To that end, I also believe Jammz makes an excellent point.
But I have to finish my coffee first to be sure.
I can tell this is going to be a tough day for me to make decisions. I'd better break out the magic 8 ball...
Darn!
Posted on 12/20/2004 1:25:49 AM PST by JohnHuang2
I would like to open today's sermon, I mean column, with a newsflash out of Vatican City, courtesy Reuters: "Pope John Paul, battling to keep Christ in Christmas, has defended nativity scenes that are being stripped from holiday celebrations in some Italian schools to avoid offending non-Christians."
This could be a farcical joke, but the trite wire copy is pathetically true. For starters, it seems that a school in Como has edited out the name "Gesu" (Jesus) and replaced it with the word "virtu" (virtue) in its choir's renditions of Christmas hymns. Which rhymes and everything, but falls flat. Also, the province of Vicenza has canceled its annual contest for the best nativity scene in the schools of the province. Then there's the elementary school in the northern Italian city of Treviso that has decided to nix its traditional Christmas pageant depicting the birth of Christ in order to present a dramatic, um, Virtumas presentation of the adventures of Little Red Riding Hood.
Substituting Li'l Red's fairy-tale trip to Grandma's house for Mary and Joseph's biblical trip to Bethlehem may sound like something that happens down the rabbit hole, but Reuters reports that things are on the level: "The teachers said the famous tale was a fitting representation of good and evil and would not offend Muslim children." And Muslim children, it turns out, are the only "non-Christians" in the Reuters story. Not Jews, not atheists, not whatever other minorities are content to live in a historically Roman Catholic country and just walk on by the old creche without "taking offense," that traumatic postmodern condition more damaging and contagious than any plague or pestilence.
But why does a seasonal depiction marking the anniversary of the single-most significant religious, historic and cultural event in the Western world -- of which Italy remains a part -- offend anyone in the first place?
I don't get it -- and I'm Jewish. If "taking offense" is the issue, isn't eradicating the commemoration of Christ's birth -- and the universal ideal of peace on earth -- equally as likely to make Italian Catholics take offense? Of course, ruffled feelings, either on the part of Italy's 1 million-plus Muslims or 50 million-plus Catholics, are not the issue. Power is.
I recently came across something Eric Hoffer, the man known as the "longshoreman-philosopher," wrote 30 years ago about dissent and power:
It is maintained that a society is free only when dissenting minorities have room to throw their weight around ... As a matter of fact, a dissenting minority feels free only when it can impose its will on the majority: what it abominates most is the dissent of the majority.
I don't know if the Muslims in Italy's nativity-cleansed zones feel qualitatively more "free" for having thrown their weight around, but as a minority they have certainly imposed their will on the majority.
But is it really the will of Italian Muslims? Certainly, Italian-Muslim activist Abdel Smith has called for the removal of crucifixes and Dante in Italian classrooms, and even a Giovanni di Modena fresco from the 15th-century Bologna cathedral that "offensively" depicts a Dante-inspired image of Mohammed in hell. He's likened the annual Christmas pageant to "forced indoctrination."
But Reuters did find an Islamic leader of a Milanese cultural institute who said it was "senseless" to change the words of Christmas songs. (No word on what he thought about nativity plays.) The main point is it was the local Italian schools and councils that made the decision to remove the Christ from Christmas in the first place.
Maybe they were attempting to circumvent local "non-Christian" (read: Muslim) protest, and therefore canceled their traditional celebrations out of a basic kind of fear. Or maybe they were acting out of a desire to curtail or de-emphasize their own religious and cultural expression, which is also a kind of fear. Either way, it hardly reflects a robust sense of what could be called self-esteem.
"It is the perfect example of how not to respect the presence of different people, in this case our Muslim brothers, by annihilating our own identity," said Bishop Agostino Marchetto, head of the Vatican's department for migrants. "Are we losing our minds?" asked government Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli. "Do we want to erase our identity for the love of Allah?"
Annihilating identity. Erasing identity. When the pope has to remind his Catholics that celebrating the birth of Christ is "an element of our culture and of art, but above all a sign of faith in God," isn't it pretty much gone?
I wonder how many people have thought about this:
Atheism is the religion of non-believing in any deity.
Atheists are spreading their religion by banning other religions displays. Especially hit are government buildings.
Could this be a violation of the constitution under the same law? Wouldn't it fall under the seperation of church and state?
Just a thought...
Excellent point.
Atheism is a belief system, but not a religion. To say that atheism is a religion is like saying a desert is an ocean only without the water.
Et tu Italia?
The Western World continues its long death march.
Actually there are people who could argue that point effectively. But not me, not before 6:00AM and not before coffee...
My point was -- and this is gonna be unpopular -- arguing for government support for Christian symbols opens the door for equal rights of every other religion, including the crackpot ones. Historical fact and American traditions,will not carry much weight in a court of law.
In any event, more offensive than the lack of religious symbols is the denigration of symbols during the Christmas season, which nobody seems to pay much attention to...
To that end, I also believe Jammz makes an excellent point.
But I have to finish my coffee first to be sure.
I can tell this is going to be a tough day for me to make decisions. I'd better break out the magic 8 ball...
Darn!
I don't believe that what we're seeing is true atheism, which is kind of an extreme view. And it takes a particular kind of person and personality to believe in the non-existance of God. Probably what we're seeing is a reaction to something -- what? -- I couldn't tell you.
"It is the perfect example of how not to respect the presence of different people, in this case our Muslim brothers, by annihilating our own identity," said Bishop Agostino Marchetto
Atheism IS a religion.
Leftist's want to do away with G_D so they cam become
his replacement.
There is a clear agenda here.
Aways has been.
That's why communist country's outlaw and suppress
religion.
I think there is a conflict of interest here.
On the Right hand you have G_D of Abraham and
on the Left hand you have the religion of Babylon.
Leftism is a variation on the story of Babel. They are
people trying to reach heaven (or build a heaven on
earth) by human means. That is why they end in such
misery and horror. Leftism is a form of idolatry
in which human beings worship themselves as though they
were gods and saviors.
Your welcome.
I know many people who are screaming liberals who attend church regularly. And I've met members of the clergy who could be categorized as being on the left. Not communists, mind you, but on the left. And I would not question their faith, which seems genuine to me.
I'm not running out on the discussion. I have to get to work.
However, my attitude on such matters has always been to be polite and never question another person's faith. I've found this to be a workable policy, since good manners are always appreciated and for the simple fact that I can't look into another person's heart.
"I don't get it -- and I'm Jewish. If "taking offense" is the issue, isn't eradicating the commemoration of Christ's birth -- and the universal ideal of peace on earth -- equally as likely to make Italian Catholics take offense?"
The feelings of Christians do not matter as Christians wont do anything about their own symbols being removed and their faith trampled. They are too comfortable today.
Lets face it, if Jesus were being carried in the womb of the typical Italian woman (or any other Westerner), being impoverished, unwed, the father missing and the shame of her society to be faced, she would have Jesus aborted.
While Italy and the rest of Europe are only now removing the symbols of Christianity, gradually and steadily, they have really stopped thinking and acting, stopped *being*, Christian a long time ago. The Constitution of the EU is merely recognizing this simple fact as Christians in Europe refused to recognize their own history and culture. So be it.
Within 200 years Europe will be 85% Muslim and Christians there a small persecuted minority. And they have only themselves to blame for it because they do nothing while they have the ability to reverse this.
"Atheism is a belief system, but not a religion. To say that atheism is a religion is like saying a desert is an ocean only without the water."
According to the EPA, a desert is merely a variation in the amount of hydration present in soil. They see it as simply a sliding gray scale and have labeled dry sand as a 'waterway' in order to enforce regulations regarding 'wetlands'. So, yes, some people would call a desert an 'ocean without water'.
But this denial that atheism is a religion because it denies religion is a semantic dodge. Are they card-carrying members of some official religious institution? No, but not all religions do this, so it is irrelevant. Many Protestant religions, like the Church of Christ, do not accept inter-congregational organizations. Others refuse to accept any organizational structure at all, but are still religions.
To be a religion does not require an intent to establish a religion, but to act in concert with other people of the same faith system and atheists do this when they try to deChristianize our culture in cooperation with other atheists.
In mathematics, the number zero is a value and different from 'null' which indicates the absence of a measure at all. Atheism is the religious equivalent of zero, not null, as it does make a measure of faith claims. Thus it is asserting a religious value and is therefore a religion jsut like any Primitive Baptist group out there worshipping in their living rooms.
Besides all that, atheists that attack religion are generally just pursuing their war on Christianity (to be specific) by any and every means possible, moral and immoral, because they cannot stand the thought they that they may be wrong. They want everyone to shut up so that they will not be reminded that they have rejected a loving God so that they can claim to be better (smarter) than those of us who do accept His Will. This focused hatred toward Christianity is a form of religion built on hatred and resentment as opposed to love and tolerance.
I just wish they would be more honest about it all and stop it with all the smoke screens, semantic dodges and lies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.