Yes.. there is mail today..

[johnnymk]

for anyone who was wondering.

[BrewMaster]

Originally posted by johnnymk
for anyone who was wondering.

um, is there a reason they wouldn't deliver mail today? good friday has never been a holiday for the "gubment."

[BrewMaster]

Originally posted by DarkFury
Nope.. the Gubment's next "paid holiday" is Memorial Day on May 27th.

with the way you post around here DF, i'm beginning to think that every morning is a "paid gubment holidsy."

[Speedfreak]

"The mail, the mail is here. Oooooooooooh!"

[Blu]

Originally posted by Speedfreak
"The mail, the mail is here. Oooooooooooh!"

Nudie magazine day! Nudie magazine day! Nudie magazine day!

[mojo]

Originally posted by BrewMaster


with the way you post around here DF, i'm beginning to think that every morning is a "paid gubment holidsy."

[Blu]

You know, there is no mail on Xmas day?! That really had me steamed. I don't see why xmas is any different that Easter or Passover or anything of the like. Ever hear of separation of Church and State?

[BrewMaster]

Originally posted by DarkFury
Ouch... "Words can hurt too you know..."

aww...does someone need a hug? if so, go find your woman cuz you ain't getting nuthin' from me.

[BrewMaster]

Originally posted by Blu
You know, there is no mail on Xmas day?! That really had me steamed. I don't see why xmas is any different that Easter or Passover or anything of the like. Ever hear of separation of Church and State?

i've heard of separation of church and state, but it ain't in the constitution or nothing. it's a "marketable phrase," but it ain't legal (legal in the sense that it's not a law). the constitution says "Congress shall not make any laws establishing religion." this, in effect is so that there can't be a national religion like in many countries. they can't make a law requiring everyone to obsserve Xmas, but it is well within the rights of the "gubment" to take any day off it wants. if you wanna celebrate xmas on your day off, that's fine, but you don't have to. that's separation of church and state. it's NOT that the "gubment" should pretend that NO religions exist. that, in a nation of MANY different faiths, would be ridiculous.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by BrewMaster

i've heard of separation of church and state, but it ain't in the constitution or nothing. it's a "marketable phrase," but it ain't legal (legal in the sense that it's not a law). the constitution says "Congress shall not make any laws establishing religion." this, in effect is so that there can't be a national religion like in many countries. they can't make a law requiring everyone to obsserve Xmas, but it is well within the rights of the "gubment" to take any day off it wants. if you wanna celebrate xmas on your day off, that's fine, but you don't have to. that's separation of church and state. it's NOT that the "gubment" should pretend that NO religions exist. that, in a nation of MANY different faiths, would be ridiculous.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
-Amendment I, U.S. Constitution

brew, i'd like to add to what you're saying here, if you don't mind.

there are a variety of perspectives on the passage from the First Amendment referenced above, and yours is one of them. however, there are other views.

Basically, what you are advocating appears to be a strict literalist point of view. That is, that when the amendment prohibits the "establishment" of religion, it is literally referring to setting up a "state church" which people would have to follow.

A more liberal point of view would be that when the Constitution mentioned an "establishment of religion", it was prohibiting general laws that would advance religious beliefs. for example, some would argue that laws giving money to religious charities is actually helping them to spread their religious beliefs, and therefore should be prohibited under the establishment clause.

the most radical reading of the establishment clause suggests that ANY government accomodation of religion is helping to establish it, and therefore should be unconstitutional.

mix with these perspectives disagreements between constructionalists (who believe that the Constitution should be interpreted to mean what the founders "intended" for it to mean -- which is of course also very open to much debate) and more evolutionary legal scholars who think that as a living document, the Constitution can take on new meanings as time and legal thought progresses, and you have a very unclear issue.

in short, what i wanted to express is that the issue of "establishment" is not cut and dry. rather, it is a very contested issue.

[sbp]

Originally posted by whitak24



brew, i'd like to add to what you're saying here, if you don't mind.

there are a variety of perspectives on the passage from the First Amendment referenced above, and yours is one of them. however, there are other views.

Basically, what you are advocating appears to be a strict literalist point of view. That is, that when the amendment prohibits the "establishment" of religion, it is literally referring to setting up a "state church" which people would have to follow.

A more liberal point of view would be that when the Constitution mentioned an "establishment of religion", it was prohibiting general laws that would advance religious beliefs. for example, some would argue that laws giving money to religious charities is actually helping them to spread their religious beliefs, and therefore should be prohibited under the establishment clause.

the most radical reading of the establishment clause suggests that ANY government accomodation of religion is helping to establish it, and therefore should be unconstitutional.

mix with these perspectives disagreements between constructionalists (who believe that the Constitution should be interpreted to mean what the founders "intended" for it to mean -- which is of course also very open to much debate) and more evolutionary legal scholars who think that as a living document, the Constitution can take on new meanings as time and legal thought progresses, and you have a very unclear issue.

in short, what i wanted to express is that the issue of "establishment" is not cut and dry. rather, it is a very contested issue.

In other words judges can make up stuff whenever its convient. What other "rights" lay undiscovered only to be found by some judge?

Its funny how some try to deny which is right in the Constitution (2nd amendment anyone?) but make up something that isn't even in there {abortion).

[Merlin]

Mail today was cool. I got one of my Staples Rebates!

[Wizard]

Originally posted by sbp
In other words judges can make up stuff whenever its convient. What other "rights" lay undiscovered only to be found by some judge?

Its funny how some try to deny which is right in the Constitution (2nd amendment anyone?) but make up something that isn't even in there {abortion).

Thank god for the flexibility in our constitution. Had it been designed that changes and admenmants could not be made then it would have been dismantled and thrown away a while ago.

On the topic of Christmas=No Mail. You must remember even though there is a "seperation" of church and state you do live in a vastly christian society, run largely by christians and voters which are for a large majority christians. And of course as the good book says "when in rome do as the romans do." Welcome to the US the worlds largest, richest and most powerful christian nation.

[BrewMaster]

Originally posted by Wizard

Welcome to the US the...richest...Christian nation.

i think that's the first problem right there. sorry to trim your words, but i want to highlight the point. for the anyone who cares to read it, Christian or not, there's a good book out called "Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger." It'll knock your socks off and challenge the heck outta you. it's not just saying "feed a homeless person once in a while to feel good about yourself." he goes straight from scripture and "lays it down," as they say. happy reading.

[Wizard]

Originally posted by BrewMaster

i think that's the first problem right there. sorry to trim your words, but i want to highlight the point. for the anyone who cares to read it, Christian or not, there's a good book out called "Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger." It'll knock your socks off and challenge the heck outta you. it's not just saying "feed a homeless person once in a while to feel good about yourself." he goes straight from scripture and "lays it down," as they say. happy reading.

More info please. This post does very little to explain what your point is.

Why is it a problem that the US is a rich christian nation? Christian ideals mated with capitalism and democracy is really what made this country great. To deny the christian aspect of the US is to ignore the basis for much of its society norms.

[GraingerGuy]

Cause as a rich Christian nation, I do think that we have a slightly watered down version of Christianity (Just my opinion). I've been SDA all my life, but this year is REALLY the year that I've given it up to God. We don't make it personal to ourself. But where my parents are, the people there are REAL. They love God with all their hearts and give it up to Him from the first. That's cool.

oh boy...turned into a religion thread....

[craziepanda]

Originally posted by Blu
You know, there is no mail on Xmas day?! That really had me steamed. I don't see why xmas is any different that Easter or Passover or anything of the like. Ever hear of separation of Church and State?

the way this country celebrates christmas has barely anything to do with Christ's birth. most people have parties, exchange gifts, sit around a piano and carol along to some catchy christmas tunes. (btw, don't be tempted to start on how bunnies have nothing to do with the real meaning of Easter either...let's stay on one topic at a time) i don't know much about the origin of santa except it had something to do with a dude named st. nicholas, but i'm sure st. nick had no direct, worldly connection/relation with Christ.

basically, the way this country supports christmas has nothing to do with religious significance behind it. the best way i can show this is...well, if tomorrow is your friend's birthday, then i'm sure you and other buddies will take him out for a good time, maybe throw him a party, give him a few gifts, etc. basically, trying to find ways to show your appreciation for him, and celebrating his life and existence. but this country really doesn't do much to celebrate Christ's life at christmas. in fact, the only ones who would mention "Jesus" would be churches, individuals, but nothing from government agencies, media, etc.

[craziepanda]

Originally posted by GraingerGuy
I do think that we have a slightly watered down version of Christianity

there's so much truth in those words...so much that i'd say that's a huge understatement. but it's cool...this is definitely a great idea to ponder on and let it brew in your head.

have you ever seen a book called "jesus freaks?" it's put together by the christian alternative band dctalk. the book is saturated with stories of christian life in other countries and time periods. definitely an eye opener on how lucky most of us are.

[GraingerGuy]

We are a lucky bunch. We have the freedom to worship whatever and whenever we want. I remember my dad having to smuggle bibles into China. We really don't know what we have.....

edit: I didn't answer your question...oops....

Yeah, I have heard about the book you're talking about. I have wanted to read the book for a while now, but just really haven't gotten the chance.

[welfareloser]

i know, i'm just restating what others have said, but i can't ... shut ... up ...

there is a bit of a conflict between being rich and christian. you're supposed to give til you can't give no more. like the story about the rich man who donated a buttload of money (but was still rich when he finished) and the poor woman who donated almost everything she had (a single coin) ... and jesus was impressed with the woman's donation and blew the rich dude's off. or somethin like that.

and i do tend to be more touchy than most about gubmint doing anything to promote religion, but even i think it would be awful to have mail delivery on christmas. even though it is still a very religious holiday for some, even if all religion got cast off tomorrow, this country would still celebrate christmas... it is THE "have dinner with as many family members as you can get to come over" holiday. the tradition has spread well outside the religions (remember it was a pagan feast first and jesus' summer birthday was superimposed upon it) that spawned it. i know plenny of good jews and buddhists who put up a tree and give gifts because it's a great holiday with or without jesus. it's about gramma and new baby cousins and apple pie and turkey. even wal-mart employees get 24 hours off...

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Blu



Nudie magazine day! Nudie magazine day! Nudie magazine day!

heh. you're right... i got mine too... that's too funny that you know what day it's gonna show up (i'm assuming you're talking about playboy and not "jugs n cans" ...)

[Wizard]

Originally posted by welfareloser
there is a bit of a conflict between being rich and christian. you're supposed to give til you can't give no more. like the story about the rich man who donated a buttload of money (but was still rich when he finished) and the poor woman who donated almost everything she had (a single coin) ... and jesus was impressed with the woman's donation and blew the rich dude's off. or somethin like that.

The point of that story is not to say that you should give everything you have. The point is that you should give with Love and compassion. Re-read the story and you'll notice that much of the emphasis is placed on how the rich man gave large sums of money very loudly and showing it off, whereas the poor woman gave very little but was quiet about it. The point for the rich man giving large sums of money in a way that everyone would see him was that he wanted people to know he gave soo very much. He wanted to show off to his buddies that he was giving more than everyone else there. The woman on the other hand believed in giving with love and she had no interest in showing off what she was giving. She did it quietly and cautiously. In the story then Jesus points out that even though the woman was not as boastful as the man and not as interested in glory she truly gave much more than what the rich man did because she gave it all.

Moral of story = Give with love and don't make giving a thing to boast of.

Moral of story does not = Give everything you have.

Also the stories in the new testament about different characters giving everything they owned are not telling us that we should forsake all of our possesions. They are trying to show us that when you are wealthy happy and have a full belly you don't need God. Wealthy people do not see a need for God because they believe they attained all they have through their own labors. The point of the story is to understand what it means to need God.

As you might remember from the "Reperations for Slavery" thread the main conflict was between those who thought if you worked hard and got a degree your nationality would never hold you back from getting what you want in life. Then there were those who recognized that you could bust your ass for the rest of your life and if you did not fit a certain criteria you were screwed and would not be able to attain what you wanted. That's how it goes with Christianity. The point of the new testament is to say that you can work your ass off for the rest of your life being the best person you can be but that still won't be enough. You need to accept Christ into your life and then you will succeed. As in the job search market when you have a "connection" you will most likely get a better job, Christ is the ultimate connection and he can hook you up with something you can never attain through your own struggles.

Ok I think I covered about everything.

[BrewMaster]

aight, here's my "more info." being rich and following Jesus is a contradiction in terms, although you wouldn't know it looking at many American churches. i got to my church and sometimes i see porsches and BMW's and other luxury cars outside and i'm disgusted by it. Jesus was not unclear about what it meant to live a simple life for the sake of humility (as Wizard was alluding to) AND for the sake of justice. what i mean by justice is those who are poor.

If you live in America and have food, clothing, and shelter you are among the richest 5% in the world. even if you're aon welfare or what not, you're richer than most folks in the world. so when i see Christians who are loaded it makes me sick. and it's not about "giving more money tot he church" either. i love my church, but there are other well deserving groups besides churches.

there was a man named John Wesley (sp?) who was a pastor in England back in the day (you may have heard of him). One day he was in the market and he saw a painting he loved for about $30 (in this case the '$' sign = a pound since i don't have the "pound" sign on my keyboard). he bought the painting and went and hung it up in his office in the church. some time later he was up late in his office at the church working and a woman who was a church caretaker came in to clean his office. Wesley noticed that she was wearing only a thin dress that was not enough to keep her warm in the cold English nights. he spent some time thinking and reflecting and realized that the paintign he had purchased could make this woman's life so much better and that if she were to die, it would be on him and his greediness (that was his conviction, i'm not judging him). He then decided to change the way he lived. At the time he made about $35/year and as a single man needed $28/year to live on, so he gave away $7/year. As Wesley grew older and became more well known he began to make more money every year, but he continued to live on his $28/year budget giving the rest away. Late in his life Wesley was making over $3000/year, but he stilled lived on about the same budget, giving thousands away. His philosophy was "Make all you can, save all you can, give all you can." and by "save all you can" he meant be frugal so you have more to give away, not have an inflated bank account.

now not everyone needs to live by Wesley's philosophy, though i try. and i think if more Christians were concerned with the injustice in this world and actually DID something about it with the resources available to them, this world would be a lot better of a place.