National Day of Repentance! (Warning: Spoiler)

[Moviefan2k4]

Okay, for everyone who gripes, complains, and insists that there's some sort of inherent separation between Church and State, read the text of the First Amendment, as posted below.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, let's take this one point at a time...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Simply put, this means that in the United States of America, no system of religious belief should be made into a binding law, the violation of which could land someone in jail or dead. The Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the "New World" from becoming a dictatorship, where no one had any freedom to prefer one thing over another. It is because of this opening line that we have that freedom.

...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

This is a section which most people either don't know about, or simply choose to ignore. This part of the First Amendment means that the Government of the United States should at no time restrict or control the means by which those of any faith choose to express their beliefs, be it public or private. Organizations like the ACLU violate this every day, convincing judges to order the removal of Christian symbols and landmarks, but protecting other groups like Muslims, Hindus, gays, and atheists from the same sort of treatment. If all other beliefs and groups in this nation are to be treated equally, then so should those who follow Christ...period.

...or abridging the freedom of speech...

Self-explanatory for the most part. This means that the Government has no right to interfere with the peaceful voicing of opinions in this country, reggardless of who takes offense to it. Offense is not proper grounds for restriction. The courts should only take legal action when the mortal safety and lives of a citizen are called into question.

...or of the press...

Same deal as above. Unless the welfare or safety of an individual is put at risk, then the lawmakers are not to interfere with how the press operate. And yet, tabloid reporters outright stalk celebrities and political operatives, going so far on various occasions as to invade their place of residence for the sake of a story! The Constitution outright forbids that, and yet there's rarely anything done to stop or prevent it.

...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...

Note the word "peaceably" in that statement. The assembling of a group for any reason is to be allowed, unless doing so would put others in danger (such as a hate riot, for example). We have the right, regardless of what we believe, to assemble for a common cause, so long as that cause does not opress or threaten anyone in any way.

...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This gives us, as U.S. citizens, the right to confront those who represent us in our respective States, and demand that things be changed to prevent opression or unjust punishment.


How does the public display of a Christian cross, the Ten Commandments, the Koran, or even a rainbow flag really hurt anyone? I may be outrightly opposed to homosexuality or Islam, but so long as they are citizens, they have the legal, binding right to assemble for their cause...and so should we as Christians, regardless of who gets offended. I'm not a liberal, but I'm not a hardcore conservative either; I'm a citizen who wishes to see the faith he believes in (and the God whom it represents) legally unrestricted, just as others have the right to be. And to top it all off, there are many more in the same situation. The lawmakers who founded this country were Christians for the most part, and their values formed the basis of our legal system. For example, murder is prohibited, just as God says, "Thou shalt not commit murder." People are required to swear on a Bible in court that they will answer truthfully, just as the Commandments say "Thou shalt not bear false witness." That's not contradicting the Constitution; it's simply reflecting the faith that this nation was founded on.

As for the Repentance Day, I think it's a noble idea. However, true repentance comes from the heart, not a holiday. God knows the thoughts of everyone, and He will treat us all accordingly.

 

[Logan's Runt]

Okay, for everyone who gripes, complains, and insists that there's some sort of inherent separation between Church and State, read the text of the First Amendment, as posted below.



Now, let's take this one point at a time...

Simply put, this means that in the United States of America, no system of religious belief should be made into a binding law, the violation of which could land someone in jail or dead. The Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the "New World" from becoming a dictatorship, where no one had any freedom to prefer one thing over another. It is because of this opening line that we have that freedom.

This first bit:
"The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another." Source:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment

Now, last I checked, the establishment of a national holiday (IF that is what's happening here as some have proposed/worried- this is what my argument is against) is an act of legislation. Legislation deals with more than just prohibitory laws. Thus, the government making a national holiday with Christian terminology (Jewish people don't go on and on about repentance) and from a Christian origin (preacher's daughter has vision) would be an act of the government endorsing and preferring a Christian ideal and making legislation to uphold it. Therefore, making Repentance day a national holiday would be unconstitutional.

As far as the free exercise clause, yes most people know about it. If the government did anything to prohibit people from repenting should they like to on a given day, that would also be a violation. It works both ways. The 'separation of church and state' amendment is intended to keep government from restricting religion, but also religion from influencing government in ways unfair to the rest of the citizens.

Now, to deny that this occurrence is a Christian event/holiday/idea is like saying you were stretching your arm when mom caught you with your hand in the cookie jar. Yes, it would be good if all humanity looked at their actions and evaluated them according to a set of moral standards. However, everyone knows the term 'repentance' is the keyword of Christians moral tradition, along with things like sin, grace, and Jesus. If the government had 'Remember Jesus Day' no one would successfully claim that they were just celebrating an historical figure. If the government wanted to come up with a national holiday that was secular-minded and accomplished a similar goal, they could have and would have.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

So is this real or not??

 

[Logan's Runt]

How does the public display of a Christian cross, the Ten Commandments, the Koran, or even a rainbow flag really hurt anyone? I may be outrightly opposed to homosexuality or Islam, but so long as they are citizens, they have the legal, binding right to assemble for their cause...and so should we as Christians, regardless of who gets offended. I'm not a liberal, but I'm not a hardcore conservative either; I'm a citizen who wishes to see the faith he believes in (and the God whom it represents) legally unrestricted, just as others have the right to be. And to top it all off, there are many more in the same situation. The lawmakers who founded this country were Christians for the most part, and their values formed the basis of our legal system. For example, murder is prohibited, just as God says, "Thou shalt not commit murder." People are required to swear on a Bible in court that they will answer truthfully, just as the Commandments say "Thou shalt not bear false witness." That's not contradicting the Constitution; it's simply reflecting the faith that this nation was founded on.

As for the Repentance Day, I think it's a noble idea. However, true repentance comes from the heart, not a holiday. God knows the thoughts of everyone, and He will treat us all accordingly.

Its not the public display of Christian symbols that is the problem- its the government displaying them as representations of the government. Citizens displaying their faiths/orientations in a public manner, demonstrations, symbols, etc, is no problem. But the government hanging the ten commandments next to Justice is. Its the difference between a person with a belief and a governmental system endorsing a faith. People believe in religion, not the government. The government is a separate entity from the people that compose it.

The problem with the government holding one religion up as a standard is that, while it doesn't restrict the religion it holds, it does restrict all the other religions systematically. It may not be as obvious as 'you can't be Islamic,' but just being a minority/a group that is not the norm is a systematic restriction and oppression. They don't have to do anything but be celebrated as the norm to oppress. That is why the government can't endorse one religion, because automatically by that action, they are breaking the 'free exercise' clause.

Yes, you should be Christians if that's what you are, regardless of what people tell you. That is entirely different from what's being discussed. No one here is telling Christians not to be Christians. They're saying that the government needs to not be endorsing Christianity as its own. Christians can organize on their own and delegate a day of repentance, advertise on TV, whatever. But the government cannot fund/endorse it as national.

It doesn't matter what the religion of the founding fathers was. They built a government independent of religion. Some morals are universal, so yes some laws uphold the same values Christianity does. I'd bet people were against murder long before god told Moses about it. The ancient Greeks looked down upon murder... were they Christian before Christianity?

For the record, the practice of swearing on the Bible in court is something I have a big problem with, for the same reasons as above.

What you're saying in the end of your post is that America was founded on Christian beliefs and therefore is a Christian Nation? You accused people of glossing over the 'free exercise' clause earlier and now you've just thrown out the 'establishment' clause. Even if the founding fathers did want a 'Christian Nation' (which I don't believe), it does not matter, because the Amendment has been made to prevent the government from endorsing a religion even if it was the original intention. Governments evolve, that's why we have the power of amendment.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

The problem with the government holding one religion up as a standard is that, while it doesn't restrict the religion it holds, it does restrict all the other religions systematically. It may not be as obvious as 'you can't be Islamic,' but just being a minority/a group that is not the norm is a systematic restriction and oppression. They don't have to do anything but be celebrated as the norm to oppress. That is why the government can't endorse one religion, because automatically by that action, they are breaking the 'free exercise' clause.

Okay, what you just described doesn't make any sense. The social "norm", as you put it, is not a matter of law; rather, it is one of perception. The Government has every right to prefer Christianity, so long as the practice of it is not made legally binding, where those who refuse would be arrested. There's a difference between the lawmakers preferring a faith, and choosing to legally impose that faith on everyone else. Displaying a cross or the Commandments simply says, "We were founded on Christian principles, whether anyone agrees or not". If someone gets offended, then they should deal with it on their own, not involving the courts. Imposition of a faith would require making it mandatory on the law books, which it isn't. Doing so would turn the U.S. from a democracy to a dictatorship. There's nothing wrong with endorsing a cause, so long as the freedom remains for those who wish to oppose to do so.

 

[jaguarr]

There is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country.

Yes. And an example of going against this would be the Government telling us what to believe and how to worship.

If you do not see how creating a national holiday of repentance based on the Christian religion plays favoritism from the United States government and creates an unspoken endorsement of Christianity as the "official" religion of the country, as LogansRunt has already pointed out, then you are blind.

A holiday like this does not uphold that.

I beg to differ. This "holiday" is not telling us who to believe in and how to do so. Nor does it take anyone but Christians into account. Granted, the term "repentence" has a large christian undertone, but how can you say that the idea of repentence is soley christian? So, its only christians who believe in stopping one's immoral ways and "turning a new leaf"? Hmmm.

It's being presented in a Christian context. And, no, creating a holiday that creates an unofficial endorsement of ANY religion by the U.S. government is not keeping a healthy separation of church and state. Period. And people are allowed to live however they want to, regardless of what you might consider immoral. If they want to better their lives and be better people, they don't need a Christian-tinted national holiday to do so. Ever.

And, the last time I checked, the President wasn't authorized by any church to declare any day at all an official day for repentance.

Right, and if he did, THAT would make it unconstitutional; but he is doing it all on his own, with no church lobbying for him to do so.

How would it be any more unconstitutional if he was doing it at the behest of an official church? It's reprehensible for him to do it at all. The fact that he doesn't even have the endorsement of any church officials empowering him on behalf of God to do so makes it even worse from the Christian side of things. From the secular side, Bush is way out of line in creating this unspoken endorsement of Christianity as the "official/un-official" religion of the country.

Not only that, but not every Christian faction recognizes repentance, so it's even causing division amongst Christians. Lame.

Are you kidding? Really. So, you're telling me, that one of the most important aspect of christianity (or any religion for that matter) isnt even held true by all factions? Thats funny. I'd like to know which butt crack you pulled that one out of....

Are you really going to sit there and tell me that every single Christian faction that exists believes in and endorses repentance? You do know that some of them believe if you sin, you're screwed, right? You also know that some of them believe that you cannot repent until you DIE and are at the feet of your creator, right? That would sort of preclude repentance while you are still alive as being pointless, right?

P.S. - Thanks for being all Christian-like and calling us a bunch of ****ers, Spider-Who.

Yeah, I calls em like I sees em.

So, when you ask yourself "What would Jesus do?", the answer you get back is that he would call everyone he disagrees with "a bunch of ****ers". Right. No one has called you any names. No one has demanded anything except equal recognition of their own beliefs outside of Christianity, particularly where our government is concerned. No one has treated any Christians in this thread with any real disrespect. Yet you feel compelled to act in such a way. Does it bother you that I, an agnostic, am acting more in accordance with your own savior's code of ethics on how to treat people than you are? It should.

Cheers,
jag

 

[jaguarr]

The Government has every right to prefer Christianity, so long as the practice of it is not made legally binding, where those who refuse would be arrested.

See, most of the people who are against this supposed holiday are against it because they expect their government to provide EQUAL representation of the rights of ALL it's constituents, not just Christians. And that means not showing favoritism or making unspoken endorsements of one religion over any other as the "official/un-official" religion of the U.S. government. That's the whole point of separation of church and state; to make sure everyone in the country is equally represented and protected by their government. The country was founded on the idea that all men were created equal and could hold whatever religious beliefs (or lack thereof) they wished. A move like this is not keeping in step with those ideals of our founding fathers.

jag

 

[Logan's Runt]

Okay, what you just described doesn't make any sense. The social "norm", as you put it, is not a matter of law; rather, it is one of perception. The Government has every right to prefer Christianity, so long as the practice of it is not made legally binding, where those who refuse would be arrested. There's a difference between the lawmakers preferring a faith, and choosing to legally impose that faith on everyone else. Displaying a cross or the Commandments simply says, "We were founded on Christian principles, whether anyone agrees or not". If someone gets offended, then they should deal with it on their own, not involving the courts. Imposition of a faith would require making it mandatory on the law books, which it isn't. Doing so would turn the U.S. from a democracy to a dictatorship. There's nothing wrong with endorsing a cause, so long as the freedom remains for those who wish to oppose to do so.

Did you read my post?

This first bit:
"The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another." Source:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment

Now, last I checked, the establishment of a national holiday (IF that is what's happening here as some have proposed/worried- this is what my argument is against) is an act of legislation. Legislation deals with more than just prohibitory laws. Thus, the government making a national holiday with Christian terminology (Jewish people don't go on and on about repentance) and from a Christian origin (preacher's daughter has vision) would be an act of the government endorsing and preferring a Christian ideal and making legislation to uphold it. Therefore, making Repentance day a national holiday would be unconstitutional.

You're defining 'law' as prohibitionary laws only- the ones that say you must/can't do something or you'll be arrested. Law and legislation are much more than that. Its the same category of issue as the 'English as a National language' debate. They don't say you 'must speak English or you'll be arrested' they say 'English is legally the National language.'
Yes, there is a difference between members of government having their own beliefs and imposing them on the nation-- but passing legislation creating a Christian based holiday is the latter, not the former. The difference is personal preference versus governmental preference. Any action that paints the government as favoring a religion officially (eg through legislation) violates the establishment clause.

You're not understanding what I'm telling you. It is not as black and white as saying "the government isn't making a law that say's you'll go to jail if you're not Christian, so everything's puppies and rainbows." That is a simplistic view of the situation that misses the important points. I'm not saying, either, that members of government can't be Christian personally. I'm saying that by endorsing a Christian Tradition officially, the government is sending a message to the nation and world that it prefers Christianity, which is problematic to all those who are not Christian. The first amendment's purpose is to prevent subtle discrimination of that kind! It is to keep the government from alienating those who are not of one religion, and from oppressing members of any particular religion from expressing themselves! It does not give any religion the right to be endorsed by the government.


And, once again, you're touting the lazy, ignorant motto of those comfortably in the majority. There is something wrong with the government endorsing a specific religion's cause, even if people retain the right not to embrace it individually! The government is by the people for the people. All of them! Not just one group. They are not to publicly declare themselves in league with any race, religion, sex, or any of that.

 

[jaguarr]

As far as I'm concerned, LogansRunt has completely destroyed any arguments anyone could ever make for endorsing this "National Day Of Repentance". :heart:

jag

 

[Canadian Rider]

And the hype switches from discussing fictional heroes to attacking each other over perceptions of Religion and law. Where is Wilhelm? This seems like his kind of thread ...

By the way, the American Government founded the country on Christian principles and included God in the constitution so there has always been a preference.

You think it is bad now, be glad you don't live in Australia where they are telling people who don't like the national policies to leave ...

 

[Canadian Rider]

Does it bother you that I, an agnostic, am acting more in accordance with your own savior's code of ethics on how to treat people than you are? It should.

Cheers,
jag

Uhmm Jag. Christ called everyone to repent as the Kingdom is at hand, so actually you are going against what he preached.

Cr.

 

[jaguarr]

And the hype switches from discussing fictional heroes to attacking each other over perceptions of Religion and law. Where is Wilhelm? This seems like his kind of thread ...

By the way, the American Government founded the country on Christian principles and included God in the constitution so there has always been a preference.

You think it is bad now, be glad you don't live in Australia where they are telling people who don't like the national policies to leave ...

You're Canadian, so you don't even get a vote.

jag

 

[Logan's Runt]

As far as I'm concerned, LogansRunt has completely destroyed any arguments anyone could ever make for endorsing this "National Day Of Repentance". :heart:

jag

I knew I was a religious studies minor for some reason. :heart:

I hope people don't think I'm anti-Christian. I'm not, I'm interested in all religions. I just get upset at the mentality that Christianity has the right to dominate and everyone should just accept that because that's 'how it is.' It's not fair, especially when it comes to a government primarily concerned with freedom.

 

[jaguarr]

Uhmm Jag. Christ called everyone to repent as the Kingdom is at hand, so actually you are going against what he preached.

Cr.

Not really, because I'm not a Christian. And that doesn't change the fact that there are Christian factions that don't believe you can repent until you DIE, not while you are alive. But tell me this....did Christ roam around calling everyone he disagreed with "a bunch of f**kers"?

jag

 

[moraldeficiency]

You guys are getting pretty worked up over something that was obviously made up just to get you guys worked up. A lousiana preacher's daughter had a vision and then got the president to endorse it?

How is anyone buying this?

 

[Canadian Rider]

You're Canadian, so you don't even get a vote.

jag

Whatever. And you get to make that decision because?

Cr.

 

[jaguarr]

You guys are getting pretty worked up over something that was obviously made up just to get you guys worked up. A lousiana preacher's daughter had a vision and then got the president to endorse it?

How is anyone buying this?

I think everyone's just enjoying arguing it conceptually more than anything. Are you really max?

jag

 

[jaguarr]

Whatever. And you get to make that decision because?

Cr.

Well, it IS an American concern.

jag

 

[moraldeficiency]

Not really, because I'm not a Christian. And that doesn't change the fact that there are Christian factions that don't believe you can repent until you DIE, not while you are alive. But tell me this....did Christ roam around calling everyone he disagreed with "a bunch of f**kers"?

jag

That would be awesome if he did.

I can see it now, "listen up, @uckers, you've been @itching about food for the last hour so I'm gonna turn this basket of food into enough for all you fat @ucks so stop your @itching. Now I'm gonna go walk across this lake to get away from you annoying @ucks."

That's a savior.

 

[moraldeficiency]

I think everyone's just enjoying arguing it conceptually more than anything. Are you really max?

jag

No it's a mathematical term that I dig cause it contridicts the laws of nature.

 

[Logan's Runt]

By the way, the American Government founded the country on Christian principles and included God in the constitution so there has always been a preference.

PS- Slavery was interpretively legal under the constitution, originally, and was practiced widely at the time of the founding fathers. Just because that's how it was, does not make it right.

 

[jaguarr]

No it's a mathematical term that I dig cause it contridicts the laws of nature.

Ahhh. We used to have someone here who posted under the username "maxwell's demon", that's why I asked. He was awesome. I miss him.

jag

 

[Moviefan2k4]

The plain and simple fact is that many people in this country and elsewhere want a world without any sort of boundaries. They want to do what they want, how they want, when they want, to whoever they want, and never have to face any consequences or answer to anyone about it. In the U.S., we are granted by the Constitution a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion.

 

[Logan's Runt]

You guys are getting pretty worked up over something that was obviously made up just to get you guys worked up. A lousiana preacher's daughter had a vision and then got the president to endorse it?

How is anyone buying this?

I'm not worked up...? It is an area that I've studied/discussed for years and is incredibly interesting to me as a debate.

 

[Canadian Rider]

Not really, because I'm not a Christian. And that doesn't change the fact that there are Christian factions that don't believe you can repent until you DIE, not while you are alive. But tell me this....did Christ roam around calling everyone he disagreed with "a bunch of f**kers"?

jag

He used terminology that was appropriate for the time actually Jag. He told people that they had to repent of their sins. Whether human institutions and groups have interpreted that their own way is a different point.

My point was that you claimed to follow his ways and yet you are arguing against repentance.

That was my point.

If people call others names it reflects poor manners more than anything else.

I find it interesting that when your government chooses to do something like this, everyone jumps to claim that the US does not have or should not have a preference to one religion over the other; however the Government of the United States at the inception of the Country tried to install portions of the Christian Religion and a belief in God into the constitution.

Again, that was my point about your country's historical preference and I was trying to indicate that if you have a long history of "favoring" one religion over the other why are people surprised or offended when a government of the day decides to "celebrate" or "endorse" a tenet of that faith?

History shows that your country has the historical preference or "favoring" of the one religion over all others.

The current thinking of Freedom of religion and state or seperation of State and Church is not consistent with your country's founding tradition.

IMO.

Cr.