NCAAbbs

Besides the whole Bible Prophecy stuff, does Russia worry any of you? They seem to be regressing back toward communism, and at the same time they are helping Iran. They also worked with Iraq, prior to the war. It seems they are making their bed with those aligned against the US & Israel.

I think this is worth considering (original link only gives podcast, not text)

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Chuck..._worldview

A Sterile Worldview
Vanishing Russia
By Chuck Colson
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

According to a recent Los Angeles Times article, Russia

That article started out okay, but then he had to start railing against atheism as if it was the sole problem in Russia. Or as if it was even a problem at all.

Give me a break. The Russian Orthodox Church has made a huge recovery since the fall of communism. According to the reasoning above, shouldn't God be less severe now that people are returning to faith?

There are far larger economic/political reasons why Russia is doing so poorly, but this guy chooses to focus on atheism. And then goes on to project that onto America, a country where over 76% percent identify themselves as Christian. Yeah, Christianity, the battered minority.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:...America, a country where over 76% percent identify themselves as Christian. Yeah, Christianity, the battered minority.

That stat always blows my mind. It must be some sort of social association thing. In my estimation....I would say it is 10% or less that were actual Christians.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:That article started out okay, but then he had to start railing against atheism as if it was the sole problem in Russia. Or as if it was even a problem at all.

It was a townhall.com link. "Religious right" is an understatement for that website.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:That article started out okay, but then he had to start railing against atheism as if it was the sole problem in Russia. Or as if it was even a problem at all.

Give me a break. The Russian Orthodox Church has made a huge recovery since the fall of communism. According to the reasoning above, shouldn't God be less severe now that people are returning to faith?

The article wasn't saying that God was punishing Russia, rather that the Russian's atheism was in large part leading them to fatalism and despair.

So give ME a break. Stop interpreting the writing so poorly and inappropriately, then griping about it.

Quote:There are far larger economic/political reasons why Russia is doing so poorly, but this guy chooses to focus on atheism.

No, the point is those economic/political reasons are ROOTED in the atheism. Duh.

Quote:And then goes on to project that onto America, a country where over 76% percent identify themselves as Christian. Yeah, Christianity, the battered minority.

Another non-sequitor. No one is griping about a battered minority. Rather the thesis is that if American Christians don't take their faith seriously, as opposed to what the cultural and influential elite are proposing, then America will follow this same path (even if it's decades later).

You may disagree with this, after all it is a discussion board. But if you're going to puff up that you're so much smarter, at least you can bother reading and addressing what was actually written, and not some fantasy straw-man that you conjure up.

Fanatical Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:That article started out okay, but then he had to start railing against atheism as if it was the sole problem in Russia. Or as if it was even a problem at all.

It was a townhall.com link. "Religious right" is an understatement for that website.

It was a breakpoint.org column. The townhall folks had nothing to do with the authorship.

But, good to see you're so tolerant of others' opinions.

Russia is so 80s, we are about the Middle East now.

fsquid Wrote:Russia is so 80s, we are about the Middle East now.

If you haven't noticed, they are doing a lot in the middle east. Most of it is in opposition to what we are doing over there.

DrTorch Wrote:But, good to see you're so tolerant of others' opinions.

I learned alot on this board! ;-)

GrayBeard Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:...America, a country where over 76% percent identify themselves as Christian. Yeah, Christianity, the battered minority.

That stat always blows my mind. It must be some sort of social association thing. In my estimation....I would say it is 10% or less that were actual Christians.

I would guess that 76% includes athe Christmas and Easter only christians, and all the ones who woere raised christian but haven't seem the inside of any church in decades. In short, just about everybody that doesn;t actively identifiy themselves as something other than Christian.

[quote]It

That's a good article Dr. Torch. Western cultures (well maybe I should be more specific and say "white cultures") are taking a beating because of abortion. It's the reason foreigners are invading this country at the rate of 3000/day and our government does nothing about it. It's the reason the Muslims are taking over Europe and have completely taken over parts of France without the French resisting even in the least. It's the reason Russia is getting dangerously low on people.

It sort of reminds of the Roman collapse due to indulgent and decadent living. This is what lead to the collapse of Rome isn't it? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm more worried about America than any other outside enemy. The greatest enemy to America has become herself.

They have worried me since Putin was elected President. Former KGB enough for me to not trust him as far as I could throw him.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

Quote:Rather the thesis is that if American Christians don't take their faith seriously, as opposed to what the cultural and influential elite are proposing, then America will follow this same path (even if it's decades later).

The author assumes that courts and "cultural elite" are "marginalizing the religious." I'd like to see some evidence of that please. I find that to be the biggest strawman of them all.

Straw man?
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5846
http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,719...wn_index_1
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5602
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5878
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5719
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/199/story_19926_1.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11057077/ (ok, not US)

Here's "some evidence". The Dawkins book should be sufficient (although he's British) but there is more. And many of these articles have links of their own.

Quote:Add to that, the US's economy is very different and much more flexible than the Soviet Union's was. To say the brand of secularism in America (keeping Church and State separate) is going to do the same harm that Soviet secularism (bulldozing churches across the country pre-WWII) is alarmist and absurd.

http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=1490

It'll take me some time to look over all of these, but I will.

As for Dawkins, he is definitely the lightning rod for those who claim that there is a war on religion. Dawkins' point of view is obviously that religion is junk, but even other atheists disagree with the position that there needs to be such an evangelical campaign for atheism.

I have not read The God Delusion and I may never, but everything that I have read of his online tells me that he is not for banning religion. Sure he believes that religion is bunk, but I don't see him burning churches. He's merely evangelizing much like a Christian might do.

Personally, I find him a bit abrasive, but I don't think he's stepping on your rights to having religious freedom.

Like I said, I'll address the articles when I get some time.

Just as preface, I do not have the time nor the desire to look into every single case presented in these articles, but I will give a run down of each with my thoughts.

DrTorch Wrote:Straw man?
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5846

All that this article says is that 1) you may be getting the cold shoulder when you start talking about your faith to people who do not have the same faith to you, and 2) There are some books coming out that are pro-atheism.

First, how does me giving you the cold shoulder when you start affirming your faith say that you are losing your right to have your faith? It doesn't. You have every right in the world to say whatever you want about faith. And I have every right in the world to ignore what you have to say.

Second, so what if there are books coming out? Does this impede you ability to go to church? Do the long lines waiting for these books block the roads on Sunday morning? Nope. My conclusion, this first article amounts to no evidence of anyone restraining your religious freedom in this country.

Quote:http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,719...wn_index_1

I addressed Dawkins already, but again he represents the "evangelical atheist." I don't particularly agree with his strategy, but his speaking is not stopping you from practicing your faith.

Towards the end of that article, I believe that Daniel Dennet actually admits that you could not wipe religion from the Earth if you wanted to because belief is part of our makeup. Being able to think abstractly about things that we cannot see is something that has allowed us to push technology and civilization forward.

Quote:http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5602

Actually, most of the examples in this piece seem like good evidence for the argument that some people do out and out attack Christians.

UVa student paper with cartoons attack Christians. I'm guessing this was done in response to the pictures of Mohammad that upset so many Muslims last year? If that is the case, perhaps it was done in order to drive home the point that in this country we have freedom to criticize everything. Unfortunately, some people feel the need to censor certain speech. They did it to the Mohammad pictures. Very few reprinted them for fear of backlash from the Islamic community (death threats and more) while the Christian cartoons were "allowed" because there was less of a threat. I'll agree that the Muslims overreacted much more than Christians did, but because we live in America I should be free to critique any religion. Just as these students did. The double standard (between the christian and islam) does piss me off. If a paper printed the Chistian criticism, it should also print the Islamic criticism. Sorry about the length of that I think I got my point through.

As for Rosie, she may have been threatened due to her being a lesbian, I don't know. But I disagree with the idea that Christians are as big of a threat as Muslim extremists. To the point that television shows some things that are religious and others that are not, true but it is the choice of the stations, and (at least where I am at) I can get multiple religious stations any time of the day, any day of the week. If a station chooses not to show something, it is not religious persecution. Take it up with your local provider.

The InnerChange Freedom Initiative being shot down in court? I don't much of the case, I'd have to look it up, but if it had to do with getting federal funding the separation between church and state could be the barrier on why they couldn't get the money. I think churches helping criminals is great, but if they are going to get money for it they need to be open to all members of all faiths instead of a typical brand of Christianity. That's usually where some problems occur. A lot of time people need to sit down and ask themselves, if this were an Islamic group, would I want them getting money from the government to do the same thing?

I think so far, I have shown that anyone can still go to church when they want, and we are still free to worship (or not) as we wish.


I'm going to break here for now, and get to the rest on the list later. Some of the above I have been speculating on, but I'm not going to be able to research and address every point on this list all at once. If you want to point out a misunderstanding that I had, feel free, and we can focus on one of the above.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Just as preface, I do not have the time nor the desire to look into every single case presented in these articles, but I will give a run down of each with my thoughts.

DrTorch Wrote:Straw man?
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5846

All that this article says is that 1) you may be getting the cold shoulder when you start talking about your faith to people who do not have the same faith to you, and 2) There are some books coming out that are pro-atheism.

First, how does me giving you the cold shoulder when you start affirming your faith say that you are losing your right to have your faith? It doesn't. You have every right in the world to say whatever you want about faith. And I have every right in the world to ignore what you have to say.

Second, so what if there are books coming out? Does this impede you ability to go to church? Do the long lines waiting for these books block the roads on Sunday morning? Nope. My conclusion, this first article amounts to no evidence of anyone restraining your religious freedom in this country.

But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that you wanted evidence that the cultural elite were "marginalizing religion."

Is Christianity close to being wiped out in the US? Of course not. However, I think that all of these point toward disdain (often illogical and inconsistent) toward Christianity, by many who are aptly described as "culturally elite".

Rosie is culturally elite? Scary thought. lmfao I also said above that you will always be able to find people who take positions to their extremes on both sides. I'm really more concerned with the courts enforcing religious views.

So is your position that if I ignore someones proselytizing I'm marginalizing their religion, I guess in my own mind I am, but so what? Do you listen and take into account everything Tom Cruise says in fear of marginalizing Scientology? Of course not. How about US Catholics? Which religion should be marginalized and which should not? The original point was that the US will go down the same path that the Soviets did. I have yet to see any evidence of that presented.

Onto the rest of the articles, which I'll go over with less detail than before.

Quote:http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5878

Wm and Mary is a public institution. A cross on the grounds either needs to be accompanied by other religious symbols or none at all. Showing preference to any groups violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Courts have held over the years that this applies to publicly funded institutions.

Quote:http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5719

Gay marriage. Again, some religions allow for gay marriage. Which one is the right one? How can the state decide without taking a stance on the trueness of said religion?

I also found this, which I think is a fallacy:
[quote]Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill into law that makes it illegal for any non-profit organization receiving state funds to portray homosexual or bisexual practices in a negative light

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Rosie is culturally elite? Scary thought. lmfao

I agree, but people listen to her! How about elite of "pop culture".

Quote:Onto the rest of the articles, which I'll go over with less detail than before.

Quote:http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5878

Wm and Mary is a public institution. A cross on the grounds either needs to be accompanied by other religious symbols or none at all. Showing preference to any groups violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Courts have held over the years that this applies to publicly funded institutions.

Well you asked for examples of the courts involvement, and then you cite one yourself. Wm & Mary's history and establishment are explicitly Christian. The cross is not a new gift, it is almost a century old. Ignoring these, on a matter of interpretation, is precisely the act of marginalizing Christianity by the courts. I never said they didn't have an excuse to do this.

Quote:[quote]http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5719

Gay marriage. Again, some religions allow for gay marriage. Which one is the right one? How can the state decide without taking a stance on the trueness of said religion?

I also found this, which I think is a fallacy:
[quote]Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill into law that makes it illegal for any non-profit organization receiving state funds to portray homosexual or bisexual practices in a negative light

Elite: Verb. - believing that no one should own firearms for protection, but that your child's bodyguards should be armed.

Synonym- Hypocrite

On the RA:
The only way I could see any reason to stop a Bible study from the RA would be if he was suing his position to preach to people who did not want to be preached to. Banning all RAs from Bible studies? Vast overreaction. I hope this did not stand up.

The Wren cross:
From my understanding of the cross situation, the cross was placed in a chapel, which had no previous cross. That's no better or worse than taking it out of the chapel. The length of its stay is of no concern. How long is long enough? 10 years? 50 years? 100 years?

In my limited experience this goes both ways and it is due in large part to ignorance of what separation of church and state means. This is when you get minorities being persecuted for their beliefs, as well as the majority losing the freedoms that they should have. Both are equally wrong in my book.

From what I understand it really isn't that hard to figure this out in most cases. Public institutions shouldn't show preference to any religion. Equal access for all, or no access for all. Private groups can use public building for religious matter (Bible studies, weddings, etc.) as long as every group has equal access to the facilities for similar purposes. A person in a public position cannot show any preference towards any group.

Some private groups take PC too far and start banning things on their own. Joe's Retail can tell their employees to not use the word Christmas, but they can't tell them to not go to church. most people will not be offended if you tell them Merry Christmas in this country. And they few that do may cry about it, but so what, don't shop at Joe's Retail if you don't like it. That's all you can do. And if you don't like "Happy Holidays" then you don't have to shop at Joe's retail either. Joe's just wants to cash in so they make the best business decision and cater to either one of the groups. I think a vast majority of the people in this country don't care either way, they just want to get their shopping done.

Well that's my position.

Russia is no threat to us. They are socially crumbling from within. The nation is decaying faster than any other in Europe in regards to "European Whites". Many know how Muslims are migrating into Europe by the thousands, in Russia the problem is worse.

Russia's only population growth is coming from Muslims. Moscow is increasingly becoming more Muslim. It is said that within 50 years Russia will have a Muslim majority. This fact is spreading fear and hate throughout the nation. Hate crimes against Muslims have risen and many politicians have been coming forward to strengthen immigration laws and make Christian Orthodox the national religion - even deportation.

We could see in the very near future issues such as in Chechnya become more wide scale and deadly, whether it be from full blown war or genocide. Lest not forget China, the dragon, in the east which is becoming a more aggressive "superpower" looking for more land and resources. Where else could they get what they need but from a crumbling empire in Russia's Siberia.

So to answer whether I fear Russia, I say absolutely not. I would fear China more than them! So who should we fear? Nobody but ourselves and our complacent culture.

RebelKev Wrote:Elite: Verb. - believing that no one should own firearms for protection, but that your child's bodyguards should be armed.

Her exact words:

Rosie O'Donnell Wrote:I don't care if you want to hunt. I don't care if you think it's your right. I say, sorry. It is 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.

... unless you're her child's security guard.

GrayBeard Wrote:Most of it is in opposition to what we are doing over there.

News flash: Only Israel ISN'T in opposition to what has transpired in the middle east thus far.