[topic regretted] (was Jews against anti-Christian ...)

[IdylleSeethes]

ORIGINS

Madalyn Mays/Murray/O'Hair was a very visible figure during my Catholic upbringing. She filed her first lawsuit in 1960. This was the beginning of a crusade against Christianity. She founded her anti-church in the mid '60s and called it American Atheists. Following good Christian practice she expelled (excommunicated?) heretics in a purge in the early '80s. Her hatred of Christians was so strong that she disowned her son after he became Christian:

"One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times...He is beyond human forgiveness."

A Catholic would call this anathema. It sounds like something more than a person concerned about the separation of church and state. Her son, who may not be a credible witness, had much more to say about her motives and her actions. I'll settle for these words from her mouth.



It seems Sister Magpie understands this. Sassafras is correct in saying generalization is bad, but I didn't pick on just any atheist. MMMO is probably the most influential atheist of the last century and she personally started the US down the path that is being discussed in this thread. It is her cult of atheism, which desires to recreate the world in its own image that I have a problem with.

I have no problem with atheists, so long as they aren't trying to make decisions for other people, which is no more than I expect from Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or Jains. I'm a borderline agnostic, most days, myself. I would start my own church but Elrond and the Unitarians beat me to it.

I don't attend the same churches that atheists don't, so we have something in common. Since the existence of a supreme being is indeterminate, I find it very strange when people take it so seriously.

You are right Jn. I thought Christianising her name and canonizing her for her martyrdom were good clues. I'm sure that wasn't the main point of my post.

[Ethel]

So... "intolerant and destructive" was meant for Madalyn's bunch? (Who don't interest me in the least.) Just checking. Jn knows you; I don't.

[Sister Magpie]

And, Whistler - of course I agree that it is almost impossible to overstate the importance of Jesus of Nazareth to the Western world.

You know...I kept thinking about this since I read it because on one hand it's perfectly reasonable but on the other it's kind of, well, odd. Because Christmas as a holiday really isn't about it being Jesus' birthday meaning that this is the day we celebrate the birth of a famous historical figure who inspired a lot of art. I mean, in terms of what made Jesus important his death is supposed to be more important than his life, and most people don't get off for Good Friday (Easter's on Sunday so that's already a day off).

I think the thing is also that it seems to tie into the the other thing Jnyusa was talking about, that of secularizing the holiday. Jesus' birth is not supposed to symbolize the fact that a famous man lived, but that his birth brought new hope to the world, probably a reason it fit so well with previous holidays celebrating the days starting to get longer again. Christmas might be commercialized, but what's being sold is that same idea--hope, love, better to give than to receive, poor children being king (sorry, now I'm quoting a particularly sentimental story I did for the magazine--it's one of my favorites!).

I guess is sort of seems like defending Christmas being a national holiday on the grounds that Jesus the man was important seems to be the opposite way that the culture is really pulling, which is that it's a holiday in winter celebrating that people have each other in the cold, etc. The whole concept of its being too commercial always comes up because people know that it's not supposed to be. The religious aspect seems as part of that as anything else. Like...okay, there are the people who are going to celebrate Christmas as the day that God was born on earth. Then there are other people who are going to celebrate something else. But neither of them are celebrating that Jesus was an important historical figure the way MLK's birthday is about that day this imporant historical figure was born.

I don't know if I put that well--it was just some thoughts that kept chewing at me after reading that.

-m

[IdylleSeethes]

Ethel,

I forgot that you were not a participant in the Wars of Religion on B77. Cerin, Jnyusa, Frelga and a few others were.

I have too much experience in both religion and politics. I generally have too much to say about both and my sense of humor can be so dry as to be undetectable. I can also be a terrible tease, if I find a weakness.

I don't accept anti-christians as simply atheists and MMMO is a perfect example of why. Unfortunately extremists with an agenda frequently end up in leadership positions. Which reminds me; where is our Imperious Leader?

Idylle

[Whistler]

We overthrew him and beheaded him.

[Ethel]

Ethel,

I forgot that you were not a participant in the Wars of Religion on B77. Cerin, Jnyusa, Frelga and a few others were.

I have too much experience in both religion and politics. I generally have too much to say about both and my sense of humor can be so dry as to be undetectable. I can also be a terrible tease, if I find a weakness.

I don't accept anti-christians as simply atheists and MMMO is a perfect example of why. Unfortunately extremists with an agenda frequently end up in leadership positions. Which reminds me; where is our Imperious Leader?

Er... I appreciate that you have made an overture, but I don't understand. (I'm not that stupid though - give me a few hints and maybe I'll catch up. )

Are there actually "anti Christians" afoot? I'll need some details on that. For here is how it looks to me:

We live in a country where it is not possible to be elected president if you are not an active, practicing Christian - and moreover, one who is willing to speak about it often and publically. We live in a country where religious (Christian) political action groups wield great power. Are able to overrule Supreme Court nominations before they are even submitted to the Senate. What *I* see is a Christian political movement that has significant control over the majority party.

And yet - and this is puzzling to me - they still seem to cast themselves in the role of minority and martyr. Insist they are being oppressed. It almost begins to feel that that is the preferred position.

How can you be "oppressed" when your political party controls all 3 branches of government? This is a serious question.

I am so naive and ill-informed that I do not know who you mean when you say, "where is our Imperious Leader?"

Apologies. This probably reads really stupid.

[Cerin]

I thought he was referring to Voronwë. But then, I am generally more clueless than most.

[nerdanel]

D'oh! Cerin's right - I forgot Idylle's been saying that since August, at least. Ethel, I didn't get it either.

Aside from that, I agree with the entirety of Ethel's last post. More later.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[IdylleSeethes]

MMMO was an anti-Christian, not just an atheist. Her treatment of her son is an example. He has made very strong statements about the intent and deceptions of his mother. As I said, you may not consider him a reliable witness. However, he was the vehicle for her first lawsuit and at least can't be claimed to be ignorant of the facts, whether or not he presents them accurately. Atheism was not served well by allowing someone with her hatred of Christianity to be perceived as the spokesperson for atheists in this country. It would have been better if she were simply atheist and simply interested in separation of church and state.

You seem to paraphrase my statements about the strength of the ruling party. I have publicly lamented that the Democrats seem not to have noticed that most of the powerful positions from governor to president are in the hands of another party for a reason, but that discussion belongs elsewhere.

I have also lamented the influence the Christian cults (as opposed to the one true Church ) have over the ruling party, although this hasn't caused me to consider the 10 commandments to be unsuitable for public display, or the Declaration and Constitution to be illegitimate because they were written by racist, sexist, Christian, anglo-saxon males.

V was and is our Imperious Leader, but I'm still unsure of what neuroses drive him. I'm sure you can remember a few psychotic episodes. Everyone saw through Jnyusa when she went through her Wonder Woman period. And have you seen her latest incarnation? There is something strange about people who want to be in charge. I have an ancestor who was Thain of Cawdor, so this title business makes me nervous.

[Teremia]

One of my kids has to take a Standardized Test this Saturday and has a pile of vocabulary words on notecards. I took a look at them and noticed she had mixed up two words, one of them being "imperious" . . . . leading to my suggestion that we rename Voronwë . . .

Our Impervious Leader

On the subject of religion, I'm all over the map. I'm a Quaker, so I'm a member of an organized, as it were, (but actually there's quite a bit of disorganization involved in your average Quaker Meeting) religion. Spiritual issues are very close to my heart. Tol Eressëa's my favorite forum so far. I believe in the Inner Light, which even if it's not exactly the same as believing in God or Christ as the resurrected Son of God, is still pretty spiritual, at least as the Quakers I know practice that belief.

However --

I agree with what Ethel just said. To have political power in this country, you have to profess to be a person who believes in God. Preferably, you're a Protestant, though there are a few exceptions coming from radical categories like Catholics or Jews. Political candidates and Presidents and so on are always having photo ops going in our out of churches on Sundays. And so on.

Sorry, but atheists do not have political power in this country. One can point to the (I think literally) insane Madalyn Murray, but she does not an atheist conspiracy make. I am troubled when people who have power use language suggesting they are actually oppressed. I am troubled by the thought that the country's political bias against unreligious people means that, for instance, scientists (the majority of whom do not, according to surveys I just Googled up, believe in God) are very unlikely ever to hold high political office. Seems to me we could use a scientist or two in government.

I think spirituality and religion are intensely important and personal issues -- and that government institutions, pledges, and yes, even money, should be kept secular. I'm pretty sure "one Nation under God" means something I can't subscribe to, even on my most religious days. (But as I recall we had a long argument about the Pledge of Allegiance somewhere else already! ) I'm also a little offended by the hypocrisy of putting "In God We Trust" on our MONEY, for Pete's sake! I really do not think that money has anything to do with trusting in God. It rather sullies the concept of religion, to my mind.

[IdylleSeethes]

Jnyusa,

It seems I need a full time interpreter.

By the way Imperious Leader is from BattleStar Galactica circa 1979, as played by Patrick Macnee who is better known from the Avengers. So un-Voronwë, although I hear he has a bowler. You on the other hand do resemble Wonder Woman.

[Teremia]

(I wasn't really responding to you directly, IdylleSeethes, if that's what made you call for the interpreter! I was just speaking my general mind. )

[IdylleSeethes]

Hi Teremia,

I meant an interpreter to explain what I say. Obviously, there is a need.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

TP appears to support current legal precedent which (mostly) prohibits religious displays on government property. She makes the point that they must necessarily be paid for with tax dollars. I don't think this is an especially strong point - surely all of us have some objections to how our tax dollars are used. (Though I for one, TP, would be interested in discussing recent Establishment clause decisions.)

You may regret saying that, Ethel.

Establishment clause jurisprudence is one of the most confused and jumbled area of constitutional law right now. There's probably only one person who truly understands the current state of the law on this issue, and that is Stephen Breyer. There were two companion cases decided this past June by the Supreme Court and they had opposite results. Both were 5-4 decisions, and Breyer provided the swing vote on both. The other justices all either voted to allow the religious display or not allow it; Breyer was the only one to split his votes.

Both cases involved displays of the ten commandments, one in Kentucky and the other in Texas. The key difference, according to Breyer, was that the Kentucky displays stemmed from a governmental effort "substantially to promote religion," and the Texas display served a "mixed but primarily non-religious purpose." However, Breyer seems to be the only one that seems to see this distinction, and I'm afraid I don't find it compelling. On the other hand, there is an image of Moses with the ten commandments (but the text not being readable) in the Supreme Court building itself. Even Justice Souter, who wrote the majority decision in the Kentucky case, argued that that display did not violate the Establisment Clause.

So it is true, as Ethel pointed out, that everyone seems to have their own place where they draw the line.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Ethel]

MMMO was an anti-Christian, not just an atheist. Her treatment of her son is an example. He has made very strong statements about the intent and deceptions of his mother. As I said, you may not consider him a reliable witness. However, he was the vehicle for her first lawsuit and at least can't be claimed to be ignorant of the facts, whether or not he presents them accurately. Atheism was not served well by allowing someone with her hatred of Christianity to be perceived as the spokesperson for atheists in this country. It would have been better if she were simply atheist and simply interested in separation of church and state.

She was a very strange and rather horrifying woman. She would be of no importance at all if she had not launched the lawsuit that resulted in schoolchildren no longer being required to recite the Lord's Prayer. I'm aware that she tried to put together some kind of organization of Militant Atheism, but I don't think there were many subscribers - and one of them ended up murdering her, didn't he?

Perhaps in your mind she "spoke for atheists". Not in mine. Does Pat Robertson "speak for Christians"? She's no hero to me. I don't need or want a spokesman, thanks. The idea of organizing one's beliefs around merely rejecting other people's beliefs - well, let's just say I don't get it.

You seem to paraphrase my statements about the strength of the ruling party. I have publicly lamented that the Democrats seem not to have noticed that most of the powerful positions from governor to president are in the hands of another party for a reason, but that discussion belongs elsewhere.

Don't get me started on the Dems. Talk about not being able to locate one's posterior with both hands...

As titles go I must admit I find Thain of Cawdor strangely attractive.


Teremia - lovely post. I agree so very much with this statement: "spirituality and religion are intensely important and personal issues" - I do believe that they belong in the personal rather than the politcal realm. One of my favorite Bible stories is where Jesus is asked whether people should pay taxes to Rome, and he takes the coin with Caesar's head stamped on it and says, "Render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's." Meaning, I believe, that the spiritual realm exists utterly apart from that coin and everything it represented.


V - I don't find Breyer's logic particularly persuasive either. He seemed to find the different meanings purely in the placement of the monuments. That's reading a lot of intent into location it seems to me. I personally do not have a problem with representations of Moses and the Commandments in places where law is practiced. Surely the Commandments are part of the history of law - as much as Hammurabi's code or Magna Carta are.

[Whistler]

It's almost amusing.

Officials at a library in Memphis, Tennessee have ruled that it is quite all right for the library to display a nativity scene.

However, it is not all right to display any people. The animals can stay, but the holy family cannot. So all that remains are a few barnyard beasts who stare at the nothing and wonder, perhaps, why the heck they even bothered showing up.

All right, I exaggerate. A single human figure is permitted: a shepherd. But that's because he's carrying a lamb, you see! Without him, the poor little guy would fall over.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]