Give Me that Really Old Time Religion

The Post continues to insult true Catholics with diatribes like this. The reason why we (real Catholics) are in this situation (sexual abuse by post-1962 priests, novus ordu) is because of the pro-Vatican II entities (although he won't admit it) like Mr. Gillis (being a religious man I cannot describe him properly). The post-Vatican Mass has lost so much or its holiness and reverence as to be undistinguished from the other Protestant services. He has obviously never attended the beautiful Latin Mass that was supported by the faithful pre-1962 Popes. The new Mass is a bunch of feel good, cafeteria Catholic garbage. It is because of people like him that we have decided to home-school and raise our children (ten so far) in the traditional faith (as have so many others like us for whom he has much distain). The Mass changed significantly since Vatican II; to the detriment of the faithful Catholics who were deprived of the true faith. There has to be a way to remove Chester Gillis from his position, he is at best a confused Catholic and at worst an anti-Catholic bigot who has infiltrated our faith. My sons are altar boys at the traditional Mass and one of my daughters is thinking of being a nun in a traditional order (in the Latin Mass tradition), this despite his attempt to destroy the Catholic faith. He states that the Latin Mass is "more superior" (in a snide fashion). I challenge him to experience the true Mass and decide. It is people like Mr. Gillis who have contributed to the sorry state that the liberal Catholic has found herself in. We will continue on our journey without you Mr. Gillis.

P.S. Why doesn’t the Post give an opposing view? Sorry, a rhetorical question. The Post doesn’t allow for other opinions by people of faith; especially traditional Catholics.

http://supergirlssex.biz/map.html
>

http://supergirlssex.biz/map.html
>

PP,
I agree, make an oath seldom, keep it like iron.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I would have it read..

I pledge allegiance to this Earth and to all the creatures on Her...one planet, sacred, with freedom of thought and life for all.
So Mote it be...

John:

"One Nation under the Gods???"

What is this 'under' of which you speak? :)

When they inserted 'Under God' into the Pledge of Allegiance, it wasn't just to *mention* a certain idea of 'God,' it was also to make people swear subordination to it.

Pagans, for instance, would probably not say 'Under the Gods, indivisible,' (what self-respecting spellwright would ritually *divide* 'One nation indivisible' with 'Under God?'

Look what we got here from *that* little piece of verbal engineering.

...we might, ourselves, say something more like, 'One nation, indivisible, in the sight our many Gods,' but we wouldn't make anyone swear to it. We take oaths pretty darn seriously.

"How about just "one nation?"

Brilliant!

John: "One Nation under the Gods???"

How about just "one nation?"

One Nation under the Gods???

Thank you, Khyati Desai: I've tried to clarify somewhat on Hindu belief here, but I'm not actually that good at it, myself. :)

Still, actual Pagans have to deal with many of the same prejudices: ideas we 'idolatrously worship' anything from a statue to a tree to a half-decent environmental policy. :)

This really says more about Abrahamic monotheists' beliefs *about* people outside their belief systems than the general 'we' ourselves. Which is a key distinction often lost in these discussions: especially when they argue from the presupposition that "Monotheism makes you OK," ...which is *not the point of religious freedom.*

Anyway, I hope we see more of you. Well, if you like dealing with this sort of thing. :)

I appreciate your deep understanding and respect for the Hindu religion unlike some of the other posts. As a Hindu and an American citizen, I take great pride in my religion and the opportunity to be able to practice it freely in this great nation. This country talks a lot about religious freedom and being secular but it is simply a mask. Many in this country are fearful of religions that they have little understanding of and so condemn them. Religious leaders sometimes promote this intolerance. That being said, two points are very important in this discussion.

First, as there are many misconceptions about the Hindu religion, a widespread one is that Hindus are polytheistic. While there is nothing wrong with one believing in many spirits, Hindus are, in actuality, henotheistic. This means that they believe in ONE God but do not deny the existence of other gods. Our "God" so to speak has no gender, color, race, or creed. But in order to comprehend and visualize the Spirit (Brahman or Aum) for which we have faith, we have given form and identity to it. These gods and goddessess are different forms and perceptions of this Spirit (Brahman or Aum), what people in the West incorrectly label as "paganism".

Second, Hinduism was never meant to be a religion but more so a way of life. It is founded on principles of acceptance, tolerance, nonviolence, and inclusion. Who are we to declare whose God is "right" and whose God is wrong. I know I have been vocally condemned to "Hell" because I am not Christian but I, along with other Hindus who practice their religion with reason and understanding, would never say or believe that non Hindus are condemned.

We are people from various walks of life with rich cultures, religions, and histories. Hinduism believes that "Truth is One, Paths are Many" and I accept this wholeheartedly. I accept this at a time where individuals believe they know who/what God is and believe they have the authority to say what is wrong/right. I believe this at a time where religious conflict is the cause of the death of millions of people. I believe this at a time when the rich institutions take advantage of the poor by convincing them to convert in exchange for food , water, and clothing. And finally, I believe this at a time when politicians are USING religion as their weapon and tool to enhance their own selfish motives and to essentially raise fundamentalists in our communities.

So, if one wants to believe that Hindus are polytheistic, "cow worshippers" that are uncivilized then so be it. But at least reasonable Hindus will not assert that there is only one God, the Hindu God, and so cause waves of hatred and violence around the world.

"and is he saying it's OK for a Hindu to open the Senate session because at least Hindus' have some belief in some gods? What kind of back-handed tolerance is this?"

I think he's saying that Hindus should have permission to pray because they actually do have an idea of a God-of-All...

By this reasoning, he'd entitle himself to cut them out entirely if they didn't, apparently, but as long as he can say, 'Oh, they're *really* trying to worship *my* idea of God, so I can 'tolerate' them, poor souls.'

Not good enough, if you asked me. Better than screaming hate and 'Abomination' when someone tries to speak, but... Not really by much.

Paganplace - Hi - Ditto your remarks. I'm even willing to give Gillis the benefit of the doubt and assume he did not mean the "pledge of allegiance" - not that I would know what he DID mean.

I never heard anyone talk about "violating the pledge" before as if it were some sort of crime.

and is he saying it's OK for a Hindu to open the Senate session because at least Hindus' have some belief in some gods? What kind of back-handed tolerance is this?

Time for a secular opening "meditation" at the senate, something like -- "May you use your knowledge, talents and skills to best serve the constituents who by giving you their votes, have entrusted you with this endeavor. May you work together constructively to serve the best interests of our beloved county. So be it."

Let's see how many hecklers that gets!

Marty, there is another world an endless set of worlds just like this one and when you get there your creed will still be valid. Making others sad is what religion is all about. Gun of hell to head can hardly qualify as a means of "making others so[happy]."

No kidding around? "Those who object that such prayers violate the separation of church and state likely would also object when any other chaplain offers prayers at the Senate. For them, offering prayers in the chambers of our secular government is a category mistake."

As a secular with undying faith in God I object to forced public prayers on the grounds that all worship is Devil worship and all prayers are to Devil. I could be wrong and have a very open mind.

All you need do is show that http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is correct, the Bible is a hoax so the supernatural being in the ball of fire is just a good old fashioned religious, faith based lie.

Help me! Won't somebody please help me! I can't faith God living in a ball of fire. Can you help me? Please?

"Having a Hindu chaplain recite the opening prayer in the U.S. Senate does not violate the principle of the Pledge,"

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

The Pledge isn't *a basis for law.* And 'Under God' was added as a political move during the Red Scare in the Fifties, and in fact is well-known as a controversial imposition of certain belief upon people, lest they be called 'Unamerican.'

Thank the Gods the Pledge is *tradition,* not something to be 'violated.' Except maybe by adding pressure to pledge allegiance to someone's name for 'God.'

"... since Hindus share belief in God, expressed through the multiple gods and goddesses they believe to represent Brahman, the ultimate transcendent."

You could substitute Great Goddess or other Pagan concepts some of us hold and say the same thing for many of us.

Our religious freedom, however, is not dependent in America, on how much we can seem to agree with *you.*

In addition to all the prayers from every type of cleric in the world, I'd like to see the Senate open some time with the words of the Great Agnostic, Robert Ingersoll.
While I'm oposed to all orthodox creeds, I have a creed myself;and my creed is this. Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so. This creed is somewhat short but is long enough for this life , strong enough for this world. If there is another world, when we get there we can make another creed.