NYC district denies birth of Jesus?

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, November 12, 2003

[ArGee]

When did a menorah become a secular symbol?

Just as with Christians, there are Jews who are more interested in the historic roots of their Judaism than the religious roots. Perhaps those speaking are more familiar with the "Episcopalian" branch of Judaism than those who worship G-d.

In any event, I'm not surprised that those making decisions for the public school system are idiots. They were probably educated in the public school system.

Shalom.

[nathanbedford]

Could not get there from here. Have you got another link?

[Salvation]

Discrimination gone amuck here.

[fatima]

Coleus,Bump.

[Calpernia]

I'm a little confused here. All three religions acknowledge the birth of Jesus. The difference between the three are whether he was the son of God, a prophet or not. Jesus existed. All three histories/religions wrote about him. Therefore he was born.

[Coleus]

Yes, the word became flesh and dwelt among us.

The Secular Humanists in the School System will stop at nothing to ban all forms of Christianity, morals, values, etc.

[RepubMommy]

Nice to see it's starting already.

[jla]

^

[M1Tanker]

" hope they plan to remove any references at the school to the year 2003, or to next year's class of 2004, or last year's class of 2003, or . . . Since the Nativity is considered of no historical significance, any reference to the widely accepted date scheme is no longer acceptable."

They already do. All "AD" dates are now refferred to as "CE", or "Common Era" while all "BC" dates are now "BCE", or "Before Common Era". in many school, achedemic, and collegant texts and classes. So now 2003AD, to a liberal forcing spew on children in class, is 2003CE. This way they don't have to acknowledge God or Jesus, but don't have to change too many things in life. They will, of course, keep the months unchanged since many of them refer to polythiest gods (so long as they are not Christian, the Left leaves them alone).

I'm not very religious (I keep God close in an armored, "Combat" Bible with metal plates in the covers that I wear over my heart and under body armor when deployed), but I do know these events were mentioned somewhere....... I think in that very same book I keep close and read from time to time.

This may be why every time I read about the left, and the world socialist governments, attacking Christians and the Christian religion, I want to buy ammo and food, dig a deep hole, and wait for four guys on horses?

[SuenTsn]

not "shomer" but maybe "shamash" (I think)!

Yep. That's it. Shamash! :-)

[maryz]

Thanks (it's been a while!).

[baseballfanjm]

Remember, it's not Christmas anymore. It's Holiday. And it's not Anno Domini and Before Christ anymore either, but Common Era and Before Common Era. Who cares if the start of the "common era" is still based on Christ's birth? We can't offend risk offending anyone now can we?

[SuenTsn]

Stories like these are repated all over the country and the ADL carries on its hate campaign against Mel Gibson and "The Passion" while the media warns us the Christian Right is taking over America.

I looked in to this after reading something about this "Passion" film elsewhere on this board. The ADL is not conducting any sort of hate campaign at all. What they are saying is that the film is historically inaccurate in its depiction of Jewish people of that era. I see no difference between that and the issues that people had on the Ronald Reagan film that was supposed to come out on CBS which was said to be historically inaccurate.

I can certainly understand why those who objected to the Reagan film took issue with putting words into Reagan's mouth that he clearly never said. I would hope that Mel Gibson's intent with his film is not to drag up all the ancient libels against the Jews. No one needs that stuff.

[Centurion2000]

Where am I to go in my own land?

Texas ..... and make a new start.

[SuenTsn]

When did a menorah become a secular symbol?

Well, I can sort of understand the thinking although I would think a Star of David would be a better symbol to use as representative of Judaism. A menorah is often associated specifically with Hanukkah... ergo, not as "secular."

But then there are associations that come to mind with any symbol over and above just that of naming a religion. The cross symbolizes Christianity, yet it is also associated specifically with Easter... ergo also not "secular."

Generally, I like the Star of David as representative of Judaism because it really isn't associated with any particular holiday etc. and it's sort of generally generic... ergo "secular."

[Coleus]

Freeper Xenalyte made the comment on an earlier on post 17 of this thread (I was responding to him) where he was commenting on HOW ON EARTH COULD A DEMONCRAT school administrator say something so STUPID implying that a Jewish symbol,the menorah, has a secular dimension; that's a slap in the face to every Jew and to the Jewish faith.

Anyway, the topic of consternation is the Holiday where Chanukah falls into that category and where the Menorah would be an appropriate symbol for that Holiday rather than the star of David.

The star is a general symbol as is the cross for Christians where they are not symbols for any particular Holiday and should not be in a Chanukah/Christmas scene.

The Menorah and Nativity scene should both be there signifying the holiday.

[Wallace T.]

The Anti-Defamation League and the equally repulsive National Council of Churches had no problem with "The Last Temptation of Christ," a 1988 movie that had no historical evidence for its allegations that Jesus lusted after Mary Magdalene or that He was at times cowardly. Nor has the ADL protested unflattering portrayals of Christian clergy or beliefs. On the other hand, the ADL, the NCC, and other liberals will roar with outrage if Islam is shown in an unfavorable light.

If Mel Gibson sticks to the historical account of Jesus' death outlined in the Four Gospels, we must conclude that the attacks by the ADL, the NCC, and other liberal groups are nothing more than Christian bashing. Non-Christians may of course reject Jesus' claims, as cited in the Gospels, to be Lord and Savior, as well as the Son of God. However, the facts surrounding His death are better attested to than any historical event in ancient times.

[Blue Scourge]

...I'm just sitting here waiting for the day when the govt. says I have to only practice my religion in my house. You laugh...it's coming one day....Come soon oh Lord.

[SuenTsn]

The Anti-Defamation League and the equally repulsive National Council of Churches had no problem with "The Last Temptation of Christ," a 1988 movie that had no historical evidence for its allegations that Jesus lusted after Mary Magdalene or that He was at times cowardly. Nor has the ADL protested unflattering portrayals of Christian clergy or beliefs. On the other hand, the ADL, the NCC, and other liberals will roar with outrage if Islam is shown in an unfavorable light.

Tell me why the ADL is supposed to object to portraying Jesus in a film in a way that shows human flaws. Jews believe that Jesus was totally human.

Jews revere King David as someone inspired by G-d, but King David certainly lusted and wasn't always the bravest either.

The ADL is a Jewish group, organized to monitor the way Jews are portrayed. They aren't qualified to comment on Christian things and so, wisely, they let Christians do that.

I doubt that the Catholic League, for instance, would object if Jews were portrayed in an way that Jews took exception to since their mission (Catholic League) is to monitor the way Catholics are portrayed. Matter of fact, I believe Mr. Donohue of the Catholic League likes Mel Gibson's film.

I really don't know that much about the NCC, so I'm not going there if you don't mind.