I understood you were asking for information, and I don’t think you’re trying to play a game or “taking a side.” I’m just trying to keep the facts in perspective here. Even if one of the names of Allah meant “heavenly” and another meant “father,” that is different from the phrase “heavenly father,” which has a specific meaning and a specific history. It is very prominent and unique to Christianity.
I don’t want to go out of my depth in making statements about Jewish doctrine, but depending on how you look at it, no.
I recently got into a discussion with an acquaintence who thinks religion should be taught in public schools. I asked him if it was ok if his kid’s teachers were Buddist, or Mormon, or Jehovah Witnesses. He said “Of course not! Only Chrisitanity should be taught!” He fell back on the ole Southern tried and true response of “This is a Christian nation!” He just kind of stammered when I asked him if I have to leave because I’m not Christian.
Christians in the Deep South have had it their way for so long it drives them crazy that “them Godless heathens” are actually fighting back.
I love it.
“Our Heavenly Father”, which totally isn’t a Christian phrase, is removed.
This is a direct assault on Christians.
And the people who are upset about it? How on Earth would we know that they’re Christians???
The author referred to him or herself as a crusader. I’m sure you know who they were. This is particularly ironic in Rhode Island, which as the Times noted was founded by an openminded Christian. But like I said earlier, the worst part is that a young person who exercised her right to use the court system to challenge something she thought was unconstitutional (and a court agreed) is being threatened with violence by people who claim she’s “persecuting” them. And you seem to agree that she is persecuting them. Are you sure about that?
We are sliding down the slippery slope of atheistic oppression into the bowels of freedom from religion, culminating in an indescribably foul Satanic fart.
I am a Christian. I go to church every Sunday, and I actively participate in my church’s ministries. And, speaking as a Christian, I think that banner is deeply offensive, and the attitudes behind it represent a great threat to Christianity. God gave us free will, and wants us to use it. It is no credit to a person to be a Christian because that’s mandated by the local government: People have to choose to be Christian. And people can’t meaningfully make that choice unless they can also make the opposite choice.
The actions of this young lady place her closer to what a Christian should be, than all of the people who call themselves Christians who are condemning her. I applaud her.
If she were my daughter, I’d be prouder than shit. Hell, I’d be so insufferably pleased with myself that the atheists and the Christians would band together to turn me into Purina Lion Chow.
The religious symbols at the cemeteries are analogous to person, religious symbols that anyone can wear to school. Put a cross or a Star of David or whatever around your neck, and the government isn’t going to stop you (subject to certain constraints that would equally apply to secular symbols, such as a cross that was 2’ long or something).
And GEEPERS, you’ve been asked over and over what rights were being destroyed, and you haven’t answered. And you haven’t substantiated your claim that tax dollars are being used to teach that there is no God. This is GD. We need you to defend your thesis and your follow-on remarks.
I am a Christian, but it is hard to argue with removing the banner from a public tax payer funded school. I find it annoying, but the decision was probably the right one. Of course you have the right to send your children to a private Christian school, which is what I have chosen to do.
I wonder if the same reasoning would allow a school banner boldly proclaiming that (a) some of the students believe there’s a heavenly father and (b) some don’t.
Because “some judge” was lawfully authorized by the Constitution to say what violates the First Amendment and what doesn’t. The Bill of Rights isn’t a divine edict of 10 permanent laws etched in stone and delivered by a prophet; you’re thinking of something else.
Yeah, but technically it was “some judge” who decided that the constitution authorized that. It was pretty controversial at the time, even if we accept it now as the way things were meant to be.
