Jesus Is My Homeboy

[otseng]

Christianity is currently an "in" thing in pop fashion. Clothing sport Jesus is My Homeboy and Mary Is My Homegirl.

Jesus the new King of Pop Culture

But lately it seems the King of the Jews is the King of Cool. Call it a pop culture moment.

He's a hot seller at hip shops such as Journeys, where shirts declare "Jesus is my homeboy."

Some may find the Jesus the Savior meets Homeboy Jesus concept a bit irreverent. Others say talking about God in this manner is better than no talk at all.

What do you think? Is it irreverent or not? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

[otseng]

Re-reading your question makes me wonder if I missed the point you were making and went off on a tangent! Sorry if that is the case!! It would seem that you are refering to those who wear "Christian" symbolic items while holding no real belief system, or at least none that would reflect Christian views. More on target now?

I'm leaving the topic open as to the beliefs of the person who would wear such a t-shirt. So, that area is up to discussion. But, my personal take on it is that probably more non-Christians would wear this shirt than Christians. If it wasn't a pop fashion, then my views would be different.

[NuclearTBag]

At many Elementary Schools the children sing christmas songs in the winter. I have no problem with this, although sometimes they mention "god", some people ask if is this "PC" (which is one thing that I hate, but that's a diffrent topic). A lot of christians say that if it was another invisible man in the sky they would not care, but if there was Satan Carols would chritians be offended? If so then they should not force their illogical beleifs on the rest of humanity. If not, well I have no problem with people openly talking about god, as long as I can talk openly about how ridicolus christanity is. On to what Barbie was saying, I would like to see what other groups of people force their beleifs on to others to the extent that christians do.

[Yahweh]

From NuclearTBag:

The reason why christians are considered offensive in this culture for forcing their views on others, because they are the only ones doing it.


Are they the only ones doing it? I have to disagree with that. What I do see are Christians reacting (thank you, Lord!) to continued removal of anything even remotely related to God. Others may not be coming right out and condemning Christianity but they do work hard, in more subtly ways at times, to proclaim (force! ) their agenda. Our nation in the past decade has seen an unpresidented removal of anything Godly.

Do you have a few examples of this?

I think Church and State is one of the most important, but misunderstood function of our government:

The basic idea of seperation of church and state is simply means the government does not have the authority to promote religion, religious beliefs, or religious doctrines; it serves to protect citizens against religious tyranny. The government cannot dictate what your churches should preach and the churches cannot dictate how the nation should be governed.

"God" is not taking an unpresidented removal from our country, just from official government documents, governing bodies, and public schools. Aside from that, you are free to your god on are in whatever you want or whatever you do.

In my opinion, I see Christianity as a priveleged religion, one which seems skirt through a great deal of Church/State seperation. I notice there are some institutions which play the religion card in their own political endeavors; this comes in many forms including the rejecting Catholics from recieving Holy Communion if they vote for Pro-Choice candidates, Bush's shameful "Faith-based Initatives" and targeting of churches for potential votees, the recent ban of Bible classes in Tennessee, and dozens and dozens more examples I could name. If you take the time to search for religious keywords in the US Congress, some of the material you find is quite interesting (this includes a few clear examples of the violation of Church and State). Many many citizens are fine with secularization of Hindu and Islam appeal in American government, however when it comes to the Christian religion, exceptions are expected. Naturally, when those exceptions are not granted, the unjustified perception of "Christian persecution" develops, and therein lies the motivation for a great deal of intelligent people to throw commonsense right out of the window.

(I think one of the more comical sides of Church and State is the amount of criticism the ACLU recieves. It has been called a God-hating organization, anti-religion, yet I would guarentee you if a school were to punish a student for keeping a bible in his locker or carrying it around with him during school hours, the ACLU would be there at that students defense in a heartbeat. I'm sure the Christian members of the ACLU will attest to that.)

[NuclearTBag]

What if there were an atheist running for canadancy and using his faith as a way to get an advantage? The christians would flip out, and the atheists would say he has a right to do that. Now my self as an atheist, I really don't care about "under god" or Bush being open with his faith, we also have free speech, he has the right to do that, just as christians have the right to wear what ever god shirts they want, just as I have the right to wear a shirt that says what if god was real, and not just pretend. Yahweh, this country is also a democracy, a system which gives power to the people, 77% (the number is decling) of America is christian, so they will have the power, all Bush is doing is trying to please the 77% of America that is christian. Where is the shame in that? Freedom of speach is a two way street, I have to be tolerent of christians that wear those stupid Jesus is my Homeboy shirts (you have no idea how infurating that is), and they half to tolerate my disproving their god, or calling him a cloud man and invisible man in the sky. I guarntee you if Atheism was the dominat religion in America, atheists would be treated the same way that christians are, and be given those same execptions, because of that whole democracy thing. Now I really do not think that christians are given that many execptions, is seeing some kid prey in school, really going to hurt an atheist that much? I wouldn't care. Is saying undergod durring the pledge of allegiance really going to destroy the atheist morale, I'm as atheist as ever, and hear that every day. Congress also is making sure they seperate church and state, they are not making law according to the bible, if they ban abortion then maybe I can see some problem. The seperation between church and state. Here's a message to all those Bush haters out there, as a naitive Texan, I am quite used to people saying god 256 times in a three minute conversation. That's just normal Texas stuff, a lot of Texans mention god in daily conversations, hell even the strippers do. On to he ACLU, the most useless orginization ever, people say that are for protecion of civil rights, then how come you half to be gay, black, or a child molestor to get in. The ACLU has never stood up for the white americans rights, if a white teacher says the word "nigger" in a conversation, but not directed at an african american student, just discussing the word, that teacher is fired, the ACLU does nothing to help them out. How ever if a black teacher says "honkey" and gets fired, the ACLU is all overr the school district that fired him. Also the ACLU also likes to "investigate" organizations that don't have enough minority employees for them, when is the ACLU going to investigate BET for not having enough white employees, or on air personalities?

Apologies for getting off topic

[Yahweh]

What if there were an atheist running for canadancy and using his faith as a way to get an advantage?

First, I think it is entirely inappropriate to use "faith" as a political advantage. Outside of census data, religious faith should never be relevant to any political agenda.

Second, an atheist candidate who tries to use his "atheist faith" as an advantage is very nearly committing political suicide (though less dramatic than it would have been during the Cold War). See Skeptic.com commentary on a Recent Gallop Poll:

In 1999 a Gallup poll inquired of Americans: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be an X would you vote for that person?” X represents Catholic, Jew, Baptist, Mormon, black, homosexual, woman, or atheist. Although six of the eight received more than 90 percent approval—showing that America has become a more tolerant and ecumenical society—only 59 percent said they would vote for a homosexual, and less than half, 49 percent, would vote for an atheist.

See the way these statistics have evolved here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/amer_intol.htm

It is less necessary than you might think to "secure the atheist vote", about 0.5% of Americans identify themselves as atheist. About 13.2% are generally non-religious according to Adherents.com.

Yahweh, this country is also a democracy, a system which gives power to the people, 77% (the number is decling) of America is christian, so they will have the power, all Bush is doing is trying to please the 77% of America that is christian. Where is the shame in that?

First: The idea of "power to the people" is limited. We dont give full power to the majority for the fear that they would tyrannize the minority.

Second:

The shame in Bush's actions is that his behavior is crossing of the boundaries of appropriate conduct in regard to Church and State. His US$Millions of "faith-based" grants to churches who endorse Bush is politicizing of religious organizations, Bush would very much like to see churches become an extention of his polical arm.

Bush uses a religious agenda in attempt to push his political agenda. See Bush2004.com on his Bible-based policy against gay marriage where Bush states "If we are to prevent marriage from becoming a devil's pact between any two people linked by nothing more than profound love, we must enact a constitutional amendment to ban unbiblical marriages in America".

I could go on about Bush's religious pandering, or his use of biblical verses to defend his interaction with foreign lawmakers to coerce them into writing Christian-based anti-abortion laws, or perhaps I might rattle on about Bush Sr.'s comment "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God" which condemns atheists as second-class citizens, but I'm not sure what amount of criticism of Bush's idiocy can achieve when Bush supporters encourages voters a vote for Bush is a vote for God.

I stand by my belief that profiting from the ignorance, or the gullibility, or the superstition of others for your own gain is quite shameful. The shame is endorsing extremists on the Christian Right to have the ear of the White House.

Is saying undergod durring the pledge of allegiance really going to destroy the atheist morale, I'm as atheist as ever, and hear that every day.

The problem is that the phrase "Under God" is religious in nature. Although some people try to jump through hoops to persuade others that the statement is inherently secular in nature, I guarentee you the strongest supporters of "Under God" expressedly feel the opposite. The way "Under God" found its way into the pledge, on our currency, and in our court rooms was, needless to say, unconstitutional itself.

People feel the phrase is inappropriate because elevates the status of one god of a particular religion, which is a violation of Church and State.

Just for fun see the latest failed attempts at religious neutrality in our courtrooms:

The state Supreme Court ordered a judge Tuesday to restore references to God in the words used when he enters the courtroom and when witnesses swear to tell the truth.

The high court sided with angry officials from two counties who complained that District Judge James M. Honeycutt had taken it upon himself to change courtroom procedures.

The high court ordered Honeycutt to stop using a revised oath missing the phrase "so help you God," and administer the witness oath as spelled out in state law. The court also ordered the judge to allow bailiffs to begin court sessions with a proclamation that includes "God save the state and this honorable court."

On to he ACLU, the most useless orginization ever, people say that are for protecion of civil rights, then how come you half to be gay, black, or a child molestor to get in. The ACLU has never stood up for the white americans rights, if a white teacher says the word "nigger" in a conversation, but not directed at an african american student, just discussing the word, that teacher is fired, the ACLU does nothing to help them out. How ever if a black teacher says "honkey" and gets fired, the ACLU is all overr the school district that fired him. Also the ACLU also likes to "investigate" organizations that don't have enough minority employees for them, when is the ACLU going to investigate BET for not having enough white employees, or on air personalities?

You dont honestly believe those statements do you?

No, there is no racial or religious test to qualify you for ACLU membership, or to seek representation by them. Yes, there are white members of the ACLU. Yes, the ACLU does come to the aid of white individuals. (And, no, I dont agree with everything the ACLU endorses.) It would be most insanely easy for me to prove to you and explain why everything you've said above is absolutely wrong. However, I think it would be in your best interests to visit ACLU.org and email them directly, or visit the ACLU forums.

(I hope I havent strayed too far off topic.)

[NuclearTBag]

Well if an atheist used his faith to get votes, most likely it would be in a more liberal state such as California. Also you say that how "under god" found it's way into the pledge and our money, well in the money it was in god we trust, that's besides the point, actually under god in the pledge was done comstititionally, actually I'd be impresssed if someone knew off the top of their head's how it was done. Freedom of speech as I said before is a two way street, meaning GW has to say what he thinks, and we can say what we think. Also, he's the president you're not, what crudentials do you have to attack him? None. Also we are not giving full power to the people as well, if we were, it would show. Okay you say shame to Bush, for execpting his supportors money, well bush not only shares with religous views with those faith based orginizations, but politiacl views, and those orginazations would like to see their views enforced, just like the rest of us, so they support Bush, and his pro choice and anti homomariage views, imagine that people support the canidate that they agree with,how profound. Just as the dope somkin hippies endorse Nadar. Also you say Christian extremists, Bush is in now way a christian extremist. Hitler was a christian extremist. Not liking atheists does not make him a christian extremist. Also maybe you should consider your sources on Bush's qoutes, that was taken out of context, I don't see why he has to like atheists anyways. If he doesn't like atheists, we don't half to like him. Well saying uner god really harm you, I mean come on grow up. You don't half to say that part if you don't want to, also I bet you don't even say the pledge on a daily basis, or ever for that matter. You can misqoute Bush all you want, doesn't make your argument any valid. Also the removal of the ten comandments in the court rooms has been popular. So that takes christianity out of just about all forms of society, since under god specifies no particular religion it is allowed in to the pledge. Also if it was"offically" removed, that would do nothing all these christian kids, would still say it every day anyways, and do it purposelly, just to annoy the atheists. Anything the supreme court does will accomplish nothing. And yes Yahweh, the ACLU is useless, any orginaization that tries to get a nativity scene taken down on christmas, but protects some drunken bastard that sexually assults a deer in a nativity scene is useless to the american society. The ACLU may come to the aid of white indivuals, but never the majority. How come the ACLU supports the Black Panthers or the NoI, but not the KKK, both are extremist and racist organizations. The ACLU is just America's department of hypocracy.

[NuclearTBag]

Does the ACLU help out some people that need it yes, but their hypocracy has become out of control, the removal of everything religous of society has become outrageous. The most nortourious cases of the ACLU are filled with hypocracy, and bias.

[Illyricum]

You are getting off the subject.

[Iconoclast]

[Xueirdna]

Christianity is currently an "in" thing in pop fashion. Clothing sport Jesus is My Homeboy and Mary Is My Homegirl.

Jesus the new King of Pop Culture

He's a hot seller at hip shops such as Journeys, where shirts declare "Jesus is my homeboy."

Some may find the Jesus the Savior meets Homeboy Jesus concept a bit irreverent. Others say talking about God in this manner is better than no talk at all.

What do you think? Is it irreverent or not? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

Madonna once said, in reference to the cross, that she likes to wear one around her neck because a naked guy died on it and she thinks that's sexy. I do not have an actual problem persay with the "Jesus is My Homeboy" or "Mary is My Homegirl" t-shirts; however, I think it seems to portray the wrong image of Christ. Sure, the intimacy with Him can make Him your friend...but as far as I'm concerned and how I interpret the scriptures, He is not my "homeboy" but my Savior, my God, and my Lord. So, the t-shirts aren't bad...I just think they downplay the real message.

How about a t-shirt that says:

"Jesus is God."

That's when it becomes offensive. Jesus as a homeboy is, by no means, offensive.