# Religion and Martial Arts



## Nightingale

Recently, I've seen a lot of "Karate for Christ" and "Christian Martial Arts Federation" and things like that...

What do you think?

Is it appropriate to mix religion and martial arts?


In my opinion, its fine... as long as you tell people up front that your program includes religious elements, so your students know exactly what they're getting in to.

A program at your church is fine, or a studio with "Christian Karate Federation" on the window, or some other obvious religious reference, or a pamphlet handed out stating how you integrate the two... something that makes it very clear.

what I have an issue with is the instructors that run "after school programs"  who, keep the first lesson secular so the parents can watch, and then start preaching at lesson #2, when the parents feel its ok to just drop the kids off.  Or, the instructor who keeps it secular during the three private lessons, gets your money for  a year's contract, and then when you join the group classes, its obvious that he's using it as an outlet to evangelize.  In my opinion, this is deceitful.

what do you all think?  Have any of you seen any strong, positive church-based martial arts programs?  Has anyone come across the rather underhanded ones?  What's been your experience?

also... I know this can be kind of a touchy issue, so please keep it polite, respectful, and non-personal.


----------



## fist of fury

I agree that if you're going to be teaching religion with your martial art that should be stated up front. Personally I would find it a waste of money if the instructor was going to use the class to try and convert me to whatever religion he was a follower of. I personally haven't seen any church based MA programs myself.


----------



## Cthulhu

Personally, I don't mind what anyone does with religion as long as they don't try to force their beliefs upon me.

Cthulhu


----------



## DAC..florida

We actually teach martial arts at our church, we also have a small dojo that is not related to our church there is no religion or politics inolved at this dojo, all of the students are aware that we also have another at our church and that they are more than welcome to attend classes at either location.

I agree that you shouldnt force religion down anyone's throat, everyone has thier own point of veiws and that is thier right.
If a instructor wanted to start a martial arts school and include religion in the teaching they should advertize that.

:asian:


----------



## MartialArtsGuy

I'm with Cthulha and fist of fury. 

I also think diverting the focus of the training from martial arts to religion can be harmfull to the quality of the training. If you have to defend yourself, chances are that the skill-building physical training will develope your martial arts attributes more than religion discussion will. I belive everything has a time and a place. Church is not the time for martial arts, and the dojo is not the place for religious related topics. 

Although I do feel some discussion of ethics is fine in the dojo because it can help people stay out of trouble in the first place. 

This is all my humble opinion of course. 

:asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I've had 2 instructors who are deeply christian.  In both cases there were enough comments made that let you know it, but in neither case did I feel it crossed the line into 'preachin'.  I think that many traditional arts have a spiritual side to them, and an understanding of that may allow for a deeper understanding of things.  

But, I think everything needs to be upfront.  Somethings are obvious as in "Karate for Christ" or similar.  Its the 'wait til I got their money and no ones looking' group that IMHO is both decitful and violates their own religious guidelines.  But then again, God never said "Build a Waterslide" either. 

I'm not decided on how 'Chick tracts" by the class schedule and newsletter qualifies.


:asian:


----------



## Ender

As I posted earlier, our pastor is an 8th Dan San Soo Kung Fu teacher. he was asked how he can justify martial arts and being as pastor: he answered "if you are out with your wife and kids and are attacked, would you just stand there and say "Hallejueah"?..no, you take a 2x4..and bless him with it!"....*l

the point is everything has it's place.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

I am Jewish.  I don't mind taking instruction from someone with strong religious beliefs.  I don't mind if some un-Kosher Zen philosophy and meditation is thrown in.

However, in accordance with the requirements of my religion, I will not recite any pledge promising fealty to any other deity or religious institution.  I will not bow to any picture, statue, or image of any deity or martial artist.  

More importantly.  I would not be comfortable signing my kids up to study with someone who included religion as part of the curriculum if that religion was not my own. 

The area I live in (Silicon Valley -- San Francisco peninsula/San Jose, CA) is very diverse with large Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Sikh populations.  I am sure that many of these people feel the same.  As a matter of fact, I'll ask some of them next time I find myself in a place with all of these religions and no Christians -- like Tower Records on Christmas morning.


----------



## Cruentus

My opinion matches Nightingales pretty well. Martial Arts "Clubs" and "groups" are private clubs, and although I think everyone could benifit from Martial Arts, not every club is for everyone. If one private club promotes "Christian Karate," then I see nothing wrong with it. 

I do have a problem with people who use deciet to promote their religion. People who say they embrace all religions, when it is clear that they do not.

My experience with some of the Indonesian MA schools in my area fits the above description. The instructors claim to uphold "indigionous religious beliefs," But they claim to embrace all forms of religion. When you start to train with them, though, you find that they progressively push you more and more to do things that may be completely contrasting to your religious beliefs. You eventually find, after some serious $$ have been paid for your training, that you "can go no further" unless you start adopting some of their religious beliefs and behaviors. Understand, that these are flakey "New Age" interpretations of indiginous beliefs, in my opinion. Some of these students who have bought into this B.S. look up to the head instructor as if he is a diety of some kind. Scary thought.

My point is, though, that I disagree with their behavior in that religion is downplayed to the new student as not playing a significant part of the training, when nothing could be further from the truth.

PAUL

P.S. I have not been decieved into training with this group personally, but I almost was. I was smart enough to do a lot of digging before getting involved, as I suggest that everyone does when contemplating learning a different MA at a different school.


----------



## DAC..florida

I feel that you can keep the religion seperate from the training and unless your advertizing religion you should!


----------



## Andi

Yep, I agree.  Any instructor who feels the need to get people in under the pretext of MA and then tries to jam a religion down the students throats is clearly misrepresenting his art and his religion.  I think you'd struggle to find people who would advocate this position. 

And I don't have any problems at all with the "Karate for Christ" type clubs- far from it in fact- I'm a christian myself and would love to help people interested in Christianity.  I just wonder how effective these clubs are.

I just can't see how you'd get high quality MA teaching and high quality preaching-teaching to gel in the same class without losing focus on one or the other aspects. If the God stuff gets neglected-that's OK, I can still go to church and do all the other things I would be doing anyway, but if the MA suffers, well, what am I paying my money for? But hey, if it works then great!

It's something I'd quite like to have a look at really, just to see what it's like and if it works! Not that there's any clubs like that round here.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

So what does everyone think of pledges that exhalt a diety such as Jesus or Buddha?  What does everyone think of bowing to a picture of the style's founder?  Both of these are required in many schools.  I am uncomfortable with either.


----------



## DAC..florida

If the pledge advertizes the religion!   whatever?

I will never bow to a picture of anyone!
:asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *So what does everyone think of pledges that exhalt a diety such as Jesus or Buddha?  What does everyone think of bowing to a picture of the style's founder?  Both of these are required in many schools.  I am uncomfortable with either. *



I've been known to reword things to fit my own acceptable use policy.  I can of course mention the rewriting that was done to the 'Pledge' in the 50's, but thats been discussed elsewhere.


----------



## Ender

I have seen several church-type MA clubs that teach for a fee, then donate the proceeds to hunger prevention, etc. I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *So what does everyone think of pledges that exhalt a diety such as Jesus or Buddha?  What does everyone think of bowing to a picture of the style's founder?  Both of these are required in many schools.  I am uncomfortable with either. *



I have never heard of a school with a pledge that exhalts a specific diety. The closest thing to a pledge that I have seen is "The pledge of alliegence" was said at my old TKD school after every class. We do have the phrase "One Nation under God" in our pledge of alliegence, but "God" isn't really as specific as "Jesus" or "Buddha," and could be embraced by any/all religions. I do remember that for some reason "The Pledge" conflicted with the beliefs of one of the students. I don't remember what the conflict was exactly; I was very young at the time. The student was A. smart enough to sit in through an entire class before joining the club, so he found the "conflict" before joining, and B. he asked the head instructor in private if he could somehow avoid saying the pledge in class. The head instructor just advised him to just stand in the TKD "attention" position, but that he didn't have to put his hand on his heart and say the pledge if he didn't want to. So, he just stood at attention silently during the pledge.

At the same TKD school some of the most senior members were very christian, more-so on the fundamentalist side. Our head instructor had earned the title "master" so he had been using it. They objected because they believed that they only had "1 master" which is God. So, he said "fine, just call me Mr." This caught on and soon everyone was calling him Mr. instead of master. He didn't mind at all, and now even today, on his business cards he uses "Mr." instead of "Master."

Now, I know some highly structured and traditional styles do a considerable amount of bowing to the head instructor, and to pictures of the founder. When I used to do Aikido, we had a very ritualistic method of bowing in before and after class which included bowing to the picture of the founder, the sensei, and a kneeling meditation. I could see this conflicting with religious beliefs.

*My opinions as to the best solution:* I feel that the best solution, especially for you *Old Fat Kempoka*, is if you run into a school that does something that might conflict with your beliefs, just ask the head instructor in private if you can elect to not participate during that portion of the class. I think that a good instructor with an open mind will respect your beliefs and allow you to stand quietly, or step off the floor during the portion that conflicts with your beliefs. If the head instructor won't let you do this, then perhaps that is not the right school for you.

I do, however, believe that some things should be kept up if that is the tradition of that "culture" or "art." I feel that people can often be way too uptight, and there has been too much of a drive in the last 10 yrs or so to secularize EVERYTHING. I feel that this is unfair. I remember when saying the pledge in school was hotly debated because of the "under God" part. I remember when "holiday policies" became in full effect in school districts where Kids could get sent home for wearing a Santa Claus shirt, or saying "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hannaka" to their fellow students; they were specifically instructed to say "happy holidays" just in case some bystander who wasn't of whatever religion was mentioned might get offended. Yeah...like if I say Jesus or Buddha or Yahway someones ears might bleed. 
I think that this is crap. "The Pledge" is part of our identity as a country. Their religion can be part of a persons identity also. I agree that intolerence is a problem, and some things are inappropriate. I think that if I was a teacher in a school, and I splattered Bible verses and Jesus quotes all over the walls in my classroom, this might be inappropriate. I am an authority figure who now might be ramming my beliefs down kids throats. However, a teacher or another student should be able to keep their identity.

I believe that intolerance is a problem, but the solution is not to be intolerant of EVERY religion. I think that the drive to make everything so politically correct, and to secularize everything does exactly that.

Now, to apply the example to a martial arts school, I think they should be able to keep the traditions of their art. In Modern Arnis we are fairly untraditional, but we do have a specific "salutation." In Bando, or salutations go a bit deeper, including a meditation or "moment of silence". Some schools traditionally begin classes with bowing, quick meditation, etc. Some schools traditionally call their teachers "masters." I don't think that this is wrong. I think that heritage, tradition, and culture should be upheld even in martial arts. I do feel though, that the instructors should be "tolerant" of other beliefs, and that they should understand if someone doesn't want to partake in certain aspects of the tradition. And, I think that the person who has conflicting beliefs should also be "tolerant" of the traditions that are being upheld in that school, and that they should be able to politely ask to not participate in those traditions.

These our my opinions...

:soapbox: Thank You...thank you very much... (as I decend from my soap box.  )

PAUL

P.S. I am a Catholic Christian. I believe in the Catholic interpretation of "diety", however I love the study of religion/philosophy of cultures outside of my own. I particularly like the indiginious way of thought. I don't feel that it conflicts with my beliefs to bow in class, or call someone by the title master. To me, it's the intent behind the actions/words, not just the actions/words. I know, as does everyone else, that if I bow to a picture I am not intending to dietize that person in the picture. I am just showing respect. This is just how I handle it.

However, I can understand and respect if someone else doesn't feel the same as I do, and wouldn't feel comfortable with certain actions/words. :asian:


----------



## Cruentus

Since we both mentioned "the pledge," how was it modified in the 50's? I missed that discussion somewhere.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

Here is a "Kajukenbo Prayer" recited at the end of every class at a local Kajukenbo school.  When I saw this on their website, I had to take them off my short-list of schools to visit.  I am OK with everything until the last sentence.

"Dear Lord we pray thee. Keep us from doing wrong throughout the day. Be beside us as we undertake these exercises. Our sole purpose is to develop our bodies, to keep mentally strong, to be morally straight. To protect ourselves and our loved ones, from dangers that are forced upon us. Help us to do the things that we should, to be kind and good to others at all times. O'mighty God we thank thee for thy care, health and strength. In the name of thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen"


----------



## Cruentus

Wow, man! I've never seen a school do anything like that before.

Ah well....take em off your list, I guess! :idunno: 

I don't really know how I feel about that. 

If they claim to be a "Christian" Martial Arts club, then I have no problems with this; they are at least being straight forward and not decieving people. You were able to take them off their list right away without having to pay for lessons, then find out somewhere down the line that your expected to do certain things that would violate your beliefs.

However, if they claim to be a secular organization then I can't say that I agree with it. "In the name of thy beloved son, in Jesus Christ our Lord..." is hardly secular! And, I highly doubt that the "prayer" is a traditional representation of their art, so that arguement is shot to hell. 

So...off the list they go....


----------



## Bob Hubbard

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *Since we both mentioned "the pledge," how was it modified in the 50's? I missed that discussion somewhere. *



See http://flagday.com/history/origional_pledge_of_allegiance.shtml



> On September 8,1892, the Boston based "The Youth's Companion" magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.
> 
> At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words "the Flag of the United States" replaced "my flag". In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.
> 
> It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!
> 
> In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words "under God". Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."



In June of 2002, a court ruled it unconstitution due to those 2 extra words.   There was a big stink for a while, then it all got forgotten by the media as someone dangled something shiny and distracted the public. 
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/

For me, when I was in school I would simply omit those 2 words.  At one point I was informed it was required.  After that, I sat silently.  Did I get in trouble?  Yup.  But it wasn't such a big issue (at the time) to make a big tado over.

So, how does this relate to the concepts in martial arts?  

Simple.

You can view it as an abstract concept and say it.
You can reword the parts that bother you. (replace God with "Allah, blessed be his name" or what fits your system)
You can remain silent.

Proper communication between you and your instructors is of course required so that they know why you are doing what you are doing.  I believe that most will understand and allow you the freedoms.  Those that don't I think have missed the true meanings, not only in the arts, but the faiths they claim to follow.


(Plus, when you're polytheistic, 'under god' makes ya ask, which one?')


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

Here are # 13 and 14 from their rules list...

13.   Learn the Kajukenbo Prayer.


14.   The class will circle up for closing at the end of class.


When circling up after class, position yourself according to rank, starting with the highest rank and moving counterclockwise to the lowest rank.  


Get into position kneeling down on your right knee, right hand in a fist on the ground and head lowered.  The instructor (usually Sifu [name deleted]) asks someone to lead the class in the Kajukenbo Prayer.  


       After the Kajukenbo Prayer is recited responsively, the instructor tells the class to come halfway up, kneeling on both knees in an upright position.  Each person removes his/her belt and uses it to wipes his/her brow. 


The instructor tells the class to stand in set position.  The instructor (usually Sifu) will ask the class to salute one another.  The highest ranking student then tells the class to set and salute the instructor, using his/her title (i.e. Set and salute the Sifu before you.).   If more than one black belt is present, the next highest ranking student tells the class to set and salute the next highest ranking Black Belt, using his/her title (i.e. Set and salute the Black Belt before you.).  This continues until all of the Black Belts have been saluted.


In order from highest to lowest rank, everyone shakes hands."


----------



## Abbax8

I am a judo instructor who also happens to be Catholic. I do not teach anything explicitly religious in class except for one BIG THING. I tell all my students Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Translation- don't fall onto your uke unless you want them to fall UNTO you. Works well outside of class as well. Don't freak out and plow someone into the ground for a minor insult.

                                                                   Peace
                                                                      Dennis


----------



## Cruentus

well...thats pretty interesting. I never knew all of that. I just always figured that "under God" was there from the inception of the pledge back in the 1800's. I new the pledge was invented over 100 years ago, and is a part of our heritage. It's not far fetched to assume that "under God" was always there due to the reason that the U.S. was founded puritans. Christian fundamentalism is deep in our countries heritage, whether we agree or not.

You learn something new everyday. What I find laughable is that we had to pass an amendment to use the words "Under God," then we had to use our court system to declare it "unconstitutional." Our lovely tax dollars at work again.  What a sad state of affairs.

For a child of a different religious belief or background to get in trouble for something like not saying "under God" is stupid. This crosses the line and I feel it is "religious intolerance." 

Well, since these seem to be the facts, I stand corrected on my "pledge" objection. As much as I am against the Government and the machines that run it manufacturing ideas for it's people, it looks like I just became a victim myself. Well, in this day in age, it could happend to any of us.  

My point about tradition and heritage still stands; I think that it is something that should be kept, and people should be a little thicker skinned sometimes. When I say traditions should be kept, I mean this across the board; so I believe that traditions and beliefs of the minority should not get "melted away" and lost in the majority, if you get what I mean.

:asian:


----------



## Cruentus

yea....that sounds pretty goofy to me.:erg:


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

I'm sure the Kajukenbo prayer is no problem for the overwhelming majority of prospective students.  It's just not the right prayer for me and my people.


----------



## Nightingale

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *. It's not far fetched to assume that "under God" was always there due to the reason that the U.S. was founded puritans. Christian fundamentalism is deep in our countries heritage, whether we agree or not.
> 
> :asian: *




The US was NOT founded by puritans.  The puritans were a small sect.  Many of our founding fathers were, in fact, Deist or Agnostic.   See below quotes.


Thomas Jefferson: 

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

John Adams: 

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Here's Thomas Paine: 

"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

James Madison: 

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References: The writings of Thomas Jefferson exist in 25 volumes. Other references were found in the book, SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS, by John E. Remsburg (who interviewed many of Lincoln's associates). Much of his work on Jefferson came from THE MEMOIRS, CORRESPONDENCE AND MISCELLANIES FROM THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, 4 volumes ed. by Thomas Jefferson Randolph (the grandson of Thomas Jefferson).





**Personal note**

I have no trouble with the idea of christianity in general, or with christians in particular.  I just found the above information interesting, because it goes against the common idea that the US is a "christian nation".  The comments above made by our founding fathers (especially the Tripoli one) makes it very clear that this popular opinion is incorrect.


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz _
> *
> For me, when I was in school I would simply omit those 2 words.  At one point I was informed it was required.  After that, I sat silently.  Did I get in trouble?  Yup.  But it wasn't such a big issue (at the time) to make a big tado over.
> 
> (Plus, when you're polytheistic, 'under god' makes ya ask, which one?')  *




Kaith,

I always said under My God. I have no idea to whom all the others were pleading their alligence too with the flag.

Now where did I leave my God(s) at??


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> *The US was NOT founded by puritans.  The puritans were a small sect.  Many of our founding fathers were, in fact, Deist or Agnostic.   See below quotes.
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> "I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
> 
> John Adams:
> 
> "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
> 
> Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
> 
> "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
> 
> Here's Thomas Paine:
> 
> "It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."
> 
> And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."
> 
> James Madison:
> 
> "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
> 
> These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> References: The writings of Thomas Jefferson exist in 25 volumes. Other references were found in the book, SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS, by John E. Remsburg (who interviewed many of Lincoln's associates). Much of his work on Jefferson came from THE MEMOIRS, CORRESPONDENCE AND MISCELLANIES FROM THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, 4 volumes ed. by Thomas Jefferson Randolph (the grandson of Thomas Jefferson).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **Personal note**
> 
> I have no trouble with the idea of christianity in general, or with christians in particular.  I just found the above information interesting, because it goes against the common idea that the US is a "christian nation".  The comments above made by our founding fathers (especially the Tripoli one) makes it very clear that this popular opinion is incorrect. *



Nightingale,

I like this misunderstanding. It shatters people's beliefs.

I am searching for a website that had a nice list of the world religions according to sect. 

What many people do not realize that with the Christians there is a numerous choices, and that the Islam Faith / Muslims have a much more unified front for a state religion.

Becareful for what you ask for you might get it and not want it .

Thanks Again for the info!


----------



## don bohrer

NG,

I know an instructor that belongs to the Karate for Christ. He's teaches out of the church he attends on Monday nights. Total cost is $20 for the year. He uses the money to offset the cost of uniforms, patches, and certificates for kids that can't afford it. The parents and kids know what he teaches and why. Karate for Christ says it all. 

He opens and closes with prayer. Often this is led by one of the students or parents. When I first meet him he told me up front that a prayer is said before and after class. I have never witnessed any conduct that could be misleading. He teaches and is happy to do so, and doesn't get a dime to put in his own pocket.

After many conversations with this man I am led to believe most of the Karate for Christ have their hearts in the right place. He has mentioned many individuals teaching under this umbrella that he personally holds in high regards. Knowing him and his charactor I will take him at face value. If you have one near you... check it out. 


don


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by don bohrer _
> *NG,
> 
> I know an instructor that belongs to the Karate for Christ. He's teaches out of the church he attends on Monday nights. Total cost is $20 for the year. He uses the money to offset the cost of uniforms, patches, and certificates for kids that can't afford it. The parents and kids know what he teaches and why. Karate for Christ says it all.
> 
> He opens and closes with prayer. Often this is led by one of the students or parents. When I first meet him he told me up front that a prayer is said before and after class. I have never witnessed any conduct that could be misleading. He teaches and is happy to do so, and doesn't get a dime to put in his own pocket.
> 
> After many conversations with this man I am led to believe most of the Karate for Christ have their hearts in the right place. He has mentioned many individuals teaching under this umbrella that he personally holds in high regards. Knowing him and his charactor I will take him at face value. If you have one near you... check it out.
> 
> don *



That's pretty cool....I am sure some "Karate for Christ" programs are good. They just aren't for everyone....Old Fat Kenpoka for example who is Jewish.

I certiantly don't care what people do, so long as they are upfront about it.


----------



## Cruentus

I am going to have a field day with you, but for the sake of time, I may not get to a response to your statement until Wednesday. My response will probably require a lot of typing and a recap on my sources, which I have little time for tomorrow.

I will say in your favor that at least your opinion is very well cited and researched.

However.......

But prepared...the can of whoopass will be opened before the week is out! :enguard: :rofl: 

PAUL

P.S. don't take my kidding too seriously, although I am in obvious disagreement and I'll explain why later, of course you and I will be having a logical and good discussion, as we've always had in the past on other issues.


----------



## Brother John

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *As I posted earlier, our pastor is an 8th Dan San Soo Kung Fu teacher. he was asked how he can justify martial arts and being as pastor: he answered "if you are out with your wife and kids and are attacked, would you just stand there and say "Hallejueah"?..no, you take a 2x4..and bless him with it!"....*l
> 
> the point is everything has it's place. *



I'm a christian and all my students know it.
I'd die for Christ
But not for my wallet.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Nightingale

> _Originally posted by don bohrer _
> *NG,
> 
> I know an instructor that belongs to the Karate for Christ. He's teaches out of the church he attends on Monday nights. Total cost is $20 for the year. He uses the money to offset the cost of uniforms, patches, and certificates for kids that can't afford it. The parents and kids know what he teaches and why. Karate for Christ says it all.
> 
> He opens and closes with prayer. Often this is led by one of the students or parents. When I first meet him he told me up front that a prayer is said before and after class. I have never witnessed any conduct that could be misleading. He teaches and is happy to do so, and doesn't get a dime to put in his own pocket.
> 
> After many conversations with this man I am led to believe most of the Karate for Christ have their hearts in the right place. He has mentioned many individuals teaching under this umbrella that he personally holds in high regards. Knowing him and his charactor I will take him at face value. If you have one near you... check it out.
> 
> 
> don *




like I said earlier, I have no problem with these kinds of programs, as long as they are clear about what people are signing up for.  There's nothing wrong with opening/closing class with a prayer, as long as you are up front with your prospective students about this before they give you any money.


----------



## TallAdam85

I trained at a Christian Martial Arts school for a while and I did not like hit very much it felt werid training in the gym of a chruch. I only trained there cause My friend is a Black belt thru them I trained there for only a Month mostly cause it is kinda hard to train in different styles and stiill be in school.


Also the 2nd thing is i Have a friend he knowes nothing about Martial Arts but he told me I should not bow to anyone but good I told him that bowing was for respect. But still falls into religion in martial arts


----------



## twinkletoes

WOW, I'm sorry I missed this thread.  I had an experience with one of those "fringe" schools.

I'll note that I myself am an atheist.  I used to be agnostic, but getting a philosophy degree pushed me over the edge into being comfortable not believing.  But I'm digressing...

Towards the end of college, a friend and I got a referral to a pressure point instructor in our area.  We met with him, and he was only taking on private students, but seemed to like us, so the two of us, plus one other guy, because his tiny class.  

What I started to notice was that this guy was *really* religious.  Now I mean *really* religious.  We stopped by his house one day, because he needed to pick things up, and there was a large group of people in the kitchen doing their nightly bible readings.  I guess this happened a lot at his house, for a few hours each night.  

In class it was OK in the beginning, and he was fairly respectful of the fact that I wasn't into it.  However, as time went on, it became very apparent that his views on Martial Arts, Pressure Points, QiGong, Spirituality, Religion, Theology, and more (economics, politics, etiquette, etc.) were all really irreversibly wound together.  He couldn't mention anything without it turning into a discussion on his views on God.  

I lasted for a little while, because I felt like we were learning some pretty good stuff, but as we started to get into it, he expected us to have certain experiences, and most (if not all) involved some kind of religious happening.  Finally one day in class he (and one of his brothers) spent 40 minuutes trying to convince me that with the point I was at, it was time for me to start realizing that in order to continue learning QiGong I was going to have to acknowledge Jesus, otherwise I would be continuing at the peril of my life (and afterlife).  This majorly crossed the line.  

When I told him I was leaving, I think he was relieved.  He hadn't known what to do with me, because (as he told me then) he had considered re-naming the school "Christian Martial Arts & Qigong" but felt bad doing that after I had joined.  I think he was also relieved because he felt it was risky I continue without recognizing Jesus, and now that was not his problem anymore.  

The truly unfortunate thing is that there were cool things I could have learned from this guy, but the overpowering effect that religion had on his life really limited his ability to communicate things.  It warped a lot of his messages, because the lesson was lost among his own personal slants.  In the end, even my friend (who was Christian) tuned him out a lot, because it all just became preaching, and often it didn't make sense unless you shared his unique perspective on the interwovenness of it all.  

(As an end note, my friend tells me that he stopped teaching Qigong a few months ago, because "God told him to."  He still teaches TKD, but that's all.)

~TT


----------



## SenseiBear

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *So what does everyone think of pledges that exhalt a diety such as Jesus or Buddha?  What does everyone think of bowing to a picture of the style's founder?  Both of these are required in many schools.  I am uncomfortable with either. *



I have no problem bowing to instructors, statues, pictures of the founder, etc.  Bowing is not worshipping, it is a sign of respect.  I can respect an icon, a flag, a very knowledgable person, or a concept/idea...  When I used to train with a very religious man, he closed class with a prayer.  I bowed my head.  I didn't share his beliefs, but I respected him and his beliefs, as I would expect people to respect me and my beliefs.  Bowing my head in no way invalidated my own beliefs.


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka _
> *I'm sure the Kajukenbo prayer is no problem for the overwhelming majority of prospective students.  It's just not the right prayer for me and my people. *


OFK,
I have trained breifly in two different forms of Kajukenbo. One was with a guy named "Kimo" Fierrio. We never prayed and I was very impressed with the system. I later got an oportunity to train here in Washinton state with a guy that taught out of his home. It was then that I found out how cool Kimo was because I absolutely hated what this particular guy was teaching. I never went back and couldn't tell you if they prayed or not. Not all Kajukenbo is the same so I wouln't negate the art from your short list. Maybe just that school.


----------



## rmcrobertson

You know, it's funny. I never seem to've heard any stories about agnostics and materialists going on and on about their beliefs before starting class...


----------



## twinkletoes

> I never seem to've heard any stories about agnostics and materialists going on and on about their beliefs before starting class...



Maybe I will be the first 


"You think you're a soul?  How did you get in that body?  How do you move it around?"  

"Is there life after death?  Doesn't that mean "life after life ends"?  Boy is THAT a dumb question.  That's like asking if dinner continues after dinner ends....."


I think I will start the Worldwide Atheist/Materialist Martial Arts Fellowship Association.  Anyone else in?  

~TT

"We are living in a material world, and I am a material philosopher."


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

Sean:  I definitely wouldn't eliminate Kajukenbo from my short list.  Just that one school for that one reason.  And really, it is my personal problem and not a problem with the school.  The school has a strong lineage (as far as I know) and everything else about them (except for maybe the 100 push ups if you are late to class) looks pretty appealing.


----------



## Cruentus

> The US was NOT founded by puritans. The puritans were a small sect. Many of our founding fathers were, in fact, Deist or Agnostic. See below quotes.
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> "I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
> 
> John Adams:
> 
> "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
> 
> Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
> 
> "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
> 
> Here's Thomas Paine:
> 
> "It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."
> 
> And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."
> 
> James Madison:
> 
> "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
> 
> These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.



HA HA..Im back.  Now I can explain why I disagree with your statement on many levels, with proof as to why I think your statement is incorrect.

First off, I cant see how you would actually buy your first statement. I will agree that the puritans were a small sect during a time when we were European colonies, and the sect by itself didnt last very long. However, there weren't that many people in the colonies in the 1st place. Also, as is the case with many fundamentalist Christian sects, addititional sects broke off and evolved from the Puritan sect. Christianity in the broad sense is our most widely practiced religion in America today. And, American Christianity is very different then Christianity in other countries because of the way it evolved from our original colonists, who were all fundamentalist protestant Christians, for the most part.

Now in my opinion America came to where it is today because of 4 things. #1 Sheer Determination: People desired to live in a free democratic state, where our leaders represented the people. #2 Luck or Devine intervention or whatever. Our 1st colonists were lucky that they didnt die off completely, which they almost did, and that they were able to even establish settlements. We were lucky that England had other problems overseas, and that we were across the atlantic, so they didnt kick our @$$ in the revolution as they would have and almost did. We were lucky that France didnt take the opportunity to take us over once we became independent, which they could have but they had other issues to attend to overseas. We got lucky with certain land deals, like the Louisiana purchase, and the later purchase of Alaska. The list of our luck goes on. #3 Genocide, slavery and other serious abominations. In order to live in our land, and run things our way, we had to practically exterminate an entire nation of Native American people to current estimations of over 50 million. We used archaic methods of Germ Warfare, terrorism, and other methods of war that would be considered unlawful by todays U.N. standards to exterminate them. Until the beginning of the 1800s, our economy was based off of slavery. Without Slavery our economy, at least as it was DESIGNED pre-1800s, would have failed. It wasnt until the Northern states became more industrial, less relying on the southern agricultural economy, that the North actually drove us to War to abolish slavery. The Republican Ideal at the time was to be able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps to achieve the American dream or to start from being a worker, save $$, to eventually become an owner. Your Democrates at the time were your slave states (Keep in mind that Pre Anti-Bellum and Post Anti-Bellum Democrates and Republicans are 2 different animals, the parties switched after the Cival War, which is the topic of another discussion). Slavery violated the Republican Ideal because how can a worker pull themselves up from their bootstraps if they cant get hired because an Owner wont pay a worker if they can get it for free through slavery. The collision of these 2 ideals lead to the Civil War. Slavery and Genocide are 2 major things, but some would say that our elitist attitudes and government policy is what drives consumerism, and trade policies based off of our unilateral power that drive our economy today. Some very educated people have made the argument that we have modern slavery today, where the gap between the rich and the poor continually grows, and that the former republican ideal no longer exists because corporate America prevents the worker from ever achieving the American dream of becoming an owner. I dont agree with all those points, but the argument have been made, and if correct, these could be considered other abominations. #4 Religious zeal and fundamentalism. Our country was started mainly by people fleeing religious persecution from the established organizations (Mostly the church of England, but some from other established orgs. Like the Church of Rome, Etc.). These people were your religious cults by the time-period standards. They had developed a very ethnocentric, egocentric,  and stringent interpretation of the Bible, which lead to religious zeal. This zeal helped the people in the Reveloution, and helped the people survive the pre-revelolutionary days. This zeal was also used as justification for #3 (the genocide and slavery specifically). 

* Now, here is my main point of this post.
The thing is, from yours (and others) non-christian perspective, you cant have your cake and eat it too. You cant say that Religion, specifically Christian fundamentalism had little to do with the founding of our country, but that religion, specifically Christian Fundamentalism was to blame for #3 (Genocide, Slavery, ethnocentricism, etc.), a clear thing that is an intricate part of our American history. Either A. Christian Fundamentalism played a major role, for better or for worse, in our history. We can take the good (our moral, lets say) and the bad (Slavery, Genocide) with that. Or B. Christian Fundamentalism didnt play a significant role in our countries development, and therefore is not to blame for the good, or the bad (Genocide, slavery, etc.) It has to be one or the other.

I believe its A. I believe Christianity played a major role, but the Ethnocentric version that was being practiced was wrong, which caused many evils in our countries history which we have to live with today. *

You can believe what you choose.

Unfortunatily, our opinions matter very little in terms of history. So here our some historical facts:

#1 Religious persecution ran rampet from all sides in Europe, particularly from 1400s-1650s. Catholics against Hugonuts, Hugonuts against Catholics, Protestitants against Catholics, Protestants against other protestants, etc. Our Forefathers basically argued that this was not due to the religions themselves, but due to the dangerous mix of church and state.

#2 Pilgrims settled in Massachusets in the 1620s, creating some of the 1st New England Settlements. They believed in completely separating themselves from the church of England to follow their own sect of Christianity. They settled in the Americas to escape religious persecution.

#3 1630s, Puritans in Europe saught to purify the Protestant churches from any remnants of Catholic influence. They were known for such issuing savage punishments to clerigy and layman that failed to conform to the rules. They were persecuted in England for their behavior and beliefs, so about 20,000 saught refuge here in America. They still considered themselves to be a part of the Congretional Church, or Church of England, but they considered their form to be much more pure.

#4 Some primary sources to support both 2 And 3 would be Bradfords Histories, by William Bradford, which was Bradfords Journals of one of the 1st American settlements. I believe his journals is our 1st written historical record of our 1st colonies. Also Richard Mather authored The Cambridge Platform, and Cotton Mather wrote over 450 books and pamphlets on Puritan Christianity. Cotton Mather you may recognized, for he is blamed for instigating the Salem Witch Trials in Mass.

#5 Some other primary sources to mention would be both the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible. The Geneva Bible was compiled in 1560 by English Reformers who also left for the Americas to escape Religious Persecution. This Bible was used widely by Pilgrims and Puritans until it was replaced by the King James Bible. You also might want to look at Capital Laws or the 17th Century Laws that governed Massechussets. These laws were all based of scriptures, particularly the 10 commandments and Old Testement. 

#6 Persecution continued to Run Rampet, except now the colonists were doing it to themselves. You may recognize Anne Hutchenson and Roger Williams. Both were expelled from Puritan Colonies. Willams started a Colony in Rhode Island, and he spoke of Religious Tolerance and Against Persecution. He Wrote The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, although he was a of Christian Faith himself, as was most of his colony. Anne Hutchenson became one of the 1st American Christian leaders. Quakers and Mennonites, who were also started colonies on their own due to banning by Puritans. In Massechusets, those who returned from banning were often executed. In Virginia, which was now mostly Puritan, had passed Anti-Quaker laws. Back to Quakers, dont forget that William Penn established the province of Pennsylvania which was ruled by Quaker Laws. The Quakers faught against spoke of religious tolerance, but only for those who believed in the one true God. So you werent to expect to be tolerated if you werent Christian at all.

#7 A large # of German Lutherans and Reformed Arrived to the Colonies in 1720s to seek refuge. Catholics arrived as well, but were basically required to establish Maryland due to the Anti-Catholic Laws of the other states. The names of some of our states, in hindsight, even show our religious history. It is no wonder that Mary land would be a Catholic state.

#8 Virginia has an interesting background. It was founded by businessmen through The Virginia Company They also ruled there state through the spirit of the Crusaders, which ment basically that people were required to go to church and religious education by swordpoint. This was led by Thomas Dale, one of the states founding fathers. They believed in the church of England as it was in England, not the Puritan version, which was seen with suspicion by the other colonies. They also aspired to converting natives (by swordpoint of course). This is where the famous story of Pocahontas occurred, where she was baptized and married to John Rolfe; 1614.

#9 We did go through an enlightenment period during the early 1700s, where people were getting to be more logical and less dogmatic towards their faiths. However, according the The Library of Congress estimation, around 80% of the people attended a Christian church, and more churches were being built during this time then during the entire 1600s as the population grew. The people who didnt attend often couldnt because there wasnt a church near enough to them.

#10 The Great Awakening began in Europe in 1730s, and swept through America by the 1740s. This was a revival period of religious zeal and evengelicism. Presbeterians, Baptists, and Methodists were now stemming from the Angelican, Congretional, and Quaker churches, leaving them in the dust by the 1800s. 

#11 There were Diests such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson that were landmark in helping to create the seperation of Church and State when we finally became the United States. Deism emphasized morality and rejected the orthodox Christian view and the divinity of Christ. Diests made up a very small minority of the populus during the inception of our Constitution. As a Diest, Jefferson considered himself a minority within a minority. John Toland, and John Locke wrote some famous diest tracts and books, while George Whitfield, Samuel Davies, and Johnathan Edwards wrote against diesm and for Christianity. George Washington is sometimes associated with Diesm, when the evidence to prove this is very slim.

#12 Religion played a major role in the Revolution. Some considered it a religious qurrel according to Torrie Joseph Calloway, friend of Benjamin Franklin. Countless writings, sermons, battle flags and reminents all point to the fact that religious zeal and belief was used to justify the war. John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Decloration of Independence, is an example of a major influence in preaching the gospel to justify the revolution.

#13 Franklin and Jefferson were one of the most religiously liberal of our founding fathers. Yet, in creating a proposal for The Seal of the United States they both decided to use religious imagery for the task, because the people would identify with it. They went with Franklins proposal of using the image of the parting of the Red Sea.

#14 Some of the biggest debates in our history are the church and state debates. It was mostly over whether or not the States should financially support the churches. In Virginia particularly the debate ensued which eventually led to the official seperation of Church and State. This was sparked by a bill written by Patrick Henry which required a Tax on Virginians that would be given to the churches. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, 2 people you quoted, were the ones to officially put the debate to rest. Jeffersons Act to Establish Religios Freedom is what specifically did the trick. Other founding fathers saw nothing wrong with not separating church and state at first. George Washington can be quoted in saying that he is not in objection to making people pay to support which they profess. 

#15 By the time the constitution and federal government was to be put in place, they saw it as wise to leave no mention of religion in our constitution. This was because the Federalists felt that it should be left up to the States, not because they felt it should be absent. There was considerable controversy over not mentioning God in these papers. However, our 1st 2 presidents, were considered religious men. Washington called religion: A nessicary spring of popular government John Adams  considered himself a church going animal and believed that liberty and religious morality were inseperable in good government. It was Jefferson and Madison, our 3rd and 4th Presidents, who didnt agree. They were friendly to the MAJORITY however, who followed Christian faiths.


Now, Ive mentioned some names and sources that you can look up for yourself. The best comprehensive source online is probably the Library of Congress website Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, where most of what I have said is broken down there, and sited.

OTHER THINGS TO ADDRESS: 

You quotes.Jefferson and Madison is explained above. It is true that they were not specifically Christian religious. The Adams quote is taken out of context. Adams believed that the US was founded on Liberty, however he believes cannot be separated from religious Christian morality; also explained above. Paine wrote The Age of Reason which has been considered The atheist Bible. He was hated and feared by most of the religious community in America for his book, however, I do not see how he could be considered as having great relevance to the founding of the US. HE's not a "forefather" and in fact rotted away in a French prison. The closest he comes to even playing a significant role is he "knew" a few of the key players.

Your 7% statistic.I dont know where your getting that from. HeyI heard that 80% of all statistics were made up on the spot (lol). Seriously, Nothing I have read or seen supports this statistic. It sort of violates good sense when I read the other proofs, also.

Treaty of Tripoli: YesI am fully aware of the many atheists and Groups of Freethinkers who use the Treaty of Tripoli as their basis for saying that the U.S. was not founded on Christianity They use this to argue against the historical role that the Christian Religion played in the development of our country. This is probably where you came up with the "7% statistic." Let's look at the document for what it really was, though. If you read all the articles of the document, it was designed to prevent Piracy which was running rampant in the 1790s in Tripoli, which was off the coast of Modern Day Libya. Barlow wrote the document which intended to exchange $$ for peace. There is confusion as to what Barlow wasmany say diest, however, he had served as a military chaplin at one time. Regardless, the treaty was printed and reprinted a few times, with no evidence that the words that the United States was not founded on the Christian Religion" existed in the original document, which was destroyed. Furthermore, the oldest Arabic versions of the document do not contain this saying. So there is controversy there. What if it did, however? It would make some sense because the US government was trying to prevent piracy from a Muslim Nation, and they didnt want to turn anything into a religious war, which at the time they would lose. So even if it was there in the document, it would have been for diplomacy purposes and nothing more that I can see. Also, there is no evidence that Adams actually read this portion of the document when he addressed the people, and in fact his speech notes which can be found in Washington D.C. today support the premise that he DID NOT read that portion of the treaty, if even there, to the public. I feel that the Treaty of Tripoli, because of this evidence, is a mute point. Youd do a better job argueing the lack of a mention of God in the Federal Constitution, because at least that can be verified.

Check out www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html to see the treaty in full. There is a link there that has different arguments behind it.

Conclusion: Perhaps I was being to broad or general to say that our country was founded on Puritan values. I wasnt false, though, when you look at the evidence. Id say that our country was more or less founded by the 4 things I mention in the beginning. Regardlessmy proof and argument is stated. The evidence is presented. You can believe what you want, but remember that there are a lot of people out there who try to rewrite history to fit their own agendas. Many freethinkers have websites that do just that. My intel doesn't come from a website that I can specifically rely on to formulate my arguement for me. I have to do it on my own. Regardless, check the library of congress for a list of sources; most all sources you pick up anywhere, however, that aren't "freethinker" propaganda junk will support my points. To say that religion didnt have a major role in our countries development is absurd. I say not only that it did, but I would argue that the fundamentalism part of it caused many great evils in our history.

Any of you can say what you wantbut I am done with the subject. If I spend any more time on it, my f**king head will explode.

Thank You,

PAUL
Non-athiest
Non-fundamentalist  

:apv:


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

I love to watch debates on the importance of Christianity between devout Christians, modern secularist Christians, agnostic Christians, and even "atheists" who are really just unfaithful Christians.

It's almost as much fun as watching Kenpoists debating the importance of Kenpo.  

One small point not to overlook in the debate:  If the forefathers had not come from diverse (albeit Protestant) relgious sects, they would have probably agreed upon a state religion and the freedom we now have would never have existed.

Anyway guys, this is an interesting debate.

opcorn:


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I found this tidbit, which I have not heard of previously.  Anyone know how accurate it is?

(Full rant: http://secular.embassyofheaven.com/usa/shamreligiousfreedom.htm)



> Legal Religions
> During the early days of Christianity, Rome discovered she could make her conquered subjects submit to her authority in almost every sphere. The conquered peoples would fight in the Roman armies and pay Roman taxes. But Rome found they could not force the people to abandon their religion and worship Roman gods.
> 
> Rome developed an ingenious device to circumvent this problem: the license. Rome generously declared that the people could worship any god they chose, and in any manner they chose. They could even proselytize for their religion. This marvelous "freedom of religion" was granted, with just one minor condition. They must first obtain a license from the Roman government. This established their religion as a legal religion of the Roman State.
> 
> Every religion in the Empire, except one, readily complied with this request. Even Judaism registered with Rome and became an officially recognized religion. But the obscure sect known as Christianity remained a "religio illicita," an illegal religion.
> 
> Christians were soon viewed, not so much as a religion, but as politicians of the worst kind. If they were not stopped, they would overturn the Roman Empire with their allegiance to another Kingdom.
> 
> Why would the Christians not accept a license? To accept a license, means to become "legal." It means to accept the sovereignty of the one who issues the license. One key principle is the lesser authority never licenses the greater authority. Rome wanted the Christians to acknowledge that they must obtain Caesar's permission to worship Jesus Christ. If the Christians accepted Caesar's license, they would be acknowledging the authority of Caesar over that of Jesus Christ. The Roman Emperor would stand above God Himself.
> 
> This was exactly what the Romans intended to accomplish by issuing religious licenses. They would graciously allow "freedom of religion" throughout the Empire. The only catch was that every religion must acknowledge Caesar's authority over the gods of all religions, including the God of Christianity.
> 
> Hitler praised the Romans for their "tolerance" of all religions. But he shared the Romans' hostility toward Christians who would not submit to licensing. Later, he said that he viewed Christian resistance as an implicit challenge to his own totalitarian claims.
> 
> Christians who confessed that "Jesus is Lord," could not accept the Roman license without making Caesar lord over Christ. They told Rome, not just with words, but with their very lives, that Christ, not Caesar, was Lord.



I now run to put on my asbestos underwear.


----------



## Andi

Wow great stuff Paul.  Very interesting...I was not even aware of Deism. I have heard similar things re: rome and the early church before somewhere but can't think for the life of me where it was. :shrug:

Also, can't get the Stephen Jay Gould link to work. I'd dig up the actual page now but I think sleep is my top priority.


----------



## arnisador

Should we move this to the Philosophy and Spirituality forum?


----------



## Cruentus

Kenpoka: :rofl: Hey..where'd you find the popcorn smiley? Good points too. For the record, I am not actually a supporter of "Fundamentalism" of anykind, christian or otherrwise. I just feel that a lot of the sources of Nightingales previous arguements that I have read have a specific aganda, so they like to "change history" to make it fit. My only "agenda" here was to get to the truth of matters, which is more important to me then preaching "beliefs." I figure, how can we even talk about "beliefs" without getting the facts straight first? That would be like 2 teams trying to play baseball from 2 seperate fields.

Kaith: Dude, cool link. That's pretty interesting.

Andi: Thanks, Man. Sorry that the link didn't work. I amsure you can find it if you run a search. Someone better versed in computers then I might post it if they find it.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

Arnisador:  You might want to split the thread:  One on Religion and the Martial Arts and one on Religion and the founding of America.


----------



## Cruentus

In #11 in my previous post I mention "John Adams" as being a Diest. This was a mistake. John Adams was Christian, James Madison was Diest. I ment Madison...my bad!


----------



## Cruentus

Maybe split it...

I would just move the whole thing as is to "Philosephy and Religion" is I were in your position.
:asian:


----------



## Cruentus

I wonder how accurate that info is myself...It seems to me that the authors are demonstrating the same kind of religious intolerance that has caused us problems throughout our history.

I like the way they say...."There is no "freedom of religion" for a Christian. Jesus Christ gave us His government and His word. We are not free to seek out other gods and other forms of worship. Therefore, "freedom of religion" has no value in our lives. It means nothing. "  

What a crock of s**T!! Let's put them in a Fundamentalist Muslim Nation and see how they feel about that statement! If they were being executed for their beliefs, I'd bet they'd change their tune... How dumb! :rofl:


----------



## Nightingale

> Your 7% statistic.I dont know where your getting that from.



I got it from the book that was cited at the end.



> a mute point. Youd do a better job argueing the lack of a mention of God in the Federal Constitution, because at least that can be verified.



Hoping you mean MOOT point, but that's beside the point, isn't it?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The thing is.... most of your statements have absolutely nothing to do with mine.  

All I said is that:

1.  the puritans had but a small role in founding our nation.

2.  most of our founding fathers did not consider themselves Christian.

You said virtually nothing to contradict either.



> Now, here is my main point of this post.
> The thing is, from yours (and others) non-christian perspective, you cant have your cake and eat it too. You cant say that Religion, specifically Christian fundamentalism had little to do with the founding of our country, but that religion, specifically Christian Fundamentalism was to blame for #3 (Genocide, Slavery, ethnocentricism, etc.), a clear thing that is an intricate part of our American history. Either A. Christian Fundamentalism played a major role, for better or for worse, in our history. We can take the good (our moral, lets say) and the bad (Slavery, Genocide) with that. Or B. Christian Fundamentalism didnt play a significant role in our countries development, and therefore is not to blame for the good, or the bad (Genocide, slavery, etc.) It has to be one or the other.



You see, I never made any comment about #3.  As a matter of fact, I do NOT blame Christianity for those things, which, therefore (according to your statement of "it has to be one or the other") invalidates your assumption regarding having one's cake and eating it too.  We're talking about two different cakes, because I've never blamed Christianity for doing much of anything other than annoying me with their preaching when I'm trying to walk around in Santa Monica with my friends, or wasting trees by printing up so many tracts that just end up as litter on the ground.  If people wanted them, they'd ask.  

I never said that slavery was the fault of Christians.  Slavery is more about economics than it is about religion... the only real role religion played in it was that it enabled people to justify to themselves what they felt they needed to do to survive economically.

I also never stated that it had much to do with the genocide of the Indian Nations.  That was the basic human intolerance of that which they don't understand.  Again, religion was used to justify actions that people felt were necessary for other reasons (westward expansion, etc...), which were again, basically economic in nature.

so, basically, I'm not blaming Christians for the problems of the past, I'm blaming greed, which is rather universal in nature, wouldn't you agree?

Like I've said many times before, I have no problem with Christianity.  Its simply other people making other choices that have absolutely nothing to do with me.  Its when their choices impact MY ability to make my own choices (within reason) that I have a problem with it.  I don't have a problem with Christians. I have a problem with CERTAIN individuals, some of whom happen to be Christian, who CHOOSE to infringe upon my personal freedom.  Clear?


----------



## Cruentus

Your stance on Christianity is clear. I have no problem with that.

You say that #1 Puritans had but a small role in founding our nation. I disagreed; I believe that their role was more significant, and I made my point with that.

You also said #2 that most of the founding fathers weren't Christian. Then you named 2. 2 is hardly enough to be considered 'most.' I would say that this is wrong, and that most of the people who signed the Decleration of Independance and the Constitution were Christian. Also "most" who backed them and enabled our independance, I'd argue were Christian.

Anyways, your post made it sound as if Diests and Agnostics played a larger role in the founding of our nation then Christians. I think that nothing could be further from the truth, which is what my post related too.

I should have been more clear in the "having your cake and eating it two." part of my post. My bad. I know you weren't specifically trying to do that yourself, but this is a rather common falacy among "anti" Christians who make the arguement that Diests played more of a major role in our countries history. I was debunking something before it even started. But that is a Mootalated point. 

Oh...and one more thing. I have nothing against Christians either; especially considereing I am a Catholic Christian. And I understand that you don't either. I am not saying Slavery and Genocide is the fault of a religion. I agree with you on the "greed" part. I am saying, as you stated, that the beliefs of the time period were used to "justify" the behaviors. I believe the enabler was "fundamentalism" not specifically "Christianity." However, it seems like we are close to agreement on this point.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Heres the situation in a nutshell.

Judge in Alabama?? wants to put up a monument to the 10 comandments in his courthouse.  No biggie right?  Wrong.  Bunch of the non-xians are bitching it dont belong there while the x-ians are bitching it does.

Ok...

So Pagan wants to open up a shop to sell herbs n insense.  They get death threats and firebombed by the nice x-ians.

Ya know folks, you can't have it both ways.

The is NO right way.  Just the way that is right for you!

You go pour the water on your heads and talk in the boxes.

I'm gonna go dance nekid in the moonlight with a tree.

:rofl: 

(Please note, there is humor of a sarcastic nature in the above.  Those of you not currently retching at the thoughts of me nekid, please enjoy the chuckle.  Have a nice day.)

:rofl: 

In the mean time, if you want a good read on how stupid, rude, insensitive and closeminded  people can be to each other in the name of 'God', please see here:
http://www.witchvox.com/xwrensnest.html

Heres a short list:
Aug 27  EPA Eases Clean Air Rules for Industrial Plants  John Heilprin, Associated Press  Environmental  179 
Aug 27  Occult Trial Opens In Brazil  Jan Rocha  Crime  745 
Aug 27  Christopher Hitchens: The Immorality Of The Ten Commandments  Christopher Hitchens  Religious  966 
Aug 27  Cross-Burning Investigated as Hate Crime  AP  Crime  2,020 
Aug 27  Update: Ten Commandments Monument Moved  David Mattingly  Legal  3,476 
Aug 26  Justice Dept. Opposes Lawsuit Brought by Americans Held Hostage Before First Gulf War  Jonathan D. Salant, Associated Press  Legal  3,860 
Aug 26  Commandments Backers Urge Ala. Attorney General to Resign  Fox News  Action/Protest  4,418 
Aug 26  'Pagan' Panther's Removal From County Land Sought  Jack Douglas Jr.  Action/Protest  6,082 
Aug 26  More Horse Attacks in UK  Sarah Cripps  Animals  4,086 
Aug 26  Author Explores Mysticism Of Ancient Cultures  Chris Elliott  Art/Music/lit  4,161 
Aug 26  Romans' Crimes Of Fashion Revealed  BBC  Archaeology  6,249 
Aug 26  Feds To Profile All U.S. Air Passengers  Bob Dart  Civil  6,321 
Aug 26  Alan Keyes: What The Constitution Really Says  Alan Keyes  Legal  6,988 
Aug 26  Levi's Ad Banned After Complaints  just-style.com  Action/Protest  6,727 
Aug 26  Update: Appeal Planned For Ruling On Prayer  Jason Cato  Civil  5,884 
Aug 25  Death of 8-Year-Old During Church Service Ruled a Homicide  Todd Richmond Associated Press  Crime  6,485 
Aug 25  Update: Suit Filed in Alabama Commandments Fight  Mark Niesse, Associated Press  Legal  4,560 
Aug 25  Paines Christianity   HOT  Steve Farrell  History  7,027 
Aug 25  Update: Great Falls Leaders To Appeal Prayer Ruling  AP  Civil  6,525 
Aug 25  Skull Theft May Be Linked To Religion, Police Say  Terri Sanginiti and Maureen Milford  Crime  6,602 
Aug 24  Scotland's First Fairytale  Susan Mansfield  Mythology  4,414 
Aug 24  The Amphibian Assault  Walt Brasch  Humor  4,702 
Aug 24  Feats Of Klee  Judy Fayard, Basel  Art/Music/lit  4,623 
Aug 24  And Now, Here Is Your Moment of (Not on the California Ballot Yet), Dave  Dave Barry  Humor  5,714 
Aug 24  Castaneda's Lover Reflects On Shamanism And Celebrity  Don Lattin  Art/Music/lit  5,905 
Aug 24  Update: Judge Orders Council To Cease Christ Prayers  Jason Cato  Pagan  6,133 
Aug 24  7,000-Year-Old Statue Discovery 'Is First Male Fertility Symbol'  Hannah Cleaver  Archaeology  6,260 
Aug 23  Why Don't The Young Visit Their Mother (Nature, That Is)?  Melora B. North  Society  3,786 
Aug 23  Dashing Toward The Godless Public Square  Rev. Jerry Falwell  Religious  5,731 
Aug 23  Write a Story, Go to Jail  Kim Zetter  Civil  5,570 
Aug 22  The Woman Who Took Moore To Court  Eleanor Clift, Newsweek  Civil  3,800 
Aug 22  Soldiers Need DVDs For Morale Boost  Erika Schmidt Russell  Action/Protest  2,942 
Aug 22  Swiss Bewitched By Magic Of The Middle Ages  Armando Mombelli (translation: John Purnell)  Culture  2,903 
Aug 22  Religious Talk from an Afrocentric Perspective  The Herald  Religious  2,651 
Aug 22  Update: Judge Suspended Over Ten Commandments  CNN  Legal  3,395 
Aug 22  Vote For Me Says Vampire  Banbury Today (UK)  Politics  5,568 
Aug 22  German Site Predates Stonehenge  Heidi Sylvester  Archaeology  4,301 
Aug 22  Lost Roman Earring Found In Leicestershire  David Prudames  Archaeology  4,395 
Aug 21  Patriot Act II Resurrected?  Ryan Singel  Politics  3,556 
Aug 21  How Would The Founding Fathers Have Reacted To The Ten Commandments Flap?  Dahlia Lithwick, Slate.com  Legal  4,342 
Aug 21  Irish Minister Links Incense To Cancer  James Helm  Health  3,685 
Aug 21  Liberties Groups Slam Ashcroft's PATRIOT Act 'Roadshow'  Jeff Johnson  Civil  6,231 
Aug 20  Meet The Ancestors  Mike Hornby  Archaeology  3,789 
Aug 20  Update: Casey Pagan Radio Debate Enters Third Chapter  Matt Cunningham  Pagan  4,628 
Aug 20  Casey Councillor: Local Witch Is "A Matter of Concern For All Casey Residents".  Matt Cunningham  Pagan  5,021 
Aug 20  Update: Ten Commandments Plea Rejected  Bill Mears  Legal  4,571 
Aug 20  Spookily True  Or Hocus Pocus?  Neil Brown  Paranormal  6,188 
Aug 20  Vacation Starvation  Joe Robinson  Society  6,632 
Aug 20  Strider And Pippin Are Reunited At Last... In Fife  Lynn Davidson  Art/Music/lit  6,026 
Aug 20  Trendy, Anxious Moderns Now Seek Solace In Primitive Hooey   HOT  Kathleen Parker, Orlando Sentinel  Society  7,025 


Now if you'll excuse me, I've gotta go pay homage to the God of War as he leans in real close n says hi!.


----------



## Nightingale

Ive got no problem with someone putting up a monument to the 10 commandments ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.  I do have a problem with it when its my tax dollars paying for it to put it on public property.  I have no problem with a pagan opening up an herb shop.  ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.  However, if someone wanted to build a monument to the Wiccan Rede in a courthouse, I'd be making a stink about THAT too, and I follow it!


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> *Ive got no problem with someone putting up a monument to the 10 commandments ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.  I do have a problem with it when its my tax dollars paying for it to put it on public property.  I have no problem with a pagan opening up an herb shop.  ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.  However, if someone wanted to build a monument to the Wiccan Rede in a courthouse, I'd be making a stink about THAT too, and I follow it! *




Here! Here!

I agree with you NG 

If you let in one, then you let in all, including Satanism, and all the sects of all the Fundalmentalist, trying to burn each others' books and killing each other. Wow, and we thought the court rooms were overwhelmed with trivial cases. Keep it all out.


Kaith,

Go dance in the woods, I prefer the light Kilt when I do this, it does not scare everyone or better yet, it stops all the laughter 


An example I give all the time. You can come into my house and talk to me for 30 minutes if we can go to your house and I can talk to you for 30 minutes. Are you willing? Many are not. Therefore keep it private. Not in my face.

As to religion in general, I have a problem with how it propageted. Now Paul has gone out investigated other sources and religions. Yet he went back to his first one. Is that because he believes in the back of his mind it will be the easiest to accept for him and his family?  How many people are the religion they are only becuase of their parents? Just sit abck and think about it. Go read a few books and see if something else makes more or less sense. If it does not then you can stand and say you tried. It is an issue of faith. Faith cannot be proven, it has to be accepted. If it is what you believe then cool! I accept that you believe it, why can you not accept that I might believe differently and also have faith?

Just my ramblings, sorry for the confusion


----------



## rmcrobertson

Paul et al:

OK, now I'm sayin' something.

First off. Thomas Paine, author of "Rights of Man," and, "Common Sense," was in no sense a Founding Father? Weird.

Second off, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and Madison, all were Deists--and yet orthodox Christianity dominated in the ideas on which the revolution was carried out and the country organized. Huh?

Third off--I'm FROM Rhode Island. A state which exists because those Puritan boyos had no interest in religious toleration/freedom whatsoever. Fer cryin' out loud, read their tracts. Or at least Nathaniel Hawthorne.

Fourth off--sorry, but Christian doctrine--from Catholicism to Fundamentalist--has been essential to colonialism, slavery, persecutions of all sorts. That doesn't mean Jesus was evil, or anything similar. It means that something in Christian thought legitimizes evil...at least, on the evidence. (And so does something in scientific thought, on the evidence.)

As for martial arts--I very much dislike the public exhibition of one's religious views. I dislike it even more when the exhibition takes the form of enforced prayer of any sort. Among other things, I find it immodest and embarassing.

What ever happened to keeping your private affairs, private? 

Let's hear it for the Plain People, and the Quakers.


----------



## Jay Bell

I sure wish I'd looked at this thread earlier.   



> SenseiBear
> 
> I have no problem bowing to instructors, statues, pictures of the founder, etc. Bowing is not worshipping, it is a sign of respect.



  Please do not explain to us how Judaism views the function of bowing.  Please also do not attempt to define what is and what isn't in the eyes of someone with a different belief structure.  Meaning...TO YOU, bowing is a sign of respect and not worship.



> rmcrobertson
> 
> I never seem to've heard any stories about agnostics and materialists going on and on about their beliefs before starting class...



Or during....or most of the time after  



> PAUL
> 
> Now, here is my main point of this post.
> The thing is, from yours (and others) non-christian perspective, you cant have your cake and eat it too. You cant say that Religion, specifically Christian fundamentalism had little to do with the founding of our country, but that religion, specifically Christian Fundamentalism was to blame for #3 (Genocide, Slavery, ethnocentricism, etc.), a clear thing that is an intricate part of our American history. Either A. Christian Fundamentalism played a major role, for better or for worse, in our history. We can take the good (our moral, lets say) and the bad (Slavery, Genocide) with that. Or B. Christian Fundamentalism didnt play a significant role in our countries development, and therefore is not to blame for the good, or the bad (Genocide, slavery, etc.) It has to be one or the other.



Thank you for explaining your very limted and close minded ideas on the subject.  Not everything is black and white.  It's not an A or B situation.  In the name of Christ, atrocities have been handed out since the dawn of the belief structure.  That's fact...one that continues today.  Yet, it did play a role in our nation's creation.  See how that works?  It's both...it does *not* have to be one or another...and it sincerely bothers me that you actually tried to play that card.



> Your 7% statistic.I dont know where your getting that from. HeyI heard that 80% of all statistics were made up on the spot



To parahrase Mark Twain...."There are three mis-truths in life.  Lies, Lies and statistics".

There is no such thing as Freedom of Religion.  This is something the government cannot control.  Sorry...fact of life.  If I went on national TV as a business man, explaining that I was Agnostic...how much business would I loose?  How many people from that day forward would give me a displeased eye? 

Anyway...on the topic.  Should religion and martial arts be mixed.  Hell no.  Most, if not all, martial arts at some point in their history where blended with a belief system.  If you took buddhism out of Japanese budo, it would have never existed.

However...this is a different age of time.  In martial arts, people (especially here in the west) are constantly trying to change eastern arts in to their points of views.  They mangle, mix and add a little salt and what's left, more times then not, is...well...crap.  There are arts from Japan that without an understanding of buddhism, you will not understand....ever.  Now, let's throw a dash of Xtianity in the mix and what do you have?  Something even further detached from what it was originally.  Do I have to be a buddhist for this to happen?  Nope.  Do I have to practice those types of ideas?  Nope.  

Keep religion seperate, in my opinion.  Mixing the two creates what?  That's right...there is no freedom of religion.  In these environments (as well as fundamentalist Xtianity) there is only freedom of THEIR religion.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> 
> OK, now I'm sayin' something.
> 
> First off. Thomas Paine, author of "Rights of Man," and, "Common Sense," was in no sense a Founding Father? Weird.



Weird, but I believe true. He wrote books and was a political activist in England. He had his influence, but I don't consider him a "founding father."



> Second off, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and Madison, all were Deists--and yet orthodox Christianity dominated in the ideas on which the revolution was carried out and the country organized. Huh?



Actually, I don't think that Christianity "dominated" the revelotution. I believe that "liberty," or the need to have a free and democratic state dominated. This was due to many things, particularly taxation w/o representation. My "point #1" in my original post listed the "need for a democratic state where it's leaders were represented by its people". Christianity was a major factor, however, and it was used to gain the support of "fundamentalists" who might have otherwised oppossed war. 

Also...Jefferson and Madison claimed Diesm. Adams did not claim Diesm; he claimed Christianity...read my post. Franklin did not actually claim Diesm either although he didn't specifically claim Christianity; he claimed logic more then anything else. Regardless, they all used "Christian" doctrines and scripture often to gain the support of the public. 

Now, I am just relaying the facts as I have seen them, but remember...I am not saying that "America was founded on Christian values" specifically; but I am saying that Christianity undeniably played a major role in our developement, both for the good and for the bad.



> Third off--I'm FROM Rhode Island. A state which exists because those Puritan boyos had no interest in religious toleration/freedom whatsoever. Fer cryin' out loud, read their tracts. Or at least Nathaniel Hawthorne.



I'm with yea, man. That was part of my point also. I believe that the ethnocentric, zealous version (or as I say; fundamentalist versions) that was being practiced in those days caused a great amount of intolerance. I believe that some of this is still practiced, in the modern sense, today. This is not a good thing for america, or Christianity, in my opinion.  



> Fourth off--sorry, but Christian doctrine--from Catholicism to Fundamentalist--has been essential to colonialism, slavery, persecutions of all sorts. That doesn't mean Jesus was evil, or anything similar. It means that something in Christian thought legitimizes evil...at least, on the evidence. (And so does something in scientific thought, on the evidence.)



I'm with yea here, too. As a "logical Catholic" (I know... that sounds like a double negative to some of you, ) I somewhat agree with you. From the Catholic perspective, I've read Cannon Law and Doctrine, and I don't see anything in there that would legitimize evil. But if you take any doctrine or text, such as the Bible or Koran, and read it from a zealous ethnocentric, egocentric, and intolerant viewpoint, then you will interprete "texts" in a manner that will justify your actions. Again, I believe that this zealous, ethnocentric, egocentric, intolerant behavior is more-so the problem then the Christian texts themselves.



> As for martial arts--I very much dislike the public exhibition of one's religious views. I dislike it even more when the exhibition takes the form of enforced prayer of any sort. Among other things, I find it immodest and embarassing.
> 
> What ever happened to keeping your private affairs, private?
> 
> Let's hear it for the Plain People, and the Quakers.



Here-here! :cheers:


----------



## Cruentus

> Thank you for explaining your very limted and close minded ideas on the subject. Not everything is black and white. It's not an A or B situation. In the name of Christ, atrocities have been handed out since the dawn of the belief structure. That's fact...one that continues today. Yet, it did play a role in our nation's creation. See how that works? It's both...it does not have to be one or another...and it sincerely bothers me that you actually tried to play that card.



Um....I think that you jumped to a conclusion before fully reading what I wrote. Read it again. I wasn't saying "one or the other," but I was saying "none or both." If you read it, I am in total agreement with you...that Atrocities have been commited in the name of Christ, AND Christianity played a major role in our country. See...?

The reason why that might have been confusing is because I jumped ahead of myself. I debunked an arguement that I find common with "freethinkers" that I feel is a falacy. They often try to say that 1. Christianity played no major role in our developement as a country, our "founding fathers" were agnostic, etc. Then they say 2. That Christianity was to blame for all of the atrocities in our Country. You can't say both, it doesn't make sense. Either Christianity had little to do with our development as a country, which would mean that it had little to do with the attrocities, OR it had a lot to do with our developement, including attrocities.

I go with the latter, as do you.

:asian: 

PAUL

P.S. You get a middle finger for calling my viewpoint limited and close-minded when we share the same view! :bird: :rofl:


----------



## Jay Bell

HAHAHAHA...I guess that's what I get for skimming posts, eh?   My apologies

I should stay away from religious threads until I get enough sleep


----------



## SenseiBear

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *I sure wish I'd looked at this thread earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not explain to us how Judaism views the function of bowing.  Please also do not attempt to define what is and what isn't in the eyes of someone with a different belief structure.  Meaning...TO YOU, bowing is a sign of respect and not worship.
> 
> *



I am sorry if I gave that impression - I would never try to explain how a religion I don't follow views a certain act.  Some one had asked how people felt about the act of bowing to statues, pictures, etc, and I was responding to that.  

Yes, everything I said was how I FELT about it.  Not how others should feel about it.  In my classes, if a student said that their religious beliefs forbade them from bowing at the start and end of class, I would absolutely respect that - I do not tell people what they should believe, and I expect the same in return.

-SB


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

In fact, I'm a Sunday school drop out.

I don't have a problem bowing as a sign of respect to someone who bows back.  I do have a problem bowing (or kowtowing) to someone who will not bow back.  I think most Jews would have a problem bowing or kowtowing to an icon, statue, or even a photograph of someone.  That's second commandment stuff you know.


----------



## Cruentus

Rich: Dude...I totally went to Catholicism because of my parents. Especially considering that my abusive biological father has a strange habit of trafficing heroin from Thailand, laundering $$, conterfieting, etc. I wanna fit in w/ him! :rofl: 

It's funny, but it's really not. My biological father really is a basket case, who does exhibit strange habits as illustrated above. When he see's his family on Christmas or Easter (his family who I rarely see, and NEVER on the holidays) where do you think he goes? Yup...Catholic Church service.

My mom is still "diveroced" and not Annauled from my father. It pains her to have to go through that process, so she will probably never remarry. Because of the Catholic 'rules' on Divorce, when she was engaged awhile ago she was attending the Unitarian Church. For a long time, she wasn't Catholic either.

I grew up in a very disfunctional environment; the kind where I would be getting my @$$ kicked in the car on the way to Catholic Catechism. I went through the sacriments when I was young for the very reason that you mentioned; my parents wanted it, and I had no choice.

That is not the reason I choose to be Catholic now. I hated Catholicism for a long time because of my experience. It wasn't until I was able to pack away my emotional bagage and research many different ways of thought that I was able to start looking at Religions in a more logical fashion. I stopped looking at the "actions" and "mistakes" of the people, and I started looking at the belief systems themselves. That was how I was able to "pick" Catholicism.

So...I agree...many Catholics (and other religions) do pick their faith because of their families. I, however, am not one of those people.

* An interesting side-bar:* Some Catholics, and many Christians don't like my beliefs either. You see, Catholicism is my religion because of it's interpretation of the "God-creator." My way of thought and worldview, however, doesn't lie within the Western Christian Realm. Christians tend to think that I "Don't have both feet in the water," so to speak because of this. I tend to identify with the indiginous or "tribal" way of thinking, because I feel that many aspects of "western" thought cause structural problems within our government and society. Some of my political views, which are very liberal in nature, are evidence of this. However being in "western" america, I find it difficult to do research, because most of what is "written" is New Aged with no real basis other then the authors viewpoint, or its historical writings from a "western" perspective.

I guess my point is that my "worldview" often identifies with people who consider themselves "Pagan" rather then Christian.  I find the irony in this to by hilarious.      :rofl:


----------



## Cruentus

*Kaith:* I like that site you referenced. Sometimes they have good news stories, so I read it sometimes. 

Some of the things that people do that escalade intolerance pisses me off. Yea...let's put a giant 10 commandments monument in front of a Government Building...that's not stupid or religiously biased, or anything..... 

The irony here is that if you wanted to put a giant statue of a Celtic Pagan God or something in front of a publiuc building, the people who support the 10 commandment statue would probably have an aborted baby right there on the spot! 



> You go pour the water on your heads and talk in the boxes.
> 
> I'm gonna go dance nekid in the moonlight with a tree.



Hey...what If I like to dance naked in the moonlight with a box on my head while I talk into water?

...heh....I guess it depends on "who's box" and "which head" we are refering to, eh? :roflmao: 

PAUL

P.S. the thought of Kaith naked. AHHHHH.......:barf: :rofl:


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *HAHAHAHA...I guess that's what I get for skimming posts, eh?   My apologies
> 
> I should stay away from religious threads until I get enough sleep  *



LOL no harm done...I figured it was an honest mistake... Besides...how could I blame you for skimming my post with the way I ramble on! :soapbox: :btg:


----------



## qizmoduis

An excellent reference site for world religions is:
www.religioustolerance.org

One of my favorites is www.infidels.org.

You can probably guess which way THAT leans.  
It's a fantastic treasure-trove of knowledge, however, from a decidely non-religious perspective.


----------

