Easter was another name for Astarte or Istar, which were other names for the queen of heaven. This festival in ancient Babylonianism was a 40-day weeping period for Tammuz just prior to the festival of Astarte (or Istar or Easter), who was said to have received her son back from the dead; for it was taught that he was slain by a wild beast (boar). To him the egg was sacred, depicting the mystery of resurrection.
Fifteen hundred years before Christ the hot cross buns of Good Friday were used in the worship of the queen of heaven, the goddess of Easter. They were even called “the boun,” i.e., “bun” (Jer. 7:18). They were first offered, then later eaten.
The egg can be traced back to the fable of the mystic egg of the Babylonians. “An egg of wondrous size” is said to have fallen from heaven into the River Euphrates. The fishes rolled it to the bank where the doves having settled upon it, hatched it. Out came Venus who afterwards was called the Assyrian goddess or Astarte, the queen of heaven. So the egg first was a symbol of Astarte or Easter, the queen of heaven.
Thus you can see the background for lent, the 40-day period prior to Easter, and the Easter festival. Some simply adopted the egg and applied it to the resurrection of Christ. In the very early church there was the celebration of the Passover on Friday before the resurrection, but it was not called Easter. — bible.org
‘Did Jesus learn what he knew from Buddhism? Where was Jesus and what was he doing from ages 14-29?’ — BBC
The religious views of the Founding Fathers are of great interest to propagandists of today’s American right, anxious to push their version of history. Contrary to their view, the fact that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the terms of a treaty with Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. I am continually asked why this is, and I do not know. I suppose it is possible that England has wearied of religion after an appalling history of inter- faith violence, with Protestants and Catholics alternately gaining the upper hand and systematically murdering the other lot.
Another suggestion stems from the observation that America is a nation of immigrants. A colleague points out to me that immigrants, uprooted from the stability and comfort of an extended family in Europe, could well have embraced a church as a kind of kin- substitute on alien soil. It is an interesting idea, worth researching further. There is no doubt that many Americans see their own local church as an important unit of identity, which does indeed have some of the attributes of an extended family.
Yet another hypothesis is that the religiosity of America stems paradoxically from the secularism of its constitution. Precisely because America is legally secular, religion has become free enterprise. Rival churches compete for congregations - not least for the fat tithes that they bring - and the competition is waged with all the aggressive hard-sell techniques of the marketplace. What works for soap flakes works for God, and the result is something approaching religious mania among today’s less educated classes. In England, by contrast, religion under the aegis of the established church has become little more than a pleasant social pastime, scarcely recognizable as religious at all. — Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (P. 39-41)
A Nun and A Muslimah … The same human being, but a different culture or religious tradition. If she does it by choice, you must respect her choice.
I only see a problem when she is either FORCED by cultural/religious fanatics to wear it without her choice or HARASSED by bigots/ethnocentrists as a result of her choice.
(Source: sasrr)