Patterico's Pontifications

2/3/2010

Thank God Goodness None of the Pagans Were Vampires

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:03 am



It’s a horrific story of religious discrimination:

The Air Force Academy, stung several years ago by accusations of Christian bias, has built a new outdoor worship area for pagans and other practitioners of Earth-based religions.

But its opening, heralded as a sign of a more tolerant religious climate at the academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., was marred by the discovery two weeks ago of a large wooden cross placed there.

“We’ve been making great progress at the Air Force Academy. This is clearly a setback,” said Mikey Weinstein, a 1977 graduate of the academy. He is founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and has often tangled with the academy over such issues.

Oh, my! A cross!

That’s offensive to the pagans, you see.

Mikey finds a great analogy to express how awful the appearance of the cross was:

The reaction would have been stronger, Weinstein said, if another worship center had been involved. Had a swastika been placed in the Jewish center, “heads would be rolling,” he said.

Now do you understand how offensive the appearance of the cross was?

Thanks to Robert P.

234 Responses to “Thank God Goodness None of the Pagans Were Vampires”

  1. That really clears it up for me – Christianity = Nazism. Case closed.

    Although I think this veteran has wayyy too much time on his hands.

    Dmac (539341)

  2. If one considers how many pagans have been robbed, driven into exile, beaten, tortured and murdered, including their women and children, in the name of Christianity, it would make more sense.

    I was a bit sad to read of the opening of this prayer circle but it seems to me this cross might as well have been burning. I don’t spit on another’s spiritual beliefs. Why would someone do this? Does this serve Jesus?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  3. I understand atheism. I understand agnostocism. I understand members of real religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. who learned their religion from their parents and their culture. I don’t understand people who actually seek out and adopt nonsense like paganism, Hare Krishna, and Scientology. There’s has to be something wrong with their brains.

    nk (db4a41)

  4. It certainly is a lack of respect for the beliefs of the wiccans. It’s more equivalent to walking into a church and starting to burn incense and chanting.

    Come on – perhaps the other analogy was a little much, but surely you can see the message whomever put down the cross was trying to get across? It certainly wasn’t a “Christian” message.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  5. nk: and atheists, etc (of which I’m not one) feel the same about you.

    Perhaps when you realize that fact you will understand that making those kinds of judgements really serve no purpose other than affecting your credibility.

    “Something wrong with their brains”… way to denigrate people.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  6. Whoever put the cross there was silly. So is Weinstein who is climbing on the ever expanding bandwagon of aggrieved victims our society is producing.
    I’ve been to the Academy for business and toured their chapel – very impressive and has areas for several different religions. The biggest area is for the Christians, no surprise in that there are more Christian cadets than those of other faiths.
    If a cadet did it they should hope they don’t get found out or they will face a very uncomfortable session with the 3 star superintendent.

    vor2 (c9795e)

  7. P: I’m not exactly sure why you’re playing this for laughs. The Nazi reference is a stretch, as it always is, and Mikey Weinstein may be grandstanding a bit.

    I think a better analogy would be if someone had emblazoned a pentagram in the Catholic church. Would the attitude have been as nonchalant?

    Putting the cross there is certainly a case of intended religious intolerance. (I say intended, b/c some believe the cross is a pagan carry-over anyway. So it may not be particulary offensive to Wiccans. I wouldn’t know and the L.A. Times reporter interviews no Wiccans.)

    But the major point is, just because one doesn’t respect the religion infringed upon, that doesn’t negate that it is important to some people. This is why the framers put in the Free Exercise Clause to protect religious minorities: To restrain people in the majority who have contempt for or no respect for the religious practices of people in the minority.

    As the Air Force Academy spokesman said:

    “It boils down to the key issue of respect — respect for everyone’s right to practice their faith as they choose.”

    Myron (6a93dd)

  8. The Nazi reference is interesting. Himmler was very anti-Christian and he wanted Hitler to bring back the worship of the old German gods, Wotan, Donner, etc. Hitler told him “No, they’re losers. Christianity defeated them.”

    nk (db4a41)

  9. Although he credits the academy’s superintendent, Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, with an improved climate of religious tolerance, Weinstein criticized other academy officials as trivializing the incident, which he said was not revealed to cadets.

    Rhetorically addressing academy officials, Weinstein said Tuesday, “It’s been two weeks — were you going to get around to telling them about this horrible thing that happened, and why haven’t you?”

    we must revel in this revealing moment!

    happyfeet (713679)

  10. Respect and tolerance are two different things. To tolerate another religion is a wonderful thing. God can take care of Himself. He has no need of His children killing each other in His name. To respect another religion, though? I think that’s disrespecting your own.

    nk (db4a41)

  11. We should just ban religious worship in the militasry.

    JD (b82a9e)

  12. So what government bureaucrat shall decide what are “real” religions? The same ones that decide who are real journalists? Are you really in favor of giving the this administration that kind of power?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  13. nk,

    I don’t respect any religion. I do respect people’s rights to practice theirs.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  14. nk: a religion is just a group of people who believe things. If that religion causes no harm and abides by the law, when you are disrespecting a religion, you’re disrespecting people. And that’s against the tenets of any legitimate religion.

    I’d suggest if it’s against yours, then your religion isn’t legitimate and I don’t respect it.

    Amazing how that works, isn’t it?

    Off to work.

    Russell Miller (c8b8c8)

  15. I look at it this way, though. If some pagans had secretly come into a church and placed some sort of pagan object, say a pentacle up on the altar, wouldn’t Christians attending that church be upset and offended?

    The Air Force Academy has in fact had a significant problem in the past with officers using their positions of authority to pressure, at least, cadets to become not just Christians but evangelical Christians. See here for some of the past story.

    Unless the anonymous Christians who left the cross in the area really think it wise to open up religion to this tit-for-tat kind of antagonism, it wasn’t something they should have done. There are other, better, more effective ways to proselytize. Especially when you hope to be a member of the United States Armed Services.

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  16. To respect another religion, though? I think that’s disrespecting your own.

    nk: I might be willing to concede that point. Tolerance is what is important in cases such as these. I often use the concepts interchangeably, but they really are different.

    Myron (6a93dd)

  17. Well no silver was involved, next thing the chapel will have to go, ‘separation of church and state’ and all. Just like the footbaths of the Minneapolis
    AP, wait isn’t that an imposition, never mind, as
    Rosanne Rossana Dana would say

    ian cormac (79614d)

  18. It’s not a story of discrimination, but one of attempted intimidation.

    Crude, cowardly (sneak in and basically commit an act of anonymous vandalism), and an affront to the ethos of religious freedom specified in the primary document that the cadets at the Academy are be trained and molded to ‘support, protect and defend’.

    So, no, the analogy of the swastika in a Synagogue is neither over the top, nor irrelevant – they are essentially the same act, here with some quibbling about degree for garnish.

    Amusement and snark is an interesting reaction to an act, which, obviously dissimilar in degree, has the same base motivation as many of the heinous excesses of Islamic extremists – specifically, “my way or the highway” religious intolerance. Extending a pass simply because the perps happen to likely be affiliated with a specific group – whistle and a flag on the play, Patrick.

    Wind Rider (63b1ce)

  19. Is Weinstein genuinely a pagan or is he an atheist? Is he only using “alternate belief” as a way to attack all belief and especially Christianity?

    nk (db4a41)

  20. So a cross is as offensive and a swastika?

    Who would have know.

    HeavenSent (ae267e)

  21. Horrible thing? Those pagans get all wee wee’d up don’t they? I don’t see how they can even stand to see a “crossing sign” at a railroad.

    Mike Myers (3c9845)

  22. I will note, however, that in the past I’ve felt that Weinstein has gone a bit over-the-top with some of his complaints. But the fact remains that the AFA has had a real problem with intolerance of non-Christian religions in the past.

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  23. So a cross is as offensive as a swastika?

    Who would have know.

    HeavenSent (ae267e)

  24. I’d suggest if it’s against yours, then your religion isn’t legitimate and I don’t respect it.

    Comment by Russell Miller — 2/3/2010 @ 7:44 am

    We agree, Russell.

    nk (db4a41)

  25. How has he attacked Christianity? If a black man objects to finding a burning cross in his yard is he attacking white people?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  26. I am not Christian but I often find myself defending the right of Christians to practice their faith openly. Is this illegitimate because I have no self interest except a love for freedom?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  27. HeavenSent… certainly if left burning in a black man’s yard it would be. Context is important. Placing a symbol of your own religion in a place set aside for worship by followers of another religion is sending a message that the other religion is not tolerated, is not welcome, is not going to be allowed to worship in peace.

    We’re not talking here about general public discourse, or general public areas, in which members of all religion shouldn’t be offended by messages promoting others. That’s what public forums and discourse are for, to promote one’s own viewpoints and to be exposed to those of others. But the area at issue in the story was set aside specifically for use as a place of worship by the pagans, and they’re entitled to just as much respect for their beliefs, in our society, as any other group. If you won’t stand up to protect their rights, then you’ll have no right to complain next time somebody decides to desecrate a Christian church.

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  28. There is actually a government test for religious belief — it started out with conscientious objectors in WWI — and it is sincerity of belief. If Weinstein is in fact an atheist and not a sincere worshipper of Jupiter, or Wotan, or Damballah, he is committing a fraud.

    nk (db4a41)

  29. So we must test the sincerity of Christian’s beliefs before we respect their right to worship? Again, who judges? Where does the Constitution make this stipulation?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  30. nk… so only adherents of a particular religion can complain about religious intolerance?

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  31. If I had been the Air Force Academy, I would have said: “Before I build the temple for your gods that you request, Mr. Weinstein, show me the temple you built.”

    nk (db4a41)

  32. I would remind you that Scientology was given government support as a legitimate religion under Clinton to get a better portrayal of Clinton by John Travolta in that movie. Is this what you advocate? Freedom of religion as political expediency?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  33. As with freedom of speech, Constitutional protection is not needed to protect popular religions but unpopular ones.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  34. There’s some history here, including a pattern of desecration of the old worship site that included smashing the half-ton limestone altar.

    Why would anyone feel the need to smash a stone altar slab in the middle of a stone circle in the middle of the woods?

    DOuglas2 (62fec6)

  35. The right to worship and the right to have the United States Air Force Academy build you a temple for your gods are somewhat different things I think.

    nk (db4a41)

  36. nk… so you think the Academy should tear down the Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist and Jewish facilities which already exist there?

    You seem to be under the misapprehension that Weinstein is himself a pagan and claiming to be offended as such. To my knowledge, he is not. He is an AFA graduate (class of ’77) who has founded a center promoting religious tolerance at the Academy, a quality which was in rather short supply there for several years.

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  37. nk, all branches of the armed forces provide worship areas for members of different religions. You’re acting rather ignorant today, I’m afraid. If you want the Air Force to go ahead and tear down all the churches, synagogues, and mosques it has built at its bases over the years, you really should directly say so.

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  38. I think that it’s Weinstein that wants to tear down all the religion centers. And this pagan nonsense is a foil, pretext, tactic, fraud, bulls**i, lie. He has no belief. He is making fun of belief.

    nk (db4a41)

  39. And the idiots at the Air Force Academy are taken in.

    nk (db4a41)

  40. PatHMV you seem to have a dog in this fight. And, you’re assuming it was Christians who placed the cross on pagan turf. Has that been established or is you prejudice on display?

    ropelight (fd2c54)

  41. Himmler was very anti-Christian

    So was Hitler, who spoke of Christianity in a fashion very similar to that of the modern left and Weinstein.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  42. when i went through basic training about 30 years ago we had three choices on Sunday mornings; (a) go to a Catholic service, (b) go to a protestant service, or (c) stay in the barracks

    Since most barracks were either all male or all female many people attended to rub elbows with the opposite gender.

    vor2 (8e6b90)

  43. So, how many Air Force Academy recruits attend pagan services?

    nk (db4a41)

  44. So will you be OK with Obama deciding the legitimacy of your church is determined by it’s conformity to Rev. Wright’s views and teachings? Or is your church special and deserving of more rights than others? I don’t care about Weinstein. I do care about freedom.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  45. How has he attacked Christianity? If a black man objects to finding a burning cross in his yard is he attacking white people?

    Comment by Machinist — 2/3/2010 @ 8:07 am

    I am not Christian but I often find myself defending the right of Christians to practice their faith openly. Is this illegitimate because I have no self interest except a love for freedom?

    Comment by Machinist — 2/3/2010 @ 8:10 am

    I just thought that the juxtaposition of these two comments from the same person was striking.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  46. ropelight… I have no idea who laid out the cross. It could have been Jewish people trying to discredit the Christians. It could have been Weinstein trying to foment controversy. I don’t know. But the complaint by Patterico and several others is that the pagans shouldn’t have been offended by the cross. Nobody I’ve seen so far has suggested this is a hoax or argued that we should ignore it because it is probably a hoax.

    I’m Christian myself. I simply recognize that in our society, if I want my rights to worship in peace as I see fit, I need to fight for the right of others to do so, as well.

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  47. On the highest hill in San Francisco, Mount Davidson, we have a cross over 100 feet high. and until 1997, the site was publicly-owned property. The City’s multitudes of pagans are not too upset about it.

    Official Internet Data Office (dc2fe1)

  48. Were there any worshipping pagans that were actually offended or was it only one atheist, Winstein?

    nk (db4a41)

  49. Enough attend, apparently, nk, that the Air Force found it appropriate to create the area for them. Do you have any evidence that they did so at Weinstein’s request?

    Subotai… what exactly about that juxtaposition do you find striking? Both statements seem quite sensible to me.

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  50. “I just thought that the juxtaposition of these two comments from the same person was striking.

    Comment by Subotai — 2/3/2010 @ 8:45 am ”

    Were my remarks inconsistent, Sir. I don’t know what you are saying and I would like to understand.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  51. 29.So we must test the sincerity of Christian’s beliefs before we respect their right to worship? Again, who judges? Where does the Constitution make this stipulation?

    Comment by Machinist — 2/3/2010 @ 8:20 am

    No, we test the sincerity of the belief before we take government action.

    nk (db4a41)

  52. nk, why don’t you read the article before continuing to discuss?

    On the weekend of Jan. 17, Weinstein said a client of his organization who is based at the academy spotted a cross, constructed of railroad ties, propped against a rock at the center. The client reported it, and the Office of Special Investigations began an inquiry.

    In other words, it wasn’t Weinstein who complained about the cross.

    And again, if this were a pentacle inscribed inside a Christian church, would you be so demanding that nobody could really possibly be offended? You’ve made your personal hostile views of pagans very clear earlier. Why should your personal distaste for them control government military policy of tolerance?

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  53. Ok, so, nk… a Christian goes to church one morning and finds a pentacle inscribed inside the church. He complains to the appropriate officer on base. What test is the officer to administer to determine if the Christian is a “sincere” one and actually offended?

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  54. Who decides? I know devout and sincere Christians. I also know devout and sincere Pagans. Who judges?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  55. Because the money spent building that piece of crap could have been better spent to build an F-15 to defend me and my family.

    nk (db4a41)

  56. We can agree it was rude and ill-considered. At my age, it seems that our society is ruder than it once was, and we are talking about very young people.

    Molehill -> mountain.

    jodetoad (7a7b8a)

  57. Were my remarks inconsistent, Sir.

    Yes, they were.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  58. nk, and so would the money building the Christian churches and the Jewish synagogue and the Muslim mosque there, yes? Why are you only complaining about the one religion? At this point it is painfully obvious that you treat Wiccans by a different standard than other religions.

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  59. Your logic is the same used by militant atheists to ban crosses from war memorials. I think it is backwards from the founders’ principles. Everyone in England had freedom of religion, as long as the state approved of the particular faith. That is not freedom, Sir.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  60. Subotai, how were those remarks inconsistent? Please explain, because they seem entirely consistent to me.

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  61. “#57
    Were my remarks inconsistent, Sir.

    Yes, they were.
    Comment by Subotai — 2/3/2010 @ 8:57 am”

    Would you please explain, Sir. I don’t see it.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  62. You seem to be under the misapprehension that Weinstein is himself a pagan and claiming to be offended as such. To my knowledge, he is not. He is an AFA graduate (class of ‘77) who has founded a center promoting religious tolerance at the Academy, a quality which was in rather short supply there for several years.

    Weinstein has no interest in “religious tolerence”. He’s a tedious anti-Christian bigot. Read his deranged rant here. Such people are distressingly common in the ranks of athiest Jews. Interestingly, religious Jews do not suffer from this affliction.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  63. So what is Weinstein’s religion, its creed, and its ceremonies?

    nk (db4a41)

  64. Just throwing my $0.02 in, but ……. isn’t this making a mountain out of a molehill?

    Back when I was in college, I was President of my campus’ Wesley Foundation (Methodism). I had meetings with numerous other religious groups on campus and knew several of them pretty well.

    Junior year, on Reformation Sunday, someone decided it would be good fun to duct tape the 95 Thesis to the front door of the Catholic Center. So, that’s what was waiting for the Father when the arrived to open up for Mass that morning.

    Now, I eventually figured out who did it, and surprise, surprise, it was one of the student leaders of the Lutheran House.

    Now, should I have turned him in for a hate crime? Should this incident have made the front page of the NYTimes? Did we need to have a coming-together of the entire community to deal with raging Anti-Catholic hate obviously boiling away under the surface?

    Or did we do the right thing by meeting with the Priest, talking it over, and it never reaching anything bigger than a paragraph in the student newspaper?

    Techie (217a89)

  65. Would you please explain, Sir. I don’t see it.

    In one commnet, you likened the Christain cross to a symbol of violent hate, the “burning cross” on a black persons lawn.

    In the other comment, you described yourself as “defending the right of Christians to practice their faith openly”.

    If the Christian symbol is the symbol of hate which you mentioned in comment 1, it ought not to be shown openly.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  66. My church builds churches, hospitals, retirement homes, community centers. Shrines by the roadside. Show me what Weinstein has built that the taxpayers should build the same for him.

    nk (db4a41)

  67. PatHMV, I’m not trying to pick a fight, and I too support religious tolerence, but your assumption of Christian culpability is clear in the opening sentence of your third paragraph at #15 above:

    “Unless the anonymous Christians who left the cross in the area really think it wise to open up religion to this tit-for-tat kind of antagonism, it wasn’t something they should have done.”

    ropelight (fd2c54)

  68. I think the point Patterico was making is missed.

    Is a Cross really as offensive as a Swastika? I mean, really? There may be a bit of religious intollerance, but is there any practical threat or recent history of mass murder against Pagans/Druids/Whatever by Christians?

    I don’t recall the catholics rounding up wiccans and sending them to the gas chamber, as the Nazis did the Jews. Yet, we are to believe a Cross in a stone circle (mind you, not destructively placed) is equally as offensive as a symbol of undiluted antisemitism vandalized onto a Jewish center.

    RCJP (d9cd96)

  69. I think the whole argument can be summed up as

    1. Weinstein is a nasty little creep; and
    2. The United States Air Force Academy needs a new Superintendent, with balls.

    nk (db4a41)

  70. So what is Weinstein’s religion, its creed, and its ceremonies?

    Read his own words.

    >”The proselytizing mission has gone so far that there are formal organizations among officers and enlisted men. For the officers, it’s called the Officers’ Christian Fellowship; for the enlisted folks, it’s called the Christian Military Fellowship. And they have a three-level, or a tripartite goal, which goals they view as far more critically important than the oath, the blood oath, they all swore out to protect and preserve, support and defend the Constitution of the United States. There are now 737 U.S. military official installations — it’s actually closer to 1,000 — in 132 countries and we have variances of this Christian Taliban and the Christian al-Qaeda on every one of them.”

    Sound famlar? He’s a member of the Church Of Frothing Moonbats. It’s creed is that the “Chritian Taliban and the Christian Al-Queda” are always at the gates.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  71. I’m somewhat surprised that cadets would have the time to do such a thing.

    htom (412a17)

  72. And I mean that. I don’t know how Weinstein got in, likely both affirmative action and political influence, but America is defended by down-home, ordinary religious people, without an axe to grind except against America’s enemies.

    nk (db4a41)

  73. “#65,In one commnet, you likened the Christain cross to a symbol of violent hate, the “burning cross” on a black persons lawn.

    In the other comment, you described yourself as “defending the right of Christians to practice their faith openly”.

    If the Christian symbol is the symbol of hate which you mentioned in comment 1, it ought not to be shown openly.

    Comment by Subotai — 2/3/2010 @ 9:08 am ”

    I did not and would never say that the Christian cross was a symbol of hate and violence. The burning cross on someone’s yard was an intimidating symbol used by the KKK. Didn’t you know this? It is an almost universal symbol of bigotry and intolerance. Have you ever seen the burning cross used as a Christian symbol outside this context?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  74. #72, that kind of politics of personal destruction is normally associated with the left. I don’t see it’s place in a reasonable discussion. From the article’s mention of his background your comments seem inappropriate.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  75. At this point it is painfully obvious that you treat Wiccans by a different standard than other religions.

    Comment by PatHMV — 2/3/2010 @ 8:57 am

    I have silver bullets and blackthorn daggers for them, just in case they’re right. 🙂

    nk (db4a41)

  76. Subotai ,
    I have always defended the display of the cross in public. We are founded on Christian principles. The burning cross used by the KKK is another matter.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  77. Was the cross in question burning?

    JD (4827fd)

  78. The burning cross on someone’s yard was an intimidating symbol used by the KKK. Didn’t you know this?

    I do know that. Which is why I found your analogy between the Klans burning cross and the Christian cross to be odd.

    “If a black man objects to finding a burning cross in his yard is he attacking white people?”

    No, he’s not. But the analogy between that and this incident is way off.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  79. “I have silver bullets and blackthorn daggers for them, just in case they’re right. 🙂

    Comment by nk — 2/3/2010 @ 9:27 am ”

    When you go after the ones I know you will find me standing with them. If they have no rights than none of use do. If you must be of a favored group to have rights then there are no rights, only naked force.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  80. From the article’s mention of his background your comments seem inappropriate.

    Comment by Machinist — 2/3/2010 @ 9:25 am

    Weinstein is not the article. And I have no reason to believe the article. Or any obligation to go find him for you. You find him for me.

    nk (db4a41)

  81. Subotai… re: your #65, Machinist didn’t like the burning cross to a symbol of hate. He described, accurately, a practice which has been used in the past by people calling themselves Christian to misuse the symbols of Christianity to attack and intimidate black people (and Jews and Catholics, all of whom were targets of the KKK). That’s a simple historical fact, and one can discuss it and condemn it without condemning Christianity.

    As for Weinstein, I’m not sure why he has much of anything to do with the simple question of whether it is or is not appropriate for somebody to place a symbol of Christian worship in a pagan place of worship. He could be the devil himself or a complete atheist, and that would have no bearing at all on whether or not the allegation discussed in Patterico’s post has merit or not.

    And, Subotai, you really should study up some on the history of what was going on in the Air Force Academy in the late ’90s and early ’00s. To be sure, it wasn’t as bad as Weinstein made it out to be, sometimes, but it sure wasn’t good. There were in fact (and this was found by an official Air Force report) officers using their power and authority over the cadets to pressure (if not coerce) all cadets, of all religions, to recite cadences with Christian worship in them, join Christian movements, etc. That’s NOT appropriate in the Armed Forces.

    And, nk, America is also defended by down-home, ordinary non-religious people, and religious people of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Pagan, and many other sects. I’m happy and grateful to ALL of them for their service, and I don’t see why you feel the need to disparage those who choose to serve without wanting to be forced to worship God in the manner you deem most appropriate and cost-effective.

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  82. Subotai,
    That remark was in response to the claim that the objection to this desecration was attacking Christianity. If you look at it in the context I think that is clear. Objecting to a pentagram painted in blood on a Christian alter is not attacking Pagans, but the desecration of the alter was attacking Christians. Wouldn’t you agree?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  83. Nobody’s forcing anybody to worship anyone, or to spend taxpayers’ dollars in the effort, except Weinstein and the pussy-ass Superintendent of the United States Air Force Academy.

    nk (db4a41)

  84. Machinist didn’t like the burning cross to a symbol of hate.

    Yes, he did. And he was correct in doing so.

    [Wesistein] could be the devil himself or a complete atheist, and that would have no bearing at all on whether or not the allegation discussed in Patterico’s post has merit or not.

    Nonsense. If he’s the devil himself we can reasonably assume that he concocted the whole story himself to spread strife and dissesnion. Maybe you need another cup of coffee before you continue here.

    And one thing is fore sure – he’s not the champion of “religious tolerence” you were making him out to be. He’s a bigger bigot than the alleged cross makers.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  85. I might point out that Mormons are rather heavily represented in the roles of honor. Must we expunge those tributes to patriotism and courage because they are not an approved faith? When I look at military cemeteries I see a lot of stars as well. Don’t they count?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  86. I still have not seen Weinstein’s church that he built. Come on, guys, it can’t be all that hard.

    nk (db4a41)

  87. “I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake”

    Machinist (9780ec)

  88. “It boils down to the key issue of respect — respect for everyone’s right to practice their faith as they choose,” he said.

    Now if only the other side could take their own advice.

    There is far, far more anti-Christian bigotry in certain parts of our society then the other way around. Anti-Christian bigotry is very strong with the political left, in academia, in “art” and in media. The LA times is a prime example of media basis. Being called the American Taliban by the likes of Chris Matthews is another. The piss-Christ and a likeness of the virgin Mary drawn with excrement being called “art work” in New York. The demand that all Christmas displays or crosses be removed from public property, etc…

    Now just try to flush a Qur’an down the toilet and see if you get the same reaction, I dare you.

    ML (f060a0)

  89. Subotai ,
    So you still think I’m anti-cross or anti-Christian?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  90. 85.I might point out that Mormons are rather heavily represented in the roles of honor. Must we expunge those tributes to patriotism and courage because they are not an approved faith? When I look at military cemeteries I see a lot of stars as well. Don’t they count?

    Comment by Machinist — 2/3/2010 @ 9:40 a

    Name one pagan cadet for me, Machinist. (Weinstein does not count.)

    nk (db4a41)

  91. And, Subotai, you really should study up some on the history of what was going on in the Air Force Academy in the late ’90s and early ’00s. To be sure, it wasn’t as bad as Weinstein made it out to be, sometimes, but it sure wasn’t good.

    It’s funny that you write these words immediately afrer instructing me to focus on “the allegation discussed in Patterico’s post”. You seem comfortable with broading the debate in directions you want to go.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  92. ML, that is my whole point. If you are not willing to see a law or power used against you by your adversary then it is not a fair law or power in your own hands. We all have protection or none of us has protection. This is the whole basis of our Republic.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  93. 85.I might point out that Mormons are rather heavily represented in the roles of honor. Must we expunge those tributes to patriotism and courage because they are not an approved faith? When I look at military cemeteries I see a lot of stars as well. Don’t they count?

    Comment by Machinist — 2/3/2010 @ 9:40 a

    Oh, yeah. Did somebody say something about sincere belief?

    nk (db4a41)

  94. Machinist is neither anti-cross or anti-christian.

    JD (4827fd)

  95. “Name one pagan cadet for me, Machinist. (Weinstein does not count.)

    Comment by nk — 2/3/2010 @ 9:44 am ”

    I can not name a Christian cadet. Does this make it wrong to have a chapel? When he wants them to tear down the Christan church I will oppose that but this was about the desecration of someones place of worship. How is objecting to this attacking Christians or Christianity. Are you saying that Christianity stands for this kind of action?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  96. Are all Christians sincere? Are all Mormons sincere? Who makes these judgments? Against what standards?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  97. “I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake”

    Very generous of him. He ended up being beheaded anway, but I’m sure the Devil appreciated his gesture.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  98. Thank you, JD. I support prayer in school, observance of Christian holidays, and the right to openly display Christian symbols. I do not support bigotry.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  99. I do not support bigotry.

    Read Weinstein’s words, which I linked to, and tell me that you don’t see bigotry.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  100. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God.” 1Corinthians 1: 18.

    The Emperor (037483)

  101. “Very generous of him. He ended up being beheaded anway, but I’m sure the Devil appreciated his gesture.

    Comment by Subotai — 2/3/2010 @ 9:54 am ”

    Did that make him a loser or a failure? Is it wrong to die for principle or honor? Did he lose in the annals of history or did his concept of law survive. I would say our Constitution and it’s underlying principles suggest he won in the end.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  102. I’ve already said I don’t care about Weinstein. This story was about the desecration of a place of worship. The discussion seems to have become who has a right to religious freedom and who is not approved. We all have rights or none of us have rights.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  103. Evasion. Nobody has defended Weinstein against my accusation that he is not a pagan but instead is attacking all religions reductio ad absurdum with his pagan bulls**t. And the assholes that the Air Force Academy are going along.

    nk (db4a41)

  104. I’ve seen no bigotry in the article to match what I have seen from nk in this thread. Does that mean his views are not legitimate?

    Machinist (9780ec)

  105. *And the assholes at the Air Force Academy that are going along.*

    nk (db4a41)

  106. It’s not really evasion to not defend Weinstein. There are douchey people from all walks of life in all shapes and forms.

    I can vouch for the fact that there are pagans in the army. There’s actually a very, very large wicca movement at Ft Hood. It’s a strange religion from my POV, but it’s their business. They never gave me a hard time for being a Christian. And some of them probably knew some Christian who was a jackass, and if they demanded I defend him I would have ignored the obvious non sequitur.

    Pagans should have their stupid temple if they want it. A cross is not desecration, but they should have it removed from their temple if they don’t want it there.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  107. Bigotry? How close is that to buggery? How about telemetry if you are in need of more “ry”s.

    nk (db4a41)

  108. Did he lose in the annals of history or did his concept of law survive.

    Which concept of law is that? The one whereby you convict people of crimes based on reading some vague story in the LA freakin’ Times and the words of a man (Weinstein) who is clearly deranged?

    I’m hoping that concept of law did not survive. Based on that concept of law, James O’Keefe can expect to be sent to jail for wiretapping.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  109. Did he lose in the annals of history or did his concept of law survive.

    Which concept of law is that? The one whereby you convict people of crimes based on reading some vague story in the LA freakin’ Times and the words of a man (Weinstein) who is clearly deranged?

    I’m hoping that concept of law did not survive. Based on that concept of law, James O’Keefe can expect to be sent to jail for wiretapping.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  110. Subotai, I think that nk has made a fool of himself on this thread but I had hoped for a reasonable discussion with you. It seems I must tolerate the KKK and defend Weinstein in order to object to this desecration of the place of worship of people who just want to worship in peace. I admit I am disappointed. This is looking more like a lawyer’s argument than a discussion so I think I will say good day, Sir.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  111. Get yourself some silver and blackthorn, Dustin. 😉

    nk (db4a41)

  112. That would be the concept that we all have rights, even the unpopular, or none of us have rights.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  113. I’ve seen no bigotry in the article to match what I have seen from nk in this thread. Does that mean his views are not legitimate?

    It means you’re a poor judge of bigotry. But your previous remarks here had already made that rather clear.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  114. “Ph’nglui Mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn.”

    (“In his house at R’lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.”)

    mojo (8096f2)

  115. That would be the concept that we all have rights, even the unpopular, or none of us have rights.

    That’s a rather silly concept. Clearly, some us “us” do have rights while others do not, for various definitions of both “us” and “rights”. For instance, most people in the world don’t have free speech rights, while Americans largely do. So if “us” means “humanity” your contention is false.

    Subotai (e4f9ec)

  116. “Get yourself some silver and blackthorn, Dustin. 😉

    Comment by nk ”

    I don’t even understand pagan shit well enough to get the reference. I understand that it’s ridiculous to hysterically freak out about a cross or hate Christianity or compare it to Nazis.

    I just don’t mind if these people get a temple and do their thing. It totally doesn’t matter to me. For whatever reason, I suppose some problem in our culture, we have a lot of youth who want to be counter-culture, and some wind up in the military. I respect them. If they want to be confused about trees and witches, but are willing to fight for the Constitution, that’s cool.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  117. I have been talking this whole thread about our Constitutional rights and you try to apply it to all of humanity? I believe one of the things that sets our Constitution apart from others is that it recognizes inalienable rights while others reserve the option to suspend them when needed, meaning they are privileges, not rights. I care nothing about the lack of rights in the world. I do care about our Constitutional rights. That is what I have supported this whole thread.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  118. Well, they could lop off the part of the cross above the cross-piece, and use it for Roman Crucifixions of their heretics.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b1d1f9)

  119. Comment by Subotai — 2/3/2010 @ 10:29 am

    Didn’t someone in our past write about “…natural rights derived from our Creator…”?

    AD - RtR/OS! (b1d1f9)

  120. a religion is just a group of people who believe things. If that religion causes no harm and abides by the law, when you are disrespecting a religion, you’re disrespecting people. And that’s against the tenets of any legitimate religion.

    I’d suggest if it’s against yours, then your religion isn’t legitimate and I don’t respect it.

    See the problem is the word “just”. Religion SHOULD BE about truth, as much as it’s about God. In fact, the two are synonymous. Do you respect flat earthers? They’re just a group of people who
    believe things.

    This is the problem with how people are supposed to discuss religion. This group’s truth is just as valid as that group’s truth. I actually agree with Bill Maher who ridiculed the idea that we are supposed to respect everyone’s religious views no matter how absurd. His problem is he doesn’t know anything about the Bible but thinks he does – that’s pretty much true of everything he has an opinion about. He also decides a priori that no religious text could be true and doesn’t differentiate between them.

    Gerald A (a66d02)

  121. Thank God this is not LGF. We’d all be banned.

    (No puns intended.)

    navyvet (e4db05)

  122. Well, that would leave us a lot of time for “productive” enterprise.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b1d1f9)

  123. lol, navyvet…

    Gerald, I don’t care whether you want to personally think all the other religions besides yours are foolish and stupid. What I do care about is that you publicly tolerate them, not try to disrupt their worship by invading their religious spaces to plant your own religious symbols, and not try to have the government favor one religion over the other.

    Me, I’m certain that God exists and that he has,through his son, commanded us to love one another in the same way we love him. But I can’t objectively prove that to the satisfaction of a non-believer. Meanwhile, I’d like to be able to worship God in peace, without, for example, Muslims attacking me or pagans desecrating my church. In order for that to happen, I have to tolerate their existence; if I don’t, they don’t have any reason to tolerate mine.

    That’s a far cry from saying (as the idiot Bill Maher does) that all religions are, ultimately, equally valid (or invalid) in the eyes of God or the ultimate truth.

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  124. Meanwhile, I’d like to be able to worship God in peace, without, for example, Muslims attacking me or pagans desecrating my church. In order for that to happen, I have to tolerate their existence; if I don’t, they don’t have any reason to tolerate mine.

    You’re deluded if you believe that to be the case. They currently “tolerate” your existence because they lack the power to do anything else. Power is what keeps them in check, not your vaunted tolerance.

    Subotai (25d6a5)

  125. And once again, Godwin’s Law comes into play.

    James Kidder (6abe26)

  126. I care nothing about the lack of rights in the world.

    Then I don’t see why you cite some long-dead English clergyman in support of your case. What’s it to you if More lost his head, or his views on the law?

    I do care about our Constitutional rights.

    Is there a Constitutional right being abridged if your pagan place of worship is desecrated by a Christian symbol? Which Constitutional right is that exactly?

    Subotai (25d6a5)

  127. I believe one of the things that sets our Constitution apart from others is that it recognizes inalienable rights while others reserve the option to suspend them when needed, meaning they are privileges, not rights.

    You are mistaken. Our Constitution does not recognize any inalienable rights. Perhaps you were thinking of that phrase from the Declaration of Independence.

    Subotai (25d6a5)

  128. This is pretty obnoxious behavior: going in to a religious site of some other religion and placing your own religious symbols there, uninvited, is rude at best. That’s true whether or not the people whose site it is view it as being defacement.

    It would be different if the area in question had been designated a facility for non-sectarian, ecumenical use. But it wasn’t.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  129. Yes, Subotai, lack of power because our society establishes laws (of property and otherwise) which demand religious tolerance. You seem to have mistaken me for some turn-the-other-cheek believer that other religions are all sweetness and light. I’m not.

    But you apparently wish to give Christianity a privileged place in our society, so that the laws will protect it, but not worshipers of other religions. Is that correct?

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  130. Our Constitution does not recognize any inalienable rights

    Odd.

    I would describe this as an inalienable right:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, …

    “Shall not be violated” strikes me as being the type of language one uses when one wishes to make a right inalienable.

    Similarly, this seems like an inalianable right:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  131. I guess this makes the Air Force Academy one of those “coven schools” we were warned would happen if we voted for school vouchers.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  132. aphrael, you forget that the Constitutional Right of an adult woman to an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy appears to be absolute as well.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  133. Can Islam compete with modern Christianity in a free society that doesn’t give you any grief for not accepting the Kuran?

    John Stuart Mill probably would have said no. I think the first amendment is an endorsement of the idea that Christianity doesn’t need the government’s help.

    Now, the question about the government actually providing religion to troops is a little different. We have to provide some of this stuff to our troops because they need it and often can’t get it otherwise.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  134. Kevin: I was going for things which were undisputable. I think reasonable people can disagree about the existence of a constitutional right of an adult woman to an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. I don’t think reasonable people can disagree about the existence of a constitutional right to a speedy trial or to being secure against unreasosnable searches and seizures.

    Which isn’t to say we can’t disagree over what is or isn’t speedy, or what is or isn’t an unreasonable search. That’s the bread and butter of criminal defense lawyers. 🙂

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  135. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Since there is no mention of who this proscription applies to, it can only be assumed that it applies to all levels of government, and that this is a Natural Right, derived from our Creator.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b1d1f9)

  136. Yes, Subotai, lack of power because our society establishes laws (of property and otherwise) which demand religious tolerance.

    No, lack of power because Muslims lack power in America. Laws are merely power written on paper. Laws can be ignored or rewritten. How’s religious tolerence doing in Europe these days as eveyone bows to Islam?

    You seem to have mistaken me for some turn-the-other-cheek believer that other religions are all sweetness and light.

    I see you as a liberal multiculturalist who thinks everything is the same and who is afriad of Muslms. At least, that’s what your own words indicate.

    But you apparently wish to give Christianity a privileged place in our society, so that the laws will protect it, but not worshipers of other religions. Is that correct?

    Christianity has a priviledged in place in our society. Our society runs on Christian principles, including the very same principles being invoked by you and Weinstein and Machinist.

    Are you going to stop using them on that account?

    Your error lies in thinking that those principles are some immutable bedrock of our society which exist independently of specific religions.

    Subotai (31c20b)

  137. Incidentally, I find it very odd to be having this conversation on February 3.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  138. I would describe this as an inalienable right:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, …

    You are saying that the Constitution is inviolable and unalterable? It’s not. Many parts of it have been altered in various different ways. There is nothing preventing the American people from repealing the Fourth Amendment. The Constitution explicitly provides a mechanism for them to do so if they wish. For that matter there is little to prevent the courts from gutting it as they have gutted several other Constitutional provisions.

    Subotai (31c20b)

  139. Since there is no mention of who this proscription applies to, it can only be assumed that it applies to all levels of government, and that this is a Natural Right, derived from our Creator.

    You’re stealing several bases there. Assuming that the 1st Amdt applies to all levels of government does not mean that it is the Creators law. I’m pretty sure that it was written by the Founders and not handed down from on high engraved on stone tablets. At least, I see no mention of such tablets in the notes on the Constitutional conventon.

    Subotai (31c20b)

  140. I hope someone is enjoying the semantic silliness.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  141. I hope someone is enjoying the semantic silliness.

    looks like Wiccan scripture to me

    vor2 (8e6b90)

  142. It’s not really Christian principles. It’s a certain variety of Christians’ principles.

    It’s not like the USA wasn’t fighting for independence from a Christian theocracy. You can’t credit the religion for the things you like while ignoring that the opposite are also considered principles of that religion by many other cultures and times.

    Let’s not pretend that Christianity is why the USA is so great. Christianity is flexible enough to permit the great values of the Dec of Independence to foster a free nation, but it’s also flexible enough for the Spanish Inquisition.

    Which is a vast improvement over Islam, which I don’t think is flexible enough.

    People had to push Christianity in the right direction. It’s to Christianity’s credit that this was possible, but the idea that this religion is favored in some general sense, and not the principles that pushed it, is wrong.

    Christianity is not favored and should not be favored, by the government. The cool thing about Christianity is that it doesn’t need to be favored.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  143. Subotai, now you’re being insulting in addition to being ignorant and intolerant of religions other than Christianity. We are protected in America against the insanity of multi-cultural mush in Europe in part because we are so vigorous in demanding REAL tolerance of all religions. Europeans are having problems requiring some Muslims to abide by the same respect for other religions which we demand.

    We continue, as a society, protect ourselves from that sort of actual intolerance by insisting on real tolerance, an even playing field for everybody. That most certainly does NOT require rolling over for those Muslims whose idea of tolerance is limited to never insulting them. I’m all for having the right to publish pictures and cartoons which offend any religion. I think Yale University was quite wrong to refuse to publish the Mohammed cartoons.

    But if some Christian stuck a cross into a mosque here, I would criticize them for doing so, because in doing so they would reveal themselves to be intolerant and unwilling to abide by the same demands they want to impose on others.

    Did Christianity inspire a lot of our founding principles? You bet, and thank God for it. Does that mean that Christianity should get special legal protection not extended to other religions? Nope.

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  144. It’s not like the USA wasn’t fighting for independence from a Christian theocracy.

    Ummm….. the USA wasn’t fighting for independence from a Christian theocracy.

    (Whatever a “Christian theocracy” is. The next one to exist will be the first one.)

    Subotai (31c20b)

  145. We are protected in America against the insanity of multi-cultural mush in Europe in part because we are so vigorous in demanding REAL tolerance of all religions.

    That’s the liberal theory all right. Is there a shred of evidence that it’s correct? Is “multi-cultural mush” notable by its absence in America?

    Subotai (31c20b)

  146. Our Constitution does not recognize any inalienable rights. Perhaps you were thinking of that phrase from the Declaration of Independence.

    There are no inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration, either. But there are plenty of unalienable rights.

    Official Internet Data Office (dc2fe1)

  147. “Comment by Subotai”

    See, I knew you’d say that.

    You know that England justified its Royalty because God made someone king. Thus, England recognized that God was the supreme civil ruler and the authority of the king he chose on that grounds. That’s theocracy. One of the many examples of a Christian theocracy. You can try to dumb down the definition to an absurd degree if you like, I guess. But America has long been a resistance to Religious oppression from other Christian cultures.

    You want to say that the USA is the example of Christian principles, even though the USA is very exceptional. It’s simply not like most of the governments that sprouted from Christian leaders.

    I’m not insulting Christianity. Christianity is flexible, allowing for tyrants and great bastions of civil rights. The inquisition, Martin Luther Kind Jr… I’m pointing out how absurd it is to point to one example of a government that has good principles you like and say ‘this is Christianity’. That reasoning applies similarly to 1490s Spain or dozens of other systems leads to an absurd result.

    It was real liberalism that made America. Classic liberalism based on the individual’s right to life liberty and property equally before the law. THAT’S the key to the USA. Sure, that came from Christians, mainly. So did the inquisition. So did many good and bad things.

    Saying the USA is the paradigm of Christian principles denies the reality of most Christian cultures over history. It’s Classic Liberalism, something a wise form of Christianity is much more compatible with than, say, Islam, that is the foundation for the USA.

    Be more specific, in other words. Christianity doesn’t need a preferred status, and in fact, that’s the opposite lesson you should take from US History.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  148. In other words, I am proudly Christian while realizing it is not some independent reason for the USA’s principles.

    It was something special, even for Christian cultures, that went beyond the Christian principles that most cultures understood. Like just about anything, they can be and are argued on Christian grounds, but that’s a vague and meaningless point.

    It isn’t fair to define each religion by cherry picking. If the USA’s principles being fostered and argued on Christian grounds are what defines the religion’s role in government, there are many better examples that also do (and this leads to absurd results).

    Christianity doesn’t require that, anyway. That’s part of why it’s flexible enough to allow such a great nation as the USA once the ADDITIONAL classic liberal values are held up.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  149. I suspect that at the end of the day the number of pagans at the acadamy will actually be equal to the number of cadets that thought they could get laid by a wiccan priestess. Sort of like the faux hippies marching in anti-war demos in the late 60`s and early 70`s hoping to catch a bit of that free-love with a braless hippie babe. It didn`t work for me then and it won`t work for them now.

    scr_north (b205c0)

  150. Describing eighteenth century England as a theocracy is a wild stretch, Dustin.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  151. You know that England justified its Royalty because God made someone king

    It’s really not clear that that was ever true, but it certainly wasn’t true after the revolution of 1688, when the King was explicitly chosen by Parliament, who invited him in for the express purpose of ousting the previous King.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  152. Vatican City and King Ferdinand’s Spain aren’t theocracies, too Aphrael? The claim was there has never been a Christian theocracy.

    I don’t expect or mind that people are not objective or fair about religion. We just aren’t coming at this with the same basic understanding of the world. No sweat.

    You need to define theocracy, Aphrael. You’re being absurd. God was the ultimate civil authority behind the monarch’s authority in England. That means it was strictly exactly a theocracy.

    Why do you think the pilgrims had to leave?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  153. Also, what was my point?

    That the Christian principles being defined by the USA in the 18th century could just have fairly be defined by 18th century England. Defining them by the very rare exception, the USA, while ignoring the other examples, is cherry picking.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  154. Some people have a dumbed down definition of theocracy, where if there are elections or freedom of religion, the government can’t be theocratic.

    That’s simply wrong.

    But even under that strained and silly definition, there are examples of Christian theocracies.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  155. Dustin, you are confusing a kingdom ruling in the name of a religion with a theocracy. That’s why Alphrael rightfully challenges your use of the term.

    The fact that the English monarchy found it convenient to swap out religions several times in the 16th and 17th centuries should have been the first clue.

    That a soverign adds “His Most Christian Majesty” to his many titles does not create a theocracy.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  156. “The fact that the English monarchy found it convenient to swap out religions several times in the 16th and 17th centuries should have been the first clue.”

    The first clue that it’s a theocracy, that they had to do that. The Church of England could pass laws and overrule laws. The king had to be justified by the church, that’s why he had to change the church.

    But don’t miss the point: the position of the King was the his rule, just as the laws parliament passed (even into the 20th century) were backed by God. Even if they change the church’s rules around, they are still trying to make a system where God is the basis.

    Theocracy: a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state’s supreme civil ruler.

    Of course England meets that definition in the 18th century.

    And regardless, this is nit picking. Not only is the claim that there has never been a Christian theocracy ridiculous, but the claim that Christian principles get to be defined by ignoring most Christian societies is going to miss the point. What made the USA special simply isn’t Christianity.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  157. Or rather, what makes the USA special is not *just* Christianity itself.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  158. Here’s a suggestion. Read what the founding father’s actually meant by freedom of religion. They actually meant Christianity and Judao religions, not muhammedism, not witchcraft, not devil worship, etc…….

    peedoffamerican (422035)

  159. Dustin, I am carefully ignoring the claim that there has never been a Christian theocracy. It’s absurd, and not worth arguing the point. 🙂

    I am more interested in the claim that seventeenth century England was a theocracy. It really wasn’t in any meaningful sense.

    Sure, the Stuart monarchs claimed to be ruling by dint of divine rule. But that claim was absurd, and everyone at court knew it: they were ruling because their ancestors won a bitter civil war. They came to power through secular means and then tried to use religion to bolster their authority.

    Moreover, the Hanoverians did not make that claim. They couldn’t make that claim. They came to power because Parliament invited them in; Parliament had established the right to depose, and anoint, the king, and God no longer had anything to do with it.

    The pilgrims had to leave because Queen Elizabeth’s Parliament had defined a particular set of religious practices to be the only practices acceptable for public practice, and because Parliament had passed a law compelling attendance at “Church of England” services. It’s certainly true that Queen Elizabeth approved the settlement, but it’s also true that Parliament enacted the law, and that the exact nature of the Anglican settlement was largely thrashed out by priests working together with Parliament, while the Queen presided aloofly over the whole thing.

    Amusingly, the period in English history which most closely resembled a theocracy was actually the period of the English Civil War.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  160. Peedoffamerican: I take it, then, that when the framers say one thing but there is extrinsic evidence that they meant something other than what they said, you think we should let the extrinsic evidence control?

    The framers said that Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion. They did not say that Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Christian religion.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  161. Aphrael, thanks for the well reasoned point, but if the Church of England was able to overrule acts of Parliament, and was the justification for Parliament and the King’s power, I think it was a theocracy in a meaningful sense.

    Perhaps the reason we don’t see eye to eye on this is that I don’t really see the problem with England’s theocracy. Theocracy is a bad word to many, I just think it’s a fact of life. Most nations are simply not as good as the USA. Most peoples couldn’t handle a piece of paper being our basis.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  162. You know that England justified its Royalty because God made someone king. Thus, England recognized that God was the supreme civil ruler and the authority of the king he chose on that grounds. That’s theocracy.

    No, that’s not theocracy. That’s the “divine right of kings” theory. Theocracy is a state in which civic power is in the hands of a church, in which there is no distinction made betwen civic power and church power. Iran at present is a theocracy. England was never one. Church power in Enland was never the same as state power, and for the past several hundred years its been subordinate to state power.

    Subotai (d9b9c3)

  163. Let’s not let this jack the thread though.

    The USA should honor its Pagan troops however it honors her Christian ones. Christianity can totally handle that.

    There are serious threats to our culture’s good values, but honoring our troops freedom of religion is not one of them, in my opinion.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  164. Dustin – the Church of England could not overrule acts of Parliament and was subordinate to the King.

    For me, it’s not a theocracy unless the religious authorities are calling the shots, as in modern Iran or the Vatican City. Which is to say: it’s a theocracy if the secular power is subordinate to some religious authority; if, as in England, the religious authority is subordinate to the secular power, it’s something else entirely.

    I think the case of late-era Byzantium is a very strange special case, but that’s primarily a result of the fact that the nobility and the court were theology-obsessed in a way that very few similar cadres have been in other historical eras.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  165. I am carefully ignoring the claim that there has never been a Christian theocracy. It’s absurd, and not worth arguing the point.

    You’re not usually so reticent, aphrael. 🙂

    Subotai (d9b9c3)

  166. Wow. I think that’s the first time I’ve ever agreed with subotai about anything. 🙂

    Dustin, agreed at 163. Which is why I was trying to bring up the four chaplains: religiously-affiliated military officials who are greatly deserving of honor, and who should be remembered today.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  167. For me, it’s not a theocracy unless the religious authorities are calling the shots, as in modern Iran

    Ah. Me and aphrael, side by side, fighting the good fight for truth.

    Subotai (d9b9c3)

  168. Subotai, the best thing about disagreeing respectfully is that it makes it much easier to man the barricades together on the day of agreement.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  169. The government of England forcibly restricted the practice of any religion other than that of the Church of England. Catholic priests were arrested and imprisoned for performing the mass. Catholics were fairly brutally repressed.

    How, exactly, was England in that period NOT a “theocracy” of some sort?

    PatHMV (c0c73a)

  170. Yup. I think our disagreements have always been respectful, aphrael. You’re a rare example of a civil, intelligent, and reasonable person from the left.

    Of course, that leaves me wondering how you can be so wrong so often 😉

    Subotai (d9b9c3)

  171. This is a red herring anyway.

    Saying the USA is a Christian nation and gets credit for the wonderful principles (which are much more compatible with modern Christianity than some other religions) of an individual right to life, liberty, and property simply opens a door to absurd contradictions.

    I am not criticizing Christianity, Or even theocracies. And even if you decided that theocracy doesn’t include what I think it blatantly theocracy, 18th century England is just as Christian as the American revolution. Point being, Christians came up with principles that conflicted with the principles of other Christians.

    It’s those principles themselves we should identify, instead of allowing lazy thinking to credit the religion that was on both sides of the argument.

    Not so I can bash Christianity. Just because it’s the damn truth.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  172. 160.Peedoffamerican: I take it, then, that when the framers say one thing but there is extrinsic evidence that they meant something other than what they said, you think we should let the extrinsic evidence control?

    Aphrael

    Exactly what I mean. How else would you determine what they actually meant? The federalist papers lay out what they meant in the language that they used.

    How do you determine what is actually meant by militia? By referencing the federalist papers and discovering that they meant every able bodied male from the ages of 18-65. Otherwise militia could mean anything that a modern day person would wish to attribute to it.

    peedoffamerican (422035)

  173. How, exactly, was England in that period NOT a “theocracy” of some sort?

    I guess “theocracy of some sort” leaves a lot of room to play around in. You could arge that the US today is a “fascist state of some sort”, or a “communist state of some sort”, with equal plausibility.

    Briefly, it’s not enough for the leaders of a country to possess a certain religious belief to call it a “theocracy”. Would you call Israel today a theocracy?

    Subotai (d9b9c3)

  174. Saying the USA is a Christian nation and gets credit for the wonderful principles (which are much more compatible with modern Christianity than some other religions) of an individual right to life, liberty, and property simply opens a door to absurd contradictions.

    It’s those principles themselves we should identify, instead of allowing lazy thinking to credit the religion that was on both sides of the argument.

    What if they’re not “principles”? What if they are actually conclusions, based on certain underlying reasoning and a certain set of axioms about the nature of the world, reasoning and axioms which you are willing to discard?

    What are those principles which you wish to protect and preseve based on? If it’s nothing, why should we be bothered with protecting and preserving them?

    Subotai (d9b9c3)

  175. Most nations are simply not as good as the USA. Most peoples couldn’t handle a piece of paper being our basis.

    A piece of paper is not our basis and the Founders, if there were here, would cudgel you about the head and shoulders for suggesting such a thing.

    This appears to be the sort of “propositional nation” twaddle so popular with the fans of Harry Jaffa.

    And what’s this “most peoples” stuff? Don’t you know that Americans are not a people? You’ll be calling them Christians next.

    Subotai (d9b9c3)

  176. aphrael,

    Do you think that “Our Hearts Were Young and Gay” by Cornelia Otis Skinner was about homosexuals? How do I know it was not? By going back and researching exactly how the words were used by the author in that era and what was meant by their usage.

    Good try, better luck next time.

    peedoffamerican (422035)

  177. Subatoi has a hard time being objective or fair on this topic, but I don’t hold it against him. It’s really normal when you bring up religion to have that issue.

    Not being sarcastic… I just realize there’s no way to have a discussion with someone on this topic when they insist the Constitution isn’t the basis of the US Government and that there’s never been a Christian Theocracy. He’s probably a normal person with great insights who is totally capable of being fair on other topics (not being sarcastic), but I don’t think anything profitable can come from this particular debate with him.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  178. There’s a difference between theocracy and establishmentarianism. There was an incestuous relationship between church and state in many nations, not just England, because both sides saw the advantage in an alliance against the people. In any case, if you’re looking for a theocracy nown Tibet’s your huckleberry.

    nk (b9e46d)

  179. I just realize there’s no way to have a discussion with someone on this topic when they insist the Constitution isn’t the basis of the US Government and that there’s never been a Christian Theocracy. He’s probably a normal person with great insights who is totally capable of being fair on other topics (not being sarcastic), but I don’t think anything profitable can come from this particular debate with him.

    Was there a thought hidden in there somewhere in that nest of strawmen, Dustin?

    You might want to take some lessons on how to disagree with people in a civil manner. I’ll see if aphrael is available if you like.

    But on a bright note, at least you didn’t tell me what terrible people my parents were this time. That’s progress of a sort.

    Subotai (8d5593)

  180. “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” – Benjamin Franklin.

    “Our Constitution was made only by a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams.

    “Neither the wisest Constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” – Samuel Adams.

    “If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America — a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it. – If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.” – James Madison

    The Founders were notably lacking in any quasi-religous belief in the powers of the Constitution to be the “basis” of the American people. They thought the American people were the basis of the Constitution.

    Subotai (8d5593)

  181. I hope the people who want the state to decide who is a sincere believer and what are approved churches for Constitutional protection will be happy if this or a future Democratic administration decides to de-legitimize their church if it does not teach the approved state doctrine on abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, respect for Islam, or whatever is PC at the time. Welcome to Canada where you can be jailed for quoting scripture.

    The founders tried hard to establish rule of law rather than rule by men. This is a big step away from that. Freedom of worship, IF the state approves.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  182. You might want to take some lessons on how to disagree with people in a civil manner. I’ll see if aphrael is available if you like.

    Please do not invoke me in this way; I find being used indirectly to reprimand someone else to be distasteful. 🙁

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  183. Machinist: I am happy to report that pro-gay-marriage legislators in California have introduced a bill which would make it explicit in state law that, if gay marriage is ever reinstated (by repealing Prop. 8), clergymen cannot be required to perform gay marriages which violate their religious tenets.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  184. “Please do not invoke me in this way; I find being used indirectly to reprimand someone else to be distasteful.”

    – aphrael

    You are a classy fellow, sir.

    Leviticus (219d63)

  185. aphrael,
    With respect, Sir. I have no concern about what any church chooses to teach or practice regarding it. I am very concerned when either Party floats the idea of telling any church what they can teach or preach. I would be just as much against an administration pushing against the idea of gay marriage by churches. I respect no religion. I respect every man’s right to believe in his, even if I think it is a sham. The Federal government certainly had no business supporting Scientology. I consider it a fraud and a sham, but I don’t propose that anyone has the right to vandalize their “churches”.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  186. “- aphrael

    You are a classy fellow, sir.

    Comment by Leviticus — 2/3/2010 @ 4:16 pm ”

    I agree!

    Machinist (9780ec)

  187. Machinist: I think we failed to communicate on that one, largely through my fault.

    You expressed a concern that the state might attempt to deligitimize a church due to a disagreement between the leaders of the state and that church on matters of doctrine.

    I was pointing out that in California, the legislator’s supporters of gay marriage are going out of their way to ensure that churches cannot be punished for failing to conduct marriages that violate the doctrines of those churches.

    I would expect you to applaud that. 🙂

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  188. I probably should refrain from this, but temptation has been denied too long:

    Whatever a “Christian theocracy” is. The next one to exist will be the first one.

    I think it’s patently clear that the pre-1860 Papal States were a Christian Theocracy. Secular power in that entity rested explicitly in the hands of a Christian religious authority.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  189. Leviticus, Machinist: thank you. 🙂

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  190. It is time to get back to the old time religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.

    M. Simon (eeb609)

  191. aphrael,
    I am uncomfortable about the legislature giving itself jurisdiction in this area, regardless of my approval of the specific proposal. The Constitution tells them to keep hands off in my view and I am afraid if they set this precedent, they establish the power to rule the other way later. It is as I said earlier, no government should have that power. I do not want it for my side if I would not want it in my opponents hands later.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  192. Aphrael writes: “Amusingly, the period in English history which most closely resembled a theocracy was actually the period of the English Civil War.”

    And the subsequent Protectorship, exactly so.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  193. This comment thread should be combined with that of the previous post. The President is not supposed to say negative things about Las Vegas and we are not supposed to say negative things about witches. We could write an Addams Family script, I think.

    nk (db4a41)

  194. I don’t care if it rains or freezes
    As long as I got that plastic Jesus
    Ridin on the dashboard of my car

    I can go 100 miles an hour
    Long as I got that almighty power…….

    daleyrocks (718861)

  195. […] Pontifications: Millennium Bomber’s Lenient Sentence Reversed . . . By the Ninth Circuit? and Thank God Goodness None of the Pagans Were Vampires Andrew McCarthy, National Review Online: ‘Bring my lawyer! — That’s what’s so […]

    New Offense to Jihadists: Secret Bible Messages on Advanced Optical Scopes Used by Our Military Against Terrorists « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  196. Comment by Subotai — 2/3/2010 @ 12:21 pm

    The difference between the 1st & 2nd A’s is that the 1st states that “Congress shall make no law”.

    The 2nd has a general proscription that this right “shall not be infringed” without stating who may not do so.

    After all, without the 2nd, how can you compel any government to recognize the others?

    AD - RtR/OS! (b1d1f9)

  197. I am relieved to find that after such a long debate, someone (aphrael) has finally remembered the long lost Papal States of central Italy,
    which come the closest to the concept of a Christian Theocracy;
    and, let us also include their modern remnants: Vatican City,
    though I am not familiar as to what form the criminal and civil codes take within the City –
    could it be that this small Principality is ruled by the Ten Commandments?.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b1d1f9)

  198. You have to be mighty mighty white to not be able to understand how threatening a cross can be and how it can be just as repulsive as a swasitka. Especially the burning kind surrounded by guys in white hoods.

    Perhaps Jame’s O’Keefe can disguise himself as a klansman to investigate this.

    Assclown doodyheads (f0d390)

  199. Here comes assclown doodyheads, a day late and a brain short.

    nk (db4a41)

  200. You can’t be short of what you never possessed.

    AD - RtR/OS! (b1d1f9)

  201. Patterico, this was a poor post, verging on childish. If the Air Force designated specific areas for various denominations and some class-A churl decides to evangelize for his own purposes, why is complaining not appropriate?

    Sneering is really not an appropriate reaction, although I’m sure it feels good. Most people learn to control that urge when they work around people with really wacky beliefs and have a professional need to be polite. I know I must exercise that control when I contemplate the guys who worship the many blue gods with many arms, or that really wacky religion that was started by the guy with the gold plates and the magic hat.

    I would think the golden rule would apply to the situation at hand here, at least with respect to those of the commentariat who pretend to align with that particular religion.

    JSinAZ (ae2d5e)

  202. JsinAZ,

    Patterico pointed out how silly it is to compare a Cross at a Wiccan temple to a Swastika at a Jewish temple.

    Give me a break. He’s got a point.

    You’re saying people here are only pretending to be Christians, so don’t lecture us on evangelizing or dumb complaining.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  203. I would think the golden rule would apply to the situation at hand here, at least with respect to those of the commentariat who pretend to align with that particular religion.

    Comment by JSinAZ — 2/3/2010 @ 8:17 pm

    That’s already been discussed. Putting up with atheists, trying to make all religions look ridiculous by creating absurd ones, on the taxpayers’ dime, is no real religion’s obligation.

    nk (db4a41)

  204. Hell, Weinstein likely put the cross there his own self.

    nk (db4a41)

  205. “Sneering is really not an appropriate reaction”

    JsinAZ – If you detected sneering, it was directed at Weinstein’s over the top equivalency between what was interpreted as a Christian cross and a swastika. Some people have no sense of humor I guess or don’t like being equated to Nazis. Go figure.

    Try reading it again.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  206. As I understand the situation, the Air Force (rightly or wrongly) already made the decision to make space for that religion. Your recognition or theirs is no longer at issue – accomodation was already made by the Air Force. Apparently Wicca as a religion got the gold seal of government approval, so they must offically be taken seriously, at least with respect to the space they were given in which to do whatever it is they do.

    And I must reinforce that my issue here is the frankly childish way in which the subject has been argued by many. Unfortunately I have lost respect for certain posters, and can only hope that they had too much vodka or adrenaline and were not thinking clearly.

    JSinAZ (ae2d5e)

  207. JsinAz, it’s religion. It’s faith. Some people are not going to rely on pure logic and provable facts. I have a hard time dealing with it too, but I recognize this and just admit I can’t have a profitable discussion.

    I don’t tell people they are only pretending to be whatever religion they think they are. I don’t come down from my high horse to point out how people have lost my super precious respect.

    You aren’t really even arguing anything but the banal point about the military respecting Wicca. The meat of the matter is that people were being ridiculous to compare the cross to a swastika. That was obvious, it was reasonable, and when it’s pointed out to you your response is to ignore the point.

    Why should anyone WANT your respect?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  208. So—if I had a problem with Catholics, I take it that nobody here would much mind if I left a bunch of Jack Chick’s choicer anti-Catholic tracts scattered all around in the Catholic chapel at the Air Force Academy? Or does freedom of religion and the right to practice it in peace only apply to religions that have powerful voting blocs at their beck and call?

    What the Jeeztards* have never explained to me is how anybody can reconcile Christianity with being an AF officer. Christians, as I understand it, are commanded to be humble…the next humble fighter pilot I meet will be the first. I also am not aware of just what part of the Gospels it is where Jesus told his disciples: “Go forth and bomb those who do not believe from 80,000 feet.”

    *A Jeeztard is a Christian who uses his religion to be a total pain-in-the-ass…the sort of person who proselytizes incessantly, harasses people who believe different things or don’t believe at all, and howls “Religious persecution!” when informed of rules that restrict his behavior. A prime example of a Jeeztard is Fred Phelps and his congregation at Westboro Baptist Church.

    Technomad (677f63)

  209. I’m not sure how a lame comment about a swastika in a synagog resulting in relatively more outrage means that Christians were being compared to Nazis. There is a syllogistic problem here – I think you need to work that equation again.

    JSinAZ (ae2d5e)

  210. Dustin – don’t worry, even if you are a dick I will try to be polite to you. Even if it hurts. Ouch.

    JSinAZ (ae2d5e)

  211. Jesus Christ on roller skates…… what a thread.

    i’m not sure, nor do i care, what rest of you believe, but after that i believe i’ll have a stiff drink.

    cheers.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  212. “*A Jeeztard is a Christian who uses his religion to be a total pain-in-the-ass…the sort of person who proselytizes incessantly, harasses people who believe different things or don’t believe at all”

    Technomad – Your definition sounds like the religious equivalent of a libtard.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  213. “And I must reinforce that my issue here is the frankly childish way in which the subject has been argued by many.”

    JSinAZ – But in comment #201 you criticized Patterico for putting up a post which verged on childish. Is that still your opinion or are you just criticizing commenters?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  214. Daleyrocks: You got it in one. I have nothing against people who honestly try to be Christians, but in my own view, that starts by living up to the things Jesus is said to have taught, not by being incredibly obnoxious and pestering people who’ve made it clear that they don’t want to be bothered. I used to work nights, and door-to-door religious pests were one of the minor banes of my existence, since they would not understand that working nights meant that I slept during the day and really didn’t want to be disturbed for anything less than an emergency.

    Technomad (677f63)

  215. Dustin – don’t worry, even if you are a dick I will try to be polite to you. Even if it hurts. Ouch.

    Comment by JSinAZ

    I wasn’t worried. And you weren’t polite. At least own what you are and what you say. Have some basic self respect.

    I treat people as I want to be treated. Now, I’m not sensitive to people being frank, but if you can’t handle my tone, you are a total francis.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  216. if I had a problem with Catholics, I take it that nobody here would much mind if I left a bunch of Jack Chick’s choicer anti-Catholic tracts scattered all around in the Catholic chapel at the Air Force Academy? Or does freedom of religion and the right to practice it in peace only apply to religions that have powerful voting blocs at their beck and call?

    I don’t think that’s a fair reaction to the thread. It’s not that leaving the cross as OK. It’s that the comment about it being like a swastika reveals some bullshit thinking. the hysteria some show towards Christians is kinda unfair at times.

    Of course, a lot of people disagree with eachother in this thread about various points. So lumping everyone together might be presumptive.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  217. Dustin, it is not a matter of handling your tone. I ignore cretins everyday, and in this one instance I made the mistake of not ignoring one. In your case I shall not make the mistake again.

    Yes, I think much of the commentariat and Patterico himself could ladel on more golden rule and cut back on the sneer. But some people like sneer, and it plays well to sycophants.

    JSinAZ (ae2d5e)

  218. Of course, when other religions disrespect Christianity, the Christians are outraged. But when they disrespect other religions, it’s a different story.

    JEA (1eb0e1)

  219. JEA, Christians actually are outraged when Christians disrespect others too. Remember Pat Robertson Most of the people pissed at him were Christians.

    Let’s not pretend a religion is a mass of agreement.

    And let’s not pretend Christianity is on par with all other religions. It has been related to much of the progress in recent times. I pointed out way earlier that you can’t say USA style government is ‘christian’ and other christian cultures aren’t ‘christian’, but the kinds of progress you see from Rev MLK Jr and Thomas Jefferson NEVER come from many of these religions that are said to be peers.

    There is no reason to pretend all religions are equal. Wicca, Scientology, Islam… they simply don’t have the results.

    This is a separate argument from whether we should treat troops of different faiths equally. Of course we should. But Christians critical of inferior views is not incompatible with freedom of religion.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  220. JsinAz.

    You are projecting when you whine about sneering. I didn’t tell others they were mere pretend Christians. I didn’t lie about their arguments, either. You’re the one calling people ‘dick’ and being generally trollish.

    Every time I have actually had a back and forth with Patterico we’ve disagreed in some way. really, the only times I can recall backing up his views is when some jerk tries to tell him to shut up. There’s no sycophancy… that’s just another lazy argument.

    You can’t make an argument, so it certainly is better if you ‘ignore’ people who can. You came here and consistently refused to contribute anything except some pretty ugly insults. Frankly, you’re a bigot and when you whine about how everyone is losing your respect, you are making us feel good.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  221. “There is no reason to pretend all religions are equal. Wicca, Scientology, Islam… they simply don’t have the results.”

    What results do you speak of? How many of their belivers go to Heaven? How much they give to charity? How rich their churches are?

    “This is a separate argument from whether we should treat troops of different faiths equally. Of course we should. But Christians critical of inferior views is not incompatible with freedom of religion.”

    I don’t even know where to being with this statement. It’s ridiculous on its face. This is about respecting others’ beliefs. You obviously don’t think others’ beliefs are worth respecting.

    In the meantime, I think I’ll go put a naked pagan statue of some goddess on the doorstep of the local Baptist church so I can gauge their reaction.

    JEA (1eb0e1)

  222. “So what government bureaucrat shall decide what are “real” religions? The same ones that decide who are real journalists? Are you really in favor of giving the this administration that kind of power?”

    My father said he became a little cynical when his CO closed the Sunday church service early because he wanted have a meeting of the Officer’s Mess.

    davod (bce08f)

  223. What results do you speak of? How many of their belivers go to Heaven? How much they give to charity? How rich their churches are?

    I think it’s clear from context that Dustin was saying that these other religions have not had results in the sense that they have not been major driving forces behind social and political progress. The civil rights movement was in large part a result of Christian activism. So, too, was abolition.

    [Note: I’m not a Christian; in fact, I’m far from it. But I also believe in giving credit where credit is due – and a great deal of the humanization of western society has been a result of actions taken by committed Christians as part of an effort to make the world comport better with their beliefs.]

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  224. Machinist: one of the arguments that opponents of gay marriage have made is that, if the state legalizes gay marriage, churches will be forced to conduct gay marriages against their will and against their religious beliefs.

    I think it’s clear that the first amendment would prohibit such a thing. But it’s hard to convince people that that’s true.

    So the gay rights people in California are trying to pre-empt the argument by explicitly prohibiting the outcome that opponents of gay marriage say they are afraid of.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  225. I probably shouldn’t have bothered with this thread. I’m as dogmatic as subotai, just in my own direction.

    Aphrael intelligently conveyed what I meant.

    Christianity has been a good thing in a way other religions haven’t been. And I don’t think that means we can favor it legally. In fact, I argue that Christ doesn’t need Uncle Sam’s help.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  226. FWIW, Wicca and Scientology are both very, very new. When they’ve been around as long as Christianity, ask me what they have or have not done.

    I will admit freely to being hostile to Christianity, partly because for all my life, my family had side-businesses of various sorts…and we always had to deal with the government favoring religiously-based or religion-owned competitors in various ways (easier inspections, lower or no taxes, and so on.)

    Technomad (677f63)

  227. Pagan religions go back farther than Christianity. At least three days of our week are named after pagan gods. The pagan Vikings did not have to abolish slavery as they did not have it in our sense. Many, many pagans were killed, maimed, or driven from their homes in the name of Christianity. Why is it not reasonable for them to find it as objectionable as Jews would find a swastika?

    Disapproving of another person’s religion or even criticizing it is one thing, vandalizing their place of worship is another. Many of our “Christian” symbols are in fact pagan symbols or rites that Christians adopted. Christmas trees, holly, Easter eggs, and the date of Christmas itself were borrowed from pagan religion as the pagan holidays were more popular than the Christian ones. That is why Christmas just happens to fall on the winter solstice. As the the lack of expensive churches and cathedrals, should we judge Christian religions by the same standards? Are Quakers not legitimate? Should Mormons and Scientology followers be considered more legitimate than Protestant churches that don’t build lavish churches or rake in the big money? As I said before, I don’t respect any religion and I feel that the Constitution forbids the government to do so. I do respect everyone’s right to worship their religion, even if I don’t think it is correct. I feel our country was founded on Christian principles and values and I don’t think it can survive long without them, but I do not want the government favoring Christian churches. I don’t know how many pagans are at the Academy but there are clearly some or this issue would not have come up. If they wanted a chapel like the Christian one then numbers would be more important, but they just a circle of stones in the woods. A man serving the military should be allowed this. If they are not to get this then that is for command to decide, not bigots. If some cadets decide they don’t want blacks at the Academy, should it be OK for them to violate orders and harass black cadets. Are we to abandon discipline? Given the power we plan to put in these peoples hands, I hope they are respectful of command authority, if not other cadets’ rights to hold different religious beliefs.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  228. Actually, machinist, all of the days of the week were named for pagan gods.

    Sunday- Sun god.
    Monday–moon god.
    Tuesday–Tiw ot Tyr, a norse god.
    Wednesday–Wodin, norse god.
    Thursday–Thor, norse god.
    Friday–Frigg, norse god.
    Saturday–Saturn, roman god.

    peedoffamerican (cadcec)

  229. Actually, machinist, all of the days of the week were named for pagan gods.

    Sunday- Sun god.
    Monday–moon god.
    Tuesday–Tiw or Tyr, a norse god.
    Wednesday–Wodin, norse god.
    Thursday–Thor, norse god.
    Friday–Frigg, norse god.
    Saturday–Saturn, roman god.

    peedoffamerican (cadcec)

  230. There are pagans, pagans, pagans, pagans, pagans, and pagans. Six different kinds. The Greek and Roman pagans brought about Western civilization. The Hindus and Chinese Eastern civilization. The Third World pagans are still eating each other. The Germanic pagans, such as the Wiccans, plunged the world into the Dark Ages. And then Christianity managed to exterpitate them and reduce into a bunch of overweight, ugly nutcases, dancing around naked in white sheets and mistletoe garlands. Until atheists who want to ridicule all religions tried to make them credible to idiot bureaucrats.

    nk (db4a41)

  231. Wiccans did not cause the Dark Ages. The collapse of Roman power from runaway welfare spending, and a cooling spell caused by a natural event that dropped temperatures, driving barbarians South and West. The cooler temperatures also caused a major outbreak of the Black Death. The collapse of the economy and infrastructure kept the civilization from recovering until strong leaders restored a semblance of order and education. The Viking raids extended this time but the Dark ages were well along before they came.

    Machinist (d5db5d)

  232. peedoffamerican,
    I can’t really argue so I will concede the point. I think some of those are Germanic rather than Norse but they are similar, like Greek and Roman mythology could be said to be the same.

    Machinist (9780ec)

  233. […] Pontifications: Millennium Bomber’s Lenient Sentence Reversed . . . By the Ninth Circuit? and Thank God Goodness None of the Pagans Were Vampires Nice Deb: Was The Intelligence Gained By The Obama Administration From The Xmas Panty Bomber, […]

    TGIF… Attorney General Holder Reveals That Justice Department Officials Have Worked for Terrorist Detainees « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)

  234. […] Pontifications: Millennium Bomber’s Lenient Sentence Reversed . . . By the Ninth Circuit? and Thank God Goodness None of the Pagans Were Vampires Nice Deb: Was The Intelligence Gained By The Obama Administration From The Xmas Panty Bomber, […]

    Casualties of War… Absent from NY Times During “Age of Obama” « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1585 secs.