Government Should Leave God Out of Thanksgiving

I am not Christian, but I don't care what others believe - and I think they should celebrate it how they wish. As long as you aren't mandating morality or religion, I don't care if you openly express it in the public square - just don't come down on me when I call it BS. Overall, I am glad to live in a country where we aren't throwing acid on each other's faces just because we want an education, and we aren't being tortured and killed because we believe that the Koran, Bible, or any other book is absolute nonsense. I just wish the same could be said everywhere in the world. I don't thank God, since he never does anything to change it. I thank the people who are willing to fight religious intolerance all over the world - and aren't afraid to tell all of these religious wackos to march into the sea.

"I think it is true that "someone" would be nonspecific, but then would we have to give up the turkey, too? I don't eat meat and that does bother me. Shall we ban the turkey as offensive, too specific, government mandated, and just eat "something?" "

What *is* it with you guys that you can't see the difference between *not demanding a certain thing exclusively* and *banning* that thing?

Thank the Lord this Thanksgiving that there is only one Spidermean2/ Spiderman2 aka Canyon Shearer, Bible Thumper, Fortune Teller and Severely Brainwashed in that Old Time Religion.

The idiotic unbelievers should not celebrate Thanksgiving. What are they thankful for? For being IDIOTS?

It is a day of celebration for believers only.

Doomsday is coming soon to take all the unbelievers. For them, that is not to be thankful for,is it?

Unscathed from doomsday would be another great reason for true believers to be thankful.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING DAY FELLOW BELIEVERS.

"where the Spirt of the LORD is, there is liberty"....that is from the Christian BIBLE. a woman who had escaped her compulsive muslim country and was so happy to finaly have made it to America, was HORRIFIED to find so many muslim mosques in America. if living in one of the 57 muslim countries is so good, why do people flock to AMERICA? WHY are there such compulsions to tear down the one big CHRISTIAN county? WHERE WILL people escape to, if you succeed?

Ukba corrects me thus:
“According to Islamic tradition, the Pact of Umar (c. 717 A.D.) is a treaty edicted by the Umayyad caliph Umar II (not to be confused with the second caliph Umar who had made the first treaty with Christians in Jerusalem known as "Umari Treaty") for the ahl al-kitab“.

Moi: Granting you are right, what difference does it make to the indigenous conquered people whether it was Omar I or Omar II?

And again thus:
“Did the Christian hords behave in the same humane manner when they overtook Jerusalem some six hundred years later? The answer is obviously no.”
Moi:
When Omar entered Jerusalem he was not resisted by the people of Jerusalem. There was no reason to fight them. On the other hand the Muslims of Jerusalem resisted the Crusader army and had to be fought and defeated before the Crusaders could enter the city. In the very recent history Israel had to aerially bombard the ramparts of the walls of Jerusalem before it invaded the city in 1967. Yet the Israelis did not fire a shot toward Ramallah which is as large as Jerusalem and only 9 miles north of it. This is because the Jordan army appreciated what had happened in Jerusalem and thus melted away from around Ramallah before the Israelis turned their attention to it.

The earlier quotations were from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Umar
There you can find more about this so called pact.

According to Islamic tradition, the Pact of Umar (c. 717 A.D.) is a treaty edicted by the Umayyad caliph Umar II (not to be confused with the second caliph Umar who had made the first treaty with Christians in Jerusalem known as "Umari Treaty") for the ahl al-kitab, People of the Book, living on the lands newly conquered and colonized by Muslims.

Modern scholars have questioned the authenticity of this agreement (which exists in several different textual forms), claiming it to be the product of later jurists who attributed it to the caliph Umar in order to lend greater authority to their own opinions:
Re. Pact of Umar,

Western orientalists doubt the authenticity of the Pact, arguing that it is usually the victors, not the vanquished, who propose, or rather impose, the terms of peace, and that it is highly unlikely that the people who spoke no Arabic and knew nothing of Islam could draft such a document.

In conclusion the the Pact of The Pact of Umar is clearly not the product of Omar ibn Khattab since this documents dates thirty four years after his death, Omar died in the year 583.

However we have clear description of what happened when Jerusalem fell to the Muslims:

The Caliph, Omar ibn Khattab, signed the treaty of peace. It ran as follows:

"From the servant of Allah and the Commander of the Faithful, Omar: The inhabitants of Jerusalem are granted security of life and property. Their churches and crosses shall be secure. This treaty applies to all people of the city. Their places of worship shall remain intact. These shall neither be taken over nor pulled down. People shall be quite free to follow their religion. They shall not be put to any trouble..."

The gates of the city were now opened. Omar went straight to the Temple of David. Here he said his prayer under David's Arch. Next he visited the biggest Christian church of the city. He was in the church when the time for the afternoon prayer came. "You may say your prayers in the church," said the Bishop. "No," replied Omar, "if I do so, the Muslims may one day make this an excuse for taking over the church from you." So he said his prayers on the steps of the church. Even then, he gave the Bishop a writing. It said that the steps were never to be used for congregational prayers nor was the Adhan [ call to prayer ] to be said there.

Did the Christian hords behave in the same humane manner when they overtook Jerusalem some six hundred years later? The answer is obviously no. History records some of the worts acts of killing and atrocities committed by any army heretofore.

Ms. Taylor advises:
“Leave the who part to individuals, lest government get into the business of establishing religion, or worse, one religion in particular.”

I find this utterly hypocritical from a person who subscribes to an ideology that does not separate between religion and state. If there are some who need to be preached with this sermon it should be the 57 predominantly countries that share your faith and whose constitutions , except that of Turkey ,declare in their first paragraph that Islam is the religion of the state. They use this provision as an excuse to treat their non-Muslim residents as third class citizens. Review the standard policy towards religious minorities in Muslim societies in the so-called Omar Pact cited below. This is what you fear might happen to you, and I don’t blame you for that.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html

Despite being a Muslim you don't seem to appreciate the freedom that you have in America to practice a minority religion. Muslim countries are notorious for being intolerant of religious minorities regardless of what their constitutions may dictate. I don't even understand what you mean when you say the government should not specify to whom we should be greatful. Who is the government that dictates that way? Certainly in the public, i.e. government, schools teachers can't talk about being thankful to God. Kids are AFRAID to talk about their faith and THEY should NOT be. It is one thing to teach a particular faith (oh and secularism is a 'faith' by the way) and another thing for an individual person to make a religious expression. Not allowing a child to share a religious perspective is taking away their freedom of speech, and allowing freedom of speech and religion only to secularists. This country has swung much to far away from freedom and toward prohibition in the area of faith. People should be free to believe what they want to believe and practice it, but, those who reject the idea of God should also not force others to pretend that God does not exist. True faith is not something that stays in a box and comes out only at church, temple, or mosque, but when real it should mediate all that we think and do.

If we can't thank God, then why would we continue this Holiday? The day of Thanksgiving was a great idea and that hasn't changed. What has changed is that some groups want to impose specific laws based on religious beliefs on established generic God things in America.

As Americans, we don't base our laws on religion, but we do have many traditions related to the founding of our country that occurred because of our wish for freedom of religion.

Never was freedom FROM religion involved in any part of our long and consistent history, but the quest for freedom from a State imposed religion. There is no basis nor is there a legal, historic record of any type of requirement for freedom FROM God.

This column is under the banner of "On Faith." The author, who subscribes to a circumscribed set of beliefs, announces that all others should thank "someone." Seems like this column could fit under the title of, "off Faith." That is, for those who don't agree with the author's stretch in telling us that we now need to quit thanking God on Thanksgiving because God is too specific.

I think it is true that "someone" would be nonspecific, but then would we have to give up the turkey, too? I don't eat meat and that does bother me. Shall we ban the turkey as offensive, too specific, government mandated, and just eat "something?"

Happy Thanksgiving in what is the land of the free, "someone/something", and the squeamish.

Good one. Really, government shouldn't be using this holiday as too many political religious conservatives want to: as another excuse to try and exclude people of different ways from their own government and even society.

Thanksgiving Day isn't a day on the religious calendar of *any* one religion, ...it's American. People who use it to try and divide our nation are really missing much of the point.

Very thoughtful, thank you. Peace, Rev. Nate, First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving_(United_States) for a more indepth review of this great holiday and the influence of government throughout the years to include giving its workers at taxpayers' expense, the day off with pay.

Mrs. Taylor,

I am a Christian and I thoroughly enjoy reading each of your OnFaith columns. May God continue to bless you and your family!

A day of Thanksgiving is a great idea -- no matter who it is you are thanking. The government can -- and should -- commemorate the fact that we all owe gratitude to someone without specifying who that someone is. Leave the who part to individuals, lest government get into the business of establishing religion, or worse, one religion in particular. Rather, let the government celebrate the fact that we are all united in the very fact that we all have things to be grateful for.
*************************************************

Beautifully put.