next sentence we learn that this radical idea was eventually scotched. (Perhaps the "audible gasp" from the bipartisan audience tipped them off.) But the fact that it was going to happen reveals a level of political tone-deafness in the current administration that is staggering.
To most average Americans -- who did not grow up in an Ivy-League, inside-the-Beltway hothouse governed by the rules of the French Revolution -- the idea of keeping Jesus out of "the people's house" at Christmas evokes disturbing images of the Holy Family being turned away from the Inn, or worse yet, images of Herod. But to a super-secular White House afraid to offend anyone -- except for average Americans -- it probably just seemed like another fab "progressive" innovation.
If President Obama wanted to fuel the fears of every serious Christian in America and actually prove that he is every bad thing they've ever heard about him on every crazy Web site, the idea of symbolically taking Jesus out of the White House at Christmas would be just the ticket!
Let's face it: "Brand Obama" dodged a bullet by not going forward with this terrible idea, but only barely dodged it. After all, the facts of the story are right there in The New York Times for all to see.
What can be said of an administration so out of touch with the people it governs?
Previous American presidents seemed to understand that while America is not "officially" a Christian nation, it is a nation whose Founders all believed in a Creator, and whose people are overwhelmingly Christian. Even Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had the créche displayed during their administrations.
What is going on?
Is this administration so afraid to offend people of other beliefs that they will seriously consider obliterating basic American traditions? As a friend of mine put it: their logic is like saying that serving American food at the White House state dinner might offend the Indians in the room.
But it's never offensive to simply be yourself. What can be terribly offensive is bending over backwards when its absolutely unnecessary. Or bowing when it's absolutely unnecessary. People may begin to suspect that you simply have spine issues -- and yes, I mean that metaphorically.
Eric Metaxas is The New York Times bestselling author of "Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery." His new book, "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About God (But Were Afraid to Ask): The Jesus Edition," will be published this month by Regal Publishers. For more information visit www.ericmetaxas.com.
SOURCE:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/07/eric-metaxas-white-house-creche-jesus-christmas
Warrior-Mentor
12-08-2009, 15:14
Christmas- Christ's Mass?
Who would have thought, you just can't have Christmas without Christ?
Next we will have a National Anthem without reference to nationality.
hmmmmpppff
Why do you think some call it "X-mas"?
One more way to take Christ out of Christmas.
I've stopped buying "Happy Holiday" Stamps (Merry Christmas only) and stopped saying "Happy Holidays."
Little victories...
Xmas has its etymology in the mere shortening of the commonly used abbreviation of XP by earlier Christians - XP being the first two letters (chi & rho) of the Greek XPIΣTOΣ - Khristos (Christ).
Now when the X is gone...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
O is a piece of work......Never quite understood how someone could be offended by 'Christmas' and why the many unoffended cower to the cries of a few Grinches.
TrapLine
12-08-2009, 16:03
Oh, and he's a Christian, right?
Do not worry, I am sure in 2011 he will be a Christian again :rolleyes:.
My mom just told me this today. Not in the least bit surprised.
Warrior-Mentor
12-08-2009, 17:31
How can America re-elect a Prsident that doesn't represent us?
If we don't vote Jimmy Carter out of office in 2012, we get what we deserve.
In the mean time, we neet to eviscerate his approval ratings so he can't do any more damage!!!
Ret10Echo
12-08-2009, 18:01
Am I to suppose that everything that is and was uniquely American has been a mistake? That all of the ideals on which this country has been founded have been a mistake? The actions of the senior officials of this country appear to have sold us out in exchange for something that I fail to understand.
rubberneck
12-08-2009, 19:50
about making Christmas more inclusive
Over the years I have heard some stupid things come from the White House but this one might just take the cake. Just who (other than Christians) are they trying to include in Christmas celebrations? What's next Ramadan for Jews? God forbid anyone in this country gets their feelings hurt because they feel left out about anything.
No Christmas but he celebrates Ramadan :confused:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG6FE5YfGJM
http://iraq.usembassy.gov/press-releases-2009/president-obama-celebrates-ramadan.html
The "one" can't stand sharing the spotlight.
There will be no other gods...
FirstClass
12-09-2009, 01:10
What a very bland man. "Neither scalding hot, nor freezing cold, but lukewarm so that I must spit him out and be disgusted." Reminds me of todays cinema, when something appeals to everyone, it has no heart or soul.
What happened to Generals becoming Presidents? We need someone with a set of all American balls with the integrity and honor to go with it.
I'm not huge on politics but when Obama first began his campaign, I thought to myself what a charismatic and fresh figure. I was led to believe he would bring about change for the good and improve America. I was deceived.
How can your have a Christmas without Jesus, it is after all the celebration of the Savior's date of birth.
Warrior-Mentor
12-09-2009, 01:57
What happened to Generals becoming Presidents? We need someone with a set of all American balls with the integrity and honor to go with it.
I'm not huge on politics but when Obama first began his campaign, I thought to myself what a charismatic and fresh figure. I was led to believe he would bring about change for the good and improve America. I was deceived.
How can your have a Christmas without Jesus, it is after all the celebration of the Savior's date of birth.
You weren't the only one. I have come to wonder, is the best title for Obama "The Great Deceiver"?
Did you get the invitation I sent you?
It's for your birthday party.
Oh, wait, you're not invited. Don't worry, it's the thought that counts. We'll be thinking about you. NOT!
From Palmed beach sandy shores, all I have to say is, Mele Kalikimaka.
Maybe that will get pass the Obama's PC censors.
As authored by Ths Jefferson and enacted by the VA Legislature16 Jan 1786 - still on the books as The Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom.
An Act for establishing religious Freedom.
Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry, that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right, that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them: Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
And its influence upon the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As the representative of the many peoples of this country and their numerous religious beliefs - celebrating the 'holiday season' as the POTUS vs the person must be hell...ask President Bush about the flak he took for his 'holiday' cards.
What's missing from the White House Christmas card? Christmas.
This month, as in every December since he took office, President Bush sent out cards with a generic end-of-the-year message, wishing 1.4 million of his close friends and supporters a happy "holiday season."
Many people are thrilled to get a White House Christmas card, no matter what the greeting inside. But some conservative Christians are reacting as if Bush stuck coal in their stockings.
"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture," said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601900.html
However...YMMV...just don't tell me how I must celebrate the season.
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
12-09-2009, 12:06
However...YMMV...just don't tell me how I must celebrate the season.
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
Richard - Here get yourself a Christmas Present:
http://www.amazon.com/Rediscovering-God-America-Reflections-Nations/dp/B00150GI28/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260381764&sr=1-2
If you don't want to buy it, take a walk around DC or flip through a copy at the book store or library. Take a look at the pictures. Look at the Supreme Court, the Capitol, the House floor...and the rest of the major Government facilities in OUR Nation's Capitol.
Here, take a look:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.jfklibrary.org/NR/rdonlyres/4824ECB7-C7E9-47EB-A577-549C4BB6FF33/3841/STC726314JAN1963.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset%2BTree/Asset%2BViewers/Image%2BAsset%2BViewer.htm%3Fguid%3D%257B4824ECB7-C7E9-47EB-A577-549C4BB6FF33%257D%26type%3DlgImage&usg=__iivWfIjw13B0tRrBFeo2plM6wf0=&h=759&w=760&sz=246&hl=en&start=16&um=1&tbnid=7VafaUilKOsTcM:&tbnh=142&tbnw=142&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dstate%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bunion%26hl%3Den%26 um%3D1
Now, go get your sandblaster...
Story:
Gingrich Finds God in Washington
By Mike Allen
Monday, January 10, 2005; Page A07
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich says he "got fed up with people who argue that somehow the concept of the creator wasn't central to how the Founding Fathers understood America." So in a book being published today, he includes a 19-page "Walking Tour of God in Washington, D.C.," cataloging references to the Bible, Moses and a heavenly father on the Capitol, monuments and memorials.
"In the last 30 years, you had this politically correct delegitimizing of God in American public life, which I think is a denial of the core of American civilization," he said in a telephone interview yesterday.
In his new tome, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer finds media biased toward conflict.
The book, "Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America," offers a different prescription for Social Security than the one the White House is promoting to pay for the transition to private accounts for younger workers. "I do not believe you can build a majority in this country for cutting benefits," Gingrich said. He calls for shoring up the system by building an off-budget sinking fund over 30 years, likening the idea to a home mortgage.
Gingrich's book tour includes stops in Iowa and New Hampshire, and the Georgia Republican has encouraged speculation that he might run for president in 2008. His official position is that he is not ruling it out. "If you wanted to shape language and ideas in American politics, where are the two places you'd most want to go?" he said. "If I can get the Des Moines Register and the Manchester Union Leader asking the right questions, I've won half the fight."
SOURCE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61617-2005Jan9.html
olhamada
12-09-2009, 12:15
How much you wanna bet he celebrates Kwanzaa?
But whose God?
I am well aware of the presence of both religious and pagan symbolic references found in great quantity throughout our nation's Capitol - however - as demonstrated - it is patently obvious there remain many who will seek to claim them solely for their own purposes whenever convenient.
As noted by our so-called Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence -
...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
- and in the US Constitution -
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
...Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven ...
Q: So - exactly whose God is being referenced in the House chamber picture?
A: ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
12-09-2009, 12:57
But whose God?
I am well aware of the presence of both religious and pagan symbolic references found in great quantity throughout our nation's Capitol - however - as demonstrated - it is patently obvious there remain many who will seek to claim them solely for their own purposes whenever convenient.
As noted by our so-called Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence -
...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
- and in the US Constitution -
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
...Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven ...
Q: So - exactly whose God is being referenced in the House chamber picture?
A: ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
For starters, it has ALWAYS been "God" and NEVER "Allah."
So that rules out the moon god.
And despite the bile that Obama spews, we are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values.
The Reaper
12-09-2009, 13:32
But whose God?
I am well aware of the presence of both religious and pagan symbolic references found in great quantity throughout our nation's Capitol - however - as demonstrated - it is patently obvious there remain many who will seek to claim them solely for their own purposes whenever convenient.
As noted by our so-called Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence -
...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
- and in the US Constitution -
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
...Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven ...
Q: So - exactly whose God is being referenced in the House chamber picture?
A: ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
IIRC, the use of the B.C. and A.D. dating system is not a Muslim (or Jewish) thing and is a Christian tradition.
TR
Warrior-Mentor
12-09-2009, 13:51
IIRC, the use of the B.C. and A.D. dating system is not a Muslim (or Jewish)thing and is a Christian tradition.
TR
You recall correctly.
Summary of the secular time agenda below:
CE stands for "Common Era." It is a relatively old term that is experiencing rapidly increased usage in recent years. It is expected to eventually replace AD. The latter is an abbreviation for "Anno Domini" in Latin or "the year of the Lord" in English. The latter refers to the approximate birth year of Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ). CE and AD have the same and value. 2004 CE = 2004 AD. The word "common" simply means that it is based on the most frequently used calendar system: the Gregorian Calendar.
BCE stands for "Before the common era." It is expected to eventually replace :confused: BC, which means "Before Christ," or "Before the Messiah." Years in the BC and BCE notation are also identical in value. Most theologians and religious historians believe that the approximate birth date of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) was in the fall of a year, sometime between 7 and 4 BCE. However, we have seen estimates as late as 4 CE and as early as the second century BCE.
Of course, one can always interpret the letter "C" in CE and BCE as referring to "Christian" or "Christ's" The Abbreviations Dictionary does exactly this. 1 The "C" has also been interpreted as "Current."
SOURCE:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm
There are islamic prophecies about the changing of time...will need to dig back into the books to find the quote...but it portends the end of days...
God must be upset over having wasted a perfectly good apple! :rolleyes:
...וכך זה הולך
Richard's $.02 :munchin
PedOncoDoc
12-09-2009, 14:16
BC, which means "Before Christ,"or "Before the Messiah."
Thank God we didn't go with BM on that one... :p
Years in the BC and BCE notation are also identical in value. Most theologians and religious historians believe that the approximate birth date of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) was in the fall of a year, sometime between 7 and 4 BCE. However, we have seen estimates as late as 4 CE and as early as the second century BCE.
There are plenty of different theories on the precise date of birth of Yeshua bin Yosef, many of them dating from 6 to 3BC and coordinate with back-calculated astronomical data to support the visint of the Magi after seeing the Star of Bethlehem. As mentioned above, some estimates place the birth as late as 75 AD. A Google search of any variation on "astrology birth of Christ" will guide you to varying theories.
The modern Christmas celebration is on December 25th, some people report that Jupiter was visible to the Magi on this date in 2 BC after Jesus's birth. Other historians claim the Christians adopted this date to coincide with a Pagan feast holiday to facilitate indoctrination/conversion of Pagans to Christianity. Google "Christmas Pagan holiday" for further review.
All interesting stuff. IMHO having the precise date is difficult when going back so far (look into the history of Leap year for some interesting history) and is not as important as the celebration of the meaning/reason for the holiday. IMHO that is why BHO has faltered here - he wants the celebration to be separated from the history and significance. It's akin to him wanting a Veteran's Day celebration without any representation or acknowledgement of our armed services veterans.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/12/08/heckuva-job-desiree-n-y-times-downplays-non-religious-christmas-plans-wh
The lunch conversation inevitably turned to whether the White House would display its creche, customarily placed in a prominent spot in the East Room. Ms. Rogers, this participant said, replied that the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display - a remark that drew an audible gasp from the tight-knit social secretary sisterhood. (A White House official confirmed that there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the creche.)
Yet in the end, tradition won out; the executive mansion is now decorated for the Christmas holiday, and the creche is in its usual East Room spot.
It seems that Desirée Rogers is an idiot and is trying her absolute best to get on the unemployment dole.
We are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values.It may also be worth recalling that within British Colonial America there were a wide range of interpretations as to what these values precisely were. As Nathan Hatch argues, these debates carried on throughout the nineteenth century.*
Moreover, significant studies of European religious history--in particular works by Keith Thomas, Caroline Walker Bynum, and Carlo Ginzburg--point out that the practice of Christendom in the Old World was accompanied by numerous deliberate acts of accommodation to and appropriation of existing pagan and folk beliefs.**
These works suggest that even something as sacrosanct as faith is a matter of constant debate and negotiation.
IMHO, I think the conclusion that being "inclusive" when it comes to celebrating a religious holiday requires the "exclusion" of the holiday itself is instructive. It shows how much this president continues to mistake his odd brand of pragmatism for effective leadership.
If the president truly wants to demonstrate the fact that America's religious diversity is unparalleled, would it not make better sense to honor those religions and their high holidays in their own terms and without effacing others? :confused:
______________________________________________
* Nathan K. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (ISBN-13: 9780300050608).
** Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England (ISBN-13 9780195213607); Caroline Walker Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women, The New Historicism: Studies in Cultural Poetics (ISBN-13 9780520063297); Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller (ISBN-13 978-0801843877).
Warrior-Mentor
12-09-2009, 16:36
If the president truly wants to demonstrate the fact that America's religious diversity is unparalleled, would it not make better sense to honor those religions and their high holidays in their own terms and without effacing others? :confused:
I'd agree, except if you believe that all other religions have been supersceded by your own...
Supersession (naskh) of all religions by islam:
See Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law,
paragraphs: o8.7(20); V2.1; w4; x245; x265; x348
I'd agree, except if you believe that all other religions have been superseded by your own....MOO is that the president is behaving as a person without a sense of religiosity of any type. This is to say that his hostility towards Christianity isn't because he's a Muslim but rather because he just doesn't believe in a divine being and views those who do as being unreasonable (even ignorant). In my formulation, since the president has no faith of his own, he cannot grasp how important faith is to those who do.
More generally, I think the stark division in the political debate over the nature of GWOT has something to do with the decline of religiosity in some circles. As an example, I would point to then British PM Tony Blair's support for Bush the Younger. While many of Blair's constituents were dumbfounded by his support for GWOT, his position comes into sharper focus when one remembers that he, like Bush the Younger, is a man of strong faith. And like Bush the Younger, Mr. Blair understands how powerful a force religion can be.*
YMMV.
________________________________________
* On 11 September 2009, Blair emphasized to his minister of defense, foreign secretary and press sectary/political adviser that he had been reading the Koran the previous summer and it was Blair's understanding (in the words of his press secretary) that Mohammed had lost battles but there was a blief that if you dined in the cause that you believed in then you went straight to heaven. That [type of belief] was a very, very power thing to work against. See, Alastair Campbell, diary entry for 9 September 2001, as printed in The Blair Years: Extracts from the Diaries of Alastair Campbell (ISBN-13 9780307268310), p. 562.
If the president truly wants to demonstrate the fact that America's religious diversity is unparalleled, would it not make better sense to honor those religions and their high holidays in their own terms and without effacing others?
I have to agree that - bottom line - that's pretty much the way I see it, too, and - based on the experiences of President's Bush and Obama - I'm certainly glad to not be involved in it all.
...we are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values.
Actually - I would have to agree in part - but also have to disagree - again in part - due to the idea (as stated) being an incomplete de facto concept as the studies on the founders of our republic show no real familiarity with the idea, per se - and because the term overtly excludes the powerful impact upon our nation's foundations by the Greco (democracy)-Roman (republican government) civilizations - which had nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian idealized vision - among others.
Historically, the documentation shows these fundamental ideas were more a melding of Western tradition with the humanistic natural rights philosophy of the enlightenment - which shifted towards having a more theologically based foundation in the writings about America by de Tocqueville in the first half of the 19thC as 'Protestant' values, was changed in the first half of the 20thC to add the 'Judeo' as a visible counter to the growing anti-semitism movements in much of Western society, and became a commonly repeated theme among politicians and theologians throughout the last half of the 20thC and on into today.
I would argue - as many did and do - that we are a nation founded upon basic, natural humanistic values to which we should all aspire - tolerance, education, egalitarianism, and democracy...regardless of religious belief.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
12-09-2009, 20:11
I would argue - as many did and do - that we are a nation founded upon basic, natural humanistic values to which we should all aspire - tolerance, education, egalitarianism, and democracy...regardless of religious belief.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
"Tolerance becomes a crime
when applied to evil."
-Thomas Mann
I like the idea of tolerance. I will tolerate much - right up until some one tries to force something upon me or my family or my country that we want to reject. Keep it to yourself. Islam's evil heart will tolerate nothing but total submission of the world to it's racist, supremacist, totalitarian, deludedly utopia ideas...
The POTUS called the Muslim call to prayer "the most beautiful sound in the world". When he was a Muslim growing up in Jakarta, it was said he could sing that shit better than Ali Baba himself.
He's a Reverend Jerry Wright Christian, which means not a Christian at all, but a black muslim activist masquerading as a Christian.
The POTUS got voted in because he's not George Bush. His celebration of Christmas without worshipping Christ is just one of the last nails in his political coffin.
His approval rating, at the current rate of decay, will have him below 25% in a couple months. He can't go any lower than that, probably, because of the incurable idiocy so rampant in this Country.
Bow to Saudis and Japanese, but not Christ?
Me no likee.
Historically, the documentation shows these fundamental ideas were more a melding of Western tradition with the humanistic natural rights philosophy of the enlightenment - which shifted towards having a more theologically based foundation in the writings about America by de Tocqueville in the first half of the 19thC as 'Protestant' values, was changed in the first half of the 20thC to add the 'Judeo' as a visible counter to the growing anti-semitism movements in much of Western society, and became a commonly repeated theme among politicians and theologians throughout the last half of the 20thC and on into today.
I have a copy of the following linked book, entitled “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States" by Benjamin F. Morris (1864).
I have to say it is very well written and contains extremely comprehensive documentation that proves the point that - Christianity was pervasive throughout America's culture, both civil and in government.
I highly recommend it :)
“The debate over America's Christian heritage begins and ends with this magnificent work of over 800 pages. The purpose of the author was to produce the historical documentation still available in his day, so as to present America's rich Christian heritage. He accomplished all of his detailed research within just decades of the era of our Founding Fathers. No other work compares to it. Almost any topic related to the culture and government of the U.S. is presented here.”
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0915815702/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all
armymom1228
12-10-2009, 02:07
I think I am confused. Didn't the gentleman in the White House, attend Reverend Wrights CHRISTIAN church for 20 yrs? In theory, that would make him a Christian. Then again I clearly heard him say, "my Muslim Faith'' on a Sunday morning news talk show. I think I am confused, now he wants to bann Christmas from the White House and he doesn't give his children even one gift? I thought we gave each other gifts in commemoraton of the gifts the Magi gave the baby Jesus? I am getting more confused by the minute. :D
It just gets curiouser and curiouser. :(
I have a copy of the following linked book, entitled The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States by Benjamin F. Morris (1864).
I have to say it is very well written and contains extremely comprehensive documentation that proves the point that - Christianity was pervasive throughout America's culture, both civil and in government. With respect, I think a pivotal word in Richard's post is "melding."
My reading of his post is that he's not saying that Christianity was not pervasive. IMO, he is saying that elements of Christianity were part of a larger dynamic that combined elements of theology, political philosophy, political culture, strategic culture, philosophy, as well as popular cultural from the Old World.
More generally, your comment raises an interesting question about the study of history. Does any single book prove anything? FWIW, professionally trained historians would answer "no." While individual books do come along and change how a topic is studied, this change comes more from the questions that the work raises rather than the questions that it answers.
Even after all of those questions have been answered and something resembling a consensus is reached, someone will find a new source of information, introduce a new mode of interdisciplinary analysis, or just be some PITA guy (or gal) who wants to rock the boat (or to find a viable dissertation topic) will create new knowledge and ask yet another question.:confused::(:eek::p
Some quick examples.
Scholars studying the topic of Richard's post and your response have shifted focus to look at "the Atlantic world" so that British Colonial America is an integral part of world history rather than the periphery of British mercantilism.
Historians of modern Germany are in the process of revising the previous six decades of scholarship on the rise of the Nazi dictatorship. Americanists are gearing up to take another look at the causes of the American Civil War.
Americanists are also focusing increasingly on the life and times of key figures from the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era.
Diplomatic and international historians are renewing debates over the origins of the Cold War.
European historians are displaying a renewed interest in that continent's many revolutions between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries.
And military historians are taking another at both the early stages and closing phases of World War II in Western Europe while the historiography of Nazi-Soviet War is also being enriched by the Stalingrad Trilogy by David M. Glantz and Jonathan House.
A comment. For those who argue that professional academic history is disconnected from "the real world," the above-list suggests the opposite. Each area of focus can be matched closely to contemporaneous political debates (such as globalization). In some instances, especially topics related to the Second World War, one might argue that the historiographical debates anticipated (not caused) some recent political flair ups. For example, the brush up this past summer over Russia's culpability for turning Eastern Europe into a charnel house came a year after the publication of new books on that topic.
From Early American Review, Summer 1997 Issue.
Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular
A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations."
The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscience. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.
The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."
<snip>
cont'd
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Does any single book prove anything?
I see what you’re saying but since I’m not a learned scholar, all I can say is that Benjamin Morris’s book is chocked full of letters written by our founders in their own words - their words do say a lot, and it also contains numerous letters that cover state Constitutions, our federal Constitution , and letters from Eminent American judges upon our countries founding….it’s really good stuff much of which I hadn’t seen before…
FWIW, it has an interesting section about Congress appropriating money to purchase Bibles, 20,000 to be imported, and 30,000 that were to be printed - interesting :)
FWIW, it has an interesting section about Congress appropriating money to purchase Bibles, 20,000 to be imported, and 30,000 that were to be printed - interesting :)
The economics and politics of the time -
An American Bible: A History of the Good Book in the United States, 1777-1880 (Stanford University Press,) by American Studies Professor Raul C. Gutjahr of Indiana University.
<snip>
...in 1786, Mathew Carey, a young Irish-Catholic man destined to become America’s best-known printer, opened a Philadelphia shop. In 1790, he printed 471 copies of the Catholic Douay bible, but it was so unprofitable that Carey stayed away from Bibles until 1801. He would go on to become America’s premiere Bible publisher of his time, but he got into the Bible printing business reluctantly.
Parson Mason Locke Weems, a man best known for a semi-fictional biography of George Washington and the creator of the myth of Washington and the cherry tree, was a promoter, one of the first of a new breed of "get-rich-by-salesmanship" Americans. He talked Carey into printing Bibles that Weems would sell for him. But Weems and Carey quarreled—Weems didn’t send Carey money from advance sales, and Carey didn’t print any Bibles for Weems to sell.
Then fate intervened. Carey was tied to the Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson, and Jefferson became president in 1801. The government printing contracts that came Carey’s way because of Jefferson’s victory allowed Carey enough income to risk going into the Bible printing business, which he did. The irony of this was that Jefferson had been pilloried by the Federalist Party of John Adams as an infidel and French-loving atheist, but Jefferson’s election meant the printing of American English Bibles that sold in the thousands.
Carey soon was producing Bibles in huge quantities, all of them at Weems’ insistence with notes and pictures, some more elaborate and costly than others. Type in those days was hand-set, and Carey’s made money by setting the entire Bible in hand type and leave it "standing", making it unnecessary to set type each printing. He produced sixty editions between 1801 and 1824.
<snip>
http://www.wofford.edu/southernSeen/content.aspx?id=13566
And so it goes...still... ;)
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
And so it goes...still...
It does doesn’t it :D
From Archiving Early America:
Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
Thanks for the link Sir, it is mighty good stuff… I have added it to my Favs… Nevertheless, Jim Walker, the above early America Review writer must not have looked hard enough :D
“…Brothers: I am a Warrior. My words are few and plain; but I will make good what I say….You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. …”
-George Washington - (May 12, 1779)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m in total agreement of Separation of church and state, IMO, our founders and the Germans that settled in my neck of the woods came here to escape state sponsored religious persecution - I’m glad they separated church and state.
I think Thomas Jefferson may have said it best:
“The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."
The Reaper
12-10-2009, 09:39
I guess that explains Washington's reserved pew and regular attendance at Powhick Church.:rolleyes:
TR
“…Brothers: I am a Warrior. My words are few and plain; but I will make good what I say….You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. …”
-George Washington - (May 12, 1779)
Not a letter - but - contextually - a look at some of the complex politics of the times. ;)
Text of Washington's speech to the Delaware Chiefs
Head Quarters, Middle Brook, May 12, 1779
Brothers: I am happy to see you here. I am glad the long Journey you have made, has done you no harm; and that you are in good health: I am glad also you left All our friends of the Delaware Nation well.
Brothers: I have read your paper. The things you have said are weighty things, and I have considered them well. The Delaware Nation have shown their good will to the United States. They have done wisely and I hope they will never repent. I rejoice in the new assurances you give of their friendship. The things you now offer to do to brighten the chain, prove your sincerity. I am sure Congress will run to meet you, and will do every thing in their power to make the friendship between the people of these States, and their Brethren of the Delaware nation, last forever.
Brothers: I am a Warrior. My words are few and plain; but I will make good what I say. ‘Tis my business to destroy all the Enemies of these States and to protect their friends. You have seen how we have withstood the English for four years; and how their great Armies have dwindled away and come to very little; and how what remains of them in this part of our great Country, are glad to stay upon Two or three little Islands, where the Waters and their Ships hinder us from going to destroy them. The English, Brothers, are a boasting people. They talk of doing a great deal; but they do very little. They fly away on their Ships from one part of our Country to an other; but as soon as our Warriors get together they leave it and go to some other part. They took Boston and Philadelphia, two of our greatest Towns; but when they saw our Warriors in a great body ready to fall upon them, they were forced to leave them.
Brothers: We have till lately fought the English all alone. Now the Great King of France is become our Good Brother and Ally. He has taken up the Hatchet with us, and we have sworn never to bury it, till we have punished the English and made them sorry for All the wicked things they had in their Hearts to do against these States. And there are other Great Kings and Nations on the other side of the big Waters, who love us and wish us well, and will not suffer the English to hurt us.
Brothers: Listen well to what I tell you and let it sink deep into your Hearts. We love our friends, and will be faithful to them, as long as they will be faithful to us. We are sure our Good brothers the Delawares will always be so. But we have sworn to take vengeance on our Enemies, and on false friends. The other day, a handful of our young men destroyed the settlement of the Onondagas. They burnt down all their Houses, destroyed their grain and Horses and Cattle, took their Arms away, killed several of their Warriors and brought off many prisoners and obliged the rest to fly into the woods. This is but the beginning of the troubles which those Nations, who have taken up the Hatchet against us, will feel.
Brothers: I am sorry to hear that you have suffered for want of necessaries, or that any of our people have not dealt justly by you. But as you are going to Congress, which is the great Council of the Nation and hold all things in their hands, I shall say nothing about the supplies you ask. I hope you will receive satisfaction from them. I assure you, I will do every thing in my power to prevent your receiving any further injuries, and will give the strictest orders for this purpose. I will severely punish any that shall break them.
Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your principal Chiefs to be educated with us. I am sure Congress will open the Arms of love to them, and will look upon them as their own Children, and will have them educated accordingly. This is a great mark of your confidence and of your desire to preserve the friendship between the Two Nations to the end of time, and to become One people with your Brethren of the United States. My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it.
Brothers: There are some matters about which [I do not open my Lips, because they belong to Congress, and not to us warriors; you are going to them, they will tell you all you wish to know.
Brothers: When you have seen all you want to see, I will then wish you a good Journey to Philadelphia. I hope you may find there every thing your hearts can wish, that when you return home you may be able to tell your Nation good things of us. And I pray God he may make your Nation wise and Strong, that they may always see their own] true interest and have courage to walk in the right path; and that they never may be deceived by lies to do any thing against the people of these States, who are their Brothers and ought always to be one people with them.
This is a pretty good link, too.
Rediscovering George Washington
http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/classroom/religious_liberty3.html
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I see what you’re saying but since I’m not a learned scholar, all I can say is that Benjamin Morris’s book is chocked full of letters written by our founders in their own words - their words do say a lot, and it also contains numerous letters that cover state Constitutions, our federal Constitution , and letters from Eminent American judges upon our countries founding….it’s really good stuff much of which I hadn’t seen before…
<<SNIP>>T-Rock--
Please make no mistake! I'm not trying to sandbag you or anyone else who has better things to do than to haunt libraries and bookstores. History belongs to everyone.:cool:
My point was just to provide a perspective on how some of us eggheads will look at every tree in the forest--thrice--before concluding "Yes, this is a pine forest after all.":p What this process means is that sometimes we end up back where guys like Mr. Morris were all along. In such instances, the benefit will be that his Daguerreotype will be complimented by a high definition interactive hologram. (Or so I'd like to think.)
Often, we will end up somewhere else. Most often that somewhere else is the Erehwon of the shelves of research libraries. Meanwhile, some journalist will be barnstorming the talk show circuit as his or her "true history" is climbing the best seller list. (But I'm not bitter.)
These are starting to float around....
Anyone catch the Colbert Report last night?
My point was just to provide a perspective on how some of us eggheads will look at every tree in the forest--thrice--before concluding "Yes, this is a pine forest after all."
Point taken. Folks like me, the common “Joe”, are truly appreciative of the research you folks do. Someday I would like to think I could truly cultivate that type of relentless patience , as you can tell - I’ve got a long ways to go… :D
Warrior-Mentor
12-11-2009, 06:27
Point taken. Folks like me, the common “Joe”, are truly appreciative of the research you folks do. Someday I would like to think I could truly cultivate that type of relentless patience , as you can tell - I’ve got a long ways to go… :D
That's why you'd be better off as an assaulter instead of a sniper... :munchin
dr. mabuse
12-14-2009, 12:04
This kind of nonsense is why I refer to one of P'BO's book titles as,
The Audacity of Hype .:rolleyes: