Rick Santorum: American Left Has Ruined Memory Of The Crusades; “Hates Christendom” « Alan Colmes' Liberaland

Too funny, how about Sanitorium thats where he belongs

its ok, as a secular non zionist jew my cohorts claim me to not be one of the tribe similarly.

i guess we missed that part in the bible about god stumping for the republicans

This has nothing to do with the Crusades. This is a made up issue designed to put Santorum in the headlines to appeal to Conservative Christians. He is playing the Republican base like a fiddle, using our God for his own gain.

Anyone who campaigns on religion isn't interested in governing. They are only interested in controlling.

Okay, that is your opinion... and yet you don't think the liberal left play upon their secular liberal base as well?
There is nothing sacred in politics... surely you know that.

Please, PLEASE try to defend the Crusades as not an aggressive action.

It would be cute.

Of course it was as aggressive offense in defense of Christianity... prove to me it wasn't.

Let's see, maybe because Christianity wasn't threatened, either by Islam or by military domination? Maybe because Islamic Conquest had ceased by the end of the 700's? Maybe because Europe was a fucking shithole and the laughing stock of most of the world for all of Medieval times and wasn't even worth conquering? Maybe because Christians lived freely, along with Jews, in Muslim lands? Maybe because Islamic kingdoms were not unified by their faith and shared zero interest in conquering Christian lands for religious reasons?

Or there's the fact that Christians, Jews and Muslims all co-existed in Spain, allying with one another to fight their own faith if it was advantageous to them. There's the fact that Islamic kingdoms weren't even remotely interested in Europe because they were too busy being the center of civilization, Baghdad being a city of nearly a million people with the largest library on the planet. There's the fact that once the First Crusader arrived in Constantinople, Alexius, the Christian Emperor of Byzantium, nearly turned them away even though their pretext for coming was to "save" him. There's the fact that the next fifty years of history was Crusaders squabbling over various cities to plunder and populations to slaughter.

I could go on for a long time, this is one of my majors.

So which side was right, Christians or Muslims, apart from the fact that lives were lost for a belief(i repeat belief), how is it that each side attempts to paint themselves as the victim

to devolve the crusades either way shows some one needs an edumacation.the muslims werent innocent nor where the christians.it takes two to tabgo does it not?

well the fact that it resulted in christian rule over the holy land surely shows it wasnt strickly defensive as the holy land isnt in europe.

That it does fc, that it does.

Well, after all, the intent was to recapture it, wasn't it?

i have a massive axe to grind with the church so my understanding is admiditly biased,so ill stick to direct points.
when did christianity have the holy land in order to recapture it?
it was roman.they adopted christianity but control of the holy land was still that of roman force.then byzantine if im not mistaken.an order based on jesus was never in control of jerusalem until the crusaders.
further more why did the christians need to recapture it? what purpose did that serve and was that purpose a validation for war really?

Neither side is 'right' in warring on the basis of theological 'superiority', even in the light of each sects 'enlightened spiritual understanding'...

The Crusades were due to the Muslim attacks on the Eastern Roman Empire, under the Roman government at Constantinople (which finally fell to the Turks in 1453). Belloc maintains that the Roman Empire in the West never actually "fell," as most history texts would have it, dating this "fall" at 476 A.D., when Rome in the West failed to select a new Emperor. Belloc maintains that there was no single force big enough during during Rome's history to defeat it entirely - though portions of the Empire in the West were whittled away. Rather, the Empire in the West grew old and changed, and the government from Rome, and later from Ravenna, was no longer effectively able to manage it. Yet the people of the Empire still considered themselves part of the Empire, a fact illustrated in the year 800, when Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor at Rome. Why would he call his realm by this name unless he and his people believed the Empire still existed? In the 6th century, Islam had exploded out of Arabia, taken all of North Africa, and by the first third of the 8th century had conquered Spain. Its advance in Europe was halted in central France in 732 when the forces of Charles Martel defeated the Muslim army at Tours, after which they retired behind the Pyrenees Mountains in Spain. Then when the Turks were converted to Islam and the entire Islamic holy wars were renewed during the 10th Century in the Holy Land and Middle East - an area under the Eastern Roman Empire - the people of the West (with all this history well in mind) rose up in the form of Crusades, or a holy war against Islam, finally in order to come to the aid of the Eastern portion of THEIR EMPIRE - which for the past 1,000 years had controlled the Middle East! In this light, the Crusades make great sense, especially when one realizes that the Christians of the Roman Empire had been battling Islam for more than 500 years when the First Crusade was launched.

Okay now you have went too far, you are getting Ahiguy all confused with facts, his mind is made up don't go trying to introduce historical records that are in conflict with his self generated beliefs of what took place.

Clapping from the audience.

This gets bad starting right around here.

"Its advance in Europe was halted in central France in 732 when the forces of Charles Martel defeated the Muslim army at Tours."

It was less than ten thousand guys, hardly an invasion force. Then he characterizes all of the Islamic world as an "Empire?" Please, that would be like calling Europe the "Christian Empire."

After 750, the various Islamic kingdoms fractured into smaller and smaller states, constantly warring with one another for small pieces of territory. As for the "Turks" (they weren't Turks, they were Seljuks, they were just in Turkey) "reviving" the Islamic Empire, that's a bunch of shit.

The Sultanate of Rum, which is what the those Seljuks called themselves, were fighting the Byzantine Empire for control of what was essential Turkey. It was NOT a holy war, it was a traditional "I'm going to take all your shit because I'm stronger than you" war. Evidenced by the fact that they were fighting other Muslims as well, who were allied with Christian Byzantium.

Alexius petitioned the Roman Pope for aid from other Christian kingdoms. This was a desperate move as they weren't on good terms.

"the people of the West (with all this history well in mind) rose up in the form of Crusades... finally in order to come to the aid of the Eastern portion of THEIR EMPIRE"

No they didn't, the call to Crusade was almost universally undertaken by opportunists, fanatics or people with nothing better to do. Those of us better versed in this history know that the Holy Roman Empire would essentially cease to exist after the Third Crusade and had always been the laughing stock of other European feudal kingdoms. The line of the day was that it was "neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire."

As for the Crusaders, (ignoring the "Peoples' crusade committed Genocide against Jews, followed a goose to the holy land and were eventually all sold into slavery after their defeat) they were TURNED AWAY by Alexius, who by the way was allied with the Muslim rulers in Egypt, because he was nervous abut this huge army he couldn't control.

So no, this had nothing to do with Roman politics. Rome was gone.

"In this light, the Crusades make great sense, especially when one realizes that the Christians of the Roman Empire had been battling Islam for more than 500 years when the First Crusade was launched."

No they don't, that's dumb as hell. Especially when you realize that half of the crusades didn't even go to the Holy Land.

In fact, guess where the fourth crusade went?

TO FUCKING CONSTANTINOPLE, WHICH THEY FUCKING SACKED.

Seriously, reality is not on your side.

It does matter from whose perspective upon history one gives credence doesn't it?
Verify before you vilify.

Verifying, the process of establishing truths by reassessing whether they are factually correct.

During this process, I found your source to be full of shit.

Anything extra you want to pile on top of there is your baggage, but he's wrong, regardless of "perspective."

http://went.th

A digested summary: source - Paul Marshall, Hudson Institute

During the reign of Mohammad, through his religious teaching, with his success as a political and religious leader, he promised his followers that they would be victorious... and so they were for a thousand years.

After Mohammad's death, Muslim armies attacked and invaded the then majority Christian areas that are now Jordan, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey,
Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. They were blocked by the
Byzantine Empire centered in Constantinople, but went around it in the
East by attacking Persia, then Afghanistan and Pakistan, and in the
west by invading Spain and France.

One hundred years after the death of the prophet, Muslim armies were
simultaneously 200 miles from Paris and in Western China, and they
controlled most areas in between. The expansion continued with the
invasion of India and Russia, repeated attacks on Italy, and the gradual
encroachment on the Byzantines, who held out against the Arabs but
succumbed to the Turks.

On this scale, the crusades were irrelevant: they were a short lived,
failed, counter-attack that briefly pushed the invading Muslims back a
few hundred miles before their advance resumed, eventually into
Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Serbia and Austria.

Islam stretched across Europe, Asia, and Africa, from the Atlantic to
the western shores of the Pacific, from Nigeria to China, from Tanzania
to the rivers flowing into the Baltic Sea. It stood at the crossroads of the
continents and controlled world trade.

In comparison, the Christian world was poor and barbaric. The Hindu
world of India was under Islamic control. China remained powerful,
but was content to maintain its civilization within its borders. The rest
of the world was considered marginal.
In this sense, Islam ruled the world. For over a thousand years it was
the dominant power.

However... 9 -11, 1683, is oft considered the high water mark of Islamic
expansion. Combined European forces defeated the Ottoman Turks at the
second siege of Vienna. It was the beginning of an ongoing, grinding, disheartening process of defeat, surrender, and subjugation that lasted for centuries, spread throughout the world, and reached into the heart of Islam itself.

After the Ottoman armies were driven out of Austria, then Hungary,
Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Albania were freed
from Ottoman rule. The Greeks revolted against their overlords and
slowly drove the Ottomans back to Istanbul. The Russians drove east
and south, conquering Muslims as they went. But the European advance
did not stop at recovering European lands.

The British took over India from Muslim rulers, and
did the same with what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh. They then
conquered Muslim Malaysia and Singapore. Only the Afghans resisted
them successfully. The Dutch took over Indonesia, the world’s largest
Muslim country. The Spanish conquered the Philippines, including its
southern Muslim areas.

The advance continued through east and West Africa, as the French,
Spanish, Belgians, Portuguese, Germans and British took over areas
formerly controlled by Muslim rulers. Meanwhile the Russians
continued their expansion and took over Muslim areas in the Caucasus,
such as Chechnya, Dagestan, and Azerbaijan. They also invaded east,
taking over the ancient Muslim civilizations of Central Asia, which are
now Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and
Kyrgyzstan. They were stopped only when they, like the British, tried to
take over vast mountains and fiercely independent tribes of
Afghanistan.

Then Europe inexorably invaded and overcame Arab lands, seen as the center of the Islamic universe. In 1798, Napoleon invaded Egypt, easily conquering it.
The French stayed several years and were only driven out by a British force under Admiral Nelson.
In the nineteenth century, French forces took over what are now
Algeria and the Muslim areas of the Sahara desert. The Spanish took
over the Atlantic coast.

With the preceding and rather sweeping generalizations used here, it can be said that Islam has experienced a thousand years of stunning success followed by three hundred years of crushing failure.

~ Primarily, from my pov, what is deliberately overlooked by Muslim apologists, is that Islam came into being by continuously attacking its neighbors through violence and subjugating those they defeated with horrific atrocities, cementing their rule through terrorism... looking at Islam today, it seems nothing has changed.

And what's stupid about your point of view, as I've pointed out more than once, is that this was NOT an empire of "Islam."

You're talking about DOZENS of different countries. Some of whom were ALLIED with CHRISTIAN kingdoms to fight OTHER MUSLIMS.

Do you even care about this? Or it this grand bullshit narrative more interesting because it fits with your political prejudices more tightly?

The only time there was EVER an "Empire of Islam" was immediately after the prophet's death, where for less than a hundred years, a massive empire was ruled by one Caliph. If you looked at the world in 1000 as opposed to 750, you'd see the exact opposite. Dozens of various Islamic kingdoms all fighting each other for small pieces of land, there was no unity there.

And if Europe was, even admitted by your own author, a shithole, why would this nefarious Islamic empire even care about it? Here's a clue, they DIDN'T. Contrary to your author's claim, they didn't even bother with France. The "invasion" was less than ten thousand people.

But I'm tired of repeating myself because you're not even fucking listening, so let me explain this quickly and with poignancy.

There was no Islamic Empire after 750. With the exception of the Ottoman Empire, which came much, much later, the Islamic world was, overwhelmingly, full of small states much smaller than the kingdoms in Europe.

AND, much weaker. Which is why the Crusades were so successful initially, because there was no one for them to fight!

Insisting that there was some kind of unified Islamic threat against Europe is fucking stupid. Look at any map of any time in that era, look at how many kingdoms there were. Does that look very unified to you?

You might as well call Europe the Empire Of Christianity. It's equally stupid. And then the empire of Christianity set out to conquer the world (and did) starting in the 16th century right?

No, that was about twelve different countries who didn't agree on anything and who weren't conquering anyone for religious reasons.

Even if none of that were true, why does war automatically equal "religious war" if the country is Islamic? How fucking dumb is that?

What makes the Crusades unique is that they were massive, unprovoked attacks on CHRISTIANS, JEWS AND MUSLIMS over several centuries which committed heinous atrocities for no other STATED reason than that their sins would be forgiven for killing infidels.

The only comparable situation would be the Islamic conquests in the 700's, but they weren't nearly as violent and they led to a golden age in the Middle East. Islam would be comparably benign for nearly a thousand years after their conquest.

But it's not even clear what this entire argument is about. What are you even trying to prove?

The crusades were undeniably aggressive. This "clash of civilization" bullshit is completely made up. No one even gave a shit about Europe for 90% of its existence.

The overview that I previously posited is factual... I stand by it.

This is about if the Christians were being the actual aggressors in the Crusades... when it was the response to the call of Pope Urban II to European Christians to come to the call of the Emperor of the Byzatine Empire, which was losing portions of their empire to the Arab Caliphates... It was aggression in response to aggression... and no, the class of civilizations is not made up, history proves it to be so... and yes both have been extremely brutal to one another, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

What must not be lost in context here, is that both the Muslims and Christians have been theological anethemas to each other since the tribes of Isaac and Ishmael, and from whom their loins this religious fanaticism dominates world turmoil today.

And yes, it is a clash of civilizations... to this very today.

Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to say this?

ALEXIUS, THE FUCKING EMPEROR OF BYZANTIUM, WAS ALLIED WITH MOTHERFUCKING ISLAMIC EGYPT AND TURNED THE CRUSADERS AWAY WHEN THEY REACHED HIS CITY.

THEY THREATENED TO ATTACK HIM IF THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED THROUGH.

THE FOURTH CRUSADE ATTACKED AND SLAUGHTERED THE CHRISTIAN POPULATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

Those are all facts, all those facts discredit the notion that this was some sort of climactic battle between Islam and Christianity.

The facts are that Christians and Muslims got along fine for the majority of their existence together. They didn't like each other, they were enemies, but their woulds weren't intractably different.

For Christ's sake, they worship the same fucking god, their differences really weren't that extreme.

Study Medieval Spain. Look at how even the hero of the "Reconquest," went back and forth fighting Christians on behalf of Muslims or Muslims on behalf of Christians or Muslims on behalf of Muslims or Christians on behalf of Christians.

Like any age, no one really liked the clergy. These were men of pragmatism, not men of severe faith. They were interested in plunder, conquest and politics, they were only barely interested in their respective gods.

Shit, read something besides right-wing trash once in your life and maybe you'll understand. The world is not as simple as political ideologues make it out to be. It's incredibly complicated because PEOPLE are incredibly complicated.

Western Civilization as we know it today came about during the Renaissance, when intellectuals separated themselves from the church and started to think for themselves.

Far from being a Christian narrative, the success of Europe was based on its ability to separate itself from religious dogmatism and theocracy. And the further away from these things it got, the more successful it became.

If you want to wallow in delusion, be my guest. But I've refuted the same nonsense three times in a row now with the same facts. Which means you clearly don't care what the truth is, you want to believe what you want to believe and you don't give a shit if it's not true.

Unlike you, I care more about what's true than what my politics are, and I'll change what I believe if I don't think it reflects reality.

When you've left the cultures of freedom for those of oppression, send your visa back... you'll not be missed.

Apparently, you don’t understand sarcasm and now you look like an oaf. Good job.

Heh, yeah right... just read down through the comments on this topic, and you'll find example after example of 'oafs'... you're in good company.

Go fight dimwits?.. It'll be a up hill battle at current, the odds must at least be well over 100 to 1 on this bleeding heart leftist website

Santorum stated that liberals hate Christianity and then went on to state that they also hate western civilization.

I responded to that foolishness with sarcasm. I am a liberal and clearly do not hate western civilization hence the sarcasm. Before you go off the deep end and try to offend people, you should probably improve your reading comprehension.

And once again… you look like an oaf.

You don't agree with Santorum?.. fine... however with orchestrated suppression of Christianities expression in our society today (spear-headed by the secular left), Imho I think that he's right... as I said, read down through the comments here, and the case is made.
Oaf that I may be, I'm not blind or in denial... what's your excuse?

Clearly, you are an unstable individual. Please stay off of my posts.

Ah yes, the usual leftist manuever, demean and vilify... Whose post is sacred here? I disagree with you, or you disagree with me, but god forbid that we dare contend... is that your position?

Orchestrated suppression of Christianity?

What fucking universe do you live in?

Who demands public tax dollars for faith-based projects? Who demands that Creationism be taught in schools? Who demands that biblical law be mandated? Who constantly INSISTS upon putting Christian, and only Christian, landmarks on public property? Who performs "exorcisms" on individuals despite it being utterly abusive and totally fucking made up?

It is classic projection that the oppressors would think of themselves as oppressed.
You're only 70% of the fucking country, have churches on every block and are so obsessed with your cult that if any public official doesn't end a speech with "God Bless America" you'd throw a shit fit.

What is there to contend with here? You're an idiot and you don't care what anyone else has to say.

You want to believe what you want to believe, it's irrelevant to you whether or not it's correct.

First of all,

Due to your inability to identify and understand sarcasm you initiated a puerile attack for no reason at all. My initial statement was completely benign and you responded with unusual and unnecessary aggression; that is, in fact, the behavior of an unstable individual. I don’t have time for counseling sessions but if you are not capable of engaging in civil discourse perhaps you should limit your time on Internet forums.

Furthermore, if you behave like an unstable individual someone will eventually call you out on that. This has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me because you had no idea what I was saying in the first place and you responded as such. I have not expressed a clear position on this issue and therefore how could you possibly disagree. How about not going off on the deep-end and using basic reading comprehension skills before you jump the gun.

Finally, please stay off my posts. I have been on this site for about a week and I have identified several troubled posters almost immediately. Geez… let me enjoy the site first before I experience troll-like shenanigans.

Yet you deny that given all the 'privileges' that Christians are assumed to enjoy, that secular America doesn't attempt to suppress Christian religious expression in our society? ... yeah, right.

Ah yes, the several who disagree with you are troubled?.. how convenient.

What exactly is the surpression that Christians face??

Bullshit, you can do whatever you want WHENEVER you want. What does suppressing Christian religious expression even MEAN to you?

Provide examples or stop spreading lies.

This is the first time I have ever engaged in any conversation on this site. I have been observing forum chats up until now. I haven’t said anything for anyone to disagree with. Nice try though. Also, you still don’t know my position on this issue so you’re disagreeing with what exactly? You are being combative just for the sake of it. You have no reason for all of this hostility. Finally, these troubled individuals are posters such as yourself who go bonkers on other posters for no reason and without any forethought.

This is definitely my last communiqué to you. Clearly, you use Internet forums to flip out on people without cause. I am not at all interested. Next…

Okay, I'm being combative for the fun of it... does that make you feel righteous and better now?... we'll meet again, possibly without the need of one-upmanship?

If you care to look at both sides, check out Freedom From Religion Foundation's court challenges : http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/highlighted-court-challenges/
VS
American Center for Law and Justice's issues : http://www.aclj.org/Issues/

It means you can't have a nativity scene or say a prayer before the football game.

Don't insult oafs, this guy is a rung or two below an oaf.

Huh so far lol. I always watch CurrentTV. I didn’t realize there was an online community as well until a few days ago. I’m a part of the Huffington Post exodus. I was on that site for less than a month and came over here once that merger happened.

That was a good one! LOL.

Nicely handled. Fortunately, there are not nearly as many trolls here as at HP. If you've been reading, you probably know that, though. I'm an exHP myself, so welcome.

Oh yea it’s pretty cool here. On HP quite a few trolls had moderator badges, which made it difficult to have true discourse because your comments would mysteriously disappear or not be approved in the first place.

I wonder how many people actually left like they said they were after that merger.

I wonder, too. There are only 20 members at http://current.com/groups/huffington-post-alumni/ but when we had a get acquainted get together a couple of weeks ago, there seemed to be a lot more. You might swing by the alumni group and see if anybody you know is there.

Conversation, really? I've been watching PBS videos a long time, but never stumbled across conversation. I'll look again. Oh boy.

Oh yes. The news and public affairs section is usually active. Also, Frontline and Independent Lens posts are pretty active as well. Check it out…

Although, it is not as active as it should be. I think that is due to the fact that many people don’t know about the online community on PBS.

{insert happy face}. You're welcome.

I'm going to check that out right now! Thanks.

Exactly!

Both of those things happen all the time. What are you talking about?

And what's with all of these examples of Christian persecution in other countries? We're talking about shit going on here.

Actually it is 'a hi (Hawaiian) guy'... but whatever suits your fancy

THEY'RE ALL PUBLIC PROPERTY.

First Amendment bans such displays for OBVIOUS reasons.

This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. Putting religious displays on public ground is not just something you don't have a right to do, it's an outright attack on other religions and the non-religious.

Unless you plan on letting all religions and the non-religious put up their own shit right next to it, keep that shit on private property. Why is that such a hard concept?

And your links are bullshit, utter bullshit. Your link doesn't say anything about Jewish or Islamic signs and prayer has NEVER been banned in schools. Only FORCED prayer. Apparently to Christians, if you can't force it on people, what's the point right?

The first amendment bans no such thing for ANY reason as the custodian of the public property allowing what an individual community may want is not "establishing a religion." Establishing a religion is what the 1st amendment prohibits.

In my community there is a nativity scene and a menorah. There is no animosity, no issue, nobody being offended.

Putting religious displays on private property is not a hard concept to understand---I agree.

None of my links are bullshit. They just quote things, like Supreme Court rulings, that you disagree with. One of my links addressed Jewish and Islamic symbols being allowed, but not Christian ones, in NYC schools. If my links are bullshit, you could at least take the time to debunk them with fact.

Private prayer, SILENT prayer, has not been banned. Public, vocal prayer, even when everyone in question wants it, is not allowed. There is a link for that also.

If Christians are full of it, what difference does it make if they congregate and pray?

aka 'da kine', brah

"allowing what an individual community may want is not "establishing a religion." Establishing a religion is what the 1st amendment prohibits."

First off, it's never the whole community. Secondly, no, that's exactly what it's doing.

Placing religious icons on public ground and prohibiting other religions from doing the same thing is, by definition, establishing a religion. It favors one religion over another or, in some cases, outright bans other religions in favor of one. The law cannot distinguish between religions as being any more valuable than any other, nor establish any of its tenets as part of its structure.

Ironically, this is something YOUR link says very clearly. "Individuals are free to pray privately, but not to impose their religious beliefs or the exercise of any religion on others."

The key word there being private, as in, keep it to yourself and don't insist that public administration demonstrates support of it. And this just makes sense. Why in the fuck do you want to put shit up in schools or post offices? Put up in church or malls or somewhere it's not completely odious as a public presence. Believe it or not, not everyone likes you or your religion, but we do all have to go to public places. I can't not choose to go the post office or to school like I can choose to not go to church or to the mall.

"In my community there is a nativity scene and a menorah. There is no animosity, no issue, nobody being offended."

Why would anyone be offended? You're all religious. Even if you weren't, religious displays aren't what piss people off. It's the rampant egocentrism and proselytizing that inevitably follows, often coupled with undue self-righteousness, a pathetic attempt to play the victim while being the aggressor ("what's wrong with it?") and a flagrant disregard for the actual context in which these events take place. Namely, that we have an entire Christian community in this country which wants to destroy public schooling and replace it with religious indoctrination and replace secular law with religious law.

You seeing now why this gets people kind of irked?

Let me just push this point home to see if you can put your money where your mouth is.

A group of atheists get together and want to put a sign right next to the nativity scene pointing out that the entire story is falsified, is not consistent across the gospels, and in big letters write "There is no god, stop being afraid of death and just be a good person."

You might just be contentious and say that doesn't bother you, but you'd be a liar. Even if it genuinely didn't, your "community" would burn down the school sooner than let that happen without a fight.

"They just quote things, like Supreme Court rulings, that you disagree with."

No I don't, it just doesn't say what you think it does.

"One of my links addressed Jewish and Islamic symbols being allowed, but not Christian ones, in NYC schools."

I read the wrong link on this one, it turns out you're right. But they don't ban all Christian symbols, they ban some. I agree that it's arbitrary and stupid, but it's hardly indicative of the general trend, which is in the exact opposite direction. Ten Commandments on the courthouse, that case in Utah where other religions were banned from putting up their statues etc.

"Public, vocal prayer, even when everyone in question wants it, is not allowed."

It's the same as your Supreme Court link and it's not true, neither in the decision nor in reality.

It happened all the time back when I was in high school and I can pull you up videos of it happening right now.

You seem to misunderstand what "organized" means. It does not mean that a group of Christians can't pray. It means that school officials can't force large bodies of people to pray just because they're Christian and they want to. High Schools often have Christian clubs that organize prayer meetings of dozens of people around flag poles.

What would be banned is if everyone went to a football game and the guy on the loudspeaker asked for a moment of silent prayer. And, again, it's obvious why that's the case. A public announcement of voluntary prayer as a part of a school program is still forced, just because you don't have to participate doesn't make it a private gesture.

"If Christians are full of it, what difference does it make if they congregate and pray?"

None at all, that's just never what you do.

You insist on making public displays of your religion where they don't belong, berating people who don't believe as you do, indoctrinating small children who have no business being taught such things and insisting that your moral code founded the country (it didn't), that it ought to be part of public education (it shouldn't) and, worse, that it ought to be part of our LAW.

Get your own fucking house in order before you act the victim. Christianity in the United States is fucking JOKE, it doesn't even resemble the morals teachings of Jesus Christ even as much as 50% of the time it is invoked. In fact, it most often represents exactly the opposite.

Even devout Christians I know have often abandoned the label because they're so disgusted that it's turned into a right-wing cult of psychopaths and delusional morons that they don't dare call themselves that.

Actually it doesn't matters to me if any public official does end a speech with Gog bless America or not... but it sure drives secularist into a frenzy if they do.

Normally I would ignore a response that engaged in personal attack and made baseless assumptions about what I believe, what I want to do with those beliefs, and “my house.” But, in the interest of dialogue and truth I will respond. Notice at no point, did I, or do I, engage in ad hominem attacks just because we disagree and I feel so vehemently about my side. I will leave that type of behavior up to you.

I disagree with you over whether the govt is establishing a religion by allowing religious displays on public property. Saying that a menorah can be displaced on public property does not establish the Jewish religion as the religion of the land. The first amendment is quite specific. Have you ever watched the State of the Union address? Do you know what is above the President's head as he speaks? Chiseled in the wall is In God We Trust. They are not establishing a religion. Nor are they asking anyone else to participate.

Who has banned the placing of some religious icons and not others? Unless you are talking about the NYC school system that banned Christian symbols and decided that Jewish and Islamic religious symbols were not in fact religious symbols, I don't know of another example. You mentioned UT. I am not familiar with that case, but if they approved Christian symbols and not other religious symbols, that is WRONG.

Where I live we have very few Jews. We don't even have a synagogue in my county. But nobody freaks when a menorah is put on the courthouse grounds during Hanukah. In my community we have a university and a vocal agnostic and atheist movement. You make an assumption that is wrong when you label everyone in my community religious. I think we just have thick skin. Putting up a menorah in my community has not led to "rampant egocentrism" and the fears you spin out.

I never said I wanted to put up stuff in schools or post offices. Where did you get that and why such venom in your question? You are mistakenly painting me with a broad brush and making assumptions that you have no basis to.

The only religious community I know of that wants to destroy public schooling and replace it with “religious law” are those that advocate Sharia. Even some Catholic schools are teaching about condoms, etc. even though it goes against their religious beliefs.

You have a right to be irked about whatever you feel like, but that doesn't make it real or justify your assumptions and vitriol.

I don't care what atheists do and have no problem with their publicly expressing it. I have a brain and will not be hurt by words. Your assumption, again, is baseless

The Supreme Court ruling is clear and in plain English, but you are free to interpret it any way you like.

What I have said is factual and not personal opinion. You admit as much when talking about the NYC case.

Nobody is forced to pray at a high school football game. Just as no one is forced to observe a moment of silence. I am not offended when other people pray to whatever God they pray to as I don’t have to take part, are you?

What religion am I and where is the public display you accuse me of? If you meant to write “one” instead of “you” I could understand your point. But your use of the term “you” invalidates your argument as I am doing none of those things.

I have not played the victim and my house is in order.

Since you know so much about Christians, their intent, and the moral teachings of Jesus Christ that Christians do not adhere to, you must have read the very same book that you advocate others not read, in public.

Oh really? Is that why it's become a verbal tick that everyone says rather than something voluntary certain kinds of politicians say?

It's like not wearing the flag pin. No one used to do it, now no one can't do it without being "unAmerican."

What's ironic is that, unless you think we should ban religious freedom and adopt religious law, YOU'RE A SECULARIST TOO.

The propaganda surrounding these issues is mind-boggling.

"engage in ad hominem attacks just because we disagree and I feel so vehemently about my side. I will leave that type of behavior up to you."

Neither did I, what are you talking about?

"Saying that a menorah can be displaced on public property does not establish the Jewish religion as the religion of the land."

It does if it's to the exclusion of all other religions. Which is the whole point. Either anyone and everyone (including undesirables like Scientologists or Satanists) get to put their shit up to or no one does. Otherwise it very much is establishing a religion.

"Chiseled in the wall is In God We Trust. They are not establishing a religion. Nor are they asking anyone else to participate."

You'd have to be silly to think that. What else would in God we trust mean? Good luck? It's an overt statement to the Abrahamic God (which is why it's stupidly capitalized, even though we specifically say god instead of Yahweh, a classic mistake in our language.)

If I put a 30 foot dick on my courthouse, you'd have to be some kind of mental gymnast to think that would be "voluntary" because you don't have to participate in appreciating it.

And, again, I'm sure if it said Allahu Ackbar you defnitely wouldn't feel the same way.

Also, the Knights of Columbus petitioned to thave the "In God We Trust" thing put on the 50's and, because of the Red Scare, we did it. So it's hardly some sort of American tradition. It was classic political coercion.

"You mentioned UT. I am not familiar with that case, but if they approved Christian symbols and not other religious symbols, that is WRONG."

Glad you agree, but there are a bunch dude, this comes up in the news like at least a few times a year. You think bible belt states that put ten commandments in their courthouses are gonna be ok with other religions doing the same thing? Get real.

"Putting up a menorah in my community has not led to "rampant egocentrism" and the fears you spin out."

I wasn't referring to your community in particular.

You asked why would it bother someone if someone did put up a religious symbol, and I said that it wouldn't. All the stuff I listed is what actually bothers people about this issue. Even then, I can only speak from personal experience.

When someone tried to put shit like that in public where I've lived, it's never because it was a tradition or because they were proud. It was because they wanted to intentionally demean others. In that context, it's not hard to understand why people get pissed off.

"I never said I wanted to put up stuff in schools or post offices."

By you, I didn't mean you as an individual, I meant the larger Christian community. More specifically, I meant the extremists who correspond to the larger portion of your religious following and the moderates who do nothing to stop them.

"The only religious community I know of that wants to destroy public schooling and replace it with “religious law” are those that advocate Sharia."

Do you not live in America?

Spend about ten minutes researching creationism. Then look at the statistics on homeschooling. Then watch Pat Robertson or any megachurch for any length of time.

I don't know what to say, if you don't think we have religious extremists in America, you must be living under a rock or something.

"The Supreme Court ruling is clear and in plain English, but you are free to interpret it any way you like."

At this point, I'm not even sure how you're interpreting it.

I think it says, basically, to keep prayer to yourself. I.E., a private matter that public institutions have nothing to do with and have no ability to force or organize on anyone.

If you're in agreement with that, then we don't even disagree.

"I am not offended when other people pray to whatever God they pray to as I don’t have to take part, are you?"

Of course not, and that's what you apparently don't get.

When prayer is an issue in school, it's invariably because someone is FORCING it. Or, at the very least, is encouraging public demonstrations of it (read, administrative led) to the exclusion of anyone else who doesn't share those beliefs.

I don't care what anyone does on their own time, but they better not make it anyone else's business. When I was in school, this is what the problem always was. Some asshole would get up at a public event and try to start a moment of prayer and then act confused when people got pissed off.

Again, as an example, imagine if atheists started moments of public blasphemy. Whole crowds would affirm their non-belief, usually quietly, and of course you wouldn't have to participate if you didn't want to!

Think that might irk you a bit? Why would even it be necessary right? That's the line of thought here.

"the term “you” invalidates your argument as I am doing none of those things."

I was under the impressing that you were a Christian, and by you I meant other Christians. Sorry if that was unclear. It was not intended to be you as an individual.

"Since you know so much about Christians, their intent, and the moral teachings of Jesus Christ that Christians do not adhere to, you must have read the very same book that you advocate others not read, in public"

I did, I was a Fundamentalist Christian until I outgrew my indoctrination and was old enough to realize how stupid it was. In fact, people appreciated my religious gifts so much they thought I might even become a preacher. It was, in fact, my commitment to actually reading the bible (something most people never actually bother to do) that became a huge part of me thinking it was a big joke.

As for the last part of your sentence, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

They can read it in public all they want. By public, I meant government institutions, not just anywhere outside your property. Even then, I don't care if they read it in school or even have religious clubs in school, although I personally disagree with their position vehemently. I don't even have a problem with Christians, both my parents are Christian to varying degrees of intensity and so are a lot of my friends and housemates.

What irks me is when these people think that their religion is the "true" religion and is the foundation of our government and should therefore be in our government and that people not of their persuasion should be second class citizens or that anything that disagrees with their dogma should be banned, etc. etc. etc.

I KNOW you've heard this shit. That's what this entire posted story is about! It's just one more in a long train of bizarre theocrats who would see the United States look like Iran were they given the chance. It's been a problem ever since the Republican Party incorporated them in the 1980's.

There is no such organization in America that advocates no education for women and women being held as property.