Office Depot Refuses To Print Christian’s Pro-Life Handout
[guest post by Dana]
Office Depot was recently under fire for refusing the request of Maria Goldstein to print 500 copies of a handout containing a pro-life prayer and statistics about Planned Parenthood. The company claimed, among other things, that it advocated the persecution of certain groups.
The prayer, written by Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, is part of a national prayer campaign to:
“Bring an end to the killing of children in the womb, and bring an end to the sale of their body parts. Bring conversion to all who do this, and enlightenment to all who advocate it.”
The prayer also denounces “the evil that has been exposed in Planned Parenthood and in the entire abortion industry.”
The Office Depot employee reportedly told Goldstein that she was free to use the self-serve copy machines at the Office Depot, but Goldstein declined due to the inconvenience of making 500 copies. She opted to take her business to another print shop.
Office Depot stood by the decision to refuse her service:
Karen Denning of Office Depot defended her company’s refusal to make copies of the prayer, stating that company policy forbids “the copying of any type of material that advocates any form of racial or religious discrimination or the persecution of certain groups of people.”
“It also prohibits copying any type of copyrighted material,” she added. “The flier contained material that advocates the persecution of people who support abortion rights.”
Goldstein does not agree:
“The intention of the prayer is to ask for conversion,” she said. “The conversion of the staff, employees, everybody who is part of this at Planned Parenthood. It means they will recognize life has dignity and that it is valuable and not a commodity to be bought and sold.”
She further claimed:
“Office Depot is discriminating against me based on my religion,” said Maria Goldstein. “If the store can pick and choose what orders it fills based on religious content, it is refusing to treat people of faith equally. In America where we value freedom of religion, this is simply unacceptable.”
Goldstein is currently being represented by the Thomas Moore Society. They have given Office Depot five days to print the handout. If Office Depot does not comply, they will go before the Cook County Human Rights Commission and the Illinois Department of Human Rights to file a complaint.
Here is a copy of Goldstein’s handout advocating the persecution of people who support abortion rights:
Earlier yesterday, Office Depot sent the Thomas More Society a letter claiming that Goldstein’s flyer violated Office Depot standards regarding graphic material or hate speech. However, upon further review, they backed down and apologized to Goldstein :
Office Depot has contacted Ms. Goldsteins’s representative to explain that the store associate’s decision to decline a print order was in no way based on religious beliefs, but on the fact that it contained certain words and phrases that could be construed as graphic or advocates the persecution of groups of people, which is a violation of the company’s copy and print policy. Office Depot has long maintained a policy of not allowing associates to print items that violate copyright laws, advocate persecution of any group or contain graphic material.
Upon a more detailed review, we have determined that the content of Ms. Goldstein’s flyer is not a clear violation of the company’s policy.
“We sincerely apologize to Ms. Goldstein for her experience and our initial reaction was not at all related to her religious beliefs. We invite her to return to Office Depot if she still wishes to print the flyer,” said Roland Smith, chairman and chief executive officer, Office Depot.
(emphasis added)
–Dana
the unnamed employee what did the refusing should be fired cause of how stupid they are
i assume Karen Denning is just a paid spokeswhore doing her job, but she seems like she’s not a terribly bright person either
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 11:29 ammy old office depot in studio city closed after i left
i wonder if part of the problem was their employees were stupid in the head like these ones
i’m excited to see what takes its place though
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 11:42 amThat was easy.
Yes, I know the tagline is from Staples.
Bill H (2a858c) — 9/12/2015 @ 11:45 amThere is not a single word or phrase that could be construed in any way as advocating the persecution of any group of people. Conversely, refusing to print that prayer is yet another company/group deliberately trying to harm and discriminate against Christians. Bye-bye Office Depot, I’ll drive the extra two blocks to Staples.
Hoagie (f4eb27) — 9/12/2015 @ 11:55 amthe capitalism-hating wholly corrupt obama ftc is still trying to figure out how to scuttle the staples/office depot merger
Amazon launched an initiative this year to target these bozos, so it may not even matter much whether the deal gets scuttled or not
it’s called Amazon Business here’s an article and here’s the site
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 11:56 amBye-bye Office Depot, I’ll drive the extra two blocks to Staples.
merica!
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 11:57 amSorry, I meant Kinko’s, but Staples isn’t that far either.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 9/12/2015 @ 11:59 amon the other hand someone needs to tell sweetie pickles it’s really and truly not even a little bit hard to do 500 copies of a one-sided flier with the copiers at Office Depot and you save a lot of monies doing it that way
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 12:00 pmKaren Denning of Office Depot
Hmm. How much you wanna bet that Denning is a devout, dyed-in-the-wool, probably Hillary-loving, Barack-loving liberal? Either that or her ability to read and understand the written word is pretty lousy because that flyer is even less controversial — far less into so-called persecution — than I originally thought it would be.
It would be fascinating if Denning, by contrast, believes businesses such as a bakery should be mandated to serve every aspect of the GLBT.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/12/2015 @ 12:08 pmyou save a lot of monies doing it that way
Yea, and GLBT couples can save big money by baking their own cakes.
Mark (dc566c) — 9/12/2015 @ 12:09 pmno Mr. Mark the correct parallelism is that gay people can save a lot of monies by printing their own one-sided fliers as opposed to getting the store to do it for them
trannies probably need help from the counter people though
they’re kinda special
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 12:11 pmPlanned Parenthood et al and selective-child policy was bad. Harvesting and trafficking human tissue, organs, and bodies is worse. People may start to think the humanitarian crisis is actually in their backyard. Perhaps even form correlations between certain policies and the pro-choice doctrine.
n.n (3aeb6f) — 9/12/2015 @ 12:43 pmHey, a woman was mentioned in a post! Let’s make sure to get some variant of the word “whore” or “skank” or “slut” into a comment, pronto!
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 9/12/2015 @ 12:54 pmwhat’s a more better word for people what get paid to say stupid stuff that they can’t possibly actually believe but say it anyway
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 1:06 pmoh my goodness Mr. P she’s a fellow chicago person!
i hope she’s enjoying today it’s beautiful sunny cool and crisp
the first day of fall this year isn’t til september 23 officially, but by golly it’s here already
but fall doesn’t just bring cool weather and great light for taking pictures, it means office depots all across america are bustling into the back to school promotional swing!
We talked to office depot spokesperson Karen Denning about the turning of the season and what it means for the good people of this country trying to stretch their back-to-school dollar.
“I think this time of the year is just so special cause no matter who you are the school supplies are on sale at the office depot to where you can buy them and be a good parent except for if you want to print fliers that are totally against our policy one week but the next week we’re super enthusiastic about printing!”
Well we think you’re pretty special too, Karen.
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 1:27 pmHow about spokesman, or spokeswoman, or even the eponymous spokesperson? These people get paid for trying to handle a bad situation with orders from well above them. Tell me Happy, what do you do for a living? It isn’t for some large retailer that occasionally makes mistakes like this, is it?
Bill H (2a858c) — 9/12/2015 @ 1:27 pmi don’t work in retail Mr. H
one summer i worked in a toy store though it was in a mall in a small town in texas
i had to follow plan-o-grams and help people find the perfect toys
i never did any demonstrations though where you stand outside the store goofing around with some toy or whatever
i was the only guy on the staff so I had to lift stuff sometimes and pretty much anything involving a ladder was in my bailiwick
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 1:40 pmLarge retailers make mistakes like this when they stick their nose in other people’s business. The customer came in to get something printed not proofread. A simple sign stating “We neither condone nor condemn items on any lawful copying or reproducing, pornography excepted, and welcome all views”. Ms. Goldstein, happyfeet, Bill H and Rev. Hoagie can all patronize any company that minds it’s own business and is non judgmental. I don’t care what Karen Dennings views on anything are and I don’t understand why she or her company should care about mine.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 9/12/2015 @ 2:15 pmwell said Mr. Reverend these office depot weirdos are every bit as inappropriately intrusive as certain county clerks i could mention
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 2:20 pmI guess I’ll be shopping somewhere else for my office supplies.
It is amazing how stupid some people are, while they proclaim their moral and intellectual superiority over us “bitter clingers.”
I guess I’ll go read my Bible and clean my pistols now….
WarEagle82 (44dbd0) — 9/12/2015 @ 2:31 pmActually, I was just after getting Happy to answer me without a lot of consternation, which he did. Answering you directly, though: do you remember that auto mechanic a few months back who said he wouldn’t work on a gay’s car simply ’cause? I thought that so bleeding stupid. Not only did he mark himself as a genuine bigot, but it should have occurred to him that a gay car guy’s money is just as green as a straight car guy’s. That’s sorta what happened here at Office Depot. There was no religious objection stated- they simply didn’t agree. Some of the gays I’ve talked to keep bringing up “public accommodation”. Here, that description really does fit.
Bill H (2a858c) — 9/12/2015 @ 2:41 pmSheesh. I HATE the age I’m living in. Office Depot is not alone in believing they are not there to provide a service but have instead been anointed to police political speech. They must have learned it from a university administrator.
Rich Horton (e6ab50) — 9/12/2015 @ 3:05 pmIf someone wants to print out pro Planned Parenthood/pro-abortion rights material are they advocating persecution of pro-lifers?
Gerald A (949d7d) — 9/12/2015 @ 3:11 pmKaren Denning of Office Depot defended her company’s refusal to make copies of the prayer, stating that company policy forbids “the copying of any type of material that advocates any form of racial or religious discrimination or the persecution of certain groups of people.”
Well, that’s a pretty broad definition if you use the term persecution. Here is the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of the word:
If that’s true, then I would think that here are some other materials that Office Depot might refuse to print:
* A union’s flyer calling for a boycott of a particular business
* A flyer calling for raising taxes on a certain group of people instead of on all people
* Advertisements for a Black Lives Matter meeting in which white people are not allowed to attend
* A poster for a rally expressing opposition to increased immigration
* A newsletter for a private and exclusive society like the Elks Club or a sorority alumnae society
And the list would conceivably go on and on.
JVW (ba78f9) — 9/12/2015 @ 3:38 pmI see Office Depot’s lawyers are considerably smarter than the copy clerks.
There is nothing whatsoever illegal or hateful about this flyer. High time the clerk learned that a difference of opinion is still permissible in the US.
Patricia (5fc097) — 9/12/2015 @ 4:16 pmI guess I’ll be shopping somewhere else for my office supplies.
It is amazing how stupid some people are, while they proclaim their moral and intellectual superiority over us “bitter clingers.”
I guess I’ll go read my Bible and clean my pistols now….
WarEagle82 (44dbd0) — 9/12/2015 @ 2:31 pm
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_O9mb9KR9lA
Just sayin.
donald (151ae0) — 9/12/2015 @ 4:28 pmthere’s a fun game
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 4:47 pmAs obnoxious as Office Depot was, they were within their rights to refuse to make the copies (though they seem to have taken a lot of unnecessary trouble on themselves); conversely pro-life people would be within their rights to boycott or shame Office Depot.
The only thing that concerns me is that there is a Human Rights Commission which was used to threaten Office Depot. This is what’s wrong and unAmerican. I wish the slavers would f–k off to some country where they can enslave each other to their hearts’ content.
Most of the slavers these days reside to the left of the spectrum and I am aware that it wasn’t conservatives–if they could find any in Chicago–who set up that commission and gave it permission to harass private businesses; I don’t blame the pro-life people involved at all.
Using the Left’s institutions against them is probably the only way to get them to see that what they are doing is wrong, but since their morality is based on identity and not principles they will probably refuse to learn anything.
Gabriel Hanna (e2539b) — 9/12/2015 @ 5:04 pmGerald A:
Pro-Planned Parenthood, pro-abortion, and pro-choice/selective-child implies persecution of human babies. The persecution of every other human being follows with a progressive debasement of human life.
n.n (3aeb6f) — 9/12/2015 @ 5:19 pmBill H, I believe the term “public accommodation” has a specific meaning in law but I am not qualified to go any further without looking the fool. I actually did not hear about the anti gay car mechanic and agree his reasoning was stupid. That said I do not believe in either slavery nor involuntary servitude and therefore do not believe anyone should be forced to provide labor for another for any reason even those reasons I disagree with. I know some people will have their feelings hurt and some gays and trannies will get their panties in a bunch but that’s tough they just have to grow up and accept others are not here to do their bidding.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 9/12/2015 @ 5:40 pmStorm in a water glass. Minimum wage moron at Office Depot just didn’t want to work, that’s all.
nk (dbc370) — 9/12/2015 @ 6:26 pmbut then corporate doubled down
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 6:31 pmCYA, to protect against vicarious liability, now that the dipstick put them in the soup.
nk (dbc370) — 9/12/2015 @ 6:55 pmi wish I could’ve been there to offer guidance and insight at the critical time
but if wishes were fishes there’d be a LOT of fishes and bicycle demand would shoot through the roof
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 6:59 pmThe dominant interests in America, which may or may not be American, support: pro-choice/selective-child (i.e. indiscriminate killing), pro-choice/congruence (e.g. transgender marriage), pro-choice/dislocation (i.e. excessive and illegal immigration), etc. They will interpert and apply the law to enforce their will, up to and including violation of human and civil rights of American citizens, businesses, etc.
n.n (3aeb6f) — 9/12/2015 @ 7:02 pmThe dominant interests in America, which may or may not be American, support: pro-choice/selective-child, pro-choice/congruence (e.g. transgender marriage), pro-choice/dislocation (i.e. excessive and illegal immigration), etc. They will interpret or ignore the law to enforce their will, up to and including violation of human and civil rights of American citizens, businesses, etc. Americans without sufficient leverage should tread carefully.
n.n (3aeb6f) — 9/12/2015 @ 7:06 pmI wonder how a religious discrimination lawsuit would fare.
Michael Ejercito (d74b61) — 9/12/2015 @ 7:21 pmOffice Depot is where you go to find out what a product looks like in the analog, before you buy it on Amazon.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 9/12/2015 @ 7:56 pmThe case is moot now.
But if there was still a live case and controversy, Office Depot should win for the reasons explained here.
Michael Ejercito (d74b61) — 9/12/2015 @ 7:59 pm@6,7,17–
I feel slighted. No Office Depot here to boycott. I guess I could go buy some pencils or something at Staple. We have one of those.
Costco is still the better deal on printer paper and toner, although they won’t sell me the size tires I want for my truck, because lawyers.
Gramps, the original (bc022b) — 9/12/2015 @ 9:35 pmIn a little while everything will be Office Depot. They bought up OfficeMax, now they are buying up Staples. I wonder how long
Kinko’sFedEx Office can compete on printing and shipping alone.Now, one could say that there’s no barrier to a new competitor, but clearly Office Depot doesn’t think so.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/12/2015 @ 10:03 pmThe case maybe but the point is definately not moot. Even if Office Depot would have won the case based on the merits (which I think they should have), there is no way they would have fought it. Court costs, plus bad press – Imagine the talking heads and the resulting boycotts – hell theres already backlash just in the comments and Office Depot already caved in. So what has been accomplished is the bullying of a corporation by a frivolous lawsuit. A sad state of affairs.
Gil (4e1585) — 9/12/2015 @ 10:03 pmI saw the trash commented and I wanted to see if his comment was his normal trash, and Gil didn’t disappoint. Trash as usual.
John Hitchcock (166640) — 9/12/2015 @ 10:16 pmGabriel,
We’ve long since passed the point where government stayed out of people’s business. The right to discriminate for any old reason died with Jim Crow. Rules happen when assh0les abuse their lack.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/12/2015 @ 10:29 pmbully like a pickle christians are assertive
got that fat ugly lil thang our kentucky chubby filly she got an accommodation all up in her nethers
all up in her jesusified nethers
no marriage for you no marriage for you
got me jesus in my nethers
in that cold kentucky rain
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 10:30 pmHi John,
Thanks for your thoughtful message.
While I would agree that it would be wrong for Office Depot to say “Sorry we dont cater to Christians” I dont think thats what they did in this case. I look at that flier and see PP compared to a death camp that is staining the ground with innocent blood and a plea for God to end it. I can understand how the Office Depot employee could genuinely be concerned that this could incite someone to do something violent and therefore refuse service. Given the extremely low (almost non-existent) number of violent incidents motivated by skewed Christian beliefs at abortion clinics I think this conclusion is unwarranted. But the point the employee may not have been a very clear thinker. Im sure she would happily have printed any other happy, loving Christian message.
Gil (4e1585) — 9/12/2015 @ 10:36 pmOffice Depot employees don’t get paid to think they get paid to make copies
and to smile while they do it
and to upsell!
hey lady you need some moisturizer with them fliers?
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 10:55 pmThe letter from Ms. Goldstein’s attorney says the Office Depot corporate office told her their stores don’t have to print documents if it makes them “feel uncomfortable.”
DRJ (521990) — 9/12/2015 @ 11:05 pmyes yes yes the feels are key
i been looking for a savior in these dirty streets
looking for a savior beneath these dirty sheets
this is me on keyboards!
happyfeet (831175) — 9/12/2015 @ 11:08 pmThey have a right to have standards about what they print–just like how a baker could decide not to bake a cake with a specific message on it. (Already a Colorado court has ruled in favor of a baker who refused baking a cake due to its content.)
Barry (871eee) — 9/12/2015 @ 11:48 pm“Conversely, refusing to print that prayer is yet another company/group deliberately trying to harm and discriminate against Christians. Bye-bye Office Depot, I’ll drive the extra two blocks to Staples.”
—
I don’t think they are discriminating against Christians. They said nothing about Christians. Christians can go in an print what they want. They just didn’t want to print a specific flier with a specific message on it.
But I get it. That’s your business choice. Just like how a gay couple could drive down the street to order a cake that says, “Happy gay marriage day!”
Barry (871eee) — 9/12/2015 @ 11:51 pm@Gil:I look at that flier and see PP compared to a death camp that is staining the ground with innocent blood and a plea for God to end it. I can understand how the Office Depot employee could genuinely be concerned that this could incite someone to do something violent and therefore refuse service.
Free speech ends if we fail to distinguish rhetoric from actual incitement to violence. This is not the way you want to do this.
Every Democrat who compares a Republican to a Nazi, the Taliban, or a slaveholder would be liable if we agreed that your standard is reasonable.
Gabriel Hanna (e2539b) — 9/13/2015 @ 12:09 amOnce it turns into a prayer, it has gone beyond simple rhetoric with an expressed desire for the end to be hastened.
Besides I dont think Office Depot should have refused service, Im just giving my opinion to the motivation of the employee who did. It was not bigotry toward all Christians.
Gil (4e1585) — 9/13/2015 @ 12:35 amOnce it turns into a prayer, it becomes the very first protection mentioned in the very first amendment, called, believe it or not, The First Amendment. Anti-theist bigot that you are, Gil, it is unsurprising that you attack anything that is called prayer with your usual hatred.
John Hitchcock (166640) — 9/13/2015 @ 1:07 amDear Lord please to save us from failmerican government official Kim Davis and her bizarrely fascist ig-pig way of thinking and her pendulously large trailer park breasts what she likes to rub up against Ted Cruz’s obscenely enlarged paunch while her overall-wearing scarecrow-looking husband clutches at her shoulder with what is clearly a lustful intention.*
jeeper-creepers!
Plus also thank you for the first amendment.
In Jesus’ name we pray.
Amen.
Once it turns into a prayer, it becomes the very first protection mentioned in the very first amendment…
happyfeet (831175) — 9/13/2015 @ 1:22 am(Already a Colorado court has ruled in favor of a baker who refused baking a cake due to its content.)
When dat happen?
nk (dbc370) — 9/13/2015 @ 3:32 amColorado bakery that refused to bake anti-gay cakes did not discriminate, state agency says
happyfeet (831175) — 9/13/2015 @ 3:47 amThanks, happyfeet.
nk (dbc370) — 9/13/2015 @ 4:03 amYet that same bakery could be driven out of business if they refused to bake a pro-gay cake? Someone needs to explain to me how prohibiting a person from putting bible verses on a cake can be construed illegal by the state. If the baker didn’t want to do it that’s fine with me but get the damn state out of it.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 9/13/2015 @ 5:52 amBut killing 300k babies a year is not persecution of a group of people – geeeez
Joe from Texas (debac0) — 9/13/2015 @ 6:05 am“Once it turns into a prayer, it has gone beyond simple rhetoric with an expressed desire for the end to be hastened.”
Always a ray of sunshine, ain’t he…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/13/2015 @ 7:03 am“I stand all amazed
That the love Jesus offers me
Confused at the grace
That so fully He proffers me
I tremble to know that
for me He was crucified
That for me, a sinner
He bled and died
Oh, it is wonderful that
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/13/2015 @ 7:12 amHe should care for me
enough to die for me
Oh, it is wonderful
Wonderful to me”
@Gil:Once it turns into a prayer, it has gone beyond simple rhetoric with an expressed desire for the end to be hastened.
The prayer did not call for violence and it did not call for death. It calls for conversion and enlightenment, for the people involved to renounce it voluntarily.
Even if it had asked God to smite them, the prayer is not addressed to any human, so who would have been incited to violence? Incitement is narrowly defined because people always want to abuse the standard to restrict speech.
You would cut down the laws to get at the Devil, it seems.
Gabriel Hanna (e2539b) — 9/13/2015 @ 8:26 amWait, I thought private businesses shouldn’t be forced to bake cakes, er, make copies, they didn’t like?
I suppose this is completely different. ‘Cause the plaintiffs here are the kind of religious we like. Or something.
Passing by (b48921) — 9/13/2015 @ 8:41 amIf we should allow a baker to not bake a cake for a SSM, then we should allow Office Depot to not copy this prayer. In both cases the businesses are not discriminating against a person, but content. The baker baked non-wedding cakes for homosexuals and Office Depot will copy other types of documents. However, they should in both cases accept that there can be negative publicity. In light of the negative publicity they can decide whether or not to change their policy.
In this case Office Depot decided to allow the photocopies of the prayer because of negative publicity. In the case of the baker, he decided to live with the negative publicity. In both cases the government should stay out of private business.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/13/2015 @ 8:58 amIn the case of the baker, he decided to live with the negative publicity.
But what makes that different from the case involving Office Depot is the judicial system eventually stuck its big nose into complaints lodged against certain bakeries and forced them to go beyond just living with negative publicity.
I’d be perfectly willing for Office Depot to have the rules it chooses and that please it if the left and its supplicants in the judicial system — or in the nonsensical, self-appointed “human rights” commissions found throughout the US — hadn’t pushed things to the next level. So now it’s sort of a matter of what’s good for the goose (or the customer at Office Depot) is good for the gander (or the GLBT).
Mark (dc566c) — 9/13/2015 @ 9:12 amBusinesses and people in business are generally free to make their own choices, but there are limits. Thus, NBC can refuse to run commercials from Sling because it runs a competing service, but businesses can’t discriminate in public accommodations based on race, color, religion or national origin.
However, it’s not always easy to tell if the business decision is based on a allowed competitive choice or a disallowed discriminatory choice. We’ve seen that in the gay bakery cases and in this Office Depot case. These cases can be hard because they require us to decide what motivates people to do what they to, and that isn’t always clear.
For instance, did the Office Depot clerk refuse to print this leaflet because s/he was pro-choice, worried about inciting violence, didn’t like religion, was lazy, or was about to go off-shift? To decide if Office Depot violated Goldstein’s rights, we need to know or have a reasonable basis to know what the clerk’s motive was. “Feeling uncomfortable” suggests the clerk’s refusal was based on the leaflet’s content and thus the refusal might be discriminatory. I suspect that’s why Office Depot reversed course.
DRJ (521990) — 9/13/2015 @ 9:16 am“How Great Thou Art”
“O Lord, my God, when I in awesome wonder
Consider all the worlds Thy Hands have made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, how great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!
And when I think of God, His Son not sparing;
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in;
That on the Cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, how great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!
When Christ shall come with shout of acclamation
And lead me home, what joy shall fill my heart!
Then I shall bow with humble adoration,
And then proclaim, “My God, how great Thou art!”
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 9/13/2015 @ 9:53 amHow great Thou art, how great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!”
It should also be taken into consideration that Office Depot shows up on a database of corporations that have either directly donated to or sponsored events for Planned Parenthood in the past five years.
Dana (86e864) — 9/13/2015 @ 10:02 amSigh. Dana, the old Mark Felt quote is certainly accurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vETxuL7Ij3Q
Follow the money.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/13/2015 @ 10:18 am@Dana:It should also be taken into consideration that Office Depot shows up on a database of corporations that have either directly donated to or sponsored events for Planned Parenthood in the past five years.
I don’t know where you work or what you do. I work for a large (Fortune 500) corporation. I am not aware of the vast majority of what they donate money to, and it wouldn’t affect how I do my job even if I did. They give money to a very large number of groups of all sizes, Planned Parenthood might well be among them but so are any number of kids’ soccer teams, and if one of the kids’ soccer teams produces a notorious criminal am I to be assumed that my actions while at work were intended to further that person’s goals?
Most big companies give a lot of money to a lot of people. I don’t think the tea-leaf-reading you are doing is of much value in understanding the actions of anyone working there.
Gabriel Hanna (e2539b) — 9/13/2015 @ 10:18 amOnce it turns into a prayer, it has gone beyond simple rhetoric with an expressed desire for the end to be hastened
Notice how the inclusion of a prayer is, illogically, what defines it as incitement to violence according to fascist atheists like Gil. Thus things that associate some activity with death camps and call for an end to it, but do not include any hint of religious belief, would not be an incitement to violence under that standard.
I propose any advocacy of atheism be banned as an incitement to violence.
Gerald A (949d7d) — 9/13/2015 @ 11:36 amI don’t think the tea-leaf-reading you are doing is of much value in understanding the actions of anyone working there.
I don’t know, Gabriel Hanna. You may be right, however, would you consider it a possibility that in light of the PP videos and the bad PR they are facing, that their corporate sponsors might be feeling a bit antsy? Is it possible they may have notified their stores to be on the lookout for the very sort of flyer that Goldstein wanted copied because it would be considered an advocacy of hate and persecution of a group the corporation supports?
If Mozilla went after one of its own for contributing to a cause they disagreed with, as a corporate entity, would it be that much of a stretch if Office Depot reacted inappropriately to protect their image?
Dana (86e864) — 9/13/2015 @ 11:46 amSee there is a job you can get with a Masters in Womyn’s Studies
stevg (fed1c9) — 9/13/2015 @ 12:52 pmoh wait.
stevg (fed1c9) — 9/13/2015 @ 1:02 pmNo way they call it a Masters… people have perished at much less an affront
apologies all around. please don’t boycott me
stevg (fed1c9) — 9/13/2015 @ 1:03 pm“I am a survivor of almost having to print a flyer I was uncomfortable with and other harrowing tales of life outside the academic cocoon”
stevg (fed1c9) — 9/13/2015 @ 1:08 pmI don’t know much about Schaumburg. This says it voted Democratic in 2008 and 2012, voting twice for Obama and electing Democrat Tammy Duckworth to Congress, but it’s also the home of the region’s establishment Republicans. It has about 75,000 residents.
DRJ (521990) — 9/13/2015 @ 1:08 pmSteveg, call it a Dominatrix of Womyns Studies, or DWS for short.
John Hitchcock (2025ac) — 9/13/2015 @ 1:35 pmI’m uncomfortable with Planned Parenthood making $127 million in profit in 2013-14, while collecting welfare.
When are they going to start paying the state back for their student loan?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 9/13/2015 @ 1:35 pmNobody loaned them any students, papertiger. Those children weren’t old enough to be students yet.
John Hitchcock (2025ac) — 9/13/2015 @ 1:37 pmWell that explains their parting them out. Living on the sweat of their backs, and livers, brains, kidneys.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 9/13/2015 @ 1:42 pm@Dana:would you consider it a possibility that in light of the PP videos and the bad PR they are facing, that their corporate sponsors might be feeling a bit antsy?
Not with the media blackout which has assured us that the videos were all heavily and misleadingly edited, nothing to see here.
Is it possible they may have notified their stores to be on the lookout for the very sort of flyer that Goldstein wanted copied because it would be considered an advocacy of hate and persecution of a group the corporation supports?
My experience suggests this is vanishingly unlikely. Given the number of groups large corporations support how many memos would they have to send? And printing flyers is a tiny part of Office Depot’s business.
If Mozilla went after one of its own for contributing to a cause they disagreed with, as a corporate entity, would it be that much of a stretch if Office Depot reacted inappropriately to protect their image?
Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit and they depend for their existence on the goodwill of donors. Brendan Eich was CEO of Mozilla Corporation, which exists solely to pay developers. Mozilla was threatened with boycotts by customers and loss of support from donors, and then, and only then is when they got rid of Eich, who was a high-ranking officer and not a low-level employee.
What you are suggesting, Dana, is a conspiracy theory extending even down the level of people who make copies–which is a small part of Office Depot’s business–to support and protect not a valued large customer or investor or corporate officer, but one of the many recipients of Office Depot’s charity. This conspiracy theory is plausible to you because of how important YOU see Planned Parenthood as being, not based on anything that actually happens in corporate life.
Corporations rarely fight the sort of bad publicity you imagine Planned Parenthood is getting. They publicly cave, try to contain the damage, and move on. This is why they all give to Rainbow Coalition or Greenpeace, and may be why they were giving to Planned Parenthood in the first place, the threat of a lawsuit or boycott by a feminist group.
I have never received any sort of “BOLO for someone hassling one of the people we send money to” memo, of the many dozens of memos I get daily, and if you ask around I bet you are not going to find anyone who has.
The reason Office Depot has a policy against printing threatening-sounding flyers is because of liability. Someone will sue them because they have deep pockets, and the lunatic whose flyers incited the violence will have no money.
And that’s it, plain and simple. No need to invoke sinister meetings in corporate offices about what’s the best way to help Planned Parenthood. You have
a policy designed to limit liability
Gabriel Hanna (e2539b) — 9/13/2015 @ 1:46 pma low-level employee who is an idealogue and a jackass
a donation made for expediency along with many, many other donations made for the same reason
The Data base is a replica of the communicator lapel pin.
In light of Planned Parenthoods larding up their corporate sponsor’s page with businesses who want no part with them, but are on the toteboard none the less, this is that rare of occasions when we find a real sponsor, paying out with rhetoric as well as coin.
I think a little push would be all that is needed for Office Depot to be broken up like an ATT.
Glomming Office Max and Staples is an unnatural impulse toward monopoly.
It says Office Depot’s motto is “That which I can’t take I’ll destroy. That which I can’t destroy I’ll set as factions against each other while picking off the runts from the sideline.”
No wonder they clandestinely support Planned Parenthood. They align philosophically.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 9/13/2015 @ 2:08 pmThey give a lot of money to a lot of the same type of people. See how many Fortune 500 companies give money to the NRA. Take a look at at how many Fortune 500 companies stopped giving money to the Boy Scouts. Why do you think the Boy Scouts had to change its policies?
They give to leftist pressure groups not because they support them but because they’re afraid of being called racists, or sexists, or homophobes, or Islamophobes, or all kinds of names. Corporate boards aren’t made up of people with spine. When Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton come around to shake them down, they pay up.
So, see how long you keep your job should you ever be in a high profile conflict and wind up on the wrong side of the political spectrum from those pressure groups Fortune 500 companies do give to.
The investigation won’t be the police investigation where things like evidence or due process or basic fairness are required by law. The leftist pressure groups will have your job, just as on college campuses they are getting young men kicked out for mere allegations of sexual harassment or assault, as the victim must always be believed. They won’t stand up to those groups for their own sake, so they certainly won’t stand up to them for yours.
Dana, good point about Brian Eich. But when the leftist pressure groups demanded Mozilla fire him for being on the “wrong” side of a political issue that only got press because it was so high profile. It happens all the time to lower level employees.
Steve57 (a07e69) — 9/13/2015 @ 2:10 pm@Steve57:They give to leftist pressure groups not because they support them but because they’re afraid of being called racists, or sexists, or homophobes, or Islamophobes, or all kinds of names. Corporate boards aren’t made up of people with spine.
You’re not saying anything different from what I’ve said.
And if Planned Parenthood really was a PR disaster for anyone who’d given money to them, Office Depot would already have dropped them. See also Jared from Subway.
What they’re not going to do is issue BOLO memos for people printing flyers critical of Planned Parenthood, as Dana suggested.
So, see how long you keep your job should you ever be in a high profile conflict
Think I don’t know that? I do know that. They may have fired the employee already.
Gabriel Hanna (e2539b) — 9/13/2015 @ 2:57 pmGabriel Hanna,
Heh. You give me far too much credit: conspiracy theory.
A couple of things:
I would tend to agree, but then seeing from the linked database that at least two companies have since defunded Planned Parenthood since the videos were released, that suggests to me that perhaps the blackout isn’t a total success, as well as perhaps other companies may be waiting to see what the fallout looks like before making their own decisions to defund (or not).
I don’t think it would be that difficult to designate one particular organization – “Planned Parenthood” – on any sort of email going down the line to reach actual storefronts. As to their printing being a “tiny part” of OD’s business (yes, you specified “flyers”, but I think this is interesting as it discusses copy centers and print services as a whole):
Further, I am aware that a lot of public school districts contract with OD for their bulk print orders. As you can imagine, that’s not a tiny amount of printing.
Dana (86e864) — 9/13/2015 @ 4:06 pm@Dana:I don’t think it would be that difficult to designate one particular organization – “Planned Parenthood” – on any sort of email going down the line to reach actual storefronts.
All right, you find me an example of that ever having happened and then we can talk about revising the probability estimate upward.
Mind you, the organization is not defending itself, its customers, its shareholders, but a recipient of donations which they can immediately drop and disavow at any time–which hardly anyone knows they even donated too.
And then we can argue over whether it’s more likely than my liability + jackassery scenario.
Gabriel Hanna (e2539b) — 9/13/2015 @ 4:30 pmThis is why they all give to Rainbow Coalition or Greenpeace, and may be why they were giving to Planned Parenthood in the first place, the threat of a lawsuit or boycott by a feminist group.
Your Honor, by withholding charity from Planned Parenthood, Office Depot caused my baby to be born?
papertiger (c2d6da) — 9/13/2015 @ 5:14 pmOnce again, Office Depot should have printed this in the first place.
I am commenting on what I think the motivations of the employee who denied service were.
It was not bigotry towards all Christians as in “Sorry but we don’t print Christian prayers”.
I think it is reasonable that someone could look at the prayer and information packet and worry that a misguided person could conclude that he would be “God’s Instrument” to bring about the end of PP and act violently. However poor of a conclusion that is, it is not bigotry to all Christians.
Hi Gerald. I do not think this prayer was a direct incitement to violence. I clearly expressed that this conclusion is probably due to unclear thinking back in my first comment. Even so, a confused thought process is not bigotry toward all Christians, and no boycotting of Office Depot is justified.
Hi John, I understand prayer is protected. And it is fine, I never attacked this particular prayer or suggested nobody should be making it. Can you quote what I have expressed as hatred in this thread?
Gil (4e1585) — 9/13/2015 @ 6:58 pm@papertiger:Your Honor, by withholding charity from Planned Parenthood, Office Depot caused my baby to be born?
Not at all. Threatened sexual harrassment lawsuit, not enough female executives, not enough paid family leave, you get the idea.
Gabriel Hanna (e2539b) — 9/13/2015 @ 7:09 pmLeftists only worry about misguided people taking information from others and doing stupid stuff with that information when the information is not coming from their own kind. But when the information comes from their own kind, and ADVOCATES criminal activity, then the Leftists call it a hyperbolic writing or speaking style, not to be taken literally, and you Right-wing kooks need to stop it.
John Hitchcock (2025ac) — 9/13/2015 @ 9:19 pmSeparation of church and state should forbid right-wing Christians and Jews from voting. At least according to my Leftist acquaintences.
ErisGuy (76f8a7) — 9/14/2015 @ 2:58 amDo you ever challenge them to find the Separation of Church and State clause in the Constitution? Or have you ever asked them if they have even read the Constitution? Because I expect somewhere around 40 percent of Republican voters and 80 percent of Democrat voters have never taken the time to actually read it.
John Hitchcock (e6cdf0) — 9/14/2015 @ 3:18 amDo you ever challenge them to find the word “God” even mentioned in the constitution?
Gil (4e1585) — 9/14/2015 @ 4:00 amthis morning i have to go to my local office depot and see if they’ll print my abortion flyer
#whatdoyoumeangetalife
happyfeet (831175) — 9/14/2015 @ 4:07 amIn other words, “Our attorney examined this and told us we were wrong, and we’re trying to avoid a lawsuit.”
Rochf (f3fbb0) — 9/14/2015 @ 7:38 amGil 91,
The Constitution was agreed to by unanimous consent on September 17 in the “Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.”
DRJ (521990) — 9/14/2015 @ 8:28 am@Dana:The Constitution was agreed to by unanimous consent on September 17 in the “Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.”
Huh? If you mean the document was assembled on that date and thus agreed to by the delegate, yes it was, but it didn’t take effect until it was ratified by the states in 1789.
And you’ve Dowdified that quote a bit: “the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth”. They briefly experimented with a new epoch, giving dates from 1776 as Year One.
But, to cross with another thread, Hitler made many speeches talking about his belief in Jesus and Christianity, so maybe let’s not hang our hat on having used a dating convention that mentions Jesus.
Gabriel Hanna (2ca835) — 9/14/2015 @ 8:39 amGabriel Hanna,
Read it again. DRJ made the comment, not me.
Dana (86e864) — 9/14/2015 @ 8:44 amI made the point that God is mentioned in the Constitution, and He is. You are free to view its importance as you wish but you can’t deny it’s there.
Are Gil and Gabriel the same person?
DRJ (521990) — 9/14/2015 @ 9:36 amArticle VII…”the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and the Independence of the United States of America.
The “year of our Lord” part specifically means Jesus.
But it wouldn’t matter anyway. An honest man would admit Christianity is writ all over the Constitution from it’s limits to it’s “natural” (God given) rights. A dishonest man will argue till his dick falls off. There must be a lot of dickless liars. They are free to leave if they feel this Christian nation in any way oppresses them. There is a difference between being a Christian nation and being a theocracy. Ask an Arab.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 9/14/2015 @ 10:25 amIt is amusing that moslems are fleeing moslem theocracy’s to run to Christian republics like ours. Yeah, our Christian nation must be really bad. Maybe we actually would be better off if we traded a liberal for each moslem and Mexican. We get rid of leftists and white guilt in one swoop.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 9/14/2015 @ 10:34 amI was raised to believe in the Trinity so Jesus is God to me, Hoagie.
DRJ (521990) — 9/14/2015 @ 10:55 amYou didn’t answer the question, but since you asked, you really can’t look at the constitution without looking at the Declaration of Independence, they go together. The Declaration of Independence states our rights come from our “Creator” which is God. It the lists 27 complaints which the constitution addresses.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 9/14/2015 @ 11:24 amMe too, DRJ. I’M A Lutheran and believe it or not we’re considered Christians. I was just trying to point out they specifically meant Christians as they specifically used “Lord”, Jesus the Son rather than God.
Tanny O’Haley, the inherent association with and derivation from the Declaration by the Constitution means nothing to Gil. He asked about the Constitution and nothing else, period, the end, zip! He was given the answer and didn’t like it so he hand waved it away. Doing that do you actually think he’d care if the word appears in the Declaration? Ya gotta know Gil.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 9/14/2015 @ 11:56 am@Dana:DRJ made the comment, not me.
I know, I don’t know why I typed “Dana”.
@DRJ:Are Gil and Gabriel the same person?
If we were the same person, I would think I would spend lest time arguing with him.
@Rev Barack Hussein Hoagie:Tanny O’Haley, the inherent association with and derivation from the Declaration by the Constitution means nothing to Gil
Or anyone else how knows the history: they were written ten years apart by an different set of people, with a totally different constitution, and a war, intervening. Only eight men involved writing in the one were involved in writing the other.
He asked about the Constitution and nothing else, period, the end, zip! He was given the answer and didn’t like it so he hand waved it away
Gil hasn’t said anything. Gabriel said that the appearance of a reference to God in the date is pretty weak sauce. That’s like saying “A Nightmare on Elm Street” has God in it because it gives the date as A.D. 1984. (If it does. It probably does have characters saying “Oh, God”, “God damn it”, and “Jesus Christ”, which DRJ will no doubt cite as evidence of its Christian basis.)
The use of AD and “In the year of our Lord” is the sort of ceremonial deism that even the Supreme Court doesn’t object to.
Gabriel Hanna (2ca835) — 9/14/2015 @ 6:19 pm#103
steveg (fed1c9) — 9/14/2015 @ 9:13 pmDid the ceremony rely on the Deity, or did the Deity rely on ceremony?
I think it is clear that the Deism of the founding fathers was not based on simple ceremony… the ceremony was based on deference to the Deity and so the ceremony relied on the Deity. The Deity as worshiped by protestants, does not rely on ceremony of the type described, but reserves the right to honor it.
@104:I think it is clear that the Deism of the founding fathers was not based on simple ceremony…
Oh good Lord. (See, I’m a Christian, DRJ.) I’m not saying anything about the varied-and-not-entirely-Christian religions of the Founding Fathers. I’m talking about what the Supreme Court calls “ceremonial Deism”.
Ceremonial deism is a legal term used in the United States for nominally religious statements and practices deemed to be merely ritual and non-religious through long customary usage. Proposed examples of ceremonial deism include the reference to God introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, the phrase “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, and the Ohio state motto, “With God, all things are possible”.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 9/15/2015 @ 11:13 am“Year of our Lord” seems like an acknowledgement of God to me, plus why bother to use that in formal writing unless you mean it?
DRJ (521990) — 9/15/2015 @ 11:46 am@DRJ> Year of our Lord” seems like an acknowledgement of God to me, plus why bother to use that in formal writing unless you mean it?
Because it’s a dating convention, like BC. Because you expect to be understood by others using the same convention or different ones.
And not everyone involved was a Christian anyway, so you know that at least those people thought of it as a dating convention.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 9/15/2015 @ 12:07 pmFirst, it’s still a mention of God in the Constitution. You were wrong, you lose. Second, nobody said everyone involved was a Christian, did they? Most were, some were deists and I’m sure some had no belief in anything. So what? The reason they used it (as you say) “a dating convention” was because of the overwhelming influence of Christianity on the civilizing of the world, and the impact Christianity had on the development of unprecedented Freedom culminating in the establishment of this Great Republic. Now just because you don’t like God does not mean everyone else doesn’t, nor does it mean you get to rewrite or ignore the history of Christianity regarding America nor do you have the right to diminish it’s contribution to our Nations Birth.
And you folks who so love to go back through history and point out every sin of Christianity should be reminded without Christianity there would be a crap load more. If you are capable of open minded analysis you’ll notice Christianity is a self-correcting belief in that over time it moves forward out of the dark. Like we don’t burn witches any more or own slaves. Heathens and pagans (who could that be?) are not expected to move forward rather they are dragged kicking and screaming by the moral advance of Christians.
If you feel we Christians surrounding you place too much a burden on your sensitive antitheist senses you are cordially invited to leave and seek fellow travelers with whom you would be more comfortable. A word of warning though: don’t go to the Middle East those moslems will show you what a theocracy is all about and you’ll be beggin’ to see those nasty crosses on public buildings once again.
Oh, and one more time: God is in the Constitution. You see it yourself. Admit it, stop acting foolish and move on. It does not matter the “reason” the Lord was mentioned in the Constitution, he was, you were wrong. Period.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 9/15/2015 @ 1:31 pm@Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie:First, it’s still a mention of God in the Constitution. You were wrong, you lose.
Is this Gil you are replying to? Because I didn’t make the claim. Just pointing out that it’s pretty weak sauce.
Second, nobody said everyone involved was a Christian, did they?
DRJ did implicitly when she said no one would say that in formal writing if they didn’t mean it, and if she uses “our Lord”, which is Jesus Christ, to mean “God”.
nor does it mean you get to rewrite or ignore the history of Christianity regarding America nor do you have the right to diminish it’s contribution to our Nations Birth.
I have done none of these things. Are you sure you’re not confusing me with Gil?
And you folks who so love to go back through history and point out every sin of Christianity… If you feel we Christians surrounding you place too much a burden on your sensitive antitheist senses…
I have done none of these things. Are you sure you’re not confusing me with Gil?
God is in the Constitution. You see it yourself.
I see “Our Lord”, i. e. Jesus, who is only “God” to Christians, referenced in the date. If the White Album liner notes mentioned John Lennon, who (I am sure) as few people worship as God, would that mean I saw God in the White Album liner notes? A Jew or a Muslim will disagree with you that “God” is in the Constitution, in the date.
Like I said, it’s a dating convention and weak sauce. Never denied it was there. I’m not Gil.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 9/15/2015 @ 2:57 pmGabriel Hanna:
And yet they didn’t use that convention on the Declaration of Independence, did they? I don’t know if it was intended or a happy accident, but it’s there.
Not everyone was Christian but most were religious, which is consistent with the language used in the Declaration of Independence.
DRJ (521990) — 9/15/2015 @ 4:19 pmA brief observation or two_
The use of AD and “In the year of our Lord” is the sort of ceremonial deism that even the Supreme Court doesn’t object to.
Gabriel Hanna (2ca835) — 9/14/2015 @ 6:19 pm
As also said above, there was a basis for it of sincere belief at one time. As time has passed and the culture has drifted so that it really is a ceremonial relic of a past age the term is being dropped for “CE”.
I think it would be hard to argue against the proposition that many of the “Founding Fathers” were of some religious persuasion and felt quite at home with religious views and opinions informing their public policy, if not “orthodox” Christianity at least a deism with a moral tradition consistent with, if not stemming from, the Bible. Whatever “separation of church and state” was advocated, it was not aimed at eliminating religion from the public square, nor enforcing a godless secularism throughout government, but rather simply avoiding a nation-wide preferred religious expression.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/15/2015 @ 5:39 pm@DRJ:And yet they didn’t use that convention on the Declaration of Independence, did they?…which is consistent with the language used in the Declaration of Independence.
And only 8/53 people were involved in the writing of both of those, which were written more than ten years apart with an intervening war and a totally different constitution. So even weaker sauce than before.
Another document, written by some of the same people, with a similar ten-year-ish period intervening, is the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Washington, signed by Adams, ratified by Congress, saying “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”. They’re not saying of course that Americans aren’t Christians or shouldn’t be Christians, just saying we have a secular government with religious freedom.
So, weak sauce with a helping of special pleading. If you going to say the Constitution uses religious language because an entirely unrelated document does that happened to involve a few of the same people, then you have no objection if I do the same.
Gabriel Hanna (2ca835) — 9/15/2015 @ 5:46 pm@MD in Philly:I think it would be hard to argue against the proposition that many of the “Founding Fathers” were of some religious persuasion and felt quite at home with religious views and opinions informing their public policy,
Nobody is saying otherwise.
Whatever “separation of church and state” was advocated, it was not aimed at eliminating religion from the public square, nor enforcing a godless secularism throughout government, but rather simply avoiding a nation-wide preferred religious expression.
Since there were established state churches and religious tests for state office up into the 19th century, the First Amendment could not have been understood to remove religion entirely from all levels of government. I certainly argued no such thing.
I like the comments here, but if there were one thing I could change, it’s that the regulars assume that if you disagree in one area you must also be disagreeing on totally unrelated topics. It’s a form of identity politics; if I say something that the Red tribe doesn’t like I must be one of those Blue tribesmen and I must agree with all the Blue tribe shibboleths. But I’m an individual, and not a joiner, and somewhat contrary.
I don’t single you out for critcism; just happened to think of it now and putting it in this comment.
Gabriel Hanna (2ca835) — 9/15/2015 @ 5:52 pm@everyone: Try to keep in mind that if you look at my comments on the other threads I have been supporting and defending Kim Davis. I think she is 100% right to refuse to do official acts contrary to her conscience, I have also said that I think it would be a better world if more government officials emulated her–and went to jail for it rather than just being excused because they are swimming with the tide and are just waiting for Anthony Kennedy to catch up.
I have also been defending the people who brought in the flyers to Office Depot.
So just keep that in mind, if you would.
Gabriel Hanna (2ca835) — 9/15/2015 @ 5:57 pmPredictable but nice try.
DRJ (521990) — 9/15/2015 @ 5:58 pmThere are times when each of us has been on the opposite side of the “tribe,” Gabriel. Look at it as an opportunity to persuade others.
DRJ (521990) — 9/15/2015 @ 6:00 pm@DRJ: Well, if you’ll quote Politifact I guess the Devil can quote Scripture. The criticism leveled by Politifact is against something that I didn’t even say, about Muslim outreach.
From your so-called fact check:
But others say that language indicates the United States of America was merely neutral on religion in a treaty that was all about protecting U.S. ships…Adams addressed that declaration by claiming that the United States was not Christian, and was not at war with Muslims.
And my characterization:
They’re not saying of course that Americans aren’t Christians or shouldn’t be Christians, just saying we have a secular government with religious freedom.
And of course you yourself are trying to inflate a date into a religious declaration, so it’s not as though you have any ground to object to my bringing a shipping treaty–that, by the way, I characterized accurately, according to your own source.
One member of Adams’ cabinet, though, did take it to be very important:
“The Senate, my good friend, and I said so at the time, ought never to have ratified the treaty alluded to, with the declaration that ‘the government of the United States, is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.’ What else is it founded on? This act always appeared to me like trampling upon the cross. I do not recollect that Barlow was even reprimanded for this outrage upon the government and religion.”
Weak sauce with a helping of special pleading, simmering in a broth of double standards…
Gabriel Hanna (2ca835) — 9/15/2015 @ 6:07 pm@DRJ:Look at it as an opportunity to persuade others.
It’s easier when people are talking to you, instead of to a political cartoon with your name in the caption.
The reason the “separation of church and state” issue is so contentious is because the Founders have been so selectively read. Madison, for example, wrote this for the First Amendment:
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good, nor from applying to the legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances.”
This is far more expansive than the First Amendment that was actually ratified. That’s because Congress explicitly considered, and rejected, his version, and they took out the parts that would have extended the establishment and free exercise clauses to eliminate the state tests and the state churches.
So when the courts go to Madison and Jefferson for interpretation they are being very selective. And I think that is illegitimate.
Most of the Founders were quite serious about Christianity. The famous ones were not so much, and they get selectively read as being authoritative. But they weren’t in their own day.
There is a lot of nuance in this history and I have tried to learn as much of it as possible.
Gabriel Hanna (2ca835) — 9/15/2015 @ 6:14 pmYou seem to be talking down to me, Gabriel.
DRJ (521990) — 9/15/2015 @ 6:23 pmAnd others, for that matter.
DRJ (521990) — 9/15/2015 @ 6:25 pmI like competitive discussions but you might enjoy debating Milhouse more.
DRJ (521990) — 9/15/2015 @ 6:27 pmgabriel-
Sorry if I was sounding “attacking”, I wasn’t meaning to, neither was I trying to directly argue with you,
I was simply trying to make some points of reference that I thought we could all agree with, and it seems we do.
As far as needing 100% agreement to be on one team or another, I do not know if there are specific instances that involve me that you can think of, I’d be happy to be challenged on them if so.
I believe I mainly take issue with people when they are pushing non-reasoned derogatory attacks, ignoring points of fact to be considered in an issue, or the meaning of terms, especially when it comes to religion. That is why I use the awkward term “historic apostolic Christianity”; people can believe whatever they want, and whatever I think of it is of little consequence. Some have said (not here) that they can be “Muslim” and “Christian” at the same time. Well, whatever they mean by those terms, it doesn’t seem at all consistent with the NT description of the early Church/faith, as an example.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/15/2015 @ 6:28 pm@DRJ: You seem to be talking down to me, Gabriel. And others, for that matter.
Trying to read tone and expression from text comments is notoriously difficult and highly dependent on the individual. I didn’t say anything uncivil to you; I did say your arguments were weak and had a double standard, but that was a criticism of your argument, not of you personally.
Gabriel Hanna (2ca835) — 9/15/2015 @ 6:33 pmGabriel, “weak sauce” == John Kerry. It really isn’t that hard to understand what happened in the past if you just insert some modern day failures into key positions. The outrageous aspect of the entire Barbary Pirates episode was the treatment of the incredibly brave and intrepid men who, in platoon strength, guarding a small chest of gold, managed to overthrow a pirate who held France and Italy in servitude. The Marine Corps (not corpse, thank you mr. president,) rightly celebrates “the Shores of Tripoli.” So to quote a treaty that failed as a proof of some point you are trying to make is to embrace failure. And speaking of treaties that failed, Kerry has certainly given us example of failure that will live long past his demise. Like a murder suicide, one could hope that Kerry would reverse his action plan.
bobathome (279337) — 9/15/2015 @ 7:06 pmMD…a lot of people use the terms “primitive Church” or “subapostolic Church”…primitive not being perjorative, but simply referring the early church that was still forming its basic organization and doctrine.
There are two levels to this argument. One is the idea that the Founders and the early US was overwhelmingly Christian in culture. It does not mean that they adhered to Christianity themselves… I get the sense from my reading in history that many Founders were either Deists or conforming Christians, who belonged to a church because everyone else did (Washington may have been such a person…or else someone who kept his religion to himself). But it should be so obvious that it ought to need no comment.
The other level is one that distorts history…that this country was founded on the basis of Christian principles, that is, ideas set out in the Bible. In fact, this country was founded on Enlightenment principles… including the idea that the cosmos is fully comprehensible to the human mind, and that man can perfect himself in the secular virtues unaided (theological derived virtues like humility and faith had no real place in the Enlightenment mind). To simply state those ideas should make clear their nonBiblical nature,but they are the ideas that drove this country all the way to the top of the 20th century technological and economic heap.
kishnevi (28fa9f) — 9/15/2015 @ 7:08 pmTo the extent that Biblical principles shaded expression of those ideals, they became part of that foundation. But nothing else. And of course the same Bible was used over the centuries as the supposed cornerstone of the Byzantine Empire, feudal Europe, Tudor England, Hapsburg and Bourbon Spain…all the way to Tzarist Russia and Fascist Italy (once Mussolini worked out a modus vivendi with the Pope). Why didn’t they notice the Declaration of Independence in the Bible?)
Kerry action plan: 1. Make treaty with Iran. 2. Retire as Sec. of State drawing multiple pensions from the Federal Government.
bobathome (279337) — 9/15/2015 @ 7:12 pmkishnevi- i am sure you are more studied in this area than I,
and that there were many reasons why people came to the new world, I assume some may have been to get out of debtors prison, IDK
but surely many came because of religious persecution, including many that were pretty orthodox Christians
many early colleges were founded mainly to educate ministers,
and even UPenn that prides itself on not having a religious foundation was originally lead, at Franklin’s request, by evangelist/revivalist George Whitfield
I have no desire to claim that the US was founded as a “Christian nation”, it would be an admission against interest as the US never was a perfect example of Christian virtue
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/15/2015 @ 7:36 pmWhile I am sure you have references to bolster your claim of the basis of the country purely on Enlightenment principles, I am unconvinced that such is the undeniable truth agreed upon by all historians.
If you want to tell me the french revolution was inspired by completely Enlightenment principles I would be happy to concede that.
Gabriel:
These are some of the derogatory words that made me feel like you are talking down to me. Is this how you talk to your equals? Because it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who is your inferior in knowledge or intellect. I submit you think you have a better mastery of history than I do. Maybe you do and maybe you don’t, but you would be better able to convince me and others if you tried to help me learn what you know instead of trying (without getting personal!) trying to tell me how stupid, weak, and duplicitous my arguments are.
DRJ (521990) — 9/15/2015 @ 7:42 pmBTW, I linked PolitiFact because I thought it gave both sides of the argument. That’s why you were able to quote the parts that supported your argument. Did you miss the parts that supported mine?
DRJ (521990) — 9/15/2015 @ 7:43 pmfurthermore, kishnevi, at least many historians of science would dispute the ideas that it was enlightenment reasoning that rejected the idea of diety that made science and technology possible.
No, I would argue that the “enlightenment” was an overreach of human hubris and arrogance, drunk with the success of the study of nature made possible by a belief in the order of created things and worthy of study. e.g. Newton’s thinking God’s thoughts after Him”.
Historic, apostolic, orthodox Christian faith has never been an impediment to science
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/15/2015 @ 7:45 pmhttp://www.amazon.ca/Science-Christianity-Henry-III-Schaefer/dp/097429750X
kishnevi,
This Exhibit and the other Exhibits at the link may interest you.
DRJ (521990) — 9/15/2015 @ 7:53 pmHere is an excerpt from that link:
DRJ (521990) — 9/15/2015 @ 7:55 pmI have no desire to claim that the US was founded as a “Christian nation”
You have not, and I did not mean to suggest you have done so.
I had my eye more on a certain other poster.
many early colleges were founded mainly to educate ministers
Of course, since until well into the late 18th and early 19th, the great majority of college students were aiming for the ministry. The only major exception would be medicine and even there I am not sure how large that exception was (I suspect you do since it is your profession.). Going to college for the sake of getting a better education with no vocational goal would have astonished your typical 18th century person.
The New England colonies and Pennsylvania were founded by people looking for religious freedom. The others were founded for economic reasons…and even Plymouth had to start as a business venture. Connecticut and New Hampshire were essentially offshoots of Massachusetts. And Rhode Island was famously started by a man escaping religious persecution in Massachusetts.
kishnevi (28fa9f) — 9/15/2015 @ 8:03 pmI’m so confused that I don’t know who is talking to who. We’re friends and you could never offend me, kishnevi, so feel free to say if you are talking to me or about me.
DRJ (521990) — 9/15/2015 @ 8:07 pmMD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/15/2015 @ 7:45 pm
Pretty much agree with what you say there. I did not mean the Enlightenment was responsible for science, but that it was the guiding light behind political and cultural thought of that era.
kishnevi (28fa9f) — 9/15/2015 @ 8:13 pmDRJ, I was referring to someone else.
kishnevi (9cb6b5) — 9/15/2015 @ 8:22 pmYour links are interesting but can be explained as expression of three ideas
…the need for a common moral code, which in that era could only be Christian.
…the idea that any “civilizing” of non civilized people meant making them into copies of Europe, including its religion
…the use of religion for purposes of generating patriotism.
Combine all three and you get the possibility of socially conforming Congressmen who could have done all that with no qualm in their hypothetically atheist/Deist. (Remember, Jefferson had no problem using the phrase “endowed by their Creator” even though he was an almost atheist.)
The idea that cosmos is fully comprehensible to the human mind is not an Enlightenment principle. It is a Christian principle. That God made us rational beings in order to understand the nature of His creation, and thereby understand God. That’s why the Catholic Church gave more financial aid than no doubt all other institutions in the six centuries before the Enlightenment. And into the Enlightenment.
If this is now claimed to be a “secular virtue” then that is simply because modern science refuses to acknowledge the debt they owe to Christian philosophers and scientists going back to St. Thomas Aquinas.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/
Steve57 (a07e69) — 9/15/2015 @ 8:37 pmSteve, I said “fully comprehensible”. The adverb is important. The Bible teaches that humans will never understand everything. (God speaking out of the whirlwind to Job is the big example here.)
kishnevi (31ba4e) — 9/15/2015 @ 8:47 pmBy “fully comprehensible” I took you to mean that there are ultimate laws that govern all things physical, and that these are knowable. This is the Christian principle dating back to Aquinas to which I was referring.
I wasn’t making the assumption that all things are physical. Nor do modern physicists. So in that sense, not even scientists claim that everything is “fully comprehensible.”
Albert Einstein had a sign in his office. “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”
Steve57 (a07e69) — 9/15/2015 @ 9:05 pm139
(Having gone to bed and work and back home 20 hours later)
Alright, I can agree with that. Although Aquinas did not invent the idea. He got it from Maimonides. It also appears in Bachya ibn Paquda (Duties of the Heart), a Spanish rabbi who lived c 1030, although Aquinas was probably not aware of him, since the first Latin translation seems to have been made c.1640. Both Maimonides and ibn Paquda stress that to properly understand one’s obligations and to understand the fact of the existence and supernal Oneness of God, one must be familiar with science.
Btw, I used secular virtue simply to clarify I was not talking about the theological virtues (faith, hope, charity and the cohort assembled to their standard)
kishnevi (9cb6b5) — 9/16/2015 @ 6:45 pm