 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Religious Freedom?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 20 Nov 12 - 07:28 PM What did it mean to the Pilgrims? Freedom to worship in each individual's own way? Or freedom to burn and hang people for being witches? What does it mean to you? =(:-( D) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Wesley S Date: 20 Nov 12 - 07:35 PM I love that we have the freedom to burn people and hang witches. It's unfortunate that the federal government insists on antipollution laws that curtail those all American rituals. After all there's only two things Americans hate - it's bigots and witches. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Bobert Date: 20 Nov 12 - 07:41 PM Contrary to what is taught in schools, religious freedom wasn't the driving force for colonists... Opportunity was... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 20 Nov 12 - 07:44 PM We hate alot more than that. We hate healthy foods,exercise, austerity,truth from our leaders, no T.V. or internet, etc. =(:-( )) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 20 Nov 12 - 07:45 PM School is all lies. =(:-( 0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Bobert Date: 20 Nov 12 - 07:53 PM Readin', writin' 'n rithmatizin' is okay... American History??? What a joke... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 20 Nov 12 - 07:57 PM I wanted to like school. But they ruined it for me. =(:-( )) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Bill D Date: 20 Nov 12 - 08:04 PM "...they ruined it for me." Ummm.. it shows... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Elmore Date: 20 Nov 12 - 08:05 PM The pilgrims and religioous freedom, ha! when someone disagreed with their religious views they deported 'em to Rhode Island or some other God awful place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Bobert Date: 20 Nov 12 - 08:11 PM There are so many misconceptions about the early settlers that what is being taught in our schools is pure 100% USDA Choice bullshit mythology... I guess everyone thinks they wore those tight pants with sliver buckles on their boots??? Hahahahaha... Get real... There were no dry cleaners here... I know, horrors... There were also no boot-smiths... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 20 Nov 12 - 08:14 PM I thought they keel hauled them. School was boring. Some kids are too smart to be slowed down by all that reviewing. They rebel. And become folk musicians. =(:-( )) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Nov 12 - 09:11 PM The original Pilgrim band left England because they found the English Church cruelly oppressive to their beliefs. They went first to Holland, but found the local religious cruelty also unacceptably oppressive. Most of the group then proceeded to "America" where they were free to impose their own cruelly oppressive religious beliefs on everyone nearby. Not mentioned in the schoolbooks is that about a third(?) of the people who survived the trip on the Mayflower were not Puritans/Pilgrims but came along only for the "other opportunities" promised by the Real Estate agents back where they came from. Some of them escaped the Puritan controlled areas fairly soon, but others were "somewhat abused" if they remained too near the original settlements, just as the Puritans had been abused back where they came from. It was just a trade of one cruel and dictatorial abuse for their own cruel and dictatorial abuse of everyone else. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 20 Nov 12 - 10:25 PM Bastards!!!! =(:-( 0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: olddude Date: 20 Nov 12 - 10:30 PM What about those blunder busters they used. Shit the turkey had no chance. I mean where is the sport in that ... did they put cameo on and call them into range like I do. HELL No .. just blasted the shit outta them with a arm cannon ... No conscience, bird didn't have a chance .. unsportsmanlike bastards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: JohnInKansas Date: 21 Nov 12 - 02:41 AM The real bird busters came somewhat later, best known for use in the Chesapeake Bay area for "hunting" ducks and other water fowl. 8 to 12 ft long gun lashed to a dugout boat. Three to five pounds black powder. Up to 30 pounds bird shot. Target: birds sitting on the lake. Also cited as the first use of rocket propulsion in the "New World" since the recoil might drive the boat 100 yards back. But after you rowed back, pick up a one or two hundred birds - all with one shot. Strangely, this kind of sport faded after a short time, due to lack of bird flocks large enough to justify even one shot. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 21 Nov 12 - 02:45 AM I live in an area of The UK where some of your Pilgrim Fathers come from. Notably William Brewster and Peverill. (The Wesleys come from 2 miles down the road too for that matter. ) What they had in common was not wishing for religious freedom but religious privilege. They wanted to inflict their interpretation on others and contrary to what we might think ,it appears our authorities were concerned that our more liberal outlook was being threatened. We see it today. Last night The Church of England lost the right to credibility when a few bigots managed to block the idea of women bishops based on wishing to inflict their interpretation of Scripture on the reality of the many. Ironic that the vote took place at around the same time our cousins celebrate when their predecessors buggered off to pastures new. You are welcome. .. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 21 Nov 12 - 02:58 AM Here in UK we now have the rather bizarre situation of 'tolerance' (religious and otherwise) and 'political correctness', (both intended to give everyone freedom), restricting and controlling our lives to an intolerable degree. Freedom of speech, freedom of culture and freedom of opinion are seriously curtailed in an attempt to ensure freedom of speech, freedom of culture and freedom of opinion... it's like the image of the snake eating its own tail. By the way, re the appointment of women Bishops, I understand the basis of this was a democratic vote by the three sections of Synod. One section (the Laity) were six votes up in objecting, so the whole thing was shelved for some years. Either one abides by a democratic voting system or not. If not, then a minority controls the majority. Anyone any views on female Bishops (or female clergy for that matter)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 21 Nov 12 - 04:33 AM We need more female clergy. They're real stampeders. We need more of that. 0=(:-( )) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 21 Nov 12 - 06:30 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 21 Nov 12 - 06:33 AM Sorry about the above, I'm in the public library and this keyboard has a life of its own. I saw on TV last night that a third of all priests here in UK are women. What we need more of is congregations and worshippers IMO! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: theleveller Date: 21 Nov 12 - 06:40 AM Eliza, what you talk about has been a perennial problem. Locke, Descartes, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Constant and many others have sought to square the circle of the sovereignty of the people against the freedom of the individual. It's a question that Tzvetan Todorov dedicates quite a lot of space to in his excellent book, 'The Imperfect Garden - The Legacy of Humanism'. With regard to the democracy of the C of E Synod's vote against the appointment of female bishops, I think it's as much an irrelevance for most people as is the church itself but, as the C of E is the 'established' church of this country and is not seperate from the state, they should be subject to the laws of this land which forbid discrimination against women. 'Render unto Caesar' I think the saying is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Jack Campin Date: 21 Nov 12 - 06:41 AM What we need more of is congregations and worshippers Do we? I'd be quite happy for there to be none. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Allan Conn Date: 21 Nov 12 - 07:19 AM "Either one abides by a democratic voting system or not." The problem arises when the democratic voting system is inheritently undemocratic. Over 91% of the House of Bishops voted to accept women bishops; over 74% of the House of Clergy voted to accept women bishops; and 64% of the House of Laity voted to accept women bishops. Yet the measure is refused because the majority in the House of Laity isn't a big enough majority!!! They needed a 66.6% vote in each of the three houses to change. The system is rigged to secure the status quo! Obviously not just over that issue but over any issue. It is clear though that a big majority were in favour of the change! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: greg stephens Date: 21 Nov 12 - 07:31 AM always a problem if you let groups run their own affairs. They may set up constitutional procedures you disapprove of, or vote in a way you don't like. You get the same thing with political parties, who persist in getting candidates voted in that you disapprove of. I wouldn't mind if it was the Tiddlywinks Society, but I think we are all entitled to an opinion about the Church of England, whether we belong to it or not. It is a huge national organisation responsible for all those churches and a lot of land and other property, as well as being a small minority religious sect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Allan Conn Date: 21 Nov 12 - 08:01 AM I agree Greg. Of course the CofE isn't the established church here in Scotland anyway so some may say what does it matter to me. But the Bishops get to sit in the UK Parliament or at least some of them not sure if they still all do. That in itself is undemocratic but it is even worse when you say to the women priests that no matter how good a job they do they will never be promoted to the position of bishop. Other employers would never get with openly saying that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: GUEST,Backwoodsman sans Cookie Date: 21 Nov 12 - 08:38 AM Absolutely spot on, Allan, it would be a scandal if any employer were allowed to openly practice discrimination against women, but even more so when that employer is the established church in England. They (the naysayers in the Synod) should hang their heads in shame. We've had a young woman vicar for the past couple of years, and she is a real inspiration - how appalling to think that, no matter how good at the job or how hard she works, she is barred from promotion to the top level because of an accident of birth. I wonder what The Boss thinks of it all? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: kendall Date: 21 Nov 12 - 09:06 AM Religion is a curse on mankind.More atrocities have been committed in the name of god than any other cause. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: GUEST,Backwoodsman sans Cookie Date: 21 Nov 12 - 09:09 AM I bet God's not very happy about those atrocities committed in his/her name, Kendall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Megan L Date: 21 Nov 12 - 09:24 AM nope politics has relgeon trounced |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 21 Nov 12 - 12:34 PM My own view is that once women priests were accepted (and rightly so) then there should be no bar to their promotion to Bishop. I too have met some very good, capable, holy and hard-working women priests, who would have made the grade as Bishops. I'm trying to imagine how I'd have felt if told that, while a competent teacher, I could never be considered for a Headship. I'd have been hopping mad. But the issue, as I understand it, isn't about competence but the interpretation of the Bible regarding the Ministry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: ollaimh Date: 21 Nov 12 - 01:31 PM musket without cookie is right. the pilgrims came to inflict their beliefs on others. that's what they complained about most bitterly back in england. their neighbours were doing what they wanted and not obeying the pilgrim religious rules. this set the american tradition of persecution of minorites. and of course they made war as soon as they were strong enough on the pequid people, indiscriminately killing civilians, women and children and destroying crops as acts of war. again setting the american tradition of coducting war through attack on civilians and war crimes.woulsn't ti be nice to actually try democracy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Stringsinger Date: 21 Nov 12 - 02:42 PM In my opinion, we need to see how religion had enslaved women and not helped them gain equal status with men. As to "religious freedom" I consider this an oxymoron. Sort of like "military intelligence". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Mrrzy Date: 21 Nov 12 - 05:52 PM Gods don't kill people - people with gods kill people... (Stolen) I like the oxymoron idea too |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Joe Offer Date: 21 Nov 12 - 07:13 PM Religion is what you make of it. Some people use religion to buttress their greed and prejudice. Others use it for the good of humankind, and for their own spiritual growth. It's not religion that's wrong. It's what people choose to do with it. If their choices are criminal or harmful, then they should face the consequences. If their choices are constructive (or at least harmless), then at the very least they should be left alone to do what they choose to do in freedom. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Nigel Parsons Date: 22 Nov 12 - 03:27 AM Bobert: There were also no boot-smiths... "Cobblers!" :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 22 Nov 12 - 03:37 AM They had this, though Old time religion |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: GUEST,Eddie1 (Still sans cookie) Date: 22 Nov 12 - 05:00 AM Don't know if I'm being totally naieve (if that's spelt properly) but it seems to me that what is at stake here is whether or not women can be included when bishops are being chosen, elected or whatever the system is called, not that bishops must be women. If a woman is better suited to the job than other candidates so be it. If a man is better suited then elect him, I must admit I have no idea of the biblical requirements regarding women bishops but the King James version was written around 500 years ago. Life has moved on and I would hope we have too! Eddie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 22 Nov 12 - 05:19 AM Eve was a woman, curse her soul. =(:-( 0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: theleveller Date: 22 Nov 12 - 05:49 AM "Life has moved on and I would hope we have too!" Obviously, there are those who haven't. Perhaps we need to look backwards and understand that the eariest religions were, most proably, matriachal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 22 Nov 12 - 01:56 PM ""It's not religion that's wrong. It's what people choose to do with it. If their choices are criminal or harmful, then they should face the consequences. If their choices are constructive (or at least harmless), then at the very least they should be left alone to do what they choose to do in freedom."" Works for me Joe................for just as long as they leave me alone and don't come trying to convert me. Every man should own title to his own delusions, and keep them to himself. But they rarely do. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Megan L Date: 22 Nov 12 - 02:14 PM Now Henry dear you know poor Eve was innocent. That story is one of the few things that prove God is a man. Why? Well who else but a man would say to another man "By the way remember and tell the wife about that apple" and actually expect him to remember the message by the time he got home. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Henry Krinkle Date: 22 Nov 12 - 02:21 PM =(:-( D) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: gnu Date: 22 Nov 12 - 02:30 PM Hehehehee |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom? From: Charmion Date: 22 Nov 12 - 02:32 PM For the record, the word "bishop" never occurs in the Bible, in whatever translation you care to mention. Church hierarchy is most definitely a later creation with not much to do with Jesus or the apostles. Those seeking to justify the exclusion of women from the priesthood (or the higher ranks) often point out that Jesus had no female disciples, an argument that inevitably provokes a discussion of the precise role of the various women traditionally associated with Jesus, especially Mary Magdalene. Like most members of the Anglican Church of Canada, I believe that the question of female bishops was settled in the affirmative with the ordination of the first female priest. |
