Let the atheists conform to our Judeo-Christian heritage (Jesus Christ, reject)

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

http://magic-city-news.com/article_3261.shtml]Complete article[/url]

There is no need then for the Supremes to clamp down on the Judeo-Christian symbols so as to wipe them out. That would be dumb let alone unpatriotic. That would be prostituting our history. That indeed would be rewriting our history.

All of that cannot be tolerated by thinking people, even atheists. Now that I’ve mentioned atheists, if they are truly loving people who care about their nation’s heritage, they will kindly acknowledge that religious heritage and keep walking.

...

So let the atheists conform to our Judeo-Christian heritage.

What this supposedly well educated man fails to realize is the difference between secular authority and the history of faith in America. The Constitution (the highest authority in America) in no way recognizes the supremecy of any faith.

[Scuba Pete]

Amen to that Brother Pah!

[jamaesi]

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


Hmmm.

[Quincy Wisdom]

Odd, I always thought America was a place where the rights of the minority were not trumped by those of the majority. The supreme court is not taking down the ten commandments and replacing it with a statue of Darwin, they are making things neutral.

[DianeVera]

Originally Posted by TranceAm

If that was the only problem. Look at this pearl:

Christians and Jews

CHRISTIANS have to make a choice - "either retain their present belief system and be antisemitic or form a partnership with the Jewish people."

This is the view of Bar-Ilan University's Rabbi Dr. Pinchas Hayman, who is active in Jewish-Christian dialogue and in encouraging modern Christianity to return to its Jewish roots by observing the Seven Noahide Laws.

"As long as Christians keep Jesus as God, they will be antisemitic because that belief must lead them to believe that those who reject Jesus reject God," he told the Australian Jewish News.

"That's how the process of satanising the Jews began. That belief is the root cause of 1500 years of the Christian idolatrous antisemitism which led to the Holocaust."

Proficient in New Testament Studies and Classical Greek, Dr. Hayman noted that at least five American churches have given up belief in Jesus.

http://www.comeandhear.com/supplemen.../ajn-page.html

Agreed that some Jewish extremists are dangerously intolerant. However, I'm not inclined to trust the website from which you took the above. The site owner seems inclined to twist words. For example, on this page, one Rabbi Boteach is quoted as saying:

The relationship between God's essence, referred to by the Kabbalists as the En Sof (literally, "there is no end"), and the ten sefirot is analogous to clear water being placed into ten glasses, each of different color. Red would represent God's anger, blue His compassion, green His splendor, and so on. Viewed from the outside, the water will invariably appear red, blue, green, or yellow, depending on the color of glass into which it is placed. In reality, however, the water has not changed color at all and only appears this way to the outside observer.

On which the site owner's comment is as follows:

So then, Rabbi Boteach tells us that some people are on the outside of God, and some are on the inside.

Also the following passage is quoted as alleged advocacy of INTOLERANCE:

In today's society people pride themselves on their tolerance. They believe they have progressed beyond the prejudices of the past. They have learned to allow those opinions that do not necessarily accord with their own to be voiced. But is this progress?

I find this definition of tolerance repugnant. Rather than find enrichment or redemption in another's differences, one tolerates, or stomachs, their differences. One swallows hard, one suffers — tolerates — another's right to be different. This is hardly recognizing the virtue than [sic] can be extracted from another party's distinctiveness. This is a philosophy of segregation rather than multicultural enrichment. Tolerating another person implies that though one allows his opinions or differences today, if tomorrow he were to disappear from the face of the earth, one would hardly notice his absence. There is nothing to be learned from his conflicting opinion or uniqueness, and his absence in no way compromises or impairs one's own state of completion. Promoting or defending the modern definition of tolerance is really a license to indifference. It is not a call to harmony or multicultural enrichment.

The site owner's reading comprehension doesn't seem to be the greatest, to say the least. So, I would take everything on that site with a hefty dose of salt.

Nevertheless, it's true that there's a movement afoot by ultra-Orthodox Jews to try to convert Christians NOT to full-fledged Judaism but to Noahidism, obedience to the "seven Noahide Laws" which Jews traditionally believe all humans are required by God to obey (whereas the full Torah is required only of the Chosen People themselves).

The scary part is that one of the "seven Noahide laws" is to establish courts of justice to enforce the other six laws with liberal application of the death penalty. Thus, if these ultra-Orthodox Jews and their Gentile Noahide allies were ever to become politically dominant, there would be a death penalty against "idolatry" and "blasphemy" -- both of which include even Christianity, not to mention nearly all other religions.

For more information, do a web search on "Noahide" to find sites by self-described Noahides explaiing the seven Noahide laws.

Fortunately, these ultra-Orthodox Jews and their Gentile Noahide allies are not representative of the views of the vast majority of Jews. HOWEVER, they may eventually become dominant among Jews in the long run, due to sheer demographics. Ultra-Orthodox Jews believe that they are commanded by God to have as many babies as they can possibly squeeze out, thus typically have 10 to 20 children per family, whereas more moderate Jews typically have only 1 or 2 kids per family. Also, the Gentile Noahide movement is still very small, but does seem to be growing rapidly.

[painted wolf]

I think the Athiests should conform to our First Nations heritage!

After all if any of our History gets the snub its our Native history and its contributions to the way we are. After all the Constitution and bill of rights are based quite extencively on the Iriquois Great Law. You don't hear much about that though.

Ironically the 'great law' of our Nation is as much, quite likely more, based on 'pagan' tradtion as it is 'christain' tradition.
shhh... don't tell anyone, after all why start now?

wa:do

[Master Vigil]

I think we should conform to "Americans" heritage. One in which judeo christian is ONLY a part of. It is extremely sad when these people are allowed to talk, but thats what makes us american isn't it?

[polomint]

I am not an American, but all this talk of the heritage of society and the acceptance of other belief systems, makes me see similarities.
Both America and my native England, have base beliefs (yours constitutional and ours Statute, your constitutional is best, but don't let my fellow subject's know I said that) .that give people a personal right to belief.
Although an Atheist, my mindset is pretty much that of an Irish Catholic, but to say that I should conform to your personal beliefs ( which may swing from fundamental to secular) is abhorrent for both Atheists and for those with beliefs different from your own.

WE ARE ALL HUMAN

let people be, it may be hard to believe, but you may not always be completely right.

[michel]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Amen to that Brother Pah!

I'll second -or third- that!

[Sunstone]

BTW, Welcome to the Forum, Polomint! Shouting's a bit rare here so it's refreshing to see it on rare occasions. Good point about us all being human. Do you think anyone who calls for atheists to honor a nation's Judeo-Christian heritage should be called upon by atheists to honor a nation's heritage from the Western Enlightenment and Renaissance? Seems there was a bit of humanism in those two developments.