It wasn't that I felt you disagreed, I just was at fault for not going with my journalist gut - get the facts yourself. That is an important thing for me.

~Alderic

Exactly...friggin' white Jesus. 

I believe the common ground can be found somewhere at the corner of respect for traditions, and the progression of society (i.e. the adopting of new traditions, culture, styles, etc.).

As society grows, so does it change. It's a typical thing in any society; Rome had this issue, Greece had this issue, every society has.What do you mean by of what founded America/got to this point? Would you mind including examples?

~A

Israelites, except for the tribe of Dan, are and were white. Jesus was from the tribe of Yehuda, apparently, so he was white. Picturing him as white with a longish beard and sandals is probably fairly correct.

The Arab word for "the god" is "Allah". Arab Christians use it all the time and do not use another word. I can ask around for confirmation if you like, I am in Tel Aviv at the moment and I'll be in East-Jerusalem next week.

What individuals Muslims believe I cannot say, but Islam, i.e. the Quran, say that Jesus was a prophet and the Messiah. He was not the son of G-d or G-d himself or anything like it, but he will return eventually and bring world piece. I understand Shiites also believe that the Mahdi (whoever he is) will come just before Jesus and fight to prepare the world.

Islam has more than three prophets, but the ones Taltamir listed are the important ones. All three have specific features that make them special: Moses was the only person who has ever seen G-d and talked to Him directly, Jesus was a prophet and the Messiah and will return, and Muhammed was the final prophet. Islam also says that all three are from the same family (Abraham's).

Islam, like Judaism, recognises a number of prophets and claims that other prophets were sent to other nations. The Talmud claims that 600,000 or so prophets were sent out, Islamic sources speak of 140,000 or so. Islam accepts as true any revealed (by a prophet) religion that teaches that the world has a beginning and an end, that there is one god who created the world and everything in it, and that there is a next world (heaven). Conversion to Islam from a true religion is not necessary to go to the next world.

No. To be Messianic you accept his claim to be the Messiah.

There are several Christian sects that don't believe that Jesus is G-d.

In Islam Jesus has a very special status. Islam also teaches the virgin birth (if I recall correctly, it's been a while that I read the Quran) and that he performed miracles. But Islam denies the cross thing.

This is  why the law expressly forbids the government from promoting one religion over another. As far as I know the government when dealing with religions deals fairly with all.

Right, pay attention to what you quoted. Secularism is a religion of a sort, and it is doing its best to “prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Look at what they are doing to the people that went to the TEA parties, look at what they are doing if you wish to practice your beliefs. They are doing their best to eliminate the peoples right to free speech, assembly, and worship under the guise of political correctness.

Depends on the administraion.

No, not really. If you say that, then all sorts of things could be considered a religion.

You're misinformed, secularism is "the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs." Government, not society.

Ahuh, right, what are they supposibly doing at the Tea parties?

Sorry, but I call bullshit.

"America's culture war: Hash and rehash, no thinking required."

I remembered it saying prophet, not messiah,but i could be recalling this incorrectly,reading the source is the best way of learning, but reading it does not gaurentee remembering every snipped correctly, I will look it up again.

Yes what an individual who claims to follow holy book X beleives is not an indication what all people who follow that holy book beleive, as that individual might be mistaken on WHAT his holy book says.

Unless a person explicitly states that he cares not for holy books and beleives whats in his heart.

Here's my thoughts:

• It's old, so it can't be all that bad.
• Weren't some of the founding fathers athiests by the definition of these people? Why didn't they mind?
• Who actually is offended? Is it just because you don't have a deity to worship and you can't find one right to you? Is it just the thought that people would be so vocal about their beliefs?
• Is the government endorsing anything? Or are you just trying to prove them wrong?
• And, last but not least, don't we trust in God?

1. It's not the age, it's the principle.

2. Depends, it's a rather tricky thing to decipher. Mind what? The in god we trust? It wasn't the founding fathers that put it there.

3. I'm not offended, per se. I'm annoyed because people are saying something that's total BS.It goes against our principles, which, as an American, pisses me off.

4. It implies endorsement.

5. I don't, my many atheist friends don't.Other atheists or buddhists, or taoists, etc. do not.

lula posts

Yes, it's Thomson...and sorry, I can't supply a direct quote....my notes are from "Symbols of a Nation" and I can't tell if that was a book or an article.

Anyway, it seems we are saying the same thing...his sketches of an American eagle and Barton's that arranged the stripes on the shield led to the design that was finally adopted by congress.

It's a grassroots movement of Democrats, Republicans and Independents all across the country peacefully protesting about out of control government spending putting that burden on our children and our children's children, rising taxes, more government control over private enterprise and less individual liberty.  

No, atheism is.

And I would be opposed to a slogan "There is no god." just as much and for the same reason I am opposed to a slogn "In some god we trust." on American bank notes.

Why the heck does any of this have to be mentioned on bank notes? It's _money_.

Because the American culture is one that believes in God. God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as well as our money. We as a nation believe in God, the founders believed in God, and they felt that submission to God is what is best. Look at it this way, if there is no god then who is being hurt? If there is a God that is all powerful do you really want to piss him off?

It's _money_, not the National Opera Company.

Principle is principle. You either value the constitution or you don't.

And my personal opinion is that G-d is probably more pissed off because His name is mentioned on money than he would be if it weren't.