I tuned in in the middle of a sentence, but on C-Span Radio I heard
Mrs. Ted Cruz saying ".....prayer in a public place, but respectfully
and without hurting anyone". I'd listened earlier and she was talking
about changes her husband would make. I don't know what's different
about what she said -- we already have prayers in public places -- and
I wish I'd heard what she said just before, since it woudl be a
change, I'm fairly sure she means a change I won't like, like
government sponsored sectarian prayer.
I looked on the C-span website but a) I don't think it keeps archives
of everything it broadcasts, and b) even when it does, it seems harder
to find them than with other, more organized sites. And I didn't
find this, even though it was, I think from 1 to 2. If I didn't know
it was she speaking, I woudln't have been able to find out. C-span
radio used to almost all the time have the same as one of the C-span
tv networks, but c) I don't think that's true anymore, d) it's just
about as hard to find out what has recently or ever been on any of the
C-span tv stations.
She also said he would move the US embassy to Jerusalem on day 1.
I think this comes from the Democratic and Republican Campaign
Songbook that each candidate gets a copy of so they can lead
hootenannies, etc. Not that I object to her saying it, just that they
all say this.
Also heard on the news today that Ben Cardin was endorsing Trump.
What!! I thought. But they had said Ben Carson.
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 11:29:29 AM UTC-8, mm wrote:
I tuned in in the middle of a sentence, but on C-Span Radio I heard
Mrs. Ted Cruz saying ".....prayer in a public place, but respectfully
and without hurting anyone". I'd listened earlier and she was talking about changes her husband would make. I don't know what's different
about what she said -- we already have prayers in public places -- and
I wish I'd heard what she said just before, since it woudl be a
change, I'm fairly sure she means a change I won't like, like
government sponsored sectarian prayer.
I looked on the C-span website but a) I don't think it keeps archives
of everything it broadcasts, and b) even when it does, it seems harder
to find them than with other, more organized sites. And I didn't
find this, even though it was, I think from 1 to 2. If I didn't know
it was she speaking, I woudln't have been able to find out. C-span
radio used to almost all the time have the same as one of the C-span
tv networks, but c) I don't think that's true anymore, d) it's just
about as hard to find out what has recently or ever been on any of the C-span tv stations.
She also said he would move the US embassy to Jerusalem on day 1.
I think this comes from the Democratic and Republican Campaign
Songbook that each candidate gets a copy of so they can lead
hootenannies, etc. Not that I object to her saying it, just that they
all say this.
Also heard on the news today that Ben Cardin was endorsing Trump.
What!! I thought. But they had said Ben Carson.
How many thousands of years of experience does it take to show that perhaps we might be suspicious of Christians?
Sure, there have been good times, these are as good as they get, but don't think
if the economy tanks or disaster strikes things wouldn't go 180 in an instant.
How many thousands of years of experience does it take to show that perhaps >we might be suspicious of Christians?
Sure, there have been good times, these are as good as they get, but don't think
if the economy tanks or disaster strikes things wouldn't go 180 in an instant.
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
How many thousands of years of experience does it take to show that perhaps >>we might be suspicious of Christians?
Sure, there have been good times, these are as good as they get, but don't think
if the economy tanks or disaster strikes things wouldn't go 180 in an instant.
If so, how much sense does it make to pre-emptively antagonize one's >Christian bandmates by insisting that they modify their repertoire to
avoid offending you? Or is it a case of "they'll kill us anyway, let's
at least have some fun first"?
Obviously, we disagree.
I disagree with a school, a community organization, or the like promoting one >religion. Having a holiday concert, like the organization did the year before >would have been appropriate. A Christmas Concert for a community organization
I believe is a violation of church and state. The same would have been true if it was a Purim festival.
A simple Hanukkah medley and rename of the concert flyers would have been fine.
What you call antagonize I call education.
mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov <ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner ><lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
How many thousands of years of experience does it take to show that perhaps
we might be suspicious of Christians?
Sure, there have been good times, these are as good as they get, but don't think
if the economy tanks or disaster strikes things wouldn't go 180 in an instant.
If so, how much sense does it make to pre-emptively antagonize one's >Christian bandmates by insisting that they modify their repertoire to >avoid offending you? Or is it a case of "they'll kill us anyway, let's
at least have some fun first"?
Interestingly, for 30, 40 years or more it was Madeleine Murray, an atheist, and maybe some other non-Jews who were the plaintiffs in all these suits. And there is still a lot of that. But I think a few
Jews have joined in in recent years. I can't remember details.
In this area there is a Jewish athiest (Michaewl Newdow)fighting
everything. He is against anythig Jewish or Xian,
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@panix.com
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov <ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
How many thousands of years of experience does it take to show that perhaps >>we might be suspicious of Christians?
Sure, there have been good times, these are as good as they get, but don't think
if the economy tanks or disaster strikes things wouldn't go 180 in an instant.
If so, how much sense does it make to pre-emptively antagonize one's >Christian bandmates by insisting that they modify their repertoire to
avoid offending you? Or is it a case of "they'll kill us anyway, let's
at least have some fun first"?
Interestingly, for 30, 40 years or more it was Madeleine Murray, an
atheist, and maybe some other non-Jews who were the plaintiffs in all
these suits. And there is still a lot of that. But I think a few
Jews have joined in in recent years. I can't remember details.
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:34:41 PM UTC-7, hjw...@panix.com wrote:
mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov <ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner ><lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
How many thousands of years of experience does it take to show that perhaps
we might be suspicious of Christians?
Sure, there have been good times, these are as good as they get, but don't think
if the economy tanks or disaster strikes things wouldn't go 180 in an instant.
If so, how much sense does it make to pre-emptively antagonize one's >Christian bandmates by insisting that they modify their repertoire to >avoid offending you? Or is it a case of "they'll kill us anyway, let's >at least have some fun first"?
Interestingly, for 30, 40 years or more it was Madeleine Murray, an atheist, and maybe some other non-Jews who were the plaintiffs in all these suits. And there is still a lot of that. But I think a few
Jews have joined in in recent years. I can't remember details.
In this area there is a Jewish athiest (Michaewl Newdow)fighting everything. He is against anythig Jewish or Xian,
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@panix.com
He doesn't seem to have evil intentions, he's against government promoted religion.
https://www.secular.org/bios/Michael_Newdow.html
Beach Runner <lowhertz@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:34:41 PM UTC-7, hjw...@panix.com wrote:
mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
How many thousands of years of experience does it take to show that perhaps
we might be suspicious of Christians?
Sure, there have been good times, these are as good as they get, but don't think
if the economy tanks or disaster strikes things wouldn't go 180 in an instant.
If so, how much sense does it make to pre-emptively antagonize one's
Christian bandmates by insisting that they modify their repertoire to >> > > >avoid offending you? Or is it a case of "they'll kill us anyway, let's >> > > >at least have some fun first"?
Interestingly, for 30, 40 years or more it was Madeleine Murray, an
atheist, and maybe some other non-Jews who were the plaintiffs in all >> > > these suits. And there is still a lot of that. But I think a few
Jews have joined in in recent years. I can't remember details.
In this area there is a Jewish athiest (Michaewl Newdow)fighting
everything. He is against anythig Jewish or Xian,
Harry J. Weiss
He doesn't seem to have evil intentions, he's against government promoted religion.
https://www.secular.org/bios/Michael_Newdow.html
Public candle lighting or eruvs do not affect anyone else, He fights them
on a regular basis,
mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
How many thousands of years of experience does it take to show that perhaps
we might be suspicious of Christians?
Sure, there have been good times, these are as good as they get, but don't think
if the economy tanks or disaster strikes things wouldn't go 180 in an instant.
If so, how much sense does it make to pre-emptively antagonize one's
Christian bandmates by insisting that they modify their repertoire to
avoid offending you? Or is it a case of "they'll kill us anyway, let's
at least have some fun first"?
Interestingly, for 30, 40 years or more it was Madeleine Murray, an
atheist, and maybe some other non-Jews who were the plaintiffs in all
these suits. And there is still a lot of that. But I think a few
Jews have joined in in recent years. I can't remember details.
In this area there is a Jewish athiest (Michaewl Newdow)fighting
everything. He is against anythig Jewish or Xian,
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:34:41 PM UTC-7, hjw...@panix.com wrote:
mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
How many thousands of years of experience does it take to show that perhaps
we might be suspicious of Christians?
Sure, there have been good times, these are as good as they get, but don't think
if the economy tanks or disaster strikes things wouldn't go 180 in an instant.
If so, how much sense does it make to pre-emptively antagonize one's
Christian bandmates by insisting that they modify their repertoire to
avoid offending you? Or is it a case of "they'll kill us anyway, let's >>>> at least have some fun first"?
Interestingly, for 30, 40 years or more it was Madeleine Murray, an
atheist, and maybe some other non-Jews who were the plaintiffs in all
these suits. And there is still a lot of that. But I think a few
Jews have joined in in recent years. I can't remember details.
In this area there is a Jewish athiest (Michaewl Newdow)fighting
everything. He is against anythig Jewish or Xian,
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@panix.com
He doesn't seem to have evil intentions, he's against government promoted religion.
https://www.secular.org/bios/Michael_Newdow.html
Public candle lighting or eruvs do not affect anyone else, He fights them
on a regular basis,
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:34:41 PM UTC-7, hjw...@panix.com wrote:
mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
How many thousands of years of experience does it take to show that perhaps
we might be suspicious of Christians?
Sure, there have been good times, these are as good as they get, but don't think
if the economy tanks or disaster strikes things wouldn't go 180 in an instant.
If so, how much sense does it make to pre-emptively antagonize one's
Christian bandmates by insisting that they modify their repertoire to
avoid offending you? Or is it a case of "they'll kill us anyway, let's
at least have some fun first"?
Interestingly, for 30, 40 years or more it was Madeleine Murray, an
atheist, and maybe some other non-Jews who were the plaintiffs in all
these suits. And there is still a lot of that. But I think a few
Jews have joined in in recent years. I can't remember details.
In this area there is a Jewish athiest (Michaewl Newdow)fighting
everything. He is against anythig Jewish or Xian,
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@panix.com
He doesn't seem to have evil intentions, he's against government promoted religion.
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:32:16 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
Obviously, we disagree.
Indeed, we probably disagree on what constitutes promotion, and what
is tolerable and what's worth a fight.
I disagree with a school, a community organization, or the like promoting one >>religion. Having a holiday concert, like the organization did the year before
would have been appropriate. A Christmas Concert for a community organization
I believe is a violation of church and state. The same would have been true if it was a Purim festival.
IIRC in your case the state was not involved at all.
A simple Hanukkah medley and rename of the concert flyers would have been fine.
What you call antagonize I call education.
The thing is, for these purposes it doesn't matter what you or I call
it. What matters is what the recipients of said "education" think it
is.
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:34:41 PM UTC-7, hjw...@panix.com wrote:that perhaps
mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
How many thousands of years of experience does it take to show
but don't thinkwe might be suspicious of Christians?
Sure, there have been good times, these are as good as they get,
in an instant.if the economy tanks or disaster strikes things wouldn't go 180
If so, how much sense does it make to pre-emptively antagonize one's
Christian bandmates by insisting that they modify their repertoire to
avoid offending you? Or is it a case of "they'll kill us anyway, let's
at least have some fun first"?
Interestingly, for 30, 40 years or more it was Madeleine Murray, an
atheist, and maybe some other non-Jews who were the plaintiffs in all
these suits. And there is still a lot of that. But I think a few
Jews have joined in in recent years. I can't remember details.
In this area there is a Jewish athiest (Michaewl Newdow)fighting
everything. He is against anythig Jewish or Xian,
promoted religion.--
Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@panix.com
He doesn't seem to have evil intentions, he's against government
https://www.secular.org/bios/Michael_Newdow.html
Beach Runner <lowhertz@gmail.com> wrote:that perhaps
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:34:41 PM UTC-7, hjw...@panix.com wrote:
mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
How many thousands of years of experience does it take to show
but don't thinkwe might be suspicious of Christians?
Sure, there have been good times, these are as good as they get,
180 in an instant.if the economy tanks or disaster strikes things wouldn't go
If so, how much sense does it make to pre-emptively antagonize one's
Christian bandmates by insisting that they modify their repertoire to >> > > >avoid offending you? Or is it a case of "they'll kill us anyway, let's >> > > >at least have some fun first"?
Interestingly, for 30, 40 years or more it was Madeleine Murray, an
atheist, and maybe some other non-Jews who were the plaintiffs in all >> > > these suits. And there is still a lot of that. But I think a few
Jews have joined in in recent years. I can't remember details.
In this area there is a Jewish athiest (Michaewl Newdow)fighting
everything. He is against anythig Jewish or Xian,
promoted religion.--
Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@panix.com
He doesn't seem to have evil intentions, he's against government
https://www.secular.org/bios/Michael_Newdow.html
Public candle lighting or eruvs do not affect anyone else, He fights them
on a regular basis,
On 2016-03-15, Yisroel Markov <ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:32:16 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
Obviously, we disagree.
Indeed, we probably disagree on what constitutes promotion, and what
is tolerable and what's worth a fight.
I disagree with a school, a community organization, or the like promoting one
religion. Having a holiday concert, like the organization did the year before
would have been appropriate. A Christmas Concert for a community organization
I believe is a violation of church and state. The same would have been true if it was a Purim festival.
IIRC in your case the state was not involved at all.
A simple Hanukkah medley and rename of the concert flyers would have been fine.
What you call antagonize I call education.
The thing is, for these purposes it doesn't matter what you or I call
it. What matters is what the recipients of said "education" think it
is.
Actually, there is an imposition of what is sometimes recognized as
a religion, namely, Secular Humanism, which has dominated education
for the last roughhly 80 years. It is what forced age grouping,
and dumbed down the curriculum for what the low end could pass.
This is ONE of the reasons why children in the low socioeconomic
classes do not achieve; their education is reduced to the level
those unwilling or unable to learn in thir classes can handle.
Much of their philosophy has now been enacted into law, which
makes it difficult for anyone even with average ability to
achieve what can be achieved. No child left behind means no
child can get ahead, and schools and teachers are rated on how
their students do on standardized exams of details, not taking
into account the willingness and abiliities of the students.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 00:58:56 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss
<hjweiss@panix.com> wrote:
Beach Runner <lowhertz@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:34:41 PM UTC-7, hjw...@panix.com wrote:
mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
promoted religion.He doesn't seem to have evil intentions, he's against government
https://www.secular.org/bios/Michael_Newdow.html
Public candle lighting or eruvs do not affect anyone else, He fights them >>on a regular basis,
Eruvs don't. People don't even know they are there. They don't
violate the 3-part test that the USSC has used, including no excessive entanglement.
When they get rid of public Xmas trees, that will be the time to talk
about (Chanuka, I presume) candle lighting. I don't see them getting
rid of Xmas trees any time soon.
(In Indianapolis, where I lived in JHS and HS, in the very middle of
the city is the Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument, something like the Washington Monument in DC but with a lot more decoration, and 284 feet
high. Every year the day after Thanksgiving, they light strings of
lights from the top to various points on the surrounding circle. It's
not made out of tree, but it's still an Xmas tree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldiers'_and_Sailors'_Monument_%28Indianapolis%29
"During the Christmas season the monument is decorated as an enormous Christmas tree. This annual city tradition, which became known as the
"Circle of Lights", began in 1962. The tree lighting ceremony is held
the day after Thanksgiving. The decoration of the monument uses 4,784
lights and 52 strands of garland put in place by volunteers from the
local IBEW. More than 100,000 people attend the ceremony and the event
is televised to an estimated 50,000 households.[55]" Two pictures of
this at the bottom of the webpage.
They're not about to give this up.
My mother scratched her initials inside it around 1925, but I didn't
know that the one time I was inside, so I didn't look.
On 2016-03-16, Shelly <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> wrote:
On 3/15/2016 8:57 PM, Beach Runner wrote:
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:34:41 PM UTC-7, hjw...@panix.com wrote: >>>> mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
...................
I support his stance on restoring the old form of the pledge of
allegiance and removing the "under God". I always remain silent when it
comes to those words as I feel that their presence is a violation of the
separation of church and state.
I am surprised that some Jewish groups did not oppose "under God".
The Supreme Court has ruled against government-sponsored prayers.
I see the phrase as either meaningless, as everything is under God
if God exists and clearly false if He does not, or is a prayer for
God to include the US under his egis, which would make a violation
of the Third Commandment, taking the name of the Lord in vain.
What I don't understand is the reason for the Supreme Court's ruling
that he didn't have "prudential standing" to bring the suit? He is an
American citizen, is he not? As such, shouldn't that be sufficient
standing to bring the suit?
The courts have ruled that to bring a civil suit requires that the
ones bringing it are directly affected by the action they seek to
rule illegal.
On 3/15/2016 8:57 PM, Beach Runner wrote:
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:34:41 PM UTC-7, hjw...@panix.com wrote:
mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
I support his stance on restoring the old form of the pledge of
allegiance and removing the "under God". I always remain silent when it
comes to those words as I feel that their presence is a violation of the separation of church and state.
What I don't understand is the reason for the Supreme Court's ruling
that he didn't have "prudential standing" to bring the suit? He is an American citizen, is he not? As such, shouldn't that be sufficient
standing to bring the suit?
Not that I disagree with much of what you have to say, but just what has
this speech of yours have to do with prayer in a public schools?
On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 6:48:14 PM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
You get rid of religion at a school or university, and something
Not that I disagree with much of what you have to say, but just what has
this speech of yours have to do with prayer in a public schools?
else comes in to fill the void. So I once was a TV program where
an "ecologist" was studying killer whales eating seals. "We must
pay respect to both whale and seal" he said, "and not affect the
result of this encounter in any way". Scientifically that's untrue - manipulating one feeding event for experimental or even entertainment purposes isn't going to have a material impact on the population of
either killer whales or seals. But he would have been a vegetarian,
someone who didn't allow himself to eat meat, but not so detached from reality that he thinks orcas can live off seaweed. So he saw in the
act of a killer whale feeding something holy.
Ok, it's small example, a quasi religious position which may well
be imposed on students doing marine ecological studies. But it
won't be isolated. You get more and more of that sort of nonsense
until eventually you have fully-fledged established religion, eventually
even in name.
On 3/16/2016 1:39 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
On 2016-03-15, Yisroel Markov <ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:32:16 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
Obviously, we disagree.
Indeed, we probably disagree on what constitutes promotion, and what
is tolerable and what's worth a fight.
What you call antagonize I call education.
The thing is, for these purposes it doesn't matter what you or I call
it. What matters is what the recipients of said "education" think it
is.
Actually, there is an imposition of what is sometimes recognized as
a religion, namely, Secular Humanism, which has dominated education
for the last roughhly 80 years. It is what forced age grouping,
and dumbed down the curriculum for what the low end could pass.
This is ONE of the reasons why children in the low socioeconomic
classes do not achieve; their education is reduced to the level
those unwilling or unable to learn in thir classes can handle.
Much of their philosophy has now been enacted into law, which
makes it difficult for anyone even with average ability to
achieve what can be achieved. No child left behind means no
child can get ahead, and schools and teachers are rated on how
their students do on standardized exams of details, not taking
into account the willingness and abiliities of the students.
Not that I disagree with much of what you have to say, but just what has
this speech of yours have to do with prayer in a public schools?
On 3/16/2016 1:39 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
On 2016-03-15, Yisroel Markov <ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:32:16 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
Obviously, we disagree.
Indeed, we probably disagree on what constitutes promotion, and what
is tolerable and what's worth a fight.
I disagree with a school, a community organization, or the like promoting one
religion. Having a holiday concert, like the organization did the year before
would have been appropriate. A Christmas Concert for a community organization
I believe is a violation of church and state. The same would have been true if it was a Purim festival.
IIRC in your case the state was not involved at all.
A simple Hanukkah medley and rename of the concert flyers would have been fine.
What you call antagonize I call education.
The thing is, for these purposes it doesn't matter what you or I call
it. What matters is what the recipients of said "education" think it
is.
Actually, there is an imposition of what is sometimes recognized as
a religion, namely, Secular Humanism, which has dominated education
for the last roughhly 80 years. It is what forced age grouping,
and dumbed down the curriculum for what the low end could pass.
This is ONE of the reasons why children in the low socioeconomic
classes do not achieve; their education is reduced to the level
those unwilling or unable to learn in thir classes can handle.
Much of their philosophy has now been enacted into law, which
makes it difficult for anyone even with average ability to
achieve what can be achieved. No child left behind means no
child can get ahead, and schools and teachers are rated on how
their students do on standardized exams of details, not taking
into account the willingness and abiliities of the students.
Not that I disagree with much of what you have to say, but just what has
this speech of yours have to do with prayer in a public schools?
On 3/16/2016 4:37 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
On 2016-03-16, Shelly <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> wrote:
On 3/15/2016 8:57 PM, Beach Runner wrote:
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:34:41 PM UTC-7, hjw...@panix.com wrote: >>>>> mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
...................
I support his stance on restoring the old form of the pledge of
allegiance and removing the "under God". I always remain silent when it
comes to those words as I feel that their presence is a violation of the >>> separation of church and state.
I am surprised that some Jewish groups did not oppose "under God".
The Supreme Court has ruled against government-sponsored prayers.
I see the phrase as either meaningless, as everything is under God
if God exists and clearly false if He does not, or is a prayer for
God to include the US under his egis, which would make a violation
of the Third Commandment, taking the name of the Lord in vain.
What I don't understand is the reason for the Supreme Court's ruling
that he didn't have "prudential standing" to bring the suit? He is an
American citizen, is he not? As such, shouldn't that be sufficient
standing to bring the suit?
The courts have ruled that to bring a civil suit requires that the
ones bringing it are directly affected by the action they seek to
rule illegal.
Is he not directly affected by having his constitutional right violated
since he is an American citizen?
On 2016-03-16, mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 00:58:56 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss
<hjweiss@panix.com> wrote:
Beach Runner <lowhertz@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:34:41 PM UTC-7, hjw...@panix.com wrote: >>> > mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
........................
promoted religion.He doesn't seem to have evil intentions, he's against government
https://www.secular.org/bios/Michael_Newdow.html
Public candle lighting or eruvs do not affect anyone else, He fights them >>on a regular basis,
Eruvs don't. People don't even know they are there. They don't
violate the 3-part test that the USSC has used, including no excessive entanglement.
When they get rid of public Xmas trees, that will be the time to talk
about (Chanuka, I presume) candle lighting. I don't see them getting
rid of Xmas trees any time soon.
(In Indianapolis, where I lived in JHS and HS, in the very middle of
the city is the Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument, something like the Washington Monument in DC but with a lot more decoration, and 284 feet high. Every year the day after Thanksgiving, they light strings of
lights from the top to various points on the surrounding circle. It's
not made out of tree, but it's still an Xmas tree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldiers'_and_Sailors'_Monument_%28Indianapolis%29
"During the Christmas season the monument is decorated as an enormous Christmas tree. This annual city tradition, which became known as the "Circle of Lights", began in 1962. The tree lighting ceremony is held
the day after Thanksgiving. The decoration of the monument uses 4,784 lights and 52 strands of garland put in place by volunteers from the
local IBEW. More than 100,000 people attend the ceremony and the event
is televised to an estimated 50,000 households.[55]" Two pictures of
this at the bottom of the webpage.
I live in Indiana. I do not believe that there are any religious symbols used in the lighting, nor have I seen it promoted as a "Christmas" event. Besides, the Christmas tree comes from Teutonic theology.
They're not about to give this up.
My mother scratched her initials inside it around 1925, but I didn't
know that the one time I was inside, so I didn't look.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
On 2016-03-16, Shelly <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> wrote:
On 3/16/2016 4:37 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
On 2016-03-16, Shelly <sheldonlg@thevillages.net> wrote:
On 3/15/2016 8:57 PM, Beach Runner wrote:
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:34:41 PM UTC-7, hjw...@panix.com wrote: >>>>>> mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:16:40 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 05:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> said:
[snip]
...................
I support his stance on restoring the old form of the pledge of
allegiance and removing the "under God". I always remain silent when it >>>> comes to those words as I feel that their presence is a violation of the >>>> separation of church and state.
I am surprised that some Jewish groups did not oppose "under God".
The Supreme Court has ruled against government-sponsored prayers.
I see the phrase as either meaningless, as everything is under God
if God exists and clearly false if He does not, or is a prayer for
God to include the US under his egis, which would make a violation
of the Third Commandment, taking the name of the Lord in vain.
What I don't understand is the reason for the Supreme Court's ruling
that he didn't have "prudential standing" to bring the suit? He is an >>>> American citizen, is he not? As such, shouldn't that be sufficient
standing to bring the suit?
The courts have ruled that to bring a civil suit requires that the
ones bringing it are directly affected by the action they seek to
rule illegal.
Is he not directly affected by having his constitutional right violated
since he is an American citizen?
According to present court rulings, no. He is not being asked to
participate in saying "God", amd he has no parental rights in
raising the girl.
I live in Indiana. I do not believe that there are any religious symbols used in the lighting, nor have I seen it promoted as a "Christmas" event. Besides, the Christmas tree comes from Teutonic theology.
It however is the symbol of xmas, And at the captol building in CA the
lights for the decorations The Chanukah menora is all paid for by
Chabad. The Capitol grounds are available to any group that reserves it,
I worked 3 blocks from it for many years and almost every days there was
some group using it,
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 12:53:22 AM UTC, hjw...@panix.com wrote:
I live in Indiana. I do not believe that there are any religious symbols used in the lighting, nor have I seen it promoted as a "Christmas" event. Besides, the Christmas tree comes from Teutonic theology.
It however is the symbol of xmas, And at the captol building in CA the lights for the decorations The Chanukah menora is all paid for by Chabad. The Capitol grounds are available to any group that reserves it, I worked 3 blocks from it for many years and almost every days there was some group using it,
We don't actually know why it's traditional to put up trees at Christmas. There are several theories, one that it's a remnant of the old Yule log, another that it represents the tree of knowledge, and another that it
is in fact a hannukah bush - a German saw a bush decorated with candles
for hannukah and thought he'd like a similar one for his own house.
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 11:46:57 AM UTC-7, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 12:53:22 AM UTC, hjw...@panix.com wrote:
We don't actually know why it's traditional to put up trees at Christmas.
I live in Indiana. I do not believe that there are any religious symbols
used in the lighting, nor have I seen it promoted as a "Christmas" event.
Besides, the Christmas tree comes from Teutonic theology.
It however is the symbol of xmas, And at the captol building in CA the
lights for the decorations The Chanukah menora is all paid for by
Chabad. The Capitol grounds are available to any group that reserves it, >> > I worked 3 blocks from it for many years and almost every days there was >> > some group using it,
There are several theories, one that it's a remnant of the old Yule log,
another that it represents the tree of knowledge, and another that it
is in fact a hannukah bush - a German saw a bush decorated with candles
for hannukah and thought he'd like a similar one for his own house.
Hannukah has been called the festival of lights I've heard it said the custom >of putting up lights came from Hannukah. However, there was no such thing
in Judaism as a Hannukah bush, I personally find it offensive.
As far as Christmas, I believe it was a pagan holiday, Yule that included a tree, presents and merrymaking. For the Romans to convert everyone over Chistianity, the people loved their Yule holiday, so they moved Jesus's birthday to create a popularChristian holiday. Otherwise getting the people
to convert would have been impossible in Rome.
That's why I say Christianity really grew and came from Rome, not Israel,
as it was a small sect of Jews in Israel, not a new religion with a new name.
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 04:39:16 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> wrote:
That's why I say Christianity really grew and came from Rome, not Israel, >>as it was a small sect of Jews in Israel, not a new religion with a new name.
Right. The original Jews lost interest or got old and died.
Hannukah has been called the festival of lights I've heard it said the custom of putting up lights came from Hannukah. However, there was no such thing
in Judaism as a Hannukah bush, I personally find it offensive.
As far as Christmas, I believe it was a pagan holiday, Yule that included a tree,
presents and merrymaking. For the Romans to convert everyone over Chistianity,
the people loved their Yule holiday, so they moved Jesus's birthday to create a popular
Christian holiday. Otherwise getting the people to convert would have been impossible
in Rome.
That's why I say Christianity really grew and came from Rome, not Israel,
as it was a small sect of Jews in Israel, not a new religion with a new name.
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 12:53:22 AM UTC, hjw...@panix.com wrote:
I live in Indiana. I do not believe that there are any religious symbols >> > used in the lighting, nor have I seen it promoted as a "Christmas" event. >> > Besides, the Christmas tree comes from Teutonic theology.
It however is the symbol of xmas, And at the captol building in CA the
lights for the decorations The Chanukah menora is all paid for by
Chabad. The Capitol grounds are available to any group that reserves it, >> I worked 3 blocks from it for many years and almost every days there was
some group using it,
We don't actually know why it's traditional to put up trees at Christmas. There are several theories, one that it's a remnant of the old Yule log, another that it represents the tree of knowledge, and another that it
is in fact a hannukah bush - a German saw a bush decorated with candles
for hannukah and thought he'd like a similar one for his own house.
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:55:08 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com>
said:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 04:39:16 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowhertz@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
That's why I say Christianity really grew and came from Rome, not Israel, >>>as it was a small sect of Jews in Israel, not a new religion with a new name.
Right. The original Jews lost interest or got old and died.
More like they were successfully marginalized and pushed out of the developing religion.
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:16:14 AM UTC-4, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
A Hannukah lamp is usually a menorah-like candelabra, but with extra arms. >> However it can be anything, including a bush, as long as it has the
right number of lights.
snip
=====
Absolutely false. According to the Kitzur Shulchan Orach, the lights of the chanukiah must be straight in a row and all of the same height. When are you going to stop playing rabbi? or do you post this nonsense just to get a rise out of the rest of us?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:16:14 AM UTC-4, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
snipA Hannukah lamp is usually a menorah-like candelabra, but with extra arms. >> However it can be anything, including a bush, as long as it has the
right number of lights.
=====
Absolutely false. According to the Kitzur Shulchan Orach, the lights of the chanukiah must be straight in a row and all of the same height. When are you going to stop playing rabbi?
or do you post this nonsense just to get a rise out of the rest of us?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
A Hannukah lamp is usually a menorah-like candelabra, but with extra arms. However it can be anything, including a bush, as long as it has the
right number of lights.
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 4:31:50 AM UTC, Beach Runner wrote:
Hannukah has been called the festival of lights I've heard it said the custom
of putting up lights came from Hannukah. However, there was no such thing in Judaism as a Hannukah bush, I personally find it offensive.
A Hannukah lamp is usually a menorah-like candelabra, but with extra arms. However it can be anything, including a bush, as long as it has the
right number of lights.
As far as Christmas, I believe it was a pagan holiday, Yule that included a tree,
presents and merrymaking. For the Romans to convert everyone over Chistianity,
the people loved their Yule holiday, so they moved Jesus's birthday to create a popular
Christian holiday. Otherwise getting the people to convert would have been impossible
in Rome.
Yule was a northern European holiday, not celebrated in Rome.
However some of the Yule traditions might have been carried over into Christmas.
That would have happened in the 5th and 6th centuries, as these peoples entered the collapsing Roman Empire and made contact wth Christians, eventually converting.
That's why I say Christianity really grew and came from Rome, not Israel, as it was a small sect of Jews in Israel, not a new religion with a new name.
Christian headquarters were moved from Jerusalem to Rome some time in the
1st century. There's a lot of speculation about that, but the truth is that whilst
there must have been some internal discussion about it, no records have survived, we don't know what the arguments were. But Jerusalem and Rome
were the two logical places for HQ.
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:16:14 AM UTC-4, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
snipA Hannukah lamp is usually a menorah-like candelabra, but with extra arms. >> However it can be anything, including a bush, as long as it has the
right number of lights.
=====
Absolutely false. According to the Kitzur Shulchan Orach, the lights of the chanukiah must be straight in a row and all of the same height.
When are you going to stop playing rabbi? or do you post this nonsense just to get a rise out of the rest of us?
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:16:14 AM UTC-4, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
A Hannukah lamp is usually a menorah-like candelabra, but with extra arms. However it can be anything, including a bush, as long as it has the
right number of lights.
snip
=====
Absolutely false. According to the Kitzur Shulchan Orach, the lights
of the chanukiah must be straight in a row and all of the same height.
When are you going to stop playing rabbi? or do you post this nonsense
just to get a rise out of the rest of us?
malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote:
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 5:34:36 PM UTC, cindys wrote:
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:16:14 AM UTC-4, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
snipA Hannukah lamp is usually a menorah-like candelabra, but with extra arms.
However it can be anything, including a bush, as long as it has the
right number of lights.
=====
Absolutely false. According to the Kitzur Shulchan Orach, the lights
of the chanukiah must be straight in a row and all of the same height.
When are you going to stop playing rabbi? or do you post this nonsense
just to get a rise out of the rest of us?
There's a counter-example:
http://pashoshim.com/products/creating-hanukka-lamp
All halachic sources say otherwise,
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 5:34:36 PM UTC, cindys wrote:
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:16:14 AM UTC-4, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
A Hannukah lamp is usually a menorah-like candelabra, but with extra arms.
However it can be anything, including a bush, as long as it has the
right number of lights.
snip
=====
Absolutely false. According to the Kitzur Shulchan Orach, the lights
of the chanukiah must be straight in a row and all of the same height.
When are you going to stop playing rabbi? or do you post this nonsense
just to get a rise out of the rest of us?
There's a counter-example: http://pashoshim.com/products/creating-hanukka-lamp
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 5:34:36 PM UTC, cindys wrote:
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:16:14 AM UTC-4, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
A Hannukah lamp is usually a menorah-like candelabra, but with extra arms.
However it can be anything, including a bush, as long as it has the
right number of lights.
snip
=====
Absolutely false. According to the Kitzur Shulchan Orach, the lights
of the chanukiah must be straight in a row and all of the same height.
When are you going to stop playing rabbi? or do you post this nonsense
just to get a rise out of the rest of us?
There's a counter-example: http://pashoshim.com/products/creating-hanukka-lamp------------
malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote:
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 5:34:36 PM UTC, cindys wrote:
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:16:14 AM UTC-4, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
snipA Hannukah lamp is usually a menorah-like candelabra, but with extra arms.
However it can be anything, including a bush, as long as it has the
right number of lights.
=====
Absolutely false. According to the Kitzur Shulchan Orach, the lights
of the chanukiah must be straight in a row and all of the same height.
When are you going to stop playing rabbi? or do you post this nonsense
just to get a rise out of the rest of us?
There's a counter-example:
http://pashoshim.com/products/creating-hanukka-lamp
All halachic sources say otherwise,
On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 06:02:57 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss
<hjweiss@panix.com> said:
malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote:
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 5:34:36 PM UTC, cindys wrote:
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:16:14 AM UTC-4, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
snipA Hannukah lamp is usually a menorah-like candelabra, but with extra arms.
However it can be anything, including a bush, as long as it has the
right number of lights.
=====
Absolutely false. According to the Kitzur Shulchan Orach, the lights
of the chanukiah must be straight in a row and all of the same height. >>> > When are you going to stop playing rabbi? or do you post this nonsense >>> > just to get a rise out of the rest of us?
There's a counter-example:
http://pashoshim.com/products/creating-hanukka-lamp
All halachic sources say otherwise,
Sorry, no. The basic halakha as codified in the Mishne Tora does not
specify *anything* regarding placement of lights in a straight line
and at the same height. Nor does the Shulkhan Arukh - this appears to
be a later addition.
Sh"A 671:4 says as follows:
"If one fills a vessel with oil and surrounds it with wicks [meaning
in a circle - YSM] - if one then turns covers it with [another]
vessel, then all the wicks count as one. However, if one did not turn
a vessel over it then it does not even count as one light, because it
is like just a fire." ["Madura" can denote even a campfire. The point,
I think, is that it looks like something other than a fire for
lighting purposes - like, e.g., a cooking fire.]
Rema comments: "Therefore one must be diligent to arrange the lights
in an even line and not in a circle, for then it would be like just a
fire (Hagahot Maimoniyot in the name of Sefer Mitzvot Katan). It is
permitted to light a candelabra called "Lampa" [which is round! - YSM] >because all the lights are significantly separated. We must be careful
when setting up the lights, even if they are on the same level, not to
light them at once, since it would be like just a fire (Piskei MaHaRi
65). Even with the Shabbat and Yom Tov lights we must be careful not
to do this (Or Zarua)."
I have also found a reference to MaHaRSHaL approving the use of a
round candelabra when one doesn't have anything else.
This illustrates what I mean about the Kitzur not being a good source
for basic unadorned halakha.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:15:43 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov ><ey.markov@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 06:02:57 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss
<hjweiss@panix.com> said:
malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com wrote:
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 5:34:36 PM UTC, cindys wrote:
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 9:16:14 AM UTC-4, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip
snipA Hannukah lamp is usually a menorah-like candelabra, but with extra arms.
However it can be anything, including a bush, as long as it has the >>>> > > right number of lights.
=====
Absolutely false. According to the Kitzur Shulchan Orach, the lights >>>> > of the chanukiah must be straight in a row and all of the same height. >>>> > When are you going to stop playing rabbi? or do you post this nonsense >>>> > just to get a rise out of the rest of us?
There's a counter-example:
http://pashoshim.com/products/creating-hanukka-lamp
All halachic sources say otherwise,
Sorry, no. The basic halakha as codified in the Mishne Tora does not >>specify *anything* regarding placement of lights in a straight line
and at the same height. Nor does the Shulkhan Arukh - this appears to
be a later addition.
Nonetheless, it WAS added. We used to be allowed to put knob and
tube wiring in our homes for electricity. Now we're not. We used to
be allowed to put lead water pipes in our homes. Now we're not.
If someone were to tell others that knob and tube or lead pipes were
allowed, he'd be ignorant and reckless.
--Sh"A 671:4 says as follows:
"If one fills a vessel with oil and surrounds it with wicks [meaning
in a circle - YSM] - if one then turns covers it with [another]
vessel, then all the wicks count as one. However, if one did not turn
a vessel over it then it does not even count as one light, because it
is like just a fire." ["Madura" can denote even a campfire. The point,
I think, is that it looks like something other than a fire for
lighting purposes - like, e.g., a cooking fire.]
Rema comments: "Therefore one must be diligent to arrange the lights
in an even line and not in a circle, for then it would be like just a
fire (Hagahot Maimoniyot in the name of Sefer Mitzvot Katan). It is >>permitted to light a candelabra called "Lampa" [which is round! - YSM] >>because all the lights are significantly separated. We must be careful
when setting up the lights, even if they are on the same level, not to >>light them at once, since it would be like just a fire (Piskei MaHaRi
65). Even with the Shabbat and Yom Tov lights we must be careful not
to do this (Or Zarua)."
I have also found a reference to MaHaRSHaL approving the use of a
round candelabra when one doesn't have anything else.
This illustrates what I mean about the Kitzur not being a good source
for basic unadorned halakha.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 78:02:35 |
| Calls: | 6,658 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,203 |
| Messages: | 5,332,971 |
| Posted today: | 1 |