[net.religion] Supreme Court officializes US idolatry

yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/21/84)

The concept of idolatry in both Judaism and Christianity is derived 
from the Judaic definition of the Jewish scriptures. This definition 
encompasses the ASSOCIATION of an image or images, whether carved, 
sculpted, painted or drawn, with the object of worship, including
peripheral entities such as angels. 

This definition encompasses such idolatry as images of Jesus, Mary,
saints, apostles, angels, etc. whether as sculpted into idols in the
traditional sense painted in pictures, stained glass windows, etc.
It also includes idols of 'the baby Jesus'.

Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes
be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the
United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present
among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We
can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and
idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough). Its parallels with 
the Roman Empire become more and more evident with each passing day.

brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/24/84)

[]

>[Yirmiyahu Ben-David]
>Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes
>be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the
>United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present
>among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We
>can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and
>idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough).

1. Against murder
2. Against stealing
3. Against sexual immorality
4. Against eating part of a living animal
5. For setting up a system of Justice
6. Against idolatry
7. Against blasphemy

So we can now check off number 6.  Those who are concerned about such
things should note that numbers 1, 3, 7, and increasingly 5, are
also in grave danger.

If the US passes Gay Rights, for example, it will be taking an official
stance in violation of number 3.  It has already granted federal money
to groups trying to legitimize male homosexuality.

A more correct evaluation of what is happening in the US today goes like
this:  The Jews have failed to take an active interest in upholding
the mizvot at the public policy level.  The goyim are becoming alarmed
at the decay in moral values which increasingly manifests itself in public
policy.  Since they have no other alternative (chiefly because of their
own ignorance), the goyim are desparately embracing whatever religious
expression presents itself in an effort to combat decadence.

Those who are genuinely concerned that the mitzvot be upheld should be
more agressive with respect to the first 5 instead of exclusively concentrating
on violations against 6 and 7, sustaining the Christian-Jewish polemic.
While a convincing argument can certainly be made for the danger of a 
Christian state, an equally convincing argument can be made for the danger
of a secular state.  The answer is not irreligion, but *correct* religion.
Jews should be taking the lead in educating us about *correct* religion
instead of promoting secularism, whether by advocating it outright or
by indifference to moral concerns in public policy.

--
David Brunson

... better understanding through higher education

pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (11/25/84)

>[from Yiri BenDavid:]
>The concept of idolatry in both Judaism and Christianity is derived 
>from the Judaic definition of the Jewish scriptures. This definition 
>encompasses the ASSOCIATION of an image or images, whether carved, 
>sculpted, painted or drawn, with the object of worship, including
>peripheral entities such as angels. 

It needs to be more than just association to constitute idolotry doesn't
it?  I would think that the figure would have to be the actual object of 
worship or be identified with the object evidently by the actions of the
worshipers toward it.  I don't think the mere existence of images constitutes
idolatry.  The Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant and in Solomon's
temple would have to be included under "peripheral entities" yet they
were included at God's command.  I would think that idolotry lies more in
the heart or motive of the worshiper than the image itself.  Maybe you
agree with this but, if so, you don't seem to be making the distinction
clear.

>This definition encompasses such idolatry as images of Jesus, Mary,
>saints, apostles, angels, etc. whether as sculpted into idols in the
>traditional sense painted in pictures, stained glass windows, etc.
>It also includes idols of 'the baby Jesus'.

If the images are used for illustrative purposes rather than worship, I
don't think we can call them idols.  (There is and Orthodox synagogue here
in Columbus that has some of the most beautiful stained glass I have ever
seen depicting major events in the Old Testament Scriptures.)  The accuracy
of the illustration can be brought into question.  I can't remember seeing
a nativity scene where the figures of the family really looked Jewish.
Same goes for paintings of Jesus.  But I digress.  These images, though they
be of those with religious significance--may only serve a purpose similar to
the statue of Lincoln at the memorial in D.C.

>Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes
>be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the
>United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present
>among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We
>can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and
>idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough). Its parallels with 
>the Roman Empire become more and more evident with each passing day.

It seems to me that a nativity scene is not put up for the purposes of
worship, but for more historical and cultural purposes.  The traditional
raison d'etre for Christmas festivities centered around the Christ.  It
is ostensibly getting much less so every year.  More and more the importance
of Christmas seems to be keeping our economy moving.  Perhaps we should
replace the nativity scene with a model of the Federal Reserve Bank. :-(

			"In God we trust"
-- 
The "resurrected",

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd

mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/26/84)

In article <1747@ucf-cs.UUCP> yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) writes:

>The concept of idolatry in both Judaism and Christianity is derived 
>from the Judaic definition of the Jewish scriptures. This definition 
>encompasses the ASSOCIATION of an image or images, whether carved, 
>sculpted, painted or drawn, with the object of worship, including
>peripheral entities such as angels. 
>
>This definition encompasses such idolatry as images of Jesus, Mary,
>saints, apostles, angels, etc. whether as sculpted into idols in the
>traditional sense painted in pictures, stained glass windows, etc.
>It also includes idols of 'the baby Jesus'.
>
>Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes
>be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the
>United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present
>among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We
>can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and
>idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough). Its parallels with 
>the Roman Empire become more and more evident with each passing day.

I agree with Yiri almost totally on this one, and I am really annoyed that
this stupid issue has reared its ugly head again.  There's no reason in the
world why the U.S. should in any way be associated with a nativity scene
being set up with its express approval.  For some reason the Reagan 
government thinks it needs to ram this down everyone's throat.  It really
bugs me that they keep trying to promote this "we are anointed by God"
attitude; it sounds like Divine Right of Kings and it sounds blasphemous.

I'm afraid I can't get too excited about Christmas stamps, though, unless
you want to get rid of any commemoration of anything even remotely religious
(such as the Truro synagogue stamp).  What I really wish they would do is
put out a passover stamp in the spring.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe

yosh@hou2e.UUCP (M.CHING) (11/26/84)

Forgive me, but I think many will agree that the ONLY way to
assure freedom of religion is for the State to take an ir- (non?-)
religious stance. It IS possible to be MORAL without being
religious. (Though I am Jewish by birth and proud of my Jewish
heritage, I consider myself increasingly agnostic in my beliefs)






				Dave Bloom
				Bell Labs, Holmdel

features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) (11/27/84)

> From: yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid)

> Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes
> be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the
> United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present
> among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We
> can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and
> idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough).

"If the tree hadn't been enough"?? What are we supposed to be, Druids??

aMAZon @ ihnp4!ihuxf!features

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/28/84)

>[Yirmiyahu Ben-David]
>Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes
>be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the
>United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present
>among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We
>can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and
>idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough).

> 1. Against murder
> 2. Against stealing
> 3. Against sexual immorality
> 4. Against eating part of a living animal
> 5. For setting up a system of Justice
> 6. Against idolatry
> 7. Against blasphemy
> 
> So we can now check off number 6.  Those who are concerned about such
> things should note that numbers 1, 3, 7, and increasingly 5, are
> also in grave danger.  [BRUNSON]

What is this list?  A list of absolute good/evil dichotomies for which the
good side is listed, or a list of things Brunson doesn't like?  Obviously
it's nothing but the latter.  Frankly, murder and stealing I consider wrong
because they harm other human beings.  Sexual immorality?  Meaning any
sexual behavior different from yours?  (Giving Brunson's ramblings on the
net, if they serve as examples of his sexual behavior, by adhering to his
standards the human race have died out years ago.  Figure it out.)  Sorry,
I see no reason for worrying about people's private lives and attempting
to control their "immorality".  Eating part of a living animal?  People do
it in Japan.  What's it to you if people choose to eat food in this manner?
(Granted, the process can be considered inhumane treatment to animals, but
is it a major moral issue?  You have a strange and sick [and arbitrary] set
of priorities.)  Justice?  I thought God administers justice.  What business
is it of ours to do so?  (Unless justice is what we make it and nothing more.)
Idolatry?  Who cares what or how people worship, as long as 1) everyone remains
free to choose, 2) the government does not support/condone a particular system
above (or below) others, and 3) that the belief system does not include
imposing one's will on other people.  Blasphemy?  You want to get rid of it?
I think we'd be better off REQUIRING it!  Without blasphemy and sacrilege,
without that questioning of what certain people think is "obviously" right,
people whose defense against such questioning is "Shut up or we'll kill you!",
a civilization is as good as dead.

Now, I'd like to hear Mr. Brunson's reasons for supporting the particular
points on his list, and his reasons for believing that certain ideals (held for
what reason?) are being eradicated.  Of course, if they are based on his
"learned value orientation" rather than logic and reason, we can just throw
them right out.
-- 
Occam's Razor:  I liked it so much, I bought the company!
						Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr

teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (11/29/84)

> > From: yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid)
> 
> > Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes
> > be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the
> > United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present
> > among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We
> > can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and
> > idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough).
> 
> "If the tree hadn't been enough"?? What are we supposed to be, Druids??
> 
> aMAZon @ ihnp4!ihuxf!features

    no one is telling you what to be. all I want is that the government not
 favor one group over another. And the only way to do this is to not get
 involved, which it has.
				Eliyahu Teitz.

berger@aecom.UUCP (12/03/84)

>> 1. Against murder
>> 2. Against stealing
>> 3. Against sexual immorality
>> 4. Against eating part of a living animal
>> 5. For setting up a system of Justice
>> 6. Against idolatry
>> 7. Against blasphemy
 
> What is this list?  A list of absolute good/evil dichotomies for which the
> good side is listed, or a list of things Brunson doesn't like?  Obviously
> it's nothing but the latter....
> Now, I'd like to hear Mr. Brunson's reasons for supporting the particular
> points on his list, and his reasons for believing that certain ideals (held for
> what reason?) are being eradicated.  Of course, if they are based on his
> "learned value orientation" rather than logic and reason, we can just throw
> them right out....

Bronson's list is the list of the 7 commandments for the children of Noah,
as believed by traditional Jews. You may bot like this list, I disagree, but
thats your buisness. As this is net.religion.jewish, you must expect Jewish 
values to be assumed.
                              michab

teitz@aecom.UUCP (12/03/84)

> >[Yirmiyahu Ben-David]
> >Thus, the Supreme Court has, by officially authorizing nativity scenes
> >be included and funded by Federal monies, put the official stamp of the
> >United States on idolatry. While such idolatry has always been present
> >among the people, it was not officially United States policy before. We
> >can now state that the United States has officially become a pagan and
> >idolatrous nation (if the tree hadn't been enough).
> 
> > 1. Against murder
> > 2. Against stealing
> > 3. Against sexual immorality
> > 4. Against eating part of a living animal
> > 5. For setting up a system of Justice
> > 6. Against idolatry
> > 7. Against blasphemy
> > 
> > So we can now check off number 6.  Those who are concerned about such
> > things should note that numbers 1, 3, 7, and increasingly 5, are
> > also in grave danger.  [BRUNSON]
> 
> What is this list?  A list of absolute good/evil dichotomies for which the
> good side is listed, or a list of things Brunson doesn't like?  Obviously
> it's nothing but the latter.  Frankly, murder and stealing I consider wrong
> because they harm other human beings.  Sexual immorality?  Meaning any
> sexual behavior different from yours?  (Giving Brunson's ramblings on the
> net, if they serve as examples of his sexual behavior, by adhering to his
> standards the human race have died out years ago.  Figure it out.)  Sorry,
> I see no reason for worrying about people's private lives and attempting
> to control their "immorality".  Eating part of a living animal?  People do
> it in Japan.  What's it to you if people choose to eat food in this manner?
> (Granted, the process can be considered inhumane treatment to animals, but
> is it a major moral issue?  You have a strange and sick [and arbitrary] set
> of priorities.)  Justice?  I thought God administers justice.  What business
> is it of ours to do so?  (Unless justice is what we make it and nothing more.)
> Idolatry?  Who cares what or how people worship, as long as 1) everyone remains
> free to choose, 2) the government does not support/condone a particular system
> above (or below) others, and 3) that the belief system does not include
> imposing one's will on other people.  Blasphemy?  You want to get rid of it?
> I think we'd be better off REQUIRING it!  Without blasphemy and sacrilege,
> without that questioning of what certain people think is "obviously" right,
> people whose defense against such questioning is "Shut up or we'll kill you!",
> a civilization is as good as dead.
> 
> Now, I'd like to hear Mr. Brunson's reasons for supporting the particular
> points on his list, and his reasons for believing that certain ideals (held for
> what reason?) are being eradicated.  Of course, if they are based on his
> "learned value orientation" rather than logic and reason, we can just throw
> them right out.
> -- 
> Occam's Razor:  I liked it so much, I bought the company!
> 						Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr

     Rich,

	Sorry but the list is not Mr. Brunson's, it's G-Ds. These are the 7 Noahide laws that G-D commanded all non-Jews to observe( we got 606 more ).

			Eliyahu Teitz.

ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) (12/06/84)

REFERENCES:  <224@usfbobo.UUCP> <295@pyuxd.UUCP>, <988@aecom.UUCP>

Brunson:
> >> 1. Against murder
> >> 2. Against stealing
> >> 3. Against sexual immorality
> >> 4. Against eating part of a living animal
> >> 5. For setting up a system of Justice
> >> 6. Against idolatry
> >> 7. Against blasphemy

michab:
> Bronson's list is the list of the 7 commandments for the children of Noah,
> as believed by traditional Jews. You may bot like this list, I disagree, but
> thats your buisness. As this is net.religion.jewish, you must expect Jewish 
> values to be assumed.

1) This was also in net.religion.  If you post in net.religion, you *cannot*
assume "Jewish values."

2) The *seven* commandments?--I thought there were ten.  And Brunson is
claiming homosexuality is sexual immorality--not adultery.  (That is, adultery
is also, but Brunson's range is wider than the commandment's.)

					Evelyn C. Leeper
==> Note new net address:		...ihnp4!ahuta!ecl
(Mail sent to my old address will be forwarded temporarily.)

ktw@whuxi.UUCP (WOLMAN) (12/06/84)

Some questions/comments about E. Leeper's posting:

1. There are indeed 10 commandments.  There are also 7 Noachide
laws given to the WORLD by God after the Flood.  These commandments
are incumbent not merely to Jews but also on righteous Gentiles.
They are, then, laws of universal civilization.

2. Why does posting to net.religion somehow divorce an issue from
its "Jewish content"?  A religious issue of primary interest to
Jews may also be of interest--intellectual or otherwise--to 
gentiles; the reverse may also be the case.  Leeper's posting
seemed to posit (however inadvertently) a split between Jewish
and religious values.