All Comments (33)

industrial

merzbow

kubis

casinos

casinos

poker

teeny

shop zithromax welcome

my best mp3 goa music download library ;)

my best mp3 goa music download library ;)

my best mp3 goa music download library ;)

best place order cheap morgage online

bloussant bloussant bloussant

amhost amhost

qtycp ihamuycbw aclbruqgh ownfycjg mbqjpxysg lxcth gjdu

They should respect the culture but this nation is God's nation and is here to serve him.

Actually what bothered me was that Mr. Zed's prayer was shouted down by a family of Christian fundamentalists who claimed loudly that the Christian God was the only path to salvation. And then I read a lot of conservative blogs by people who have no understanding of Hinduism accusing it of being a pantheistic religion blah blah blah.

Actually Hinduism has only one Supreme God - the Brahman which is also referred to sometimes as an enlightened state of mind free of darkness and doubt. When one realizes the ultimate truth, he/she is said to become one with the Brahman (God). The various Hindu deities are just various manifestations of the Supreme God, meant to be easily related to by the masses. Often, non-Hindus mistake this as being a sign of a pantheistic religion.

It's unfortunate that a fringe group (like the 3 in the Senate) have come to represent their religion on the floor of the United States Senate. I wonder what Jesus Christ would have said if he'd witnessed this.

If the Senate must have this tradition of an opening prayer, then I am glad to see that they are recognizing that not all Americans pray alike. I hope they open up this opportunity to representatives of every faith that Americans practice, and perhaps have a day without prayer, with a simple affirmation to remind them that there are some Americans that do not pray at all. Remaining cognizant of the roles that religion plays in the lives of Americans is important for those who are elected to represent us, and prayers can help towards that end.

Thank you, Christopher W. Chase, for making the point that neither Hinduism or Buddhism are "exotic" by the world's standards, and like Niebuhr, I think the prayer should have happened much sooner.

The most troubling thing about this whole situation is that it forces us, as Americans, to come to terms with what pluralism really means. For most, I would imagine, it means that Lutherans and Baptists and Catholics and African Methodist Episcopals can build churches next to each other and that's OK.

To others, it means that we can recognize (not always comfortably) that Islam, Judaism and Christianity share the same diety.

And for others -- I hope a small number -- religious pluralism means we should accept people who believe in and worship capital-G God, while others (Buddhists, Jains, Hindus, Shintos, Native Americans even) are marginalized as either sinners or "exotics."

Even so, this entire situation points to how complex pluralism can really be:

I'm Buddhist, so I was overjoyed to learn that a Hindu chaplain would say the opening prayer. But what if the Senate selected a Scientologist? Would I still be so open-minded?

Thus wrote, "Sudha:Hope the hindu priest pray for his fellow hindus that they may not massacre dalits daily."

Trusting that Sudha is of Indian origin just as I write with my true Indian nickname (I am a naturalized American born and raised in Kerala),

I was appalled to read of Sudha's unfair insinuation about India's majority of Hindus. To ask the Hindu priest to pray that fellow Hindus may not massacre dalits daily is just as asinine and inane as asking Christian priests in this country to pray for the cessation of lynchings of blacks by the white racists.

I have lived in this country for 45 years, served in the US Army, travelled to 72 countries (both on work and pleasure) and I must say without any hesitation that I have not come across any religious prejudice from among peoples professing Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Unfortunately, I cannot say that in the case of the majority of Christians and Muslims who still hold on to their monotheistic arrogance of infallibility of their respective faiths.

I am a practicing Christian, but thankfully devoid of such an obsession because I do not believe that it conforms to the tenets of Jesus which is to love one's fellow human as one loves himself, regardless of my neighbor's faith. Jesus also derided prosleytizers!

I grew up in India, went to school with a majority of Hindus and minorities of Muslims, Christians, Jews and Parsis. I never felt that I or any of my minority friends were discriminated or taunted by Hindus because of our faiths. In College, I roomed with a Muslim, and a Brahmin, with zero problems!

But, that does not mean, harsh treatment of dalits in some villages in India at the hands of higher caste Indians are not taking place. Neither have we in this country eliminated totally the violence against African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Homosexuals etc.

"Sudha's" comments in my view are polemical and far removed from the reality of the changing socio-cultural dynamics in India., just as they are in this country.

Caste-consciousness in India today is far, far less than when I left that country in 1962! So, is Baltimore where I live. In 1962, I could not get a hamburger served at an Italian restaurant at Johns Hopkins where I was going to school then, unless I agreed to take it out! That has changed indeed. But, still in some areas of Baltimore County, non-whites cannot easily get homes on terms set aside for white folks! That in spite of having a Black Mayor of the city (for the second time).

Sudha should have wished that the Islamic countries, especially the ones in the Middle East, would allow the non-Muslims there to have equal status and freedom in following their faith. Even so-called Islamic democracies like Malaysia, Bangaldesh, and Pakistan (?) do not grant equal status to non-Muslims, especially Hindus and Buddhists.

An Indian caught in Saudi Arabia's airport crrying a Hindu scripture book or the picture of a Hindu deity is often asked to discard them! In Indian cities, all religions are permitted to exist, even when some visiting western evangelical preachers deride and insult Hindu Gods in their "crusades" held in cities. Of course, that provokes a backlash from the more assertive and self-respecting Hindus, albeit they are in a minority! These are facts that comments such as Sudha's obscures. Fairness demands that India's commitment to pluralism just as ours in the US, needs to be placed in perspective and highlighted by comments such as these. I would of course love to hear Sudha's response!

Almaden wrote:

"Whatever the merits of electing men and women of exotic faiths to our Congress, I for one would like to see also at least some authentic Christians in that august body.."

Christopher responds to this and Prof. Niebuhr:

While I might sympathize with some of the other points brought up in your contribution, the entire point of Prof. Niebuhr, well-defended in his essay (and yet unaddressed in most of these comments) is that Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions are not and never were "exotic." Hinduism is the 3rd most populous religion in the world after Christianity and Islam, and Buddhism is the fourth. We would hardly call Judaism an "exotic" religion, yet it only ranks 12th in world membership. The current chaplain of the Senate, Rev. Barry C. Black, is a Seventh-Day Adventist, a new branch of Christianity that did not exist before the 19th Century. The Senate Majority Leader is a Mormon, another faith that is truly a "new world religion." Amerindians have continued to practice their changing traditions over hundreds of years in this country, yet there are many who would still consider their traditions "exotic." The first Buddhist temple in the U.S. was built in 1853, and 400 Chinese Buddhist shrines and temples populated the land west of the Mississippi before 1900. As Prof. Niebuhr pointed out, these are quite visible and prominent members of the American religious landscape. The real question is why it takes so long for the U.S. government to catch up to genuine religious pluralism that is and always has been here.

lepidopteryx:

Nice reply to Peacetroll, Butterfly! I still think you and Pagan should run in 2008.

Peacetroll:

The cleaners called. Your sheet and hood are ready.

"When your response to everything that is wrong with the world is to say, 'there ought to be a law,' you are saying that you hold freedom very cheap." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell

R. Gustav Niebuhr: Another Crypto Zionist Shill?

R. Gustav Niebuhr puts out some really stupid articles that are kinda 'common sense', in other words not even worth a dictem.

Niebuhr, let me guess. Your a converted Jew?

An Ashkenazi Jew?

Why is it always folks of "Jewish" descent who are telling us about 'faith' and even, sometimes about Jesus himself?

Cause they are still the scribes, still the Pharisee's, still the sadducee's and are still in control of the media air ways.

Why?

Because their Father is the Prince of the Power of the Air.

And when I speak of these "Jews", understand fully that I speak of those who are not actually Jews at all, but claim the name (piggy backing that sacrid family line), and are in truth Khazars, Eastern European-Asiatic peoples who are ACTUALLY closer to Jappeth then Shem!!!!

The Palestinians are more semitic then the Asiatic, Khazarian, Ashkenazi so-called 'Jew' any day (YOU SHOULD LEARN THIS BY READING 13th TRIBE!). History is not what it appears to be my friends, and Satan works through a generation of people; this was told to us by the prophets and by Christ himself.

I say this to warn some who might listen. Only god himself can change the ultimate outcome, but as for us who are truely from Shem, we must hold to the truth (Light), and we must always shun evil.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

The Rothschild dynasty had conquered the world more thoroughly, more cunningly, and much more lastingly than all the Caesars before or all the Hitlers after them. — Ibid, p. 218.

Hope the hindu priest pray for his fellow hindus that they may not massacre dalits daily.

I felt sad when the phrase 'under God' was added to the Pledge. Linguistically, the modifier 'indivisible' applied to 'one nation' which had survived a civil war. Speaking the words fostered a sense of pride in my country. Now the modifier "indivisible' applies to God. Whether or not God is indivisible seems a moot point. Who cares? Take it out. J.C. Witte

Almaden

You sound as confident in your faith
as Muslim extremists are in theirs.
They love their made up Allah,
as much as you love your made up God.
Your beliefs are equally ridiculous.
Muslims and Christians are equally deluded.
There are no gods anymore.It was myth all the time.

almaden:

You ask a lot of "what kind of Christian" questions. Maybe this explains it, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul The kind of Christians that do all those things are really Devil worshipers. Sound crazy? Think about what you wrote. How else can one explain it? Jesus is the son of the being in the ball of fire according to Christians.

Whatever the merits of electing men and women of exotic faiths to our Congress, I for one would like to see also at least some authentic Christians in that august body. Most of the bozos who profess to be "Christians" on Capitol Hill are strangers to the teachings of Jesus and merely posturers or "cultural Christians". They go through the motions of "faithiness" and expound at length their personal piety, violating Jesus's admonition to do your praying in private and in your own heart. What kind of authentic Christian would, for example, vote to legitimize torture of their fellow men? What kind of Christian would vote to invade a far-off land that was no threat to us, in violation of the Christian doctrine of "just war"? What kind of Christian would vote to lower the threshold of nuclear war and create still more varieties of nuclear weaponry? What kind of follower of Jesus would withhold medical care from children and block scientific research with otherwise wasted cells that could save lives and reduce pain and misery? What kind of Christian would bellow "Bring 'em on!" and invite untold agony and ruin by unleashing war and chaos? What kind of Christian would vote to ravage and pollute the creation that God, they say, entrusted to us all? What kind of media allows these fake Christians to get away with their fakery? What kind of hollow, faked country have we become?

The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on December 28, 1945.

Some people wonder why "under God" needed to be added in 1954, just a dozen years later. I wonder why we even needed a pledge. The Revolutionary War, The Civil War, WWI, and WWII were all fought and won and there was no official Pledge of Allegiance.

Others have tried to add many things to the pledge, like a statement of equality of all. So it seems that the pledge is just like any other political reaction - it is something to tag on amendments and proclamations to meet the needs of every special interest group who has an Axe to grind.

Not only should we get rid of "under God" we should just do away with the whole thing. We survived for hundreds of years without a pledge because Americans know what it means to be Americans and we are loyal and proud of our nation without having to repeat some kind of chant devised and modified to make someone feel that they have accomplished something with mer words that can only come from the heart. Allegiance is not something the pledge inspires and especially to those who do not like the words "under God."

Yep. I still think it's amusing the ham-handed quasi-magic of verbally *dividing* "One nation, indivisible" with the words "Under God."

Isn't that exactly what we got?

Curious.

CORRECTED COPY

With regard to " ... four words inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance during the depths of the Cold War by politicians eager to distinguish the United States from, as they said, 'godless communism.'"

For the record, there were only two words inserted: "under God". The previous version was " ... republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty ...".

With regard to " ... four words inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance during the depths of the Cold War by politicians eager to distinguish the United States from, as they said, 'godless communism.'"

For the record, there were only two words inserted: "under God". The previous version was " ... republic for which it stands, one nation, with liberty ...".