When did freedom of religion become freedom to only practice a Christian religion?

I received one of those chain emails, only in this case there is no "bad luck" if I don't forward, instead apparently I am a traitor? Really?

"THIS IS WHAT A TRAITOR LOOKS LIKE TO MOST OF US.
In 1952 President Truman established one day a year as a "National Day of Prayer."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1988 President Reagan designated the First Thursday in May of each year as
the National Day of Prayer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2007 (then) Presidential Candidate Barack Obama declared that the USA
"Was no longer a Christian nation."
---------------------------------------------------------------
This year President Obama canceled the 21st annual National Day of Prayer ceremony
at the White House under the ruse Of "not wanting to offend anyone"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT... on September 25, 2009 from 4 AM until 7 PM, a National Day of Prayer FOR THE MUSLIM RELIGION was Held on Capitol Hill, beside the White House.
There were over 50,000 Muslims in D.C. that day.

HE PRAYS WITH THE MUSLIMS!

I guess it doesn't matter if "Christians" are offended by this event -
We obviously don't count as "anyone" anymore.

The direction this country is headed
should strike fear in the heart of every Christian,
especially knowing that the
Muslim religion believes that if Christians cannot be
converted, they should be annihilated."


I have removed most of the formatting that was supposed to show emphasis on their points, because almost all of this email is either an outright fabrication, gross exaggeration or a purposeful misquote.


I am not going to go line by line, as I will put the two websites, Snopes and About.com, that debunk this trash.


Here are the highlights though:

There was indeed such an event, it was NOT held at the While House, nor was it sanctioned by the White House. Rather it was lawfully permitted and held on public grounds, at the West Front of the Capitol.


Pres. Obama did not cancel the National Day of Prayer, held in May of 2009, though he did call for people of all faiths to pray. What he did do was not hold a service at the White House. In his inaugural address he said: "For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers."

What is important here is to recognize what he did NOT say, the email states that he said we are no longer a Christian Nation. This is not what he said. One sentence in Obama's prepared remarks for his keynote address at the "Call to Renewal" conference sponsored by Christian Sojourners in 2006 read as follows:

"Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers." (2)

Why is all of this important?

The National Day of Prayer has always been addressed to peoples of all faiths:

In 1983 Reagan’s proclamation was very much inclusive “Revived as an annual observance by Congress in 1952, the National Day of Prayer has become a great unifying force for our citizens who come from all the great religions of the world. Prayer unites people. This common expression of reverence heals and brings us together as a Nation and we pray it may one day bring renewed respect for God to all the peoples of the world.” (3)

But under George W Bush (JR), it became an event focused primarily on Evangelical Christians, in fact the National Day of Prayer task-force requires volunteers to agree and sign the following statement:

“A volunteer must be an evangelical Christian who has a personal relationship with Christ. I acknowledge that I am working for the Lord Jesus Christ and the furthering of His Work on earth and agree to perform my work with the highest standard of Christian faith.”(3)

So why am I bothered by this? Well first of all we are NOT JUST a Christian Nation, nor have we ever been. Our Constitution is based on the Constitution of the Iroquois Nation. Our country was founded by people fleeing from political and religious tyranny and persecution. People, who did not have the right to speak, worship or hold political ideals separate from the government/monarchy. Even our Pledge, written in 1892, did not include the words "Under God" till 1954. (many use the pledge as proof that we are a Christian Nation).

But what bothers me most is the underlying sense of discrimination and hatred for those who are not Christian. It spread untruths and exaggerations meant to inspire fear. Coupled with the subtle message that if I do not forward it along, than I too am a traitor.

I am not Christian, nor am I Muslim. I pray every day. Who I pray too, frankly, is no one's business, especially not the government.

The person who sent this to me knows this. I felt violated, like something ugly had invaded my home. I love her; we've been friends for a very long time. Granted our politics are different, but that is alright. She's sent me things in the past that I agree with and have said so; she has also sent me things that I did not agree with. I said nothing and deleted it.

But this is different. This email made me feel uncomfortable, it gave me a small frisson of fear, and it made me pause for a few days before I felt I could say anything.

The end of the article cites how 'Muslims' believe that non-believers need to be killed. Certainly there are fanatic factions that believe that, but the majority of Muslims do not.

There are also Christian fanatics that believe if they cannot convert you, then you need to die. They are called Dominists, and Christians will tell you these people have perverted the Word of God to their own ends. (5)

NeoWayland has a very interesting list of many groups who also qualify to be called Dominists, Christianity does not hold the patent on it:

"Here's where I diverge from many Pagan friends and acquaintances. See, I have this simple idea that if the Christian Dominists are bad because they want to impose their beliefs on everyone else, then so are all the other Dominists. Including all the ones I didn't list here.

Pagans are quick to denounce the Christian Dominists, but not so quick with the others. But if you let one get away with their agenda, the others will inevitably rise from whatever trash bin we tried to consign them to. You can't defend your rights from one group, sign them away to the next group, and still expect to be protected next week.

Christian Dominism is wrong not because of its origins, but because it seeks to remove choice. The same is true with all the other varieties. Just because you may agree today doesn't mean that is the one you will have to live with long term.

We best protect our own rights by protecting the right of others to choose. Even if we think their choices are bad."(4)

Even if we think their choices are bad! That is what this country is founded on.

I've written far more than I originally intended, I guess that just shows just how much this bothered me. I've found the older I get, the more centrist my politics become. I tend to see the other sides POV. My grandmother, a lifelong Democrat, would roll over in her grave if she knew I now vote for the person I believe best suited for the job. I don't care what religion our President practices as long as he does not attempt to make me practice it as well.

I don't care who you pray too, as long as you don't demand I pray to the same deity.

What I do care about is people who believe that by spreading lies and fear they can convert more folk. Or frighten them into going along.

Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.


1. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capitolislam.asp
2. http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/islam_on_capitol_hill_2.htm
3. http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/national_day_of_prayer
4. http://www.paganvigil.com/C1163190915/E20070506141532/index.html
5. http://www.watchmanscry.com/forum/showthread.php?t=974

Facebook

I remember a few years ago the move so many made from LiveJournal to Facebook. Many of the discussions centered around similar topics, privacy issues, pay versus free, formatting and layout changes, oh and the DRAMA!

Another friend plans to leave FB, he cited several reasons for this decision, and made some very important points. So many of us, myself included, use fb as a means to stay in contact with friends we cannot see on a regular basis. FB seems to have filled in for so many social things we used to do:
BBQ's, pool partied, Girls night out, (okay Boy's night out too), getting together for lunch, having a movie night or a night of dancing or drumming.

Personally, I have a nice home with a huge back yard and nice covered patio, I've tried on several occasions to have a movie night, or bbq or anything at my house. I tried it last year when I was housebound because of my back, and I've tried it more recently because I take care of my two year old granddaughter.

But I can still go meet someone, and I've asked. I've asked for a girl's lunch, or movie night, really anything, I MISS seeing my friends. I am a social person, fb is a very very poor substitute. Don't get me wrong, I am grateful, it kept me in touch when I was so badly isolated. But it is just that, a poor substitute for real human interaction and intimacy.

Intimacy is not sexual, it is making yourself open, willing and vulnerable. I think that is why so many need fb so badly, they fear real intimacy and all its inherent risks.

I want to say, hey I'm with you and I am leaving fb. LOL, but I'm not, though I've considerably changed how I use it.

Social networking is not the same thing as hanging out with your friends. Actually social networking has always been a means to acquire more acquaintances that one could use when they needed a job, or an audience for a community or political platform, to make a sales pitch too, a ready made large group of people that one could send out their message too, regardless of what that message is.

Social networking is not about creating intimacy, trust, loyalty, affection, emotional ties. It can't be, because it is a false community, built on an invisible foundation we have no part in. And because we are participating in this network, via the internet, it instills an illusion of security and safety that is not real.

We learn to trust, we offer our affection and loyalty, based on time spent in another person's company. It is based on communication, verbal and non-verbal, emotional ties built over time.

It's like those people who have email/instant message relationships via the internet, and after a few weeks or few months they think they are in love. We laugh at that, but take seriously the 'friendships' we think we have created on Facebook. Seriously?

I've noticed is we tend to say hurtful or negative comments that we would never say to a person's face. It isn't about being dishonest, it is about filtering. Not too long ago I had a reputation for being a hot head. You know, open mouth insert leg! Wisdom is taking what we've learned and applying it to our lives, and just because something pops into my head it does not follow that is should spew out my mouth!

Good judgment does not apply to the friends we make, places we go, or the situations we find ourselves in, but in how we use our words. Contrary to popular cliches, sticks and stones may break your bones, and words will always hurt you. Brutal honesty is just that, brutal. We do not tolerate brutality in our lives, homes, r4elationships, so why suddenly is it acceptable on the internet?

Compassion, empathy, tolerance, kindness, these are NOT feelings, they ARE behaviors/actions. We must practice them daily, and frankly, it is a tad bit difficult to be truly compassionate, loving, kind et cetera if you aren't doing it there in person.

Sounds like I am talking myself into leaving FB, well maybe I am. I never thought I'd leave LiveJournal, but I did. I never thought I'd stop writing my blog, but I did.

For me the FB changes don't really matter, I stopped sharing anything there I didn't want the world to know a while ago. But the subsequent drama, one of my friends unfriending me because I made the mistake of telling her that the "hovering" would not solve the privacy concern, made me realize that the fb issues went far deeper than I had previously realized.

I am still surprised and shocked at how many felt betrayed by Facebook, simply because they are a company, and trying to make money and not their 'community'. That is way too much emotional investment in a machine. Because that is what Facebook is, a machine. It has a task, that task is to offer a set of services that people want, not need, but want, so that the machine can earn its owner lots of money.

Facebook is not your community, your community are your neighbors, the people you worship/ritual with, the person you take the time to have coffee with, the sick/hurt friend who needs someone to stop by and say hello, the family member you hug because they are having a bad day, it is the people we love, honor, respect. Those are actions, one must DO them, and that just cannot happen in make-believe internet land.

The more I write, the more I realize just how emotionally invested I am, not in FB, it could disappear tomorrow, everyone I care about, I have their email and phone numbers and many I have their home addresses. (not as many as I'd like though).

I am realizing that the last year of being home-bound, being unable to attend community events, and attempting to have real contact with those I call friends and being repeatedly rebuffed has hurt me more than I had previously accepted.

So where do we draw the line? When do we accept we are substituting real involvement for an illusion and do something about it?

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not after me!

SureFireLiving

Interesting website, "We offer fortified Structures that are fireproof, bulletproof, with underground bunkers attached as a underground community. These select communities are offering realistic protection and resources to survive in any situation. The community consists of confidential planning, design and covert construction for secure survival community."

History tells us that when a civilization/country reaches a certain population threshold, coupled with technological/industrial advances and the inability to sustain that population, invariably revolution follows. Granted this is an over-simplified explanation of a series of political, economic, military, and cultural situations.

There is enough historical precedent to support this idea, coupled with the fear, resentment, anger and paranoia over the current political and economic situation, is it any wonder that people will believe that something drastic will happen?

I have to admit, I probably would be a bit more likely to give this 'company' some legitimacy if they weren't running an ad on Craigslist, but that doesn't mean many won't take them seriously.

I don't consider myself a conspiracy nut or paranoid, okay maybe a little paranoid, but I've long held the belief that at some point our country will face a revolution. I don't necessarily mean an armed one, as the black out in Southern California showed us so clearly, our infrastructure is vulnerable. Whether from anarchist hackers or terrorists, the idea that someone could take out all of our technology is just not that far fetched. Neither does it mean it would be bloodless, can you imagine the chaos that would follow? Everything in our country runs on technology, power, internet, military, law enforcement, fire department, medical, traffic controls, (air and land), and the list goes on.

So what do you think? Is this a service you think you need? Or do you think it is nuts? Or have you made your own plans for when/if something happens?

Judgment

For my purposes I will be using the following definitions of judgment:

"2. the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment.

4. the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence.

5. the opinion formed: He regretted his hasty judgment." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/judgment

I was taught that having good judgment was a positive thing. Obviously, having bad judgment is another problem entirely. But to have good judgment meant that I was being discerning in my choices of people, places and things.

If there is a person, group or situation that I choose not to participate in/with because I feel that they bring too much negativity to my life or damage to my community, that is being of sound judgment.

A few years ago I started 'losing' friends. My choice, I realized there were people in my life who only called or showed up when they wanted something. That whenever they were around they were full of negativity and drama. One friend, we've been friends since early sobriety, made some very harsh ugly comments about a friend who is homosexual. I was stunned at the depth of her close minded hatred and hypocrisy. We've not spoken since that day. I told her that until she could apologize and rethink her attitude that I could not have a person like her in my life.

Another friend behaved in such a way as to cause hurt and emotional trauma to several friends, she felt that she was entirely righteous in her behavior. It was heart wrenching to have to accept that I could not participate nor condone her behavior. Worse, I also lost a few other friends because I refused to say what she had done and said was "okay".

Martin Niemöller is the man responsible for the writing:

"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew."

There are several other lines to this, but the piece that has always stuck me is, I did not speak out because I was not ____ here is where you can fill in the blank.

I recognize that I am not responsible for what my friends and acquaintances do, but what does it say about me if I stand by silent when they are hurting people, lying, cheating, or whatever it is they've done? What does it say about what kind of judgment I have when I choose to do nothing when I see a wrong being committed?

If I see a stranger hurting someone I try to stop it, or find someone who can. If I see friend hurting another friend shouldn't I do the same? And if I do not, what does that say about me?

"If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything."

What will it take for our personal ethics to say what this person is doing or saying is wrong, and what does it say about me that I not only do nothing, say nothing, but continue to call them 'friend'? Where is the line? What does it take for us to draw it?

Fundamentalism at its worst

People like this scare the crap out of me. They've gone to a whole new level of fundamentalism.

"If the house or village gave a girl as a “treat”, the Druids put a pumpkin with a face carved in it in front of the door or gate of that place. Inside the pumpkin was a candle made of human tallow to keep evil spirits away. Thus, the Jack-O-Lantern was and is a sign that you have cooperated with Satan.

The treats or female victims were taken to Stonehenge where they were raped and killed and then sacrificed on the sacred bonefire until only glowing embers were left. The “bonefire” is the origin of the modern day bonfire. As a matter of luck for winter survival, all villagers were expected to use the glowing embers of the bonefire to light their hearths. "

To read the entire thing go Here

Most won't give us 30 seconds to talk to them in order to allay their fears, this guy has gone out and done enough research that he's figured out all the right buttons to push to get people riled up. Sound like anyone from history?

Because I can, and because it made me laugh.

Op-Ed Columnist

Gore Derangement Syndrome

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 15, 2007

Excerpt:
"artly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved."

My problem with Gore is his voice, it always puts me to sleep. But that aside, you have give him credit for making the environment an important dialog.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

So goes the old saying.


It seems as if people are unconcerned that are basic rights are slowly being trampled on and sucked away. They don't see the forest for the trees. I find this trend more then just a little unsettling.

So let me be perfectly clear. In 1930's and 1940's Germany, Hitler passed a variety of laws aimed at "non-citizens", all of which were designed to give the German people a focus for their anger, frustration and resentment. So, when Hitler's true purpose, the genocide of the Jewish people, no one said a word.

If you don't think it is happening here, think again.

From todays NY Times: udges Say U.S. Can’t Hold Man as ‘Combatant’

"All three judges yesterday agreed that a new law, the Military Commissions Act, did not defeat the court’s jurisdiction. The law says the federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear challenges from any non citizen “who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant.”........The appeals court yesterday ordered the trial judge in the case to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the secretary of defense to release Mr. Marri from military custody “within a reasonable period of time to be set by the district court.” The government can, Judge Motz wrote, transfer Mr. Marri to civilian authorities to face criminal charges, initiate deportation proceedings against him, hold him as a material witness in connection with a grand jury proceeding or detain him for a limited time under a provision of the U.S.A. Patriot Act.

But the military cannot hold him, Judge Motz wrote. “The president cannot eliminate,” she wrote, “constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen by proclaiming a civilian, even a criminal civilian, an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention.”


Now, lets look at a few of Hitler's 25 points:
"4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.

6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich."

That was only the beginning. At first his focus and that of his party was only on Jews, but soon it would expand.


Gerda Lerner:

"We can learn from history how past generations thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems. We can learn by analogy, not by example, for our circumstances will always be different than theirs were. The main thing history can teach us is that human actions have consequences and that certain choices, once made, cannot be undone. They foreclose the possibility of making other choices and thus they determine future events."

If we don't find a better way to deal with this, other then the gross violations of human rights, the destruction of our Constitution, then one day we too will be facing the consequences of our choices. For so long we've existed in a vacuum, with the mistaken belief that somehow we're better then the rest of the world. We're not, everything we do and do not do, as an impact on the world.

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Perhaps it is time to see that what Neimoller said so eloquently 60 odd years ago has just as much importance then as it does today.

First they came for the Muslims
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Muslims.
Then they came for the Activists
and I did not speak out
because I was not Activist.
Then they came for anyone not fitting their strict definition of American Christian
and I did not speak out
because I was not an fundamentalist American Christian.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Substitute any word you like, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Environmentalist, Feminist, Humanist, soon we'll be able to include so many other people, anyone who even looks like they're of Middle Eastern descent, anyone who is not Christian, anyone who is not a Patriot as defined by Bush and his cronies, anyone who is against war, anyone who speaks out.

If you think for one minute that you don't fall into one of these categories you wrong, because you do, and you will.

Our Constitution was written to DENY unchecked authority, to keep people safe from the abuse and misuse of power. This country was founded on the idea that NO ONE MAN HAD THE RIGHT OR THE POWER TO MAKE DECISIONS UNCHECKED.

It scares the hell out of me that George Bush believes that he is exempt from this tradition, this belief, this set of guiding principles that has kept our freedoms intact for over 200 years.