# OT - innocent religion question



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

honest.

Um, can a lack of religion be protected under the First Amendment?

I just want to know if an employer can legally fire someone for being an Atheist as they are legally bound not to do to someone for being Jewish or Christian.


----------



## eyecandy (Oct 2, 2005)

Yes it is. I dont remember the website and its time for me to fall asleep, but search for the 'freedom FROM religon' group. I dont remmeber all the specifics, been about 6-7 years ago, but i did a thing about it in my AMerican Gov't class. Theres a lot of info out there on it, but it took some hunting. I'll do some poking around see if I can remember anything for ya tomorrow.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

That's probably something you should take up with a constitutional lawyer or other legal expert -- and also probably about as far as this subject should go before getting into MAJOR deep doo-doo.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Well, I'm going out on a huge wobbly limb here and saying...NO! 

I can't see anyone using religeous belief, or lack thereof, as justification for terminating anyone. That seems to be a position an employer would not want to be in. 

Now, I can see a case if the employer is a church or other religeous organization. That may be similar to the church dismissing a pastor who admits to being an atheist. Kind of contradicts the job description don't you think?

Yes, consult an attorney.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I think it's safe to say you can't be fired for religious beliefs even if you don't have any, period. I'd go so far as to say it's illegal to do so.

The only time it may come into play is if it's causing disruptions at work, or causing someone to work poorly. i.e. if you practice Voudun and swing a bloody chicken around your head every morning, or, on the more probable side, if you think you have to stop working to read the bible for ten minutes every hour (actually had a woman here who did that, and yes, they fired her for goofing off). Or if you feel the need to preach religion to your coworkers all the time, they may BEG the boss to fire you.


----------



## phrankenstign (Nov 29, 1999)

Is it okay to swing a bloody ex around?


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

I don't think it's covered under the First Amendment, but it's probably covered under some sort of anti-discrimination statute. Consult a lawyer.

José


----------



## ham1963 (May 4, 2001)

Now remember that sometimes discrimination is hard to prove in the private world vs. the public (Govt) world.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

John P said:


> . . .The only time it may come into play is if it's causing disruptions at work, or causing someone to work poorly. i.e. if you practice Voudun and swing a bloody chicken around your head every morning. . .


Isn't Voudun the site of some big World War I battle?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

phrankenstign said:


> Is it okay to swing a bloody ex around?


 Was it bloody when you _started _swinging it, or after?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

phrankenstign said:


> Is it okay to swing a bloody ex around?


Ex-wife or ex-husband?


----------



## phrankenstign (Nov 29, 1999)

John P said:


> Was it bloody when you _started _swinging it, or after?



Uhhhhh.....I don't remember! Which one won't get me in trouble?


----------



## phrankenstign (Nov 29, 1999)

SteveR said:


> Ex-wife or ex-husband?


 Duh! I've always been straight!


----------



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

doesn't mean you can't dabble.

Don't knock it 'till you've tried it.


----------



## phrankenstign (Nov 29, 1999)

Babaganoosh said:


> doesn't mean you can't dabble.
> 
> Don't knock it 'till you've tried it.


I've never felt the need to dabble.....Sorry!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Babaganoosh said:


> doesn't mean you can't dabble.
> 
> Don't knock it 'till you've tried it.


 You ... worry me.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

IIRC, some state laws are such that you may be fired without cause. If you can prove that you were fired for reasons that may be actionable under existing Federal law, you may have a case.

The whole purpose of the religion clause of the First Amendment was to prevent the Federal government from having a church and therefore to also prevent citizens being required to be a member of that church. 

Therefore, as far as the written law is concerned and the principle ensconced within it by the Founding Fathers, the First Amendment allows atheism.


----------



## phrankenstign (Nov 29, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> *If I could, I'd go back in time and strangle Hitler before he came to power. Seriously, does anyone have a problem with that
> *****************************************
> I'm not selective. I'm against ALL genocide! I don't care where the people come from. Life is too short to be bitter and full of hatred.*


 You state you aren't selective, bitter, nor full of hatred. Yet you select Hitler as a guy you want to strangle. Do you always feel like killing people you don't hate?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

phrankenstign said:


> You state you aren't selective, bitter, nor full of hatred. Yet you select Hitler as a guy you want to strangle. Do you always feel like killing people you don't hate?


 

It's not a matter of hatred, even of an individual. It's (theoretically) simply an execution of an evil man to prevent mass murder.

I will admit there are some ethical questions involved in such a time travel scenario, however, I'm pretty sure that there was a point before he started mass murder where he would have been guilty of murder on a smaller scale in his ascent to power. 

There are also ethical questions involved in whether assassination of a country's leader is ever a good tactic. I think that it can be in exceptional circumstances like this example.

Thanks for asking! :thumbsup:

P.S. Just to be clear: I in no way believe that you are defending Hitler nor his actions in your asking that question.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> It's not a matter of hatred, even of an individual. It's (theoretically) simply an execution of an evil man to prevent mass murder.


Theoretically speaking, if you can go back and assassinate Hitler before he can begin his program of genocide, it SOUNDS noble, yet here is the quandry....

Once you kill him, next you will have to kill Stalin, Pol Phet (Sp?), Napoleon, Lenin, Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan.... The list goes on and on and on... until the time comes when you have become the very thing you are attempting to mitigate, a mass murderer.

I can't remember what the movie was, but I recall seeing one where they went back in time to assassinate Hitler as an infant. They are sucessful, but the family nanny steals an infant to replace the 'lost' child and that is the one who grows up into the mass murderer we all know. They CREATED the history they were trying to eliminate. Fantasy, granted, but it illustates the point...


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Actually, if you are able to time travel back to June 28, 1914 Sarajevo and prevent the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, you'd change the course of every thing that has happened since then.
But getting back to the topic, John answered the question when he pointed out "if it's disruptive" of the operations of the company. Hot-button topics, such as religion and politics, are called "hot-button" because these are subjects that have individual interpretations that folks feel strongly about and lead to "I'm right/you're wrong" arguments and create a HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONMENT for both the participants of the disagreement AND the folks witnessing the debate.
It needs to be remembered that, whether you like it or not (and I don't), in any workplace, the freedom of speech and expression has its' limitations. After-hours debates are another thing, but during the work shift, it's best to avoid these subjects.


----------



## A Taylor (Jan 1, 1970)

I don't think lack of religious beliefs would be top on the list of reasons for firing you...
there's no such thing as an innocent religion question.
Stir shit less, work harder and you may stay employed.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> Theoretically speaking, if you can go back and assassinate Hitler before he can begin his program of genocide, it SOUNDS noble, yet here is the quandary....
> 
> Once you kill him, next you will have to kill Stalin, Pol Phet (Sp?), Napoleon, Lenin, Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan.... The list goes on and on and on... until the time comes when you have become the very thing you are attempting to mitigate, a mass murderer.


I doubt I, myself, IF it were possible, would carry things that far. 

You do have a point about some of them though I think I'd exempt the ones who carried out what was generally considered honest warfare between armies, even if of a conquering nature, vs. those who carried out a systematic genocide against a group of people. 

In those cases, acting as a sort of "in loco" government against leaders who'd already committed capital crimes, I wouldn't consider myself as anything other than a righteous executioner for the people who had died and for those who would die later otherwise. Still noble, I think, no matter the number of guilty individuals put to death.



> I can't remember what the movie was, but I recall seeing one where they went back in time to assassinate Hitler as an infant. They are sucessful, but the family nanny steals an infant to replace the 'lost' child and that is the one who grows up into the mass murderer we all know. They CREATED the history they were trying to eliminate. Fantasy, granted, but it illustates the point...


I saw that! Wasn't it an episode of "The Outer Limits?" Good one!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I doubt I, myself, IF it were possible, would carry things that far.
> 
> You do have a point about some of them though I think I'd exempt the ones who carried out what was generally considered honest warfare between armies, even if of a conquering nature, vs. those who carried out a systematic genocide against a group of people.
> 
> In those cases, acting as a sort of "in loco" government against leaders who'd already committed capital crimes, I wouldn't consider myself as anything other than a righteous executioner for the people who had died and for those who would die later otherwise. Still noble, I think, no matter the number of guilty individuals put to death.


Just remember,when you are accepting the thanks from the grateful Children of Israel for your noble deed, suggesting they "Look up the Big Lie in Hitler's Mein Kampf" in a discussion might not be such a great idea, they tend to be a little touchy about the subject.

But we really appreciate you volunteering to go back in time on your noble temporal quest. Good luck with that :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

A Taylor said:


> . . . there's no such thing as an innocent religion question.


 You may just have a point there!

It's hard to find company that can intelligently and rationally discuss religion (or politics, history, car repair, Apple vs. PC computers, model-building, which glue is best, which of Charlie's Angels is the prettiest . . .  )


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> I can't remember what the movie was, but I recall seeing one where they went back in time to assassinate Hitler as an infant. They are sucessful, but the family nanny steals an infant to replace the 'lost' child and that is the one who grows up into the mass murderer we all know. They CREATED the history they were trying to eliminate. Fantasy, granted, but it illustates the point...





PerfesserCoffee said:


> I saw that! Wasn't it an episode of "The Outer Limits?" Good one!


No, but it sounds like several _Twilight Zone_ episodes. Science fiction is full of stories about people who try to change history for the better by traveling back in time, only to find that either (a) it's impossible to change any major historical events, or (b) they've only screwed things up worse. The Butterfly Effect and all that.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

scotpens said:


> No, but it sounds like several _Twilight Zone_ episodes. Science fiction is full of stories about people who try to change history for the better by traveling back in time, only to find that either (a) it's impossible to change any major historical events, or (b) they've only screwed things up worse. The Butterfly Effect and all that.


You're right! _ Twilight Zone._

I love those kinds of stories despite what I consider to be some very dubious qualities of time travel as presented in fiction.


----------



## phrankenstign (Nov 29, 1999)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I will admit there are some ethical questions involved in such a time travel scenario, however, I'm pretty sure that there was a point before he started mass murder where he would have been guilty of murder on a smaller scale in his ascent to power.


So....are you saying you'd kill him at that point before his power was absolute.....after a few people had been killed?......or would you kill him prior to his direct involvement in any executions.....while he would have still been considered an innocent man/teen/child?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Strangle the bastard with his swaddling in his crib. Innocent at the time? Technically, but we KNOW what he becomes. I have no moral quandries.

And yes, Stalin should be on the list too! 

The alternative would be to spend enough time with 'Dolph in his youth to cause a fundamental change in his personality, thus leaving him alive AND averting his genocidal programs. Not sure if it would still prevent another war in Europe - god only knows who would come to power in his place.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

A very valid point. Remember _The Boys from Brazil_? The story goes something like this: Before he commited suicide, Hitler had himself cloned. Now, several young boys, all exact genetic duplicates of Der Fuhrer, are being raised by adoptive families in various countries. A fiercely loyal and powerful neo-Nazi group sees to it that each boy's childhood experiences are as close as possible to those of the young Adolf, in the hope that the nature/nurture combination will produce at least one new Hitler. As far-fetched as this premise is, it also completely ignores the fact that history is made by the _times_ as well as by the personalities of great leaders, whether they're good or evil. The conditions in early-1930s Weimar Germany were ripe for a dictator to assume absolute power. It could have been Hitler or it could have been Klaus von Sauerkraut. Maybe someone without Hitler's mad racist ideology, but just as bad in some other way.

Getting back to the subject of religion in the workplace, talking with some of my co-workers is a spiritual experience — it's like communicating with the dead! 

BTW, no insult intended to anyone of German descent with that "Sauerkraut" reference. Now, would you like cream and sugar with your war — uh, coffee?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ah, but luckily, Klaus von Sauerkraut died in a tragic train accident. Ironically, if Hitler hadn't kept the trains running on time, it would have missed Klaus, and he'd have lived.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

phrankenstign said:


> So....are you saying you'd kill him at that point before his power was absolute.....after a few people had been killed?......or would you kill him prior to his direct involvement in any executions.....while he would have still been considered an innocent man/teen/child?


I'm not really sure to tell the truth. I think execution at the point where he attempts to murder someone or orders the murder of someone would be appropriate. The intent is there and there is no turning back for him at that point. What do you think?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Ah, but luckily, Klaus von Sauerkraut died in a tragic train accident. Ironically, if Hitler hadn't kept the trains running on time, it would have missed Klaus, and he'd have lived.


I think interference there could create a time paradox.


----------



## phrankenstign (Nov 29, 1999)

*To kill or not to kill....That is the question!*



PerfesserCoffee said:


> I'm not really sure to tell the truth. I think execution at the point where he attempts to murder someone or orders the murder of someone would be appropriate. The intent is there and there is no turning back for him at that point. What do you think?


 I think I'd try to expose him for what he truly was. If possible, I'd gather as much evidence as possible to get him convicted, or at the very least ousted from office. Sometimes hard evidence isn't needed to stall a person's political career. (e.g. Ted Kennedy's presidential hopes vanished after he was involved in that tragic 'accident'.)

A good example of a situation similar to this one that we're discussing is depicted in the movie, *The Dead Zone* starring *Christopher Walken* and *Martin Sheen*. *Christopher Walken *plays a man who can see into a person's future after touching them. He touches a campaigning political candidate played by _*Martin *_*Sheen* and finds that man will become a president who is bent on, and will be responsible for, starting World War III---and proud of it. I don't want to spoil the story for anyone who hasn't seen it. Suffice to say it is one of the eeriest and best movies I'd seen in the early 80s. I consider it a *classic*.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Hello again.. Devil's advocate here.. Now, I am in NO way saying the events in history should have happened, or deserved to happen. I personally feel horrified at what Hitler was able to allow/achieve. 

That being said............ How can we know that by going back and preventing this one genocidal maniac from doing what he did, we inadvertently allow another to take his place? What if... purely hypothetically here... one of those killed, had they lived, would not have become an even more ruthless/bloodthirsty dictator who makes Adolph look like a choir boy in comparison? One who succeeds with his quest of world domination?

Would we rather deal with the evil we know, or take our chances with the one we don't know?

This is a fascinating line of discussion... I think the whole idea of preventitive assassination via time travel is a straight forward idea on the surface, but underneath are so many currents/alternatives it boggles the mind.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

phrankenstign said:


> A good example of a situation similar to this one that we're discussing is depicted in the movie, *The Dead Zone* starring *Christopher Walken* and *Charlie Sheen*. *Christopher Walken *plays a man who can see into a person's future after touching them. He touches a campaigning political candidate played by *Charlie Sheen* and finds that man will become a president who is bent on, and will be responsible for, starting World War III---and proud of it. I don't want to spoil the story for anyone who hasn't seen it. Suffice to say it is one of the eeriest and best movies I'd seen in the early 80s. I consider it a *classic*.


Except that was Charlie's Dad, Martin.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

John P said:


> Ah, but luckily, Klaus von Sauerkraut died in a tragic train accident. Ironically, if Hitler hadn't kept the trains running on time, it would have missed Klaus, and he'd have lived.


I believe it was supporters of _Mussolini_ who famously said that he made the trains run on time. After all, making anything run with precision and efficiency is second nature to the Germans — but a major feat for the Italians!


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Interesting topic. I seem to recall that one of Roddenberry's for a Trek film had the crew time warping to prevent the Kennedy assassination. Once they were in place, they stopped Oswald way before the assassination. Later, they somehow discovered that by having Kennedy survive they could very well have prevented the formation of the Federation. The film was to have ended with Spock pulling the trigger on the grassy noll. Talk about a downer. It has similarities to "City on the Edge of Forever."


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

So the conspiracy theorists are right after all — JFK was killed by a space alien with pointy ears!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

phrankenstign said:


> I think I'd try to expose him for what he truly was. If possible, I'd gather as much evidence as possible to get him convicted, or at the very least ousted from office. Sometimes hard evidence isn't needed to stall a person's political career. (e.g. Ted Kennedy's presidential hopes vanished after he was involved in that tragic 'accident'.)


Not a bad idea.

I'm somewhere in the middle on the zeitgeist vs. personality theories of history. In cases where there is a power vacuum or the times demand a new leader, there is not always someone who can carry out that leadership role. Russia went through a number of regime changes before Lenin took over with the communists. If Lenin had failed, there may have been some other, better experiments in government tried.

Hitler came into power a little more suddenly and in a coup took over what was a weak but, IIRC, fairly stable government in terms of the treatment of the people. In that case, killing or discrediting Hitler may have been all it took to avoid the future catastrophes of war and ethnic cleansing.

Cuba is another example of a powerful personality making all the difference where the times didn't necessarily demand a new leader.


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Getting back to my June 28, 1914 idea; averting the assassination would have averted World War I. Because without World War I, there would've been no National Socialist or Fascist movements, Bolshevism would not have taken root in Russia, there would've been no Holocaust, the Ottoman Empire would probably still be ruling the middle east, China wouldn't have fallen to Mao, no Korean war, no Viet Nam war, no Isreal, no Palestine, no Iraq, Iran would still be Persia, no atomic bomb, no nuclear missiles, we probably wouldn't have gotten to the moon, etc., etc.
And Adolf would've died a pfenning-less postkarte painter.
How's THAT for a sci-fi story?


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

*OH THE HUMANITY OF IT ALL!!!!*


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Seaview said:


> Getting back to my June 28, 1914 idea; averting the assassination would have averted World War I. Because without World War I, there would've been no National Socialist or Fascist movements . . .
> How's THAT for a sci-fi story?


That's certainly been examined historically, if not fictionally. Amazing how one little incident set up such a chain of events that didn't end until millions of people were killed in combat or ethnic cleansing.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

You remove the need to develop WMD's that changed the world, and reduce the US to a second class power. Without WWI->(depression)->WWII we wouldn't have the reason to get up and fight the Germans and Japanese, and become a world power and technological giant.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Seaview said:


> . . . without World War I, there would've been no National Socialist or Fascist movements, Bolshevism would not have taken root in Russia, there would've been no Holocaust, the Ottoman Empire would probably still be ruling the middle east, China wouldn't have fallen to Mao, no Korean war, no Viet Nam war, no Isreal, no Palestine, no Iraq, Iran would still be Persia, no atomic bomb, no nuclear missiles, we probably wouldn't have gotten to the moon, etc., etc.


And Britain would still have an empire — in fact, the British would probably have been first to land on the moon!

[IMG-LEFT]http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=29941&stc=1[/IMG-LEFT]


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

But the Britains were there first. I saw the film and everything.


----------



## fjimi (Sep 29, 2004)

I saw that too but I thought it was in a studio lot. 

I would time travel to SF in 1965 just to hang out and investigate 'the conspiracy'


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

Going back to the original title of this thread......


There IS no *inocent* question about RELIGION.

I noticed lately while watching the news and some other programs that the folks in this country who are conservitive in a political sense and follow the the larger Christian religions seem to get VERY uptight and defensive when someone speaks against, makes a movie about or says ANYTHING on the contrary about thier beliefs, even to the point of being violent or just plain mean.

This one is a good and recent example:

The Makers and directors of The Davinci Code have recieved DEATH THREATS and horrible letters from a good amount of people who are oposed to the movie....I have not seen the film nor am I even interested.....but isn't it funny when people who say they 'believe' in any faith that preaches 'peace' and 'love' are the first to go to war over NOTHING, burn the first witch or throw the first stone?

If Jesus came back today they would cucify him again because his message would be to simple and gimick free.

Most People have not changed one bit over all these years. 

Well back to the model desk ....my escape to Magical, Historic and more interesting things.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Oh, well  I knew it couldn't last forever.

:lol:


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

fluke said:


> Going back to the original title of this thread......
> 
> 
> This one is a good and recent example:
> ...



To which I would point out that in this instance, the original author of this story was the one to "cast the first stone". However, unlike the murderer of Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh, or the million dollar bounty for the head of Salomon Rushdie, the ones who are making threats against the film makers of The DaVinci Code will NOT follow through with their menacing gestures, because when they eventually calm down (unless they are constantly inflamed by hate-mongers), they'll remember the instruction to "turn the other cheek", forgive and forget. 
And, like yourself, I don't plan on seeing it, either, and for pretty much the same reasons you gave.


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

Yes, you are correct....they probably will not act on those threats but the fact that they did anything at all in the first place is what troubles me. There have been womans health clinics bombed in the name of God as well. Don't forget I said 'A FEW' people who react when offended. 

If this planet is to survive at all we need to keep things like sexuality and religion a 'PERSONAL' matter and KEEP IT at home!

I love my parents a lot....but they are getting older and even my Father is talking about going to church which is fine.....BUT....when the topic of the Middle East crisis comes up its "Oh thier animals!....those Muslim's want all of us dead!" ect etc......I hear way too much of that kind of talk and I'm sure that thier are plenty of folks in the Middle East that say the same thing about us who only see and hear about us from thier news and media and what TV or Film they may have seen.

OK.....I'm really just miffed that thursday night I took a van load of buddies to the airport to go to Wonderfest and I could not go due to not having a job in the last two months.....WHAAAAAH!!!!!!!!! but I did get a killer job!! in AVIATION aircraft maintenance!


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

fluke said:


> but I did get a *killer* job!! in AVIATION aircraft maintenance!


Dude, you are supposed to avoid the front ends of propellers and Jet intakes when they are running!!! LOL

Did F-14 maintenance when I was in the Navy.. my favorite job to date...


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

fluke said:


> but I did get a killer job!! in AVIATION aircraft maintenance!


 :thumbsup: FANTASTIC!!!!! Right up your ally, Troy ol' bean!!!! :wave:


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

Thanks dudes!

Hey South Paw...a guy that lived next door did avionics on Tomcats....I think it was the Enterprise that he served on.

Did they ever let you guys up on the flight deck?

How long can a jet like that fly before it retires?


----------



## Just Plain Al (Sep 7, 1999)

fluke said:


> How long can a jet like that fly before it retires?


They usually manage to fly all the way to the crashsite. :tongue:


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Seaview said:


> :thumbsup: FANTASTIC!!!!! Right up your ally, Troy ol' bean!!!! :wave:


If that's what you do to your allies, I'd hate to think what you do to your enemies!


----------



## XactoHazzard (May 20, 2003)

Fluke, I'm gonna try to do this without being banned....

You know as well as I do that the people you speak of are not religious. They are LAX in their conscience and do what they do and "justifiy it through God(Klan, Hitler, etc). These people are NOT a true representation and are not Christian. The reason they don't live as Christ did is because they more or less live by the Old Testament-An eye for an Eye... The only times they quote Jesus is when they skip his love everyone speach and go right to his "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off" speach. Unfortunately they uneducated minds still misinterperet it and take it literal. Jesus means if something causes you to sin, get rid of that temptation. But they take it as if something causes sin, literally cut it up! That's what comes with the DANGERS of being told we can interperet the Bible on our own. People read it and apply it to WHAT THEY WANT! Just like a "horror"scope, they are vague on purpose so you can apply it to what's happening in your life and your neighbor can take the very SAME "horror"scope and apply it to theirs. 

A true Christian would send a letter to Dan Brown expressing their problems with the novel because although it's fiction it is being covered as fact! That is our problem with it. We end the letter or debate with "We'll pray for him..." Not "we'll kill you!" The NON-Christian sends death threats and angy letters. There are many WEAK Christians out there that need to be taught awareness as why things are not accepted. Otherwise you will have so called Christians saying "I thinks it would be neat if Jesus was married and had children" without realizing that jeopardizes they're entire faith!
FICTION? Jurassic Park is a fictional book and it would never get the coverage that "the DeVC" got as "factual literature"!

As for the women's centers, well they are "MILLS" and are basically the battlefields of Christianity today. The TRUE Christians understand the urgency and the importance of the issue but NEVER resort to physical violence or killing(that's what is being fought against) But they do see the power in numbers and prayer. They WILL show up in front of these "Mills" and pray for conversions and change of heart and mind. I personally pray outfront of our local "Mill" every other Saturday. I see the more abbrasive "christians" and they give a bad name. It is a HUGE battleground and a HUGE offense against God so YES it is fought there on the steps as stern as Christ flipped the tables over in the Temple. 1.2 Million Americans die there every year and no one cares but us. Unfortunately the wacky so called "Christians" believe in fighting fire with fire... True Christians believe change comes in prayer.

Turn the other Cheek applies to violence toward each other but it doesn't mean you turn a blind eye to horrible things...

I don't want this to become a back and forth thing but since Fluke's post was not addressed buy the Mods I had to atleast give the other side.

Travis


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

fluke said:


> Thanks dudes!
> 
> Hey South Paw...a guy that lived next door did avionics on Tomcats....I think it was the Enterprise that he served on.
> 
> ...


It all depends. Jets like the A-6 were older than the pilots that flew them. Tomcats have been in service since 1974. Sadly, they are being phased out right now. Their final deployment ended on 10 March of this year. They will be removed from service and officially stricken from the NAVY's inventory in September of this year.

I've worked the flight deck on 6 different carriers over the last 20 years. Sadly, I am getting ready to retire in a few months myself.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

fluke said:


> Thanks dudes!
> 
> Hey South Paw...a guy that lived next door did avionics on Tomcats....I think it was the Enterprise that he served on.
> 
> ...


Fluke,
When I was in, from 84-88, I was assigned to a Rag Squadron (VF-101 Grim Reapers) so I was shore based at Oceana but luckily we did get to go out on the carriers for qualification detachments for our trainee aircrews. Yes, we most definitely worked the flight decks.. One totally awesome experience that I still miss to this day. I got to go out on Nimitz, Forestal, Coral Sea, Kennedy, Saratoga and the Vinson. 

True to my luck, the transferred Enterprise to the east coast AFTER I left the service. My nephew got to serve aboard her though.. so it's all good! I have an Enterprise patch to sew to my leather jacket now.

The Tomcats were retired this year, there is one squadron left that will stand down in the November time frame if I remember correctly. 31 or so years of active service. Still a formidable bird, but a costly one to maintain, considering she was on the design boards in the 50's. She's being replaced with the F-18's and the Naval variation of the JSF when they come into production.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

OK, two cents worth here. A very basic concept that has been fogotten is that, "not all philosophies of life are equal." You say you are disappointed that your father is spouting anti-Muslim remarks. I agree that anti-Muslim remarks are innappropriate, but to sit there and say that there is no threat from Muslim extremists is equally ill-informed. When any faction of the global community (for whatever reason) is willing to perform acts of terrorism such as blowing up public transportation or attacking and shooting school children all in the name of their interpretation of God, we HAVE to react to that threat. 

Yes, large-scale death and destruction has been commited in the name of religious belief. But similar death and destruction has been commited without the religious overtones. Point is, maybe the religion is not to blame as much as the man.

BTW, saw DaVinci Code today and enjoyed it as a thriller. I did not gain any more higher knowledge nor re-evaluate the nature of man any more than I did while watching X-Men 3 (also today). They are movies after all.


----------



## 747 (Oct 11, 2001)

XactoHazzard said:


> Fluke, I'm gonna try to do this without being banned....
> 
> You know as well as I do that the people you speak of are not religious. <snip>
> 
> ...


Hazard, in keeping with your philosophy, I’ll also add my 20c and hopefully won’t get banned 



Reading Newsweek today I saw a quote from Ian McKellan, in response to “Christians” saying that there should be massive disclaimers that the DaVinci Code is a complete work of fiction, that he sometimes thinks the same should be done for the Bible. And I have to agree (and from my understanding, no one has ever tried to say that DVCwas a factual book). The problem with what you say above is that you are assuming that _your_ interpretation (pr what you been told) of whatever is correct; it fits _your_ interpretation or whoever you suggest you go to, to get the info. There may be a good reason that I'm not aware of, but why not just follow one or the other (or both) testaments? Ultimately there is no one held responsible for any of the interpretations. Pope? He’s just part of one sect of a Christian Faith. Your local head of you church? Don’t get me wrong, so far from what you’ve said from a nice way to treat people standpoint, your view on things seems logical and fair and all that. I think the reason people are getting angry about the book and movie is that is does question their faith and belief structure. Heaven forbid what they thought for the last 40 years may be a load of turnips. The mere fact that these people don’t question things to me is unbelievable. But I guess that’s what faith is all about. To me, at least, the DVC gives a far more logical chain of events from that period and I see no more reason to disbelieve it more or less than the Bible(s). Once again, I agree with Fluke!:dude:


----------



## XactoHazzard (May 20, 2003)

We are not afraid that the book will challenge our faith. The protests is to assure that christians do not patron this movie. And to bring awareness to those luke warm christians that this film is fiction and should be educated on why it's flat out made up. The problem is YES no one is saying the book IS fact but ALL the TV shows and interviews with Dan Brown are handled in a Documentarian/History Channel sort of way that will give the WRONG impression that any of the info in this book was based on REAL findings. Even the book that Dan Brown based his books on had major footnotes for it stating how fictional the info was.

It's equivalant to you writing a book about how Abe Lincoln owned Slaves. Your book is written from the slaves POV and it revolves around the fact that some historian stumbled acroos a few letters Lincoln wrote about his purchase and trading of slaves even after he wrote the Immancipation Proclomation. It becomes a best seller and you decide that you will sell the rights for a movie. When the movie comes out it doesn't get Entertainment Tonight type coverage but on the history channel and Discovery Channel and Nightline , CNN and NBC do coverage that is only reserved for factual events or "news" The Fictional story becomes a what if and even worse a we know it happened b/c this document circulates somewhere. Then YOU the author rides the bandwagon and give all your interviews with a raised eyebrow aiming all you comments to lead others to think that JUST MAYBE it's not fiction and Lincoln ACTUALLY owned slaves.

On the otherside there would be Lincoln historians and American History majors and teachers and the family members of Lincoln and not to mention the governement protesting and or working around the clock to make sure that the legacy and rep of the 16th President's Name is NOT tarnished by this fictional book and movie. That's all we are doing is making sure people KNOW that this book is NOT based on any real evidence but just a fictional story created by Dan Brown after he read a book. We are not trying to keep Non Christians from reading or seeing this story, we are trying to keep our own from patronizing the film and the book... 

Travis


----------



## XactoHazzard (May 20, 2003)

747 said:


> Ultimately there is no one held responsible for any of the interpretations. Pope? He’s just part of one sect of a Christian Faith. Your local head of you church? Don’t get me wrong, so far from what you’ve said from a nice way to treat people standpoint, your view on things seems logical and fair and all that. I think the reason people are getting angry about the book and movie is that is does question their faith and belief structure. Heaven forbid what they thought for the last 40 years may be a load of turnips. The mere fact that these people don’t question things to me is unbelievable. But I guess that’s what faith is all about. To me, at least, the DVC gives a far more logical chain of events from that period and I see no more reason to disbelieve it more or less than the Bible(s)


These statemants come from a misinformed knowledge. The Pope isn't just "part of a christian sect" The Pope dates all the way back to Peter in the Bible. Christ said to Simon "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" " He who hears you hears me" " Go and tell the good news to ALL nations" The Universal church existed way before any Vatican or Protestant/Christian Sect. The Universal Church was based on all the teachings and appointings and traditions that Christ himself established. Then a 1500 years later there started the trend of different sects brought about by the decision by men that we can all interpret the Bible the way we want. Who needs the direct guidence of God through the Pope. We can do it ourselves... So now we have continuous deluted versions of Christianity century after century. They all stem from the Universal Church established by the Apostles through the authority of Christ. 

I hope that clears things up... If you want to go deeper and be MORE informed just PM me, I am glad to talk about it privately as to not be banned.

Travis
Hankster, just making sure there are two sides stated to every post made... Trying to keep it mature  and civil.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

...


----------



## XactoHazzard (May 20, 2003)

somethin like that...

Travis


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

Unfortunatly, religion WAS politics in the past, and who is to know how much of ANY text was 'gospel' be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Druid etc. It boils down to faith alone. Facts are different than truths. They are subjective.


----------

