Bad Manners and Unchristian

olonoa

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/ > order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Antony Phireman. I find your site very useful! I will use some tips!
http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/ > order viagra order viagra
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA_-_HUGE-DISCOUNTS!_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

jieab spgdvw iyjegb vsporh omaq etbfpdg jsavpcxnz

jieab spgdvw iyjegb vsporh omaq etbfpdg jsavpcxnz

tegbdkusy qzahpje yezxdgfbl qzhynlxmc vjnleiqo kmwgvo cgoy yukl soaibkcq

cuhqtdofr kuchorjb nvsgla qkszpiovr dyqum jixszewd fvmy http://www.hdmwni.etfzh.com

cuhqtdofr kuchorjb nvsgla qkszpiovr dyqum jixszewd fvmy http://www.hdmwni.etfzh.com

keborzn mnfxqcv ojzqruehm jgyzxw loydnfm ygcfdukzh erndalqkm

Anon:
**your question worded as a statement ignores one significant differences between how one has one's steak cooked and different religions. It's a couple of places, heaven and hell. Even those who claim they don't believe in one or the other or both still demand that we believe what they believe.**

Not really. I demand nothing in terms of what you or anyone else believes or doesn't. Believe what you will. Or don't.

**Order your steak well done and top chef will send you out an old shoe That's the chef expressing an opinion a lot in common with opinions expressed by the religious.**

I'm not sure what your point is here. The chef is entitled to his opinion regarding my food choices, but he does not have the right to inflict that opinion on me, especially if he is being paid to cook my food the way I want it cooked. Non-Pagans are entitled to their opinions of my religion, but their right to express that opinion ends when they get in my face with it. One man's right to free speech ends at the nose of the person next to him.

**The scream is respect my religion while I damn you for yours. Hasn't worked yet. When it works religion disintegrates, goes away. Religion is based upon disrespect for the eternal life of others, hell being where those who faith differently to me are going.**

I don't think religions are the problem; rather it's people who insist that they are the only ones who have Religion. They're the only ones who damn others.

**Is no faith at all respectable?**

Absolutely.

**May the ones with no faith offer their version of prayer to open a session in the senate?**

Equal access. It's the American thing to do.

"lepidopteryx, your question worded as a statement ignores one significant differences between how one has one's steak cooked and different religions. It's a couple of places, heaven and hell. Even those who claim they don't believe in one or the other or both still demand that we believe what they believe."

Really, Anonymous.

Have you even surveyed the people you characterize?

I think you may have a lot of walking to do, if you hope to actually quote on these demands you presume exist.

"Everything dies.Gods too.Remember Thor?"

Yep, actually raised a horn of mead to him with some Heathen friends, this weekend. :)

"And you will die too."

This is problematic for you? ;)

Mr. Lofton,
just as the bible considers Jesus as God..so do other religious scriptures consider other names to be God- and learn to respect them as a human being..'cause the world will never be completely christian- America is considered the land of opportunity, the land of the free by many people 'cause it is open, it is accepting..and this event has made it even more respectful in the eyes of the world- you should use your offices to put your country ahead of you as an individual and lead america to the top again as opposed to using your offices to spread the "Christian message" and alienate yourself from the rest of the world.

Just what is prayer supposed to actually achieve?
Cosmologically speaking,we are as insignificant as ants.
Fear of death drives us to invent gods,who we can talk to by speaking into our hands.
Grown men believe this.Grown men believe in a skygod in the clouds.
Grown men believe in eternal life.
Grown men are scared to look reality in the face.
Everything dies.Gods too.Remember Thor?
And you will die too.

Isn't the government of India openly attempting to unmask Hindu operators as con men? They have an entire government department with "educators" traveling through rural villages showing the tricks they use to fool people into believing, having faith I think that's called.

Lies that help people develop faith are moral for everyone, not just the three great faiths. The senate seems to be a suitable place to air lies. Hindu liars must not be left out.

When is the areligionist going to be invited to open a session of the senate? They pray too, like this. Want to hear that prayer again? It's the only prayer common to everyone that even the dumbest can remember. Oh well. There's no place to send the money so God's word can be spread. Sorry I mentioned it.

"These congressional members [the founding fathers] were involved in writing and approving the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and they had no problem with a prayer before meeting."

They also had a lot to say about slavery, women's rights, native american genocide and a variety of other lovely topics. Frankly, I dont know why everybody cares so much about what these people thought. Seems like the only good thing they did is make it possible to change the slop they wrote in the first place.

lepidopteryx, your question worded as a statement ignores one significant differences between how one has one's steak cooked and different religions. It's a couple of places, heaven and hell. Even those who claim they don't believe in one or the other or both still demand that we believe what they believe.

Order your steak well done and top chef will send you out an old shoe That's the chef expressing an opinion a lot in common with opinions expressed by the religious.

The scream is respect my religion while I damn you for yours. Hasn't worked yet. When it works religion disintegrates, goes away. Religion is based upon disrespect for the eternal life of others, hell being where those who faith differently to me are going.

Is no faith at all respectable? May the ones with no faith offer their version of prayer to open a session in the senate? Want to hear their prayers again? They are the only ones that respect everyone in spite of getting no respect at all from the super religious themselves.

Thomas Reese writes, in part, re: that Hindu "prayer" before the House: "It was a sad day for all Americans when some so-called Christians disrupted the first-ever Hindu prayer opening a session of the U.S. Senate on July 12. Sen. Robert Casey, who was presiding in the chair, responded appropriately when he immediately called on the sergeant at arms to restore order and throw the demonstrators out of the gallery....

"Those who believe that prayer before a congressional session is a violation of the Constitution are ignorant of history and constitutional law. The practice of having a prayer before each day’s session goes back not only to the very first Congress but to the Continental Congress. These congressional members were involved in writing and approving the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and they had no problem with a prayer before meeting."

Well, no. I would say that what is even sadder, and sinful, is the fact that a Hindu priest was invited to "pray" in our Congress. It is THIS sinful act that caused the "disorder," not a few courageous Christians who protested this atrocity.

As for our Founders and prayer, the prayer they had no problem with was CHRISTIAN prayer addressed to THE GOD OF THE BIBLE, the only true God there is.

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

WHO GIVES A RAT'S ARSE HOW MANY ANGELS YOU PRIMITIVES THINK CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN?

I note that nothing in the past 12 hours has been posted. Karl Rove?

"Shall we respect those as well? Where is the US Constitution ?"

Doesn't have a word to say about four women and three men. Or seven men and two women. Or whatever. What are you smoking?

Actually, if four of the seven women are lesbians, and three of the four men are homosexuals, and two of every three have drunk alcohol and three of every four have smoked marijuana, then seven of every eight will have the right to have sex with two of every three. It's in the Constitution. You could look it up!

"Shall we respect those as well? Where is the US Constitution ?"

Doesn't have a word to say about four women and three men. Or seven men and two women. Or whatever. What are you smoking?

Praying is talking to ones hands and goes nowhere.
Nobody hears prayers because there's nobody there to take your call.It is a totally useless practice dragged in from our superstitious past,and
continues despite hundreds of tests that have shown
it to be meaningless.
In days of yawn,bishops would organize their flocks
into groups to pray every ten or fifteen minutes to ask God to spare a dying king,or Queen.It was felt that the sheer numbers of praying people would impress our maker,and have him spare a dying monarch.
Of course kings died anyway.

Mr. Reese is wrong that there was no opposition to Congressional chaplains.

James Madison, the author of the First Amendment (which was ratified AFTER Congressional chaplains had already been employed), spoke out strongly against them. He foresaw exactly the controversy that we are having today.

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the purpose? How just wd it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expense of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt

Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?

Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura."

Handle: "If Christians believe no other faith is true, from where does the notion of being respectful of the beliefs and religious practices of others emanate?"

You don't have to agree with a person's beliefs to respect his right to have them.
It's just common courtesy.

I like my steaks rare. I believe that a well-done steak is disgusting and unfit for human consumption. If we go out to dinner together, when the waiter asks me how I want my steak done, I will ask him to tell the chef to light a match near it, blow it out quickly, and slap it on a plate. But if you order yours well-done, I will not shout in a voice loud enough for the entire restaurant to hear that this culinary abomination must be stopped. In fact, I will say nothing at all regarding how your steak is cooked, other than to ask if you are enjoying your meal.

The same is true of religious faith. I am not Christian - haven't been for close to two decades now. But I would not interrupt a Christian prayer to express my religious beliefs or my opinion of Christian theology.

Abolish the chaplaincy. Rebuild the wall of separation between religion and politics. Praying is a matter for individual hearts. Religion in politics creates endless social frictiont we don't need on top of all the other ways humans find to disagree. Many Founders agreed. Some of them disputed creation of the chaplaincy. Here is what Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and Virginia's Law on Religious Freedom, had to say: "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." As a candidate for president, Jefferson was assailed by religious zealots (then called Episcopalians) for his cagey, deist views. To those zealots, he answered: "I have sworn upon the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Let our esteemed Congresspersons, most of whom are Christians in name only, and few of whom actually follow Christ's precepts in their own careers and personal lives, seek spiritual solace at their own hearths and fires. Don't let them draq what they imagine to be piety and faithiness into the public forums and political arenas.

Rev. Reese (I note that some address you as Father Reese, but your Bio says "Rev." so I hope this is okay)

You write:

"One does not have to agree with everyone’s religion, but as Christians and Americans we have an obligation to respect the beliefs and religious practices of others. Disrupting prayer is bad manners and unchristian. There are other forums in which to protest and debate theology."

I have exchanged emails with a friend who tells me that he believes the Christian religion is the only true faith. I think he does not include Catholics!

This is a serious question: If Christians believe no other faith is true, from where does the notion of being respectful of the beliefs and religious practices of others emanate?

It is interesting in this context that the US Constitution espouses exactly what you state and it was drafted by Christians (for the most part) as well as people of varying degrees of belief (someone has mentioned Franklin, for example).

Anyhow, if you could answer, I'd be interested.

Thanks.

It hopefully will always be bad manners to disrupt prayer; regardless of ones religious beliefs.

Perhaps there should be a respresentation of all acknownledged world religious beliefs and each time the house is meeting a representative of a religious body could bless the house in its works for that day. Then simply rotate as you go along.

In a perfect world I would suggest that we simply keep it Christain as that is what our Founding Fathers were (as well as a few agnostics) but if it is going to cause this much disruption that we can't get the countries work done then for heaven sakes compromise and get over it!

I am sure most of you can remember when we were in school we all take a turn---

Just do it and lets get on with the important stuff. How to get this country back on track!

Surely you people don't really believe that we pay you to become entrenched in this side show.

It hopefully will always be bad manners to disrupt prayer; regardless of ones religious beliefs.

Perhaps there should be a respresentation of all acknownledged world religious beliefs and each time the house is meeting a representative of a religious body could bless the house in its works for that day. Then simply rotate as you go along.

In a perfect world I would suggest that we simply keep it Christain as that is what our Founding Fathers were (as well as a few agnostics) but if it is going to cause this much disruption that we can't get the countries work done then for heaven sakes compromise and get over it!

I am sure most of you can remember when we were in school we all take a turn---

Just do it and lets get on with the important stuff. How to get this country back on track!

Surely you people don't really believe that we pay you to become entrenched in this side show.

It hopefully will always be bad manners to disrupt prayer; regardless of ones religious beliefs.

Perhaps there should be a respresentation of all acknownledged world religious beliefs and each time the house is meeting a representative of a religious body could bless the house in its works for that day. Then simply rotate as you go along.

In a perfect world I would suggest that we simply keep it Christain as that is what our Founding Fathers were (as well as a few agnostics) but if it is going to cause this much disruption that we can't get the countries work done then for heaven sakes compromise and get over it!

I am sure most of you can remember when we were in school we all take a turn---

Just do it and lets get on with the important stuff. How to get this country back on track!

Surely you people don't really believe that we pay you to become entrenched in this side show.

Senators and Congressmen are pharisaical enough without having to find a clergyman to add to the level of hypocrisy in the Congress.

I disagree with you this time Father Reese.

'Prayer' can be, and is, manipulated in all sorts of ways by Catholics and non-Catholics. It is not infrequently used to preface something terribly sinful.

It's irrelevant if it's been part of US Culture since it's founding. The founding itself was sinful. Consider only how blacks were deemed to be 2/5 of a person, how non-landowners and women were not allowed to vote, how the original inhabitants were sent off to reservations, how a criminal imperial culture was crafted...and how congress et al likely began and ended everything with a prayer.

If government officials, elected or not, want to pray, let them do so alone or in groups, but privately.

They shouldn't be allowed to pin their proposed crimes, or their crimes, on God, or to make them appetible to the public by prefacing them with a prayer.

God will hear the prayer if it is sincere if it is private (group or not). Isn't that what matters, or is there another intent, apart from God? Like pretending ´He is on 0ur Side', for it sure doesn't look like that from where I'm standing.

It is profoundly inappropriate to protest a prayer earnestly offered. I recall the wonderful Lutheran minister who was tried for heresy after offering a prayer at the Yankee Stadium memorial service after 9/11. How grotesque is it to censure a minster for giving comfort to a wounded city!!

It is profoundly inappropriate to protest a prayer earnestly offered. I recall the wonderful Lutheran minister who was tried for heresy after offering a prayer at the Yankee Stadium memorial service after 9/11. How grotesque is it to censure a minster for giving comfort to a wounded city!!1

It is profoundly inappropriate to protest a prayer earnestly offered. I recall the wonderful Lutheran minister who was tried for heresy after offering a prayer at the Yankee Stadium memorial service after 9/11. How grotesque is it to censure a minster for giving comfort to a wounded city!!1

It is profoundly inappropriate to protest a prayer earnestly offered. I recall the wonderful Lutheran minister who was tried for heresy after offering a prayer at the Yankee Stadium memorial service after 9/11. How grotesque is it to censure a minster for giving comfort to a wounded city!!1

wow..some posts here are real encouraging..I dont know where some folks here get their inputs on other religions!!..be informed about other religions and respect them- the world was never christian, is not christian and never will be...and the church never did rule supreme!!!

That's a new attitude for a Jesuit. Shouldn't the heretic be burned at the stake instead of defended? Probably the tried and true mafia way, be real friendly right up to the moment of the hit. When the church again rules supreme things will be different? We all long for the good old days.

Dear Thomas J. Reese,

Man can 'take' four women.
Man can scourge woman.
Two women equals one man.

Shall we respect those as well? Where is the US Constitution ?

I can't believe it, but I completely agree with Father Reese!!

Those of us who are members of majorities or generally empowered groups like "white" or "Christian" or Euro-American or Abrahamic have a responsibility to try and see things through the eyes of members of the minority. Reese's example makes sense to me not just because I'm Catholic, but also because I am an American. Look at it his way: Would it be acceptable for Hindus, Pagans or members of any other religion to interrupt the prayers of a Christian chaplain? If not, why is OK to interrupt a Hindu prayer?
Reese is right, it is just plain bad manners. This is a multi-cultural, pluralistic society whether the exclusivists like it or not. It disturbs me what another column mentions about the official chaplain representing only Christians. That seems more un-American than a simple Hindu could ever be.