Someone noticed something strange. Google home does not know who Jesus is. Yet, it seems to know about Mohammad and Buddha and even satan...
Why is that?
Google has been so politically correct, it is insane...
For the record, Jesus is the Son of God and his message of peace and love is universal. He is the reason for the religion of Christianity which is the dominant religion in our world for over 2000 years.
It has been spread to all 200 plus countries around the world and the Bible has been translated to over 2500 languages...
Don't have that device, but doesn't it work by "googling" the question? I notice that a google search returns the same thing for "Jesus" as it does for "Mohammad" or Buddha - a list of definitions and sites about the query.
I'm unsure what listing your personal belief has to do with google results; do you expect google to give that very personal belief system as an answer to a query?
Jesus at minimum was a historical figure. Why google go out of their way to avoid it is beyond me.
I know google was always anti religion and anti military. Just look at their google doodles over the years and you can’t help notice how biased and left wing they are as a company...they cater to the globslist, secular world view...
Anti religion or just neutral, not desiring to pick one over another? That DOES seem to be a common thread in the country with business (and, mostly, with govt. as well, although many would much prefer to have their own religion governing).
Nor do I know of any writings from any eyewitness accounts that confirmed Jesus outside of the bible. Muhammad and Buddha, yes, but not Jesus. Just reports hundreds of years later from those that believe he was a god.
Who’s “someone”? What did Google Home do when they asked who Jesus was? I have a hard time believing the story as you’ve just explained it, gotta be more to it.
Edit: Just googled it, seems it works for some people but not others. Probably just a glitch of some sort. I understand calling attention to it and requesting it be fixed but I’m not sure it needs to spun into a “Google hates Jesus” conspiracy.
A very valid observance: if you google “who is Jesus Christ” the first two results are from Christian webpages rather than Wikipedia. Every other religious figure mentioned goes straight to Wikipedia. Seems like a pretty simple filtering issue. But why consider that when you can be outraged about something, eh?
Aime, it is more than a filter issue. Oterwise, no one would care. Google as a company, a power one at that, has chosen to use their influence to affect world opinion and skew results. They did this in the past elections and have biased the search results favoring one candidate over another.
It is no secret that top google executives visited the Obama White house 100 of times...you have to wonder why is that? Did executives of exxon, and IBM and GM did the same? I don’t think so...
This anti Christian theme is by design. They are secularists. They think Religion is part of the problem not the solition. They and the ACLU are on the same page. They think the US is too Christian and needed to be taken down a notch. They favor other religions such as Buddhism because it is more transcendental...
This is just one indicator but not the only ones. Just pay attention to google doodle. It really shows where their priority is set.
"They are secularists. They think Religion is part of the problem not the solition. They and the ACLU are on the same page."
Even if were all true, is there something wrong with that? Are we not allowed to be secular? If they are on the same page as the ACLU (no religion in govt.) is that wrong? Difficult to believe, but are you complaining that a Google search doesn't give religious beliefs the same status (simple truth) that you do? Or that it doesn't give the myth the same priority you do?
(Understand that I'm not saying your belief system is wrong - just that in our country we ALL have the right to choose our own set of beliefs and that most definitely includes Google.)
You are missing my point. I am exposing a company that uses its vast power and private data, for purpose of influencing public policy...
This is very dangerous. It is like 1984 the book. When a company or a government gets too powerful, the people have lost their freedom and are indoctrinated into a philosophy.
I would be perfectly happy if google just stick to its main product, of being a good and fast search engine. No filters on results...
By the way, the ACLU is an extreme organization that are extremely anti religion. They are the ones behind the various law suits to remove Christmas from the public square... they are ruining the holidays for all...
The ACLU isn't extreme nor is it anti-religious. The ACLU exists to, among other things, protect the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the majority.
Always interesting to see so-called "freedom-loving" conservatives retract their freedom when it comes to religion and instead make sure they do their best to force it down everyone's throat.
An athiest has exactly as much right as you to see that his/her tax money is not spent on religion, particularly given the importance of the separation between church and state. Thus, there is no reason that a nativity scene needs to be on government property when it can so easily be placed on church property. If the ACLU were anti-religion, then they'd be trying to stop churches from putting Christmas displays on church property, but all they are trying to do is keep the state from sanctioning a particular religion or placing a preference for one religion over another.
Because the government should behave neutrally on such things, by allowing religious displays on government-owned property, they also must allow other taxpayers the rights to display their religious symbols on the property. Thus, a satanist would have some rights as would every other group.
Easy solution: religious displays belong on religious property. No conflict.
That is a false argument. The ACLU only goes after Christians. Also, not all religious displays is to promote religion as they charge. There are many cases where it is the popular view of the people involved. I volunteer at an archive in westchester country. It is a government building. Yet, we have a small Christmas tree on display. It is not to promote anything. Just the people who work there wants to show their celebration. It cost the government nothing. Yet, the ACLU will be all over it if they found out... that is the problem with the ACLU. They are atheist with a bias. They hate Christians but leave Moslems and Buddhist alone. They want this country to be secular and it isn’t. They will use the power of the courts to get their way. The separation of church and state has been miss interpreted. Go and read the original intent...
The ACLU goes after the majority when it is infringing on the rights of the minority.
And you are wrong, yet again. Putting up a small personal Christmas tree is not something that is illegal and not something the ACLU would care about as long as the policy in the office is that it is okay for others to do so. Would it be okay for a Muslim or somebody else to put up a display during one of their holidays? If so, no problem. More likely, would it be fine if a Jewish person put up a display for Hannukah? If so, no problem.
It's when the government spends everyone's tax money to promote a specific religion that we run into a problem or when a policy discriminates against a specific group. If the office only allows Christmas displays, then there's a problem.
That said, some athiests (but not the ACLU that I've seen) are often wrong about prayer in public school.
Prayer in public school is fine as long as it's voluntary, doesn't interfere with the learning of others or infringe on their time, and is not sanctioned by the school. It's when the school initiates the prayer that effectively forces people to participate that we have a problem because the school is sanctioning a particular religion over others. If the prayer is initiated by students as a voluntary activity, there is no issue provided that other students of differing beliefs have the same rights.
Hmm... what do you think the intent of that Amendment's wording was jackclee? Would you agree that making a law - directed at religion, (or "a" religion) - would equate to favoring or disfavoring a religion? Would you agree that was the intent of the Amendment - to leave religious choices to the people, not the government?
It is clear to me the language in the Constitution. It is called the establishment clause. it was put in to prevent government over reach and impose a State religion like they had in England and Germany...
It did not mean to remove all references to the deity in the public square. In fact, up to recently, many local government functions start with a prayer for guidance...
Having a Christmas tree or singing Christmas carols in schools does not "establish" a religion.
I hope that is clear. It is merely celebration a national holiday that the majority of the people in that community beliefs.
"It did not mean to remove all references to the deity in the public square."
Which diety would that be? Thor? Odin? Shiva? Or just the one Christians believe in, because they are often a majority?
I have to do with the others on this one; celebrating Xmas, or putting up decorations for that specific holiday, does not need to include any mention or reference to a diety, any diety. Christmas is about as American as it gets - it is a holiday that nearly all Americans celebrate to some extent. But that does not mean it needs a diety.
So what exactly is Christmas to you? It is a federal holiday.
A time of love, peace, kindness and giving. Above all it is a time of family and a time of joy, wonder and magic for children. Even wrote a hub on it, with the conclusion that Christmas is whatever you make of it - you don't have to use the same identity as anyone else.
So is Martin Luther King's birthday. And New Years day. Both federal holidays, and without any hint of religious affiliation...just as Christmas is, as we have a secular government.
Yes but it is also first and foremost the birth of Christ, the son of God for Christians. You might think we are a secular nation but founded on judeo Christian principles. Our laws reflect this, and follow the 10 commandments. Our money said In God We Trust. Our music is full of references to a divine guidance.
Our founding fathers prayed often and seek God’s guidance and wisdom...
As much as the ACLU wants to wipe religion out of our public square, they can’t. Brcause, religion and a faith in God comes from within. You can't legislate it away. Look at the example of the Russian orthodox church. They were persecuted for 70 years under communism before the fall of the iron curtain and the soviet empire. The church in Russia is thriving. I prove my point.
You're right - it is first and foremost about the birth of Christ...to most Christians. To others, not so much. Never forget that although the name is Christian, and the date was chosen by the church, a great many of the customs and beliefs come straight from the pagans. It is not what it was, for nearly 2,000 years of time with many different peoples guarantee that.
Once again, mush.
"In God We Trust" has not been on our money for most of the country's history. That is a recent development, established in 1956. Did you know that?
And once again, the ACLU does not want to wipe religion from anywhere. They want to protect the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the majority and maintain the separation of church and state, not allowing the state to sanction a particular religion, thereby discriminating against those with different beliefs.
+1 This is something that a great many Christians forget, or just plain don't want to acknowledge. Their beliefs are not the only ones in the world, and the rest of us need protection from them. Protection granted by our constitution, whatever other countries do.
My friend, you are looking in the wrong place. Every where Christians have been, they only brought peace. The enemy is the one crying wolf.
The ACLU has a long history of using the courts to get their agenda where they could not win in the ballot box. Isn’t that what a democracy is?
As I said, you cannot force religion on someone no more than you can force another from religion.
So who do you think the Creator is?
It was in the Declaration of independence...
If not God who? aliens?
You atheists are so selective in your choice of history.
This country was founded on Christian principles. We are blessed by God and our prosperity comes from him.
You don’t have to be a believer. That was the beauty of the first Amerndment.
"Every where Christians have been, they only brought peace.
If it wasn’t for Christians, we would be a s_ithole country...
Sweet baby Christ on a cracker, it just keeps getting worse.
What’s your reasoning behind this, exactly?
Just stating the obvious. I am a student of history. If we were not founded on Judeo Christian principles, we would not be the most wealthy nation, the most generous nation and the light of the world...
If you care to learn about this in more detail, I recommend reading alexis tourquville and his impressions of America, especially the religious influence.
Here is one quote -
“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Aime, you would also get a glimpse of America without religion in the movie It’s a Wonderful life...
When the angel shows George what would happen to his town if he had never been born...
Here is another quote -
“I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers—and it was not there. . . . . in her fertile fields and boundless forests—and it was not there. . . . .in her rich mines and her vast world commerce—and it was not there. . . . in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution—and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”
Democracy in America
Alexis de Torqueville
You have absolutely no way of knowing that and judging by the quotes you’ve given, your “evidence” for that theory is based on another religious person’s opinions (oh, and a Christmas movie, I guess.) That’s... not solid.
I actually laughed out loud. What a ridiculous statement. Especially given he later accused atheists of being selective with history.
They sure did...after they lost control and the people, not the priests, gained it.
Are you forgetting that our democracy is as much about protecting the minority (more, actually) than it is about giving the majority whatever they want?
You can say it, but doing so doesn't make it true. As evidence you might ask the radical jihadists, the puritans, the leaders of the crusades, or the priesthood of the inquisition. Religion has been forced onto people more than anything else in our history.
Does my (or yours, if you're honest) ignorance prove that your opinion is true? What is the reasoning behind this question?
Your point is? That (most) of the writers believed the same myth you do and so it is true?
Again, does my ignorance (or yours) show that your opinion is true? Ignorance never answers a question.
LOL - we're not alone. See the answer to forcing religion onto people. Believers have a massive propensity to forget that in any society that has ever happened control by religion has resulted in tremendous misery.
For the most part it was, with some notable exceptions (such as separation of church and state - Christians have never been slow to force others to obey their concept of what their god wants). But is your point that such principles must therefore be followed as written with no changes (consider that slavery was justified with religion). Nor are we "blessed" by your god - as it doesn't exist at all there can be no blessing. (See how that works? You make an unsupportable statement, I make the opposite, still unsupported, and both are empty words.)
But you DO have to follow the edicts of your priesthood. Somehow I don't see that as the purpose of that amendment.
Nice list, but mostly flat untrue with a few irrelevant comments and some opinions that you can't support. Of all the people on this forum you are among the most qualified to do better...if you will only set aside beliefs for facts.
I ask that particular question to challenge some here who say we are a secular nation and was founded that way. That is false.
Our declaration clearly state we are given certain inalienable rights by our Creator...
If they were secular, would they make that claim?
You have to be honest with yourself...
Don’t be persuaded by the secularists and atheists of today who wants to rewrite our history.
The truth is, our founders were all deists. They believed in a higher power and that man must have guidance and self discipline in their behavior for a free society to prosper.
jackclee, Dealing with the basics first - without Christmas trees or carols, if Congress made a law favoring a religion, (but not all religions), wouldn't that lead to a logical thought that it was favoring one religion over others?
Favoring does not mean establishment of a religion. I hope you see the difference.
By the way, here is the real history of the ACLU -
You are right jackclee, favoring does not automatically equate to establishing a religion. But... the "Establishment" clause does not say Congress shall not make any laws "establishing" a religion. It says "... respecting the establishment..." and it is that aspect that has involved the courts.
Could you consider that by favoring a religion, it might also be assisting a religion? What if that favor, or assistance was the push that allowed a religion to become dominant, and what if in that dominance that religion could point to that legislative "favoring" as proof of its legitimacy - over all other religions.
Could that be related to the "respecting" part of the establishment clause? Our Supreme Courts have thought so. I don't say that with the inference that our Supreme Court is infallible, but only to illustrate why I do see it as being related.
What would be your basis for disagreeing with this interpretation of what the "respecting" part means?
I say the supreme court, was wrong in their interpretation and they twisted the freedom of religion concept to mean freedom from religion. The writers of the Constitution was clearly worried about an over reaching government that want to impose a single religion over others and thus “establish a state religion. The courts has turned this on its head to mean we cannot have any religeous presence in the public square. Our history down the years does not show that to be the case. It was the landmark decision in the school busing case of Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 that turned this all around. We are suffering from that ever since.
I use the example of eating Turkey on Thanksgiving as an example. If 90% of the people are meat eaters and 10 percent of the people are vegetarians, we still serve turkey on Thanksgiving as a tradition. No one is forced to eat meat. We accommodate by offering more vegetable dishes. We don’t say just because a minority don’t like eating meat, we should end this tradition. It is the same with celebration of Christmas...no one is being forced to believe in Christ.
I am still trying to get a grasp on the basics jackclee. Are you saying that the Right to have the freedom to exercise your religion doesn't include the freedom to not have a religion?
On the previous questions, do you say that if the government favored a religion it would not be a benefit to that religion - an imprimatur?
No, I didn’t say that. The founders were smart to allow freedom of religion even if that person had no religion. That is the first Amendment. It is to prevent government imposing a religion on everyone.
However, if the majority of our nation is Christian, there should not be restrictions to prevent those to celebrate as they see fit...it is a popularity and not a coercion. That is the big difference. For example, radio stations play xmas music around the holidays. It is there choice because people want to tune in. People who don’t like it can turn off their radio or switch to another station. If enough people stop listning, the stations will automatically switch to some other programming.
The perversion of the court is to say, nothing that is religious in nature are allowed to be present in the public square. That was clearly not the intent of the founders.
But no one complains if people celebrate as they wish...until other people are forced to cover the cost, or use of land they (partially) own is demanded to promote, affirm or even recognize that particular religion. That the majority wish it to be so is insufficient to use public land for a religious display whatever the holiday.
I will say, though, that I have no problem with a nativity scene on public lands, if erected as a holiday celebration during Christmas. I find it no different that putting up pictures of witches, demons and devils during Halloween; it is, perhaps, recognition of myths we all know to be false but little more.
Of course, one has to wonder how long it would be before that nativity included a cross with a crucified man on it, or depictions of other icons from Christianity. In that respect it should probably not happen. The disagreement seems to be that you're quite willing to ignore the wishes and rights of a minority while at the same time claiming that it isn't happening because it's your religion being promoted.
Why do you think the ACLU sued to have “Christmas Holiday” removed from local school calendars?
If you can answer that, you may win some argument with me...?
Here is my article on this topic written a few years ago but still relevant...
Scroll down to see the school calendar...
<snipped - no promotional links>
You need to remove the quotes to link to article.
Hubpages does not allow self promotion or I would be banned for a few days...
If that "public square" is a privately owned "public square" I agree with you jackclee. It is when that "public square" is governmental that the difference is made.
I also think that complaining about the Ten Commandments or a Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn is tantamount to 'picking a fight' - and in my mind an unnecessary fight, but the anti-religion antagonist do have a valid point. I think any governmental promotion - even just a courthouse lawn - of a religious activity is an act "respecting the establishment" of a religion. I don't see how any governmental involvement can be seen as anything less than an approval. And that is where the Court determined 'separation of church and state' doctrine - drawn from the wording of "respecting the establishment" makes sense to me.
That is also why I disagree with your contention that the Constitution does not say anything about "separation of church and state" - it is that "respecting," (in my opinion), that provides the authority for the doctrine. It places no restrictions on private exercise of religion. Not being allowed to promote your religion on publicly owned properties does not restrict your Right to promote your religion.
Consider that the clause could have just said that, "Congress shall make no law to establish a religion..."
Don't think I can go with you on the ten commandments/nativity scene thing, GA.
I most definitely think that whining about a nativity scene gets a little silly. The tale is most certainly part of the legends of Christmas, after all, just as the tree, mistletoe, Santa and Rudolph are.
But a govt building with the words "You shall have no other gods before Me", "You shall not make idols", "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain" and "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." posted on it or its grounds is not the same thing at all. Not only is it a direct quotation from one religion's scripture but it is religious in nature even were it not a scriptural quote.
The only exception I can make there is if those words are old - very old. As in hundreds of years, making it symbolic of how and what the ancestors of this land thought rather than religious promotion.
You are playing word games my friend. In order for that to be true, it would have to be practiced as you say going back to our founding...
That was clearly not the case. This whole separation of church and state started in 1954, which is recent in terms of our country’s history.
The courts interpreted the words to mean just the opposite of the original intent.
Why was it OK for our founders to pray before every meeting and not today? The Constituion has not changed in quite some time...
?? I think you would find a prayer at the beginning of most legislative meetings.
But when a Muslim was invited to pray before one Idaho session recently, quite a few legislators walked out. It's only OK if it is their religion - others need not apply. Another woman was told by school officials that anyone could leave religious literature for children to take as they wish...until she brought a box of Wiccan spellbooks, whereupon the policy was immediately changed. Again, it's OK as long as it is the same religion as those making the rules, but others need not apply.
This kind of crap is what gives the lie to the claims that it's OK to have govt. promoting/accepting religious icons, beliefs or events.
We may disagree jackclee, but you can be sure it is not due to my intent to "play word games."
I think the determination of that "intent" only needs to go back to when it was challenged - whether that be 1854 or 1954. There is no need to define an intent until that intent is challenged.
You know the answer to your final question as well as I do jackclee. Our nation has changed. Times change. Attitudes and beliefs change. I think it is a testament to our Constitution that, so far, its original form - at the foundation level, has encompassed those changes.
Of course people would care. Everyone’s always looking for an opportunity to be mad about something, people who believe there’s a “War on Christianity” included. First you guys got mad about cups and now you’re mad about voice assistants. Can’t wait to see what random household item is next!
Or does it mean that those two webpages have more backlinks that Wiki does for that term? A filter, in other words, or just the algorithm doing what it's supposed to do?
I don’t understand any of this.
I’m saying it seems reasonable to assume that since Google Home answers based on the Wiki definitions, and since Wikipedia is further down when searching specifically for “who is Jesus Christ,” it’s probably just a result of how it grabs definitions from certain webpages rather than an evil plan to make everyone forget about Jesus.
And I'm assuming Google Home answers based on the search results of the normal google algorithm data set. One of which is undoubtedly the number and location of backlinks.
Of course, neither of us actually knows WHAT is used to determine an answer! Maybe there is a pedestal with a statue of Buddha sitting in each google server room, with tentacles reaching out and controlling each machine.
Today’s google doodle:
I see what you mean... “cortical homunculus”... pfft, typical liberal buzzwords.
Remove the quote marks...
As you are aware, HP does not allow self promotion...
Yes, I do it to inform. Why repeat a large argument if I already created an article.
I disagree with HP policy on self promotion but I have no choice. But as you can see, it is easily defeated.
by Alex Ferris 7 years ago
I have had some articles that for over 4 years ranked pretty high on Google, and now, since the latest update, other websites are outranking them. So I decide I want to learn more... What do these websites offer to outrank mine? I go on them, and this is what I see:-The articles are much shorter...
by Eugene Brennan 3 years ago
Presumably as a company, Google's main priority is generating profit, not providing users with quality content even though they like to tell us that is one of their aims.If a page is getting lots of traffic that is steadily increasing, but they're making less money out of it because it's taking...
by Jack Lee 4 years ago
Here is a question for experts. I am curious how a hub is tracked over time?In specific, suppose I create a new hub or article and it is featured after published on HubPages. After a few days, when the google bot finds it and index it, it appears on google search with some page ranking. After a...
by climberjames 12 years ago
iPad's are not yet on sale over here in the UK and I was wondering if anyone who owns one could advise, does Google Doc' work on the iPad? I understand that that the iPad only comes with the 'Notes' app and I was thinking this could be an alternative for word processing if I decide to buy...
by Susan Ream 7 years ago
How does Google choose which Hubs to search?All of the hubs I have written say, "Well done! This high-quality, engaging Hub is Featured on other Hubs and Topic Pages and has the opportunity to be listed in search engine results" ... BUT only some of them are actually crawled by...
by Ben Aidoo 7 years ago
In the past 5 months I've searched for thousands of words on google, never once have I seen an article from HP. Then learning from a post in the forum, I searched for a keyword on google and added "hubpages". For the first time, I saw one of my articles on the first page on google. It's...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|