America was not founded as a "Christian nation," despite what many conservative Christians claim today, wrote Jon Meacham, the editor of Newsweek, in a New York Times commentary.
"The founders were not anti-religion," he wrote. "Many of them were faithful in their personal lives, and in their public language they evoked God. They grounded the founding principle of the nation — that all men are created equal — in the divine. But they wanted faith to be one thread in the country’s tapestry, not the whole tapestry."
Meacham cited several early documents and actions by past presidents that supported religious liberty and rejected an exclusive Christian view. For example, the treaty of Tripoli of 1797, which the Senate unanimously approved, stated that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
305 Comments
The Christian Right will have a meltdown over this and we are not even near the annual anti-Christmas persecution complex yet.
Why do Christians have to play the victim card?
What can you expect from a religion that bases itself over a hang-up?
Jon Meacham, the author of the article sort of forgot 150+ years of history before 1776. Meacham needs to go back to school on how religion help form the United States.
The statement “”the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” is true.
However, the principles of society and social change is very much founded on primarily Christian influence.
So how, “Kansas,” do you explain that just about every 18th Century culture, until the American Constituion, was founded on the concept of “Divine Right?”
If there was any “Christian influence” involved in the founding of the United States of America, it was that the Founding Fathers deliberately set out to reject it.
If there was any “Christian influence” involved in the founding of the United States of America, it was that the Founding Fathers deliberately set out to reject it.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | October 09, 2007 at 01:46 AM
Sorry, I won’t attempt to re-write history as you are suggesting and as Meacham did.
To deny Christian influence in the early formation of the United States is rather uninformed I would say.
But don’t take my word for it, visit the Library of Congress and see for yourself.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/
Oh, and yes there were lots of “Deists” back then, but there were also a lot of Christians. Their influence was quite profound on the principles of the United States.
Even John Locke was influenced by Christian principles.
It would take years to debate this subject and none would be the better for it. However, to deny the influence of Christianity of the early United States is foolish and revisionist.
Why is that these Christians have to own everything they get their hands on?
To be so arrogant as to think they are the only religion in America is stupidity.
American’s diversity should be her strength but rather than build on that, Christians today want to browbeat anybody and everybody into the notion that they, and only they, are the important ones in America.
Too bad most of the Christian’s talk does not match their walk. Their actions speak louder than their constant haranging words.
“However, the principles of society and social change is very much founded on primarily Christian influence.”
This merely makes me grin! Religion institutions used to RUN society–or else! The Enlightenment was largely a reaction against that. A free society is one in which freedom of conscience is the rule, and matters of personal opinion are no business of the state.
“Jon Meacham, the author of the article sort of forgot 150+ years of history before 1776.”
150+ years? How about 1500? And let’s not forget we’re talking about governance (i.e. “the nation”) here:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
From Memorial and RemonstranceAgainst Religious Assessments -James Madison [1785]
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html+-
I fail to understand the objection to Meacham stating the obvious.
I will have to agree with Kansas on this one to the extent that setting aside the whole land bridge and the real founders of The Americas walking over it. The United States as we know it and the founding of the North America part by the Whites. IS because of Christianity, Pilgrims, mayflower and the like all came here to escape religious prosecution by the church of England. Our laws were based on old English common laws and they based on religious laws and concepts like the Ten Commandments.
In fact time had not passed enough for our forefathers to have forgotten the very reason for the country being founded and settled. They still remembered the importance of Religious freedoms and wrote it into the Constitution of the United States. But also in that were aware of the need to be free of a standard Religion. America was “founded” by Christians so they could worship any way they wanted. Or to not worship at all if that be the case. As I said yesterday, “like it or not ask the Moslems and they think of us as being a Christian nation”.
To deny that Christianity was an influence upon the founding of this nation is to deny history.
Jesus was the horse we rode in on, but now we drive cars. I’d say our influences are as much Greek and Roman as Christian; and throw in everything the Europeans learned between the fall of the Roman Empire and the adoption of the Constitution. As for the Fundies, I can’t stand those mewling genuflectors. However, if they want to gibber and drool about dinosaurs on the Ark, let them. It makes more space in the real world for my grandkids. Just remember those anti-evolutionist fools would beller to their docs for mercy and treatment if ever infected by an antibiotic resistant staphylococcus. Or is it cocci?
The statement “”the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” is true.
However, the principles of society and social change is very much founded on primarily Christian influence.
Posted by: Kansas
blahblahblahyou’re an idiot.the u.s. is screwed up because people like you are willing to twist facts and often outright lie and distort to try to find “facts” to support your anti-u.s. positions.
“Our laws were based on old English common laws and they based on religious laws and concepts like the Ten Commandments.”
of course they are, because you said they are.
the need to be victims is pushed like oxy to rush to make you afraid to think and instead cause you to lay down at the warm tit of the church that has struck you or your parents fancy.
poor you.
OMG has the “they want to outlaw jesus on xmas p.r. push b.s. started yet?
Sigh. . .3:06 am. Still awake. Sucks. Oh well.
you/religion sucks: As a fellow atheist, I have to say your rants ain’t exactly helping. We all shoot from the hip now and then, but you might think a little more before your next post. And get a real nic (please).
This nation was indeed founded largely by religious folks escaping religious persecution, who (unfortunately), wasted little time in doing their own persecuting. The quote I posted above was James Madison’s testimony against a religious establishment bill in Virginia pushed by Governor Patrick Henry (yes, THAT Patrick Henry).
The Enlightenment leaders had enough of that crap, and declared that government should stay the hell out of this area.
History is messy.
The nation was founded on the basis of religious freedom. The founders wanted separation of church and state and wanted nothing to do with an “official state religion” as they had enough of that in England. But don’t try to convince the right wing religious nutcases and the Christian Taliban types of this. These people are determined that you and me are going to live by their version of God. And I am just as determined that I will not.
Shoot, all the Christian nations I’m aware of invade other countries under false pretenses. So, in other words, Christian countries support a cult of death? Doesn’t sound too Christian to me.
The conservative contention that there is one immutable true record of the past, AKA history, is a myth. The business of historians is historical revisionism. The past cannot be understood outside of the context of the present.
Therefore, the anti-revision arguments are based upon wholly groundless premises and are thus false.
Separation of church and state should be maintained and should always be the goal. In America, you have the freedom to go to church, but if you prefer to stay at home on Sunday morning, that’s your business and the state does not have a say. The truth is that some of the Founders were probably religious and others were not. If you read the biography Joseph Ellis wrote about Jefferson (I can’t think of the title right now), it will be clear that the author of The Declaration was not all that smitten with organized religion. The same could probably be said of James Madison.
When I think about this topic, I always remember my French Huguenot ancestors. They had a complaint with the Catholic Church and ultimately had to get the hell out of Dodge to voice the complaint. That’s why you need separation of church and state. The minute the state gets in the business of telling people how to approach the spiritual path, bad blood is in the air and freedom is in decline.
Oh, I thought of the Ellis title: “American Sphinx.”
There are no real Atheists. Christians and the Bible have little interest in proving the existence of God. That God exists is naturally assumed. Only a fool would believe otherwise. Christianity and the Bible are much more concerned with idolatry, that is, dedication and devotion to the substitute gods that the human mind makes for itself. These idols are anything that a person fears, loves, and trusts more than the God. They are as endless as the human imagination.Mark Twain once quipped that in the beginning God created man in His own image, and ever since man has been returning the complement. Homemade gods are usually reflections of the self. Those that claim to be atheists aren’t godless but are fashioning something else such as wealth, health, reputation or frequently an ideology as the object of their trust, or god. Whatever one’s central trust or belief is, in fact, becomes their god.We have a lot of these folks blogging here it would seem. Those gods pass away like a vapor in the wind.Though a few were deists, anyone that even scratches the surface of the multitude of writings by our country’s founders find they had a full wealth of belief in The God of the Bible. They simply wanted one’s god to be an individual choice, not one dictated by the government. There was no attempt to form a government that suppressed religion, denying its free expression, either.Yes, this country was most certainly founded not ON Christianity but by people of the Christian faith and ON Christian principals. To deny that fact is simply a lie.
Actually the Leftist are the culture of Death. They are responsible for millions and millions of innocent people. Being a leftist is much more dangerous and ideology than any other ideology and religion.
Being a leftist is a religion in itself. Because leftist believe in a heaven on earth if only they can get rid of everybody that stands in their way or who are not leftist. So they have no qualms in slaughtering millions to get there. One of the most dangerous ideologies ever.
They lie, they are intolerant and they are vicious people.
David Horowitz and Christopher Hitchens, the two greatest political intellectuals of our time and who were once very prominent and staunch disciples of the left for half their lives, both finally realize that leftist ideology was both dangerous and complete horse crap.
What’s your address, Joe?
“I’d say our influences are as much Greek and Roman as Christian”Agreed, every passage of history leave an imprint on people that led to forming their opinion and way of life. The Greek and Rome was great influences on everyone that can after them.
“of course they are, because you said they are.”Not just me dude! Care to look at the building that houses the Supreme court?At its top you will see statuettes of all law givers that have contributed to the formation of our laws. Among them is one of Moses and the ten commandments, but then I am not just saying so…
Joe you had me with you until you hit on David Horowitz and Christopher Hitchens.Just last weekend I watched Horowitz on Cspan books, he is still as full fledge card carrying Leftist. He no longer calls himself one but listen to him for five minutes and there is no doubt! If you listen to the field of Neoconservatives and what they preach it is not hard to notice where their ideology comes from Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Strauss and Stalin would be proud! Pressing their ideology a cross the world is worth sacrificing our troops, our people and our country to them.
What If a Republican Called, Like Obama, for God’s ‘Kingdom on Earth’?By Mark Finkelstein | October 8, 2007 – 08:20 ET
“This is Anne Jones, reporting live from the headquarters of the ACLU, where the organization has issued a ‘DEFCON 1 Threat-to-the-Constitution Alert’ in the wake of a Republican presidential candidate’s call for the creation of God’s ‘kingdom on earth.’ We’re speaking with ACLU representative Amanda Rogers. Ms. Rogers, now that a Republican candidate has brought the wall that separates church and state crashing to the ground, can our constitutional system be saved?”
“Anne, I’m afraid the answer is a resounding ‘no,’ at least, not if someone who thinks like this, and who sadly reflects the thinking of his entire party, is elected president. Fortunately, there are candidates from another party who respect the constitutionally decreed separaration of church and state.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/10/08/what-if-republican-obama-called-gods-kingdom-earth
OUR CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN FOR A MORAL AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, IT IS WHOLEY INADEQUATE FOR THE GOVERNANCE OF ANY OTHER
Quick, who said the above?
By the way, another quiz qustion:
Who was James McClung?
Here is the meat from the link above
The only acknowledgment of God in the original Constitution is a utilitarian one: the document is dated “in the year of our Lord 1787.” Even the religion clause of the First Amendment is framed dryly and without reference to any particular faith. The Connecticut ratifying convention debated rewriting the preamble to take note of God’s authority, but the effort failed.
A pseudonymous opponent of the Connecticut proposal had some fun with the notion of a deity who would, in a sense, be checking the index for his name: “A low mind may imagine that God, like a foolish old man, will think himself slighted and dishonored if he is not complimented with a seat or a prologue of recognition in the Constitution.” Instead, the framers, the opponent wrote in The American Mercury, “come to us in the plain language of common sense and propose to our understanding a system of government as the invention of mere human wisdom; no deity comes down to dictate it, not a God appears in a dream to propose any part of it.”
I don’t think you can say it any better than that. I DO extend god the invitation to weigh in here and try.
Answers to the above:
This is one actual quote, but I believe that the author said it several times:
“”We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams, to the Officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798.
Joe Williams,
Well, it’s good to see you put your cards on the table as the acolyte of a) a serial liar(Horowitz) and a public drunk (Hitchens).
Joe Williams thinks he’s smart by virtue of associating himself with discredited intellectuals. I suspect the “writings” of Ayn Rand played a pivotal role in young Joe’s “conservative awakening.”
Note to Joe Williams: your emotional history has left you scarred with a series of prejudices that have nothing to do with reality. At least that’s how it looks from here.
another answer:
James McClung of Virginia is the ONLY member of the Constitutional Convention who did not “tith” or give 10% of his income to any particular Church.
James McClung of Virginia was not an avowed atheist, but he apparently claimed no particular church membership.
EVERY other member of the Constitutional Convention belonged to at least one organized Church.
Many members of the Constitutional Convention were members of more than one Religious denomination.
So where are the headlines about Obama’s Kingdom?
We have a leading Presidential candidate talking about his Kingdom and no one is concerned about separation of chuch and state?
We must be a Christian nation. Or maybe Obama will make this a Muslim nation.
Obama and Clinton are campaigning in Churches all over America, in this Christian Nation.
Only during elections though, do you see the Democrats bellying up to the bar of religion.
Hypocrites.
“This nation was indeed founded largely by religious folks escaping religious persecution, who (unfortunately), wasted little time in doing their own persecuting”
You hit the nail on the head Rage. I call it “pulling up the ladder after I’M over the wall!”
Those who persecute others because they dont share their religious beliefs should remember that ALL those persecution tools could be turned on YOU someday.
Be careful what you ask for…
Another point:
The Treaty of Tripoli was necessary as it was being made with a Moslem Country.
Moslems that did not want to be seen as bowing down to a “Christian” denomination.
For many, many years after full ratification of the Constituion, several individual states HAD recongnized, OFFICIAL “State” religions.
Several individual states contributed directly towards individual religions.
Nobody, at the time, ever raised any Constitutional objections.
Hitchens? Isn’t he the one who wrote a book condemning religion?
Why, yes he is: “God is Not Great–How Religion Poisons Everything.”
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807
Great choice of authority there, Joe-Bell.
******
The idea that America was founded on Christianity starts with a myth. The myth is that people years ago were much more religious than we are today.
Actually, the generations of founders were much LESS religious than we are today. The US endured wave after wave of religious “revival” and utopian societies (see Methodism and the Shakers) AFTER it was founded.
The US is much more religious TODAY than it was at its founding.
Jesus WEPT Paulie, they might have “all but one” been self identified with a “church” of some sort. So what?
They were all white men too. Does that mean we were a nation founded on the principles of white men, and the constitution exists to serve white men?
Why do I think this is going to be lost on paulie and his palies?
As for the topic of the thread, CF2K has been enjoying David Hackett Fischer’s “Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America.”
As Wikipedia tells us:
“The book’s descriptions of the four folkways grounding American society is one of the most comprehensive, almost encyclopedic, guide to the origins of colonial American culture. According to Fischer, the foundation of American culture was formed from four mass emigrations from four different regions of Britain by four different socio-religious groups. New England’s constitutional period occurred between 1629 and 1640 when Puritans, most from East Anglia, settled there. The next mass migration was of southern English cavaliers and their servants to the Chesapeake Bay region between 1640 and 1675. Then, between 1675 and 1725 thousands of Quakers, led by William Penn settled the Delaware Valley. Finally Scots-Irish settlers from the borderlands of Britain and Northern Ireland migrated to Appalachia between 1717 and 1775. Each of these migrations produced a distinct regional culture which can still be seen in America today. The four migrations are discussed in the four main chapters of the book.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion’s_Seed
For the discussion here, what stands out is the lack of unanimity between disparate groups of early American Christians: Puritans, Anglicans, Quakers (that’s as far as CF2K has gotten in the book–he’s not sure what Christian sect is associated with the Scotch-Irish wave of immigrants).
While all these groups were, indeed, Christians, they determined the meaning of Christianity in competing and mutually contested ways. There was no unanimity among them as to fundamentals of Christian belief–much less to its translation into social norms and social rituals. Slavery would be the signal example on this point.
To the extent that the Founding Fathers were the descendents of these groups, I don’t think it is reasonable to ascribe to them a unanimous interpretation of Christian belief. Presumably, the more appropriate way to read the religious dimension of the principles of the Constitution would be as broadly as possible, since it had to be ratifiable by a number of different constituencies.
Well remembered Capn.
It’s important also to note that Christian fundamentalism or Evangelical Christianity as we know today did not even exist until the 19th century, long after the founders were dead and gone.
“The US is much more religious TODAY than it was at its founding.”
If you call frothing and arm flailing being religious, I guess so.
Americans damn sure talk the talk of religions. But they have one hell of a time actually walking the walk.
The words flow, but the actions to match the words? As Jon Stewart says, “eh…. not so much”.
Don’t they still pray in Congress?
Will Obama swear on a Koran or a Bible when he is inaugurated?
Or will Hillary swear on a bible if she wins?
“Seperation of Church and State” is a phrase found in a Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists.Those CT Baptists were worried about Episcopalians or Anglicans having their religion named the official US Religion.
Much of the denominational neutrality of the US Constitution comes directly from the fact that the individual states already had their own denominational preferences.
Jefferson was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He had NO part it its authorship, or in the debate during the drafting of that ducument.
Jefferson was ambassador to France during the Constitutional Debate and Ratification.
Heh, and at 9:33, look at the posts on this thread, and the open thread.
God and guns, god and guns.
I guess I might as well make the trifecta complete.
God, guns and gays. Yep, nothing like it to keep the posters going here.
“Will Obama swear on a Koran or a Bible when he is inaugurated?”
Nice smear there Max. And you get points for lying. Obama is well known as being self identified as a christian.
But dont let the truth stand in the way of your flag waving.
Or should it be flag flogging?
Apparantly blatent lies are all part of our oh so christian culture?
See my post above about the actions matching the words.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
pmom
It is YOUR Constitution as well as mine.
I just want you to understand the motives of those who drafted and ratified that document.
Political Mom hasnt posted anywhere on this thread. That’s the second time you’ve made that mistake paulie. I’m sure all women look alike to you in the dark, but trust me, we are different.
And no, it’s NOT my constitution too. I dont have equal protection under the law, remember? You and your “freedom loveing” christian brothers and sisters made it so.
You’ve been on a roll here lately with yer lies, mistatements and backpeds. What up boy? Gearing up for the election? Sharpening up the old lie and spin machine?
Or just paniced at the coming economic problems?
Better git ta prayin’…
“Twas the divine guidance of his noodly appendage that steadied the hand that put ink to quill to parchment.”
Lasagntation 2:4
sorry farm girlMy mistake, you got me.
Sorry also, Pmom
But farmgirl, it is YOUR constitution too.
Just because you might not have been able to relate to those who drafted the documentment, does not mean that it does not serve you as well.
Again, my apologies.
Will Obama swear on a Koran or a Bible when he is inaugurated?He professes to be Christian if that answers your question, but then you asking the question show a level of ignorance that is attributed to Christianity as a whole. Stupidity knows no race, religion, party affiliation or nationality. It is a species unto its self!
And, farmgirl, we do all make some mistakes when it comes to atribution.
As a Christian, and a Conservative, I can find no fault with the editorial by Meachem. This was indeed a nation createdas a nation of Christians, but not a Christian nation. Intentionally so. A great number of the founders were men of faith. Some Publicly, some more privately. Reading their writings leave little doubt. However, their belief was that faith was for the individual, and in a matter for the individual to choose. So, it was not any of the governments business.
Back to Obama:
Why is it OK for him to talk openly about his faith, yet you attack others, on the Right, for doing the same thing, some of you?
littlejohn
The founders felt that denomination selection was NONE of the FEDERAL government’s business.
Many of the individual States DID have “official” denominations.
That continued for quite some time after Ratification.
Many of the framers of the Constitution were no doubt Christians, but they were also smart enough to know that mixing government and religion would bring a quick end to the great experiment!
Following is a speech referencing the Treaty of Tripoli and the men who framed it.
“From our perspective these men may be heroes, but in truth the vote they cast was ordinary, routine, normal. It was, in other words, quite well accepted, only a few years after first the Constitution and then the First Amendment were ratified, that “the Government of the United States of America was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” After a bloody and costly civil war and the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment determined that citizens of the United States cannot have their rights abridged by state or local governments either, religious liberty for all was established. Governmental neutrality in matters of religion remains the enduring basis for that liberty.”
Ed Buckner, TreasurerAtlanta Freethought Society
(:19 J R invites God to weigh in.
Waiting…
Farmgirl
You have a right to own property.
You have a right to worship as you please.
You have a right, here to say what you think.
You also have the right to work towards changing any of your laws that you don’t like.
The Constituion DOES belong to all of us.
Hillary is the one questioning Barrack’s religion:
Hillary’s team has questions about Obama’s Muslim background
Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm
typo.
The invitation to God to weigh in here was issued at 9:19.
STILL waiting.
The founders felt that denomination selection was NONE of the FEDERAL government’s business.
Many of the individual States DID have “official” denominations.
That continued for quite some time after Ratification.
Posted by: Econ101 | October 09, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Yes. I agree. Your point is?
Heheheh. So when it comes to equal protection under the law, and the constitution applying to ALL americans…
… he thinks the “Three out of four” average aint bad?
I wonder how he’d feel if only SOME of the bill of rights would apply to him?
Would he just sit down, shut up, and be satifsifed he hadnt lost ONE HUNDERD PERCENT of his liberty?
heheheheh. Meltdown predicted in 3..2…1…
Or maybe he’ll just lie?
I wonder if Max checks under the bed everynight to make sure the boogy men, Hillary and Obama, arent there?
Bed wetter.
Most likely both on that KFG.
“…he’s not sure what Christian sect is associated with the Scotch-Irish wave of immigrants).”
CF2K — I think that would probably be the “presbyterian” branch from Scotland and Ireland(the protestant part of Ireland)
MAX — WHY would you think Obama would swear on a Koran??? That would be reserved for Moslems… And as for Hillary using a Bible or not?? I suppose you are quite aware, that there is no legal requirement that ANY public official SWEAR on any kind of religious document… or ANY document… Please do some research before proving your stupidity to the Blog???
ATTENTION ALL RIGHT WINGERS!!!
The Declaration of Independence has NO MENTION of a Christian Deity….
The Constitution of the United States has NO MENTION OF GOD or no mention of JESUS, or CHRISTIANITY, or BIBLE… or ANY thing religious… except that there SHALL be freedom of religion, and that Congress shall make NO LAW regarding RELIGION…
In FACT… There is one Article of the Constitution that explicitly states that RELIGION shall NOT be used as a test of appointment of Judges to public office…
The Constitution is NOT AGAINST RELIGION… It is just against RELIGION being governed by the STATE, and, in reverse, the STATE being governed by RELIGION!!
Given the history of those who made up the founding fathers, my guess is that they were very afraid that RELIGION would take control of the STATE, unless there was some rule of LAW to prevent it… Thus, the First Amendment!! They did not want their collective PAST to haunt their unknown, but hopeful future!
my guess is that they were very afraid that RELIGION would take control of the STATE, unless there was some rule of LAW to prevent it…Posted by: Chas. | October 09, 2007 at 10:19 AM
My guess is that they were very afraid that the STATE would take control of Religion,, unless there was some rule of LAW to prevent it.
Thus, the First Amendment!! They did not want their collective PAST to haunt their unknown, but hopeful future!
But we are not afraid of Obama forming his Kingdom in the USA.
Here is a history of the “Treaty of Tripoli” — The language of the original treaty, in the English version, lasted only 11 years.
It is important to note that the Arabic translation of said Treaty does NOT contain the “Article 11″ problematic clause.
Even so, YES, the American copy of said Treaty did contain rather strange language, hard to understand by today’s standards.
It is important to remember that the Barbary Pirates acted under Moslem Law: They felt the Koran ORDERED them to capture men of rival religions and force their countries to pay ransom!
“Sharia Law” commmands that “infidels” pay homage, or tax, to the Moslems.
This Treaty simply made clear that America was not controlled by any particular Christian denomination. It went unstated that the American Citizens were largely, even overwhelmingly, of Christian heritage.
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html
I am sure that the Atheists on this Blog will have some trouble with this explanation, but here it is:
The Treaty, itself, was written under duress, for the survival of the young American country, while our people in the shipping industry were literally being held hostage by hostile Moslems!
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html
It should also be noted that this Treaty was designed, in large measure, to counter the French, British and other European powers who were actually encouraging the Pirates to capture American ships.
Chas, why are you yelling “ATTENTION ALL RIGHT WINGERS!!!”What you’ve stated is exactly what I consider most “Right Wingers” to believe. That’s certainly what I believe about our Constitution. We just don’t agree with the secular progressive left trying to deny anyone associated with government from even expressing a faith belief, only with respect to Christianity it seems.
I’ll check back in later to see if God ever weighs in. If he does tell him sorry I missed him.
In the meantime, didn’t Jesus say something about praying in a closet? I don’t think he meant rummage through other people’s closets though.
Our founders wanted
“Freedom of Religion, not freedom FROM religion” —-
who said that?
Al GORE!(among others)
“There are no true athiests”
There are no true Christians in politics. Because if you really believe you’re spending eternity in heaven, why would you concern yourselves with the affairs of your 80 year stay on Earth? You should do the polite thing and leave the administration of this planet to those of us who believe this is all we have.
and door king:
“However, if they want to gibber and drool about dinosaurs on the Ark, let them.”
Dinosaurs were too big to fit on the ark, that’s why they died out :)
By the way, those who favor the tenets of a Theocracy in this country are known as Dominionists… Some call them Reconstructionists…
Their current leader is the Senior Pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida. One of their founders was a gentleman named Rushdooney, in 1973… His son-in-law, Gary North, has led the fight up until now…
They are fighting for CHRISTIAN domination of ALL legal and legislative bodies in the United States…. These are scary folks!! This is but a small sample of their ideology, from an article by Chris Hedges, in 2004:
“Rushdooney was deeply antagonistic to the federal government. He believed the federal government should concern itself with little more than national defense. Education and social welfare should be handed over to the churches. Biblical law must replace the secular legal code. This ideology remains at the heart of the movement. It is being enacted through school vouchers, with federal dollars now going into Christian schools, and the assault against the federal agencies that deal with poverty and human services. The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is currently channeling millions in federal funds to groups such Pat Robertson’s Operation Blessing , and National Right to Life, as well as to fundamentalist religious charity organizations and programs promoting sexual abstinence.”
Look familiar??? It should!! We have been seeing it all throughout this Administration…
For a longer look at this Christian Fundamentalist movement to take over our Country >>>>
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/ChristianRight_AmerFascism.html
Read this, and either cry for our children, or shout for joy for your delusional beliefs… It’s difficult to ignore this one way or the other…
The invitation to God to weigh in here was issued at 9:19.
STILL waiting.
Posted by: J R | October 09, 2007 at 10:04 AM
“And they bowed the knee before Him and mocked Him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ Then they spat on Him, and took the reed and struck Him on the head. And when they had mocked Him, they took the robe off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him away to be crucified.” Matthew 27:29-31
JR: Your god is not answering you. It may not know you.
If you wish, I can introduce you to the one true God, who is known by many names, among them: Father, God, I Am, Jehovah, Yahweh, Emmanuel, Alpha and Omega, Lion of Judea, The Way, Bread of Life, The Truth, The Light, Savior, The Vine, Creator, Good Shepherd, JESUS, Prince of Peace, Last Adam, The Word, All Consuming Fire, The Christ.
Just say the word.
…here’s a little food for thought for ya. Completes the trifecta I think.
http://www.planetout.com/entertainment/news/?sernum=5776&navpath=/entertainment/popcornq
Oh, and I’m not mocking Jesus. I AM mocking his “followers”.
I have friends who pray every morning “Jesus, please save me from your followers”….
The invitation to God to weigh in here was issued at 9:19.
STILL waiting.
Posted by: J R | October 09, 2007 at 10:04 AM
“We’re going to keep onpraising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom righthere on Earth.”
Obama confessed and asked the crowd to”pray that I can be an instrument of God” as he ran for president.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/obama.faith/
“However, the principles of society and social change is very much founded on primarily Christian influence.”
My Cherokee ancesters can definitely attest to that.
“the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”Posted by Phillip Brownlee
I would disagree with Phillip’s last sentence, but agree with his heading. Besides the many comments above on the constitution, much of our law ise based upon our founders Christian beliefs. Examples would be laws against murder, stealing, and yes homosexuality. These laws came from the beliefs of the founders as they experienced life. And that life was greatly influenced by their religion. Today, I would say we are a nation composed largely of Christians but we are not a Christian nation.
“Chas, why are you yelling
“ATTENTION ALL RIGHT WINGERS!!!”"
Mark — MOST Right Wingers beleive that the nation is founded on CHRISTIAN principles… It is my belief that it was founded on principles of the kind of Christianity that the founders of this nation wanted to AVOID… principles of a State Run Church/Church Run State… from which they had escaped to find FREEDOM FROM a Church Run State… What they escaped FROM was a world dominated by a Church Dominated STATE, where the King of England was also the head of the Church of England… but, Crowned King by the CHURCH…
JR, You can chill out now and please stop whining. For the record I could give a shit about politics
Econ — What is hard for you to understand, that Freedom OF Religion, is the exact same thing as Freedom FROM Religion… It is all a matter of being FREE to choose religion, or NO religion… I dont care if Al Gore, or Bertrand Russell said it!!
I found it interesting that ALL of the US presidents claimed a religion that is considered a christian denomination.
Catholics are the largest percentage of the current US population (24.5%) but only one POTUS has been Catholic.
Also, 3 of the last 4 Democrats in office have been Baptist.
I was surprised that Nixon was a Quaker.
http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html
Good Grief, the sock puppets are out of the drawer, and its not even Noon yet!! Geez!!
Chas, the religious expert?
You keep wanting to go out and profess your religious expertise, yet you do not want your prefession attacked.
Can’t have it both ways boy.
True rfl — even had one or two somewhere in history that were Unitarians… :-)
“However, the principles of society and social change is very much founded on primarily Christian influence.”Posted by: Ben
Would you say the same is true of the changes removing sodomy laws? Was that influenced by Christian beliefs? Same as marriage for gays or civil unions?
Mike Herron(or whoever you are) what does my profession have to do with HISTORY??? Eh???
Let Us Pray:
Dear God,
Of all the thousands of gods worshiped by all the billions of people throughout history, please let the god I was taught to believe in be the real one and may all the others be big fat phonies. Amen.
Chas again with his sock puppet rant.
Next he’ll tell us he has to go to work, or to lunch, or goodnight, but he never really ever leaves.
Next Chas will START USING ALL CAPS!
Okay, everyone who thinks this is a Christian nation do me a favor. Read the first commandment. Read it twice just to make sure you understand it. Then tell me if that is the primary foundation of U.S. law.
“Examples would be laws against murder, stealing, and yes homosexuality.”
Ummm Doom and whoever, These have been universal laws of all civilizations regardless of religious persuasion… The same laws would be also true for followers of Zeus, or Zoroaster
So what is the foundation for determining what is right and what is wrong?
Doom and ??? Check out ALL of the lawgivers depicted on the building of the SCOTUS…. The ONLY one directly associated with Judeo/Christian history is Moses… Please note that Moses is only ONE among many…. That should be some sort of a clue…
Examples would be laws against murder, stealing, and yes homosexuality.”
Ummm Doom and whoever, These have been universal laws of all civilizations regardless of religious persuasion… The same laws would be also true for followers of Zeus, or Zoroaster
Posted by: Chas. | October 09, 2007 at 10:59 AM
So, Homosexuality is against the laws of Zeus Zoraster, and all civilizations?
Interesting question, Mike Herron… It would seem from a historical perspective that MANY historical civilizations have contributed to a somewhat universal understanding of basic laws of right and wrong… See what I posted re: the SCOTUS building… There is a definite clue there… IF you want to see it…. If not, continue in your own small delusional existence…
As with any candidate, one must look at the environment in which Obama made these comments. These are type of things said by most candidates to a group of people meeting in a church. It’s not at all unusual. It’s very common. To question it is ridiculous.
Are there any non-Christian candidates for president? Haven’t pretty much each one of them been asked and answered about their religious beliefs?
Is that how people vote? “He’s a Baptist, so I’ll vote for him.” “I’ll only vote for someone who quotes the Bible.”
Wouldn’t it be better to vote for a person who has done the most good for their country? Does it really matter if they go to church every Sunday? Will you only vote for someone who attends both Sunday services AND Wednesday night Bible study AND sings in the choir?
Chasyou are simply wrong
Freedom of and Freedom from do not mean the same thing.
Not at all.
And the pan was upturned and upset. And the lasagnists did roam at last free. And the sauce was the evening and the morning. And parmesan did rain as manna unto them. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster beheld this and did say “Cool dudes! Rock on!”
Raviolations 3:6
RAMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, LJ, if you want to get hung up on homosexuality, or sexuality in general, such laws have basically been effected not by NATIONS, but by religious sects within NATIONS… exfept for those nations that are ruled by RELIGIOUS LAWS…. Check your history books on that one… If you dare –
In earlier times, many groups considered homosexuality as a threat to the procreation of their own people… and thus, believed it was harmful to their own future… Many times, laws are passed to protect the future birth rate of a people, or nation, or religious belief… Sort of like Catholics being opposed to Birth Control(which many of them still want to see be made illegal – according to the Right to Life folks)….
Econ, so would Freedom of Not Having a Religion work okay for you?
Freedom of and Freedom from do not mean the same thing.
Not at all.
Posted by: Econ101 | October 09, 2007 at 11:05 AM
=======================
And just what planet did you wake up on this morning, Econ??? Why not do a simple grammatical check of the intent of the phrases??? I think you will see who is wrong…
Freedom OF Religion… means the Freedom to believe and practice whatever religion you wish….
Freedom FROM Religion…. the Freedom to NOT practice religion or have it forcedon you if you dont want to….
Now, where in the heck do you see any ACTUAL difference in the two??? Huh???
RoxThat works just fine.
I am the first to admit the mistakes that Religious leaders have made.
They are human, and they will make mistakes.
And if you want no religion at all, for yourself? Fine.
“Freewill” was given by God.
Who am I to deny that gift to anyone?
I just don’t like it when Government becomes hostile towards religion.
That is not everyone’s intent, on the left.
You must admit, however, that cleansing the public square of religion, entirely, is the goal of some.
Actually, LJ, if you want to get hung up on homosexuality, or sexuality in general, such laws have basically been effected not by NATIONS, but by religious sects within NATIONS… exfept for those nations that are ruled by RELIGIOUS LAWS…. Check your history books on that one… If you dare –
Posted by: Chas. | October 09, 2007 at 11:09 AM
I am not humg up about homosexuality, even though I disagree with it. I just thought your remark was quite telling, because it was true. I know of now civilization that has given homosexual marriage or partnership the same character or position as heterosexual marriage. However, and you know this, I have stated that the US should give the right of civil union, or marriage, to all couples, regardless of sexualy pairings.I don;t need to look up the history of homosexual marriages, because I beleive homosexuals in the here and now should be granted the right to do so.
And, Econ, I am NOT going to sit here and split infinitives with you either…. Just admit it… they are the same concept…. Both covered under the great and profound First Amendment…. Hoooray!!! I dont want religion FORCED on anybody… and I want to be free to practice the Religion I believe…
Back in 2000 John Ashcroft spoke “We have no King but Jesus” at a christian university. He was ridiculed for that comment. Many Democrats claimed he was unfit for office because he believed that authority came from Jesus Christ and not from earthly leaders.
“Clearly, John Ashcroft’s speech shows that he has little or no appreciation for the constitutional separation of church and state,”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200102/ai_n8935930
There is an old adage that tells; “if you want to know what the democrats are up to, look at what they are accusing others of doing.” Hence we have Obama’s quote:
“Pray that I may be an Instrument of God,…We can create a Kingdom on Earth,”
“And the Flying Spaghetti Monster was alone and without forum. And He spoke into the silence, “this is like, boring”
And he did move his noodly appendage and lo sprang from the nothingness, moountains. And on these mountains were there trees.And the lord said. “I’ll like make a guy to look at the trees and like write about them and stuff. Because that would be way cool.”
Al dente 1:5
‘leftcoaster’Maybe you should try reading the Bible, then you could easily answer your own question of why Christians are concerned about the affairs of this life though confident of eternity in heaven.It was Jesus commission on earth and the commission he gave to us. His instructions to his disciples were to go into the world, tell his story and be witnesses of the power of the Gospel message. Here, let me give you a place to start, Gospel of Matthew, chapter 28:18-20. According to the Gospel of Mark, in verses 15 and 16, Jesus says: “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be damned.”Pretty blunt, huh? Ha, I love it.Many unfortunately get very angry when they hear it, others like myself and other Christians, and by the way many of our country’s founders, are/were not angered but comfortable hearing and believing that.
LJ — thats what I thought you had said earlier, and why I was a little surprised at your earlier comment… By the way, most of the Scandanavian countries have given gay marriage the EQUAL status of heterosexual marriage… in fact, in a couple of them, NON MARRIED heterosexuals have equal rights to MARRIED heterosexuals… I thought that was a neat discovery I found out about only recently….
It also makes Brownback’s stupid argument quite FALSE… as he most likely already knows, but just wants to use his claims to further divide people…
In contrast to Ashcroft’s King, who will be the King of Obama’s Kingdom here on earth?
“Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be damned.”– posted by Mark –
Mark, I guess you realize that the biggest difference between Christians and Moslems on that particular point, is that the Moslems now days want to speed up the “will be damned” part of that commission, which they believe they were given by Muhammed..
In earlier centuries, many Christians ALSO sped up the “will be damned” part of the commission…. Conquistadors, and to some extent, even the Congregationalists in Hawaii….
Mark, that is pretty blunt, and pretty much what I heard growing up from the fundies who didn’t like how I dressed or the music I listened to. Tell me, did Jesus say to spread the word, or did he say to enforce the word with the apparatus of government?
The former is fine, if you’re pushing for the latter we have a problem.
In contrast to Ashcroft’s King, who will be the King of Obama’s Kingdom here on earth?
Posted by: rfl | October 09, 2007 at 11:19 AM
=======================
rfl — IF you understand the words of Jesus to his followers who were seeking the “new” Kingdom, he said to them: “The Kingdom of God is within you(or “in your midst” – depending on the translation)
That KING is self understood as GOD…. simple enough???
Obama is calling on people to embrace God’s Kingdom, which is already “In” us, or “among” us… He is not looking to make a NEW Kingdom… because as a good member of a Reformed denomination, he recognizes that the Kingdom of God is ALREADY HERE….
Preach on, my Pastafarian brothers and sisters. Also there’s not enough pirates on this forum. Arrrrrrr…
:)
BTW, as a follow up to what I posted yesterday, this kind of thought is known as “realized eschatology” — not a future coming kingdom of God, but the Here and Now Kingdom of God… and yet, a Kingdom that will one day be brought to some kind of Eternal existence… Not an END of the world, but rather, a NEW BEGINNING….
Chas…you still aren’t listening or understanding. Here, I’ll shout.This country WAS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES, but it was not founded as a Christian country, or any other religion. It was not to have any man made religion as it’s government. Understand?
“”Freewill” was given by God.”
That’s debatable. Not that I disagree, but…
“I just don’t like it when Government becomes hostile towards religion.”
Is it? I haven’t noticed that. Could you cite an example?
“You must admit, however, that cleansing the public square of religion, entirely, is the goal of some.”
I assume you’re referring to the “War on Christmas” and the display of the 10 Commandments in government buildings? My answer? Allow all or allow none. I believe that would follow the First Ammendment.
Hey leftcoaster, bring on the Pasta!!! and the FREEDOM it brings with it!! LOL
Understand?
Posted by: Mark | October 09, 2007 at 11:27 AM
===================
YES Mark… That is my argument totally!!
because as a good member of a Reformed denomination, he recognizes that the Kingdom of God is ALREADY HERE….
Posted by: Chas. | October 09, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Your denominaitonal or at least theological bias is showing
Rereading the First Amendment, as it applies to the apparent discussion hereinabove, I am struck by its opening words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”, which in my reading and opinion, clearly states that there shall not be a national religion imposed upon the citizens, and the citizens shall be free to exercise their personal religious beliefs, free from the heavy hand of government. To me, this is stating both there shall be freedom from a state imposed religion, and there shall be freedom of the individual to believe in whatever religion he (at the time) so wished. Clearly, there cannot be freedom OF religion without freedom FROM (a state imposed) religion.
Econ, Mr. Jefferson’s status as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention is of little moment to this discussion, IMHO; for the “Bill of Rights” was enacted by the Congress in its first session, at which time Mr. Jefferson was Secretary of State, admittedly not a member of Congress, but was present in the country, and while I’m speculating here, I’m sure his thoughts were formed on the same by conversations he had with the then-members, including, I suspect but have no foundation for asserting other than as speculation, James Madison. As you are a student of history, I’m sure you will remember Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson were the authors of the Virginia Religious Freedom Statute, which, to my mind, is a good guide to his (as well as Mr. Madison’s) thinking on the subject.
Ummm Doom and whoever, These have been universal laws of all civilizations regardless of religious persuasion… The same laws would be also true for followers of Zeus, or ZoroasterPosted by: Chas.
Oh good. Hey Ben!! It wasn’t the Christianity taught to your Cherokee ancesters. It was Zeus!
Rox — O’Reilly is just late getting his anti-christmas crap started this year… he has had a few distractions — something about him lying about things on the air??? and threatening those who disagree with him… LOL I am sure if O’Reilly doesnt get it started, Glenn Beck or Hannity will soon!! LOL
Mark – I have to disagree with you about there are no atheists adn it is impossible to be one.
I am not an atheist but I know of several people who claim to be and that is their right, under our Constitution.
Your comment that there is a God and only a fool would think otherwise is rather broad and arrogant, don’t you think?
Perhaps it is this type of thinking that our founding fathers wanted every American citizen to be protected from. You have no right to simply say someone is a fool if they do not beleive in the God that you believe in. You have your freedom of religion and the other person has that exact same right.
Christians need to stop worrying about how they are being persecuted and start living their lives like the Christ they profess to believe in. Perhaps more people would be willing to listen to the Christians if they stopped their bellyaching, adultering, lying and cheating long enough to see that their actions speak louder than their words.
Indy — I agree with that… Mark might want to read Matthew 6.
^5 to both leftcoaster and indy. Well said, gentlemen (or gentlewomen/gentleman & gentlewoman, ad nauseum.)
pretty much what I heard growing up from the fundies who didn’t like how I dressed or the music I listened to.Posted by: leftcoaster
Unfortunately, the fundies you describe were not preaching the Gospel of JC when they told you what to where and dress. Not the commandment Mark address from JC the man!
He is the enforcer. No one on this earth.
Chas-
While there is much in Mathew 6 to aspire, and much difficulty in doing so, How does it negate Mathew 28? I see how it agrees with Indys’ post, but how does it link with Max’s?
because as a good member of a Reformed denomination, he [Obama] recognizes that the Kingdom of God is ALREADY HERE….
-Chas
Chas,
Please read carefully what Obama said and not what you want him to have said:
“We can CREATE a Kingdom on Earth,” [emphasis added]
VT
This Blog seems to demand a “black and white” explanation for everything.
Historical quotes and historical figures must be taken in context.
There is much “grey area” here.
A “Cafeteria Catholic” as a nun once told me, is a Catholic that picks and chooses which parts of the faith to honor.
Let me coin a phrase: “Cafeteria Constitutionalist”.
We are all guilty of it, to some extent.
From my point of view, the government has become, at times, somewhat hostile towards religion.
If I was sure that the “status quo” would remain, I could live with that.
However, I sometimes feel the need to “push back” just to maintain what we have.
If a particular denomination began to dominate?
Well, then, I too would object.
Somehow, I just don’t see that happening.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with churches or individuals placing manger scenes in their yards at Christmas time. I will admit that I find some of them rather garish and wonder if there isn’t some idolatry going on, but it’s not a big thing, just a thought now and then. None of that belongs in a government building.
However, I wonder how many people would appreciate their neighbor’s display of a 6 foot mennorah or pentacle?
As for the 10 Commandments, they don’t belong in government buildings. However, maybe if they were reduced to the 3 that George Carlin boils them down to would work. Then they are basically moral standards that civilization attempts to adhere to.
And,
It is hard to argue for “gray” when everyone else wants either black or white.
listen to the Christians if they stopped their bellyaching, adultering, lying and cheating long enough to see that their actions speak louder than their words.Posted by: indy
If any man says he lives without sin, he is a liar, and the truth is not in him
““Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be damned.”Pretty blunt, huh? Ha, I love it.”-Mark
That says a lot about you Mark, and it’s not good. Christian fundamentalists who love the idea that people who don’t agree with their world and theological viewpoints are damned. That Timothy LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins’ Left Behind series sold so well is an unfortunate testament to this attitude being all too common (although by no means universal) among conservative Christians.
“We can CREATE a Kingdom on Earth,” [emphasis added]
Posted by: rfl | October 09, 2007 at 11:40 AM
==========================
Right rfl… Create – bring about – bring to birth – that Kingdom ALREADY WITHIN… Look, it’s a Reformed Theology thing… I heard Obama’s speech… I know what he said, and I know what he meant… Try a google hit on “realized eschatology” — That might help you understand his statement…
I can assure you Obama is most clear that HE cannot create a Kingdom on Earth… That is not a part of his Theology, or his understanding… He is very much a part of the Reformed Theology school of thought… as is his Pastor/Mentor, Jeremiah Wright…
Better yet, rfl, try a hit on Juergen Moltmann… that might help too…
Indy and Chas, come on you guys, or gals, you are NOT paying attention. I never said it was not an individual’s right not to believe in God. Also, please take note of whether or not the word ‘god’ is capitalized or not. It makes a world of difference. What I said was everyone has a god, be it God, or some other god, or making one out of their own ideologies, money, sex, work, whatever. I personally believe in God, capitalized in a big way, and to me it is foolish to not see the world through that prism. “Arrogant”, maybe, but that’s certainly how I feel and I rather prefer to think of it as strong confidence anyway. What kind of a faith would I have not to be confident? I don’t resent anyone not thinking or believing like I do. Whether they like it or not I more pity them but don’t express that openly unless ask.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/a-nation-of-chr.html#comment-85755424
LJ I dont know that Mt. 6 negates Mt. 28 — different matters… In Mt. 28, Jesus talks about disciples… or followers… BTW, Mt. 28 does not talk about “making converts” but making disciples, or followers…
Mt. 6 talks about how NOT to show off your religion in public… I think that is quite important, especially with the upcoming flurry of holiday complaining… usually done more by believers than non-believers…
Chas,Remember those bumper stickers a few years ago that read “In Case of Rapture, May I Have Your Car?”
That’s basically what the christian “will be damneders” have done for centuries- sent them awful pagans straight to hell (often on a trumped-up pretext of human sacrifice, Papism, heresy or cannibalism etc.), then taken over management of their earthly goods, daughters and real estate. All for the profits of God, no doubt.Even today, missionaries are telling the people of Oceania and elsewhere that their pagan religious artifacts are tools of Satan, and offer to dispose of them cheaply. They’re then shipped back to the states or Europe, where they’re auctioned off to collectors for millions of dollars and the proceeds deposited in church coffers!
Chas-
While I see your point about the Holiday complaining, and I agree that it gets way out of line, I also believe that as American citizens, we have a right to redress, and that includes how people of faith (all of them) and no faith are treated. And if we do not like how our faith, or lack of faith, is treated, we have the right to do so as citizens. Now, I also believe that you have to pick your fights. Much of the complaining is in my opinion, much ado about nothing. (ah the American way) However, it is often seen as the camels’s nose under the tent. We must be just as respectful of those who have belief, as those who do not. I have seen a trend of just the opposite.
‘ksagnostic’Not my words buddy…Matthew, chapter 28:18-20 and Mark 16: 15-16, those are Jesus words. Don’t argue with me…argue with HIM, or are you already?
Even today, missionaries are telling the people of Oceania and elsewhere that their pagan religious artifacts are tools of Satan, and offer to dispose of them cheaply. They’re then shipped back to the states or Europe, where they’re auctioned off to collectors for millions of dollars and the proceeds deposited in church coffers!
Posted by: Jed | October 09, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Please provide some background (and if possible–a link) for this
Chas, they found your brain!
Brain Found in Bag Outside Virginia Apartment Complex
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300478,00.html
We have been blessed throughout our history because we as a people followed the will of God. As we have moved away from God, by allowing removal of Prayer from schools, promoting alternative lifestyles etc., we have put ourselves and our nation in the postion where God will no longer favor us as he has in the past.
Our Christina beleifs are central to our success. It is not for me to judge others, but make no mistake, there will be a time when we all stand before our lord and are required to account for our actions here on earth.
What will You have to say?
Boy… I think these people should stop and look around… God is definetly doing something…
Then again… we don’t act like a Christian nation either…
I don’t resent anyone not thinking or believing like I do. Whether they like it or not I more pity them but don’t express that openly unless ask.
Posted by: Mark |
You sound like a fundamental Baptist – are you? That arrogant air of feeling pity for people who do not believe as you do is exactly why the founding fathers put the freedom of religion into our Constitution.
Why do you have to use your religion to feel superior to others? Is that really what your God means to you?
You know what, I attended a fundamental Baptist church and even went to a private Baptist college and I have seen your type before.
I pity you more than anyone that does not believe the way I do.
I left the fundamental Baptist church because they became too arrogant, selfish and always wanted to attack others in the name of God. I do not believe God intended people to sit back in judgment and almost take delight in ‘pitying’ someone else because of their religious beliefs.
Oh, BTW, at that private Baptist college, the married Dean ran away with his pregnant secretary, the married Music Director ran away with his homosexual boyfriend, the College President’s kid was the one you went to for drugs.
Again, I say the Christians need to stop worrying about their perceived persecution and start living their lives like the Christ they profess to believe in.
What will You have to say?
Posted by: We do beleive | October 09, 2007 at 12:42 PM========================
Yep, thats the way…. Hang right in there with all of the other fundies…. No Prayer in school doesnt mean GOD isnt there… It’s not promoting alternative lifestyles… it is allowing them…. And if your Church doesnt WANT those lifestyles, your Freedom of Religion allows you the Freedom to NOT allow those life styles in YOUR CHURCH…. Remember, YOUR CHURCH does not, and SHOULD not speak for the entire nation… THAT, whoever you are, is the problem being addressed in this Thread….
YOUR objections are the very things the First Amendment protects the rest of us from being forced to endure…. Should you ever get into a government position, please remember the Constitution you take an oath to uphold…
LJ,Some few years ago I attended such an auction with an anthropologist friend, conducted twice a year by a Baptist missionary group in Tulsa. My friend had been working on the Sepik river in New Guinea when some of these artifacts were acquired and told me the circumstances. I tried to keep a running total of the day’s proceeds, but lost count at just over $24,000,000. There were literally tons of carvings up for sale there.
we have put ourselves and our nation in the postion where God will no longer favor us as he has in the past. We do beleive
God, in the Christian sense is not a respector of nations. Geez people, that’s what gets everyone into wars! God is not a respecter of persons. Render unto Caesar sort of thing. He could care less.
Jesus Christ did not come here to save the United States. He came to save individuals who decide to believe in Him (Romans 10:9-10).
Get over yourselves. You can be conservative and NOT be classified as a —–nut!!!!
Those denominations that have denied women the ability to be ministers have gained in membership from 1960 to 2002. While those that have allowed women to be ministers have lost numbers in membership during the same period. Mark J. Penn (2007, pages 53 – 56).
Max was asking the other day why Hillary would need lessons on Southern Baptists. They were “gaining” members during the above trend. She is no doubt looking for what appeals to them ideologically. Mark J. Penn is one of her campaign advisers.
Penn advised the 1996 Bill Clinton campaign. He is the man who John Edwards called the “Clinton Karl Rove.”
Destroying symbols of other religions … isn’t that one of the actions we condemned the Taliban for?
Emb. Christian — Take that one step farther… Try out John 3:16… God so loved the world(greek word is Kosmos/Universe) that God gave God’s only Son….”
So, not only did God not save the USA, or Canada, or Great Britain… God SAVED THE UNIVERSE, according to the Gospel of John…. We could argue about the intent of Johannine Theology, but it would just waste blog space… So, Yes, I agree with you… people need to get over their Falwell-itis… That God is punishing America… Yea, right… And if that is true, why not punishing the Republicans who get caught with their pants down, and their feet tapping in men’s rooms?? LOL God is no respector of persons, or nations, or denominations, or independent congregations…. God is King of the Universe… Lord of Lords!!
By the way ‘ksagnostic’I don’t wish anyone damned.My comment of ‘Pretty blunt, huh? Ha, I love it’, was simply an expression of appreciation of the clarity and authority with which it was spoken. I meant no expression of delight over someone being lost. And even with the power of the Gospel to quote I am not in anyway judging. I have plenty enough problems of my own. I meant no offense to you.
So, 1st Amendment rights allow you to pray wherever you want to.
1. Muslims are given time during the day during work to kneel on their rugs toward Mecca and pray.
2. Yet Christian kids are expelled from school for praying.
Freedom OF religion is exhibited by item #1.
Freedom FROM religion is exhibited by item #2.
What many in the US want is #2, freedom From religion. No one should be subject to such dangerous displays, such as seeing someone silently praying, wearing a crucifix, or reading a Bible.
Destroying symbols of other religions … isn’t that one of the actions we condemned the Taliban for?
Posted by: Ben | October 09, 2007 at 01:02 PM
========================
Yep Ben… we sure did, and we do now… But the American Taliban seem to see themselves as above such condemnations… LOL
See, some groups of Christians have massive rallies to demand Prayer in Schools!!! Why??? I dont know!!
But now, along come some Moslem groups who want to allow for Prayer time for Moslem kids in schools…. And the first ones to object??? YOU GOT IT…. those same Christian groups who wanted Prayer in the schools for THEIR KIDS….
And that is WHY we dont have prayers in the public schools!!! Either we have it for ALL, or we do the right thing, and have it for NONE…. And I do hope we dont allow it for the Moslem Kids any more than we do for other religions….
If we DO, I will be right up front griping about that too!!!
“2. Yet Christian kids are expelled from school for praying.”
Gee, that’s funny. I have personally observed children praying and have never seen one expelled. Also I don’t recall mass expulsions after the flagpole event recently.
“such as seeing someone silently praying, wearing a crucifix, or reading a Bible.”
I see those daily at work – doesn’t phase me in the least.
And I do hope we dont allow it for the Moslem Kids any more than we do for other religions….
Me too! Six times a day? And they aren’t content to just quietly fold their hands at their desk.
Nope, they gotta get on their knees and face east!
The whole time mumbling in tongues or some such nonsense.
why not punishing the Republicans who get caught with their pants down, and their feet tapping in men’s rooms??
why not punishing the democrats who got caught with their pants down, and a Monica in a blue dress on her knees in the white house?
It’s alwasy your choice, but we are accountable to God for OUR choice.
We already did that Zap… He lost his law license, didnt he??? And as far as I know, he doesnt have it back yet…
The Supreme Court has ruled that we will not have School Sponsored Prayer… it did not ban prayer in the school…. individuals can do as they wish… I wish people would get this one straight in their heads, before they complain about something that doesnt exist…
That being said, IF the schools were to provide a place, time, and means for Moslem students, or any others, to have a prayer time in the middle of the school day… or, in other words, the School making TIME and space available for Prayer… Then that is a problem… whether it is for Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Christians, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster Pasta Prayer…
“He lost his law license, didnt he??? And as far as I know, he doesnt have it back yet…”Posted by: Chas.
Wow, that is some heavy punishment. Tell him he cannot practice law; something he was probably not going to do anyway. But don’t worry we send him a paycheck every month.
So, not only did God not save the USA, or Canada, or Great Britain… God SAVED THE UNIVERSE
By the way, that’s what is meant by the term, “the heavens and the earth”.
‘Indy’, where are you coming up with all that junk that fills you writing?Pity, the definition; “Sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or suffering of another”. That is an opinion I have for anyone that doesn’t hold faith. Am I not entitled to an opinion just like you? And where did I ever indicate I felt ’superior’ to you or anyone that doesn’t think like me. I didn’t. You are simply heading off on weird tangents because of existing prejudices you hold. Take a deep breath, or several, and rejoin the discussion when you’ve calmed down some.
And we sent a paycheck to Nixon every month too… and look what he did to our nation… Clinton didnt hurt the nation, or our national security….
And just think, we will have to pay Bush, too!! And Cheney!!
Anyone who believes there isn’t prayer in schools hasn’t been there during finals.
“He lost his law license, didnt he??? And as far as I know, he doesnt have it back yet…”Posted by: Chas.
I’m sorry Chas, I though you said “That God is punishing America” and then mentioned the republicans with their pants down.
That’s a little bigger than loosing your law license.
But I guess your republican example of sin calls for God to act, but not for a married man getting a BJ in the house representing our nation.
Clinton didnt hurt the nation, or our national security….
Posted by: Chas.
“I did not have sex with that woman.”
That’s a matter of opinion. For myself, raising teenage daughters during that time, having the question asked during sunday school, and now seeing on today’s television shows -
he did us harm.
Mark, if you consider pity to be a misfortune, or suffering, and if that is what you have for someone who has no faith, then it seems to me that puts you in a self-feeling position of superiority, if not an actual one… I dont see how you can see it any differently…
If you did see it differently, then you would not see that person without faith, as suffering, or misfortune…
You would merely see them as someone who has no faith, but equal in every way to YOU as a person who does have faith…
Do you see that??
I dont see where YOU with your Faith, should have any right to feel sorrow for someone who has misfortune or suffering, because they do not have Faith…
Try that on for size…. ok??
six times a day … that puts about one or maybe two during work/school time. Given the amount of time we all waste on breaks it is really insignificant.
As long as they don’t demand that I stand and join them in prayer …
“Clinton didnt hurt the nation, or our national security…. ”
Have you forgotten who presided over the CIA, and all the intellegence for 8 years preceding 911?
The WMD in Iraq was a strong belief of that administration.
The longer I observe, I am becoming more steadfast in the belief that “our currents leaders decisions have more impact in the 5-10 years AFTER leaving office than DURING their terms IN office.
joing in prayer … which, by the way, was REQUIRED of me in public school.
I had girls at home when Clinton diddle with Monica too… My girls thought he was pretty damn dumb for getting caught in that kind of trap!! I still dont see how that did the NATION any harm… It certainly had NOTHING to do with national security… Most of the other nations of the world couldnt see what people here were so upset about!! LOL
Clinton didnt hurt the nation,…”Posted by: Chas.
Really. You have no problem dealing with someone who is a proven liar. And this does even address the moral issue.
REQUIRED of me in public school.
Posted by: Ben | October 09, 2007 at 01:29 PM
======================It’s that REQUIRED part that is now held to be against the law Ben.
Hud, why dont you go impeach Bush for lying about the WMD…. and the “terrible threat” of Saddam Hussein, that has us in this insane war??
Hud, if you want to apply some principle, apply it across the board… NOT just to Bill Clinton… Sure he was stupid… And he lied about SEX… He didnt lie about a matter of National Security!! Why is that so hard to understand??
Lets at least try to keep this on thread today… its more fun that way…
I dont see where YOU with your Faith, should have any right to feel sorrow for someone who has misfortune or suffering, because they do not have Faith…
Try that on for size…. ok??
Posted by: Chas. | October 09, 2007 at 01:27 PM
Chas: Have you no compassion for the lost? Or do you believe that there is such a thing?
You are an enigma, the alleged Christian minister who doesn’t really believe the words of Jesus.
I wonder how much Chas paid them to give him this thread?
Clinton didnt hurt the nation,…”Posted by: Chas.
Maybe if he had not gutted the military he hated so much, we wouldn’t have democrats crying to shorten their tours in Iraq today. In fact, maybe we’d have finished up in Iraq by now.
The Army consists of four corps and 18 divisions. In the active Army, there are ten divisions: two forward deployed in Europe, one in Korea, one in Hawaii, and six in the continental United States. The remaining eight are Army National Guard Divisions. The U.S. Army had 28 Divisions – 18 active and 10 National Guard — in 1991.
The Reagan administration boosted the Army from 14 to 16 divisions during the mid-1980s.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/division.htm
• Year:Active Duty
• 1971:2,626,785
• 1972:2,356,301
• 1988:2,138,213
• 1989:2,130,229
• 1990:2,046,144
• 1991:1,986,259
• 1992:1,807,177
• 1993:1,705,103
• 1994:1,610,490
• 1995:1,518,224
• 1996:1,471,722
• 1997:1,438,562
• 1998:1,406,830
• 1998:1,385,703
• 2000:1,384,338
• 2001:1,385,116
• 2002:1,411,634
• 2003:1,434,377
• 2004:1,426,836
• 2005:1,426,836
Using 1990 numbers, the Gulf War military was 2,046,144 members. At the end of President Clinton’s two terms, the military was 1,384,338. This means Clinton cut the military to almost exactly 2/3rds the Gulf War numbers. Right off the bat, there is no way to legitimately claim President Clinton cut the military to less than half its Gulf War size. Just by note, here, if you use the 1991 numbers instead, the figures go from a 33% cut to just a 30% cut. Not big, but worth noting.http://www.blahblahblahg.com/2006/12/01/us-military-deployment-numbers/
Long before America had Bush, they had Clinton.
When a president does something immoral(The Clinton- Monica episode) he certainly does jeopardize national security. He becomes vulnerable to blackmail. Who knows, maybe that has something to do with why he sold the the technology to the Chinese.
If I can butt in on the Chas thread…(somebody give Chas his pill)
I didn’t say anything about school sponsored prayer.
There’s a difference between ALLOWING prayer and SPONSORING prayer.
What’s the harm if someone quietly prays at their schooldesk or anywhere else?
As I was saying:
Freedom FROM Religion vsFreedom OF Relgiion
ARE 2 DIFFERENT THINGS!
And yes, kids are getting kicked out of school for silently praying at their desk.
3rd time just to see what it’s like for Chas to post 3 in a row constantly saying nothing!
Clinton Ruined America I should tell you that you are treading on sacred ground. A blogger named WSClark dogged me for months after I said what you just said. Before it was over my son who got out of the military with 10 years of service,was branded a liar and worse because I repeated what he said about the damage Clinton did to the military. Good luck.
Actually, Reagan ruined America.
And I unfortunately voted for him. I’ll regret that to the day I die.
Darn I found this Chas post and have to leave in 5 minutes.
“Hud, if you want to apply some principle, apply it across the board… NOT just to Bill Clinton… Sure he was stupid… And he lied about SEX… He didnt lie about a matter of National Security!! Why is that so hard to understand??
Posted by: Chas. | October 09, 2007 at 01:34 PM
Chas ck the Johnny Chung connection and the technology Albright and Clinton gave to China to build a nuclear ‘power’ plant. Ck to see how many nuclear bombs have been built with that technology and how many power plants.
Just words for thought.
By the way Outlander I can’t talk about Chas’ profession but I will say I have never met a Christian minister who didn’t feel a burden for lost souls.
“And yes, kids are getting kicked out of school for silently praying at their desk.”
If I see that happen at my kids’ school I will be among those protesting. I have never seen that happen.
I’m sure there is some stupid district out there that does that; in fact I recall reading about the ACLU taking a case for a student where something like that happened. However i don’t think it is common.
By the way – when I taught I did more to ENCOURAGE prayer than anyone. I gave chemistry exams.
Well, Ben, that would encourage prayer; but in my case, it would have been the Calculus exams…. :-)
Chas,”That being said, IF the schools were to provide a place, time, and means for Moslem students, or any others, to have a prayer time in the middle of the school day… or, in other words, the School making TIME and space available for Prayer… Then that is a problem… whether it is for Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Christians, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster Pasta Prayer…”
As long as it’s simply a time and place for individual prayer and doesn’t involve religious instruction, prayer leaders or coercion, I would much prefer we do that than send kids to religious schools. Those provide the isolation from other voices that allow cult behavior to fester. We need more understanding of each other’s perspectives, not less.
But Jed, just the disruption for Moslem prayer time, will get the Fundamentalists all upset, and then they will want time for their own kids to have prayer time, and then the Catholic kids will be wanting Rosary time… etc, etc. De Facto, it would involve some form of religious instruction, by the time all the kids understood what the others were doing… LOL
Well, time to go for now… Have a good day everybody!!
I am tired of your phony Crap… and I am NOT playing your game anymore… What YOU think of my beliefs, is of NO concern to ME…. YOU are not of my Faith… That means your opinion of it is worthless…. GET IT???
And when I said GD threats… I mean just that… YOUR threats are Damned by GOD!!!”
Posted by: Chas. | July 15, 2007 at 09:52 PM
How DARE you s;pew your CRAP on here that I dont know what I am saying… YOU sir, are the FAKE…. nothing but a FRIGGIN FAKE!!!!
And you know what??? EVERYBODY one the whole BLOG KNOWS it!!!
So, go back to your hole…
Posted by: chas. | July 16, 2007 at 10:12 PM
‘Chas’ if I have something I KNOW is of great value, and see someone else who does not possess it and I feel pity for them, that is not feeling superior. Not anymore than if I see someone suffering in anyway and feel pity for them. If I feel pity for someone I see in poverty or in sickness, physical or spiratural, but I am not, I can feel compassion and pity without feeling superior. What I feel is a heck of a lot of gratitude to give thanks for. If you can’t you should maybe examine that. And, of course, I can feel anyway I like, just as you can.Now, tell me you are just putting everyone on here to keep a discussion going and don’t really believe what you are saying. If that’s the case you’re pretty good at it.
Outie,”Have you no compassion for the lost? Or do you believe that there is such a thing?”
Someone once said that there are many paths to the mountain top. I don’t assume that someone else is on the wrong path if they aren’t on mine. I rather like the one I’m on, but expect no one else to follow it. I also tend to resent being told it’s the wrong one by someone going a different path. If I see a pitfall on someone else’s path, and they seem unaware, I may point it out, but the decision to continue or not is theirs. They know their own abilities and limits better than I do.What I fight are the hypocrites who intentionally send others over a cliff for profit or to feed their egos.
Praying before exams indeed…
I never had a problem with the math and sciences, however English classes…
Well, let’s just say that English might have well been a second language to me.
“And yes, kids are getting kicked out of school for silently praying at their desk.”
Link, dear Max? I’d like to read the details, if possible. I did find one about 12 high school students who were expelled for holding interdenomination prayer group in a commons area, after they were asked to move it to a closed room. IMHO, expelling them was uncalled for. However, I do wonder if this was, indeed, “silent prayer”.
Many public schools allow religious groups to meet before and after school, but not during school hours. I don’t completely agree that this demonstrates the 1st Amendment, but it certainly doesn’t raise my blood pressure.
Chas,”De Facto, it would involve some form of religious instruction, by the time all the kids understood what the others were doing… LOL”
Certain rules would have to be set. Prayer would have to be individual, personal and silent, and other kid’s beliefs are not up for discussion, instruction or coercion. Above all, good manners should be enforced.
Posted by: Chas. | October 09, 2007 at 11:15 AM
… and I want to be free to practice the Religion I believe…
…in the comfort of my own home with a plentiful supply of hootch, porn and hedonistic cable channels…
Well, I see raunchy Kansas has showed up to post a bunch of spewed out drivel, and add nothing of importance to the blog except to attack others…. So, I will let Kansas have all the Blog space he thinks he needs to post his drool…. Hope you have fun talking to all the sock puppets, Kansas — Cause I get REAL TIRED of watching you post up a bunch of TRASH about me and others all day!!! BYE Persona Non Grata!!!
Chas is a preacher in search of his flock.
They keep running away from him.
Wonder why.
Chas you are just gonna have to get used to the stink from the sh** that is Kansas JM.
Ya know? I’ve no desire to meet him, but if he ever comes to a meetup I’ll know him. He’ll be the drooling goon throwing his own excrement at the walls.
Someone upthread mentioned restricting prayer in schools. Funny. They had that “see ya at the pole” ….thing the other day. I saw no footage of cops or troops breaking that up.
Demons traumatize that poor man.
Evil spirits are at work within him trying to disquise themselves inside a man of the cloth. Spreading evil through a minister is one of the worst works of satan.
Pray for him, that his demons may be cast out.
Actually, even though our founding fathers believed as a whole in the concept of God, and also that the teachings of Christ were important, at least two, Jefferson and Ben Franklin didn’t believe Christ to be God. I do not recall the term, but their is one to describe it. Their is alot of evidence supporting George Washington leaned towards athieism.
Deist, that was the term I was looking for. A majority of our founding fathers were Diest, not Christians. They honored and respected the teachigns of Christ, felt in their hearts their was a God, but were not Christians in the sence they thought Jesus Christ was God.
Jefferson and Ben Franklin didn’t believe Christ to be GodSemperFi71.
So what’s that got to do with the price of beans in China?
Were you an 0311?
And yes, kids are getting kicked out of school for silently praying at their desk.
Posted by: Max |
Some proof – a link please. This sounds suspiciously like a wing-nut urban legend.
but were not Christians in the sence they thought Jesus Christ was God.
Posted by: SemperFi71
Thanks for clearing that up SF.
So you are implying that because Jefferson and Franklin did not believe Christ was God, they are not Christians? Therefore, Christianity did not influence them in their input into our foundational documents?
I’d disagree. I am a Christian. I do not believe in the trinity. God is not Christ. Christ is not God (was God dead three days and nights?). That word is not in the new testament.
There are many Christians who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, but do not believe he IS God.
Further, there are many Christians who supposedly DO believe in the trinity, but do not understand it well enough to explain it.
Regardless, if the two were influenced by Christian values, how do you know they did not apply those values in their part of the work?
And yes, kids are getting kicked out of school for silently praying at their desk.
Posted by: Max |
Some proof – a link please. This sounds suspiciously like a wing-nut urban legend.
Ya’ll are making me miss Kansas. Excrement? Myths? Legends? Name calling?
Heeheehee – I miss you folk.
Excrement? Myths? Legends? Name calling? Loonie
And that would be any different from every single day on these threads, how?
Mark — MOST Right Wingers beleive that the nation is founded on CHRISTIAN principles… It is my belief that it was founded on principles of the kind of Christianity that the founders of this nation wanted to AVOID… principles of a State Run Church/Church Run State… from which they had escaped to find FREEDOM FROM a Church Run State… What they escaped FROM was a world dominated by a Church Dominated STATE, where the King of England was also the head of the Church of England… but, Crowned King by the CHURCH…
Posted by: Chas.
I agree completely. And all being said, can’t we all just agree that religion is a completely personal choice… meaning you can have a religion, and whatever religion you please, even if that means no religion whatsoever. I mean, what’s the big deal if a political candidate does or doesn’t have the same religion as you, or lack thereof? This is a melting pot of cultures and people, why shouldn’t the same stew-pot of a country allow a myriad of religions. Its called tolerance.
Oh, and I happen to be Christian as well. Just not a nutball who wants to tell everyone else how to live. Church and state= Separate, the way it should stay.
Christian priciples are very good principles. Therefore our country being founded on “good” principles is easy to confuse as them being “Christian” principles…
People who do not believe Christ is Lord often times will get attacked by other Christians. Whatever your views, your entitled to them, I personally follow the Trinity concept myself, and am a Christian believing person.
To the one who asked if I was an 0311, yes, that was my primary MOS. I picked up the 0321 MOS after a couple years of experience as a regular ground pounder. My duties allowed me to serve along side British Royal Marines, French Legionaires (the foreign legion, basically the badest a$$ of all fighting forces), CIA combat operatives, Polish, Hungarian, and Russian forces. I do not regret my service.
Speaking of “good” principles, ever studied the church of satan (not capitolized for a reason). Walk into a satanic church, and you will receive more love, more compassion, and careing from people there than any Christian Church I’ve ever been too. They take in the abondoned, lost souls, those who have been left out, passed over, and forgotten.
I think the term to use would be “progressive entrapement” to describe their moving people slowely towards truely evil and terrible ways.
It’s ironic how the church of satan knows how to attract followers better than Christian Churches. They understand that you attract more bees with honey.
Christian Churches are disgusting as they exist today, especially Bible belt types like you see here in Wichita. I’d eat a pound of sh!t before I walked into any of the evil Churches that call themselves “Christian” here in Wichita.
“Pretty blunt, huh? Ha, I love it.”-Mark
These WERE your words Mark.
As for the purported words of Jesus, you have an assumption regarding the validity of those words as related to a hypothetical creator of the universe that I do not share. I really don’t care about them. What I do care about are people who are so certain about the validity of those words that they assume that those who do not agree with them are eternally damned. Assuming someone is eternally damned is to dehumanize them. Your response to that idea was “I love it.” Your words, sir.
I stand by my comments.
SemperFi71 good on you for your service. I’m an old admirer of Chesty Puller myself. Dan Daly and the rest.
At any rate, I remember0311, 31 MG, 41 mortars, 41 anti-tank.
I don’t recall 21’s. Only means I’m old and/or I left before I became familiar with them.
Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. God would be his dad. But that’s just me. There are many flavors our there. The key beingthe part that makes us all CHRISTyans.
0351’s were anti-tank (LAWS?)typo above.
“And lo, from the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, the Flying Spaghetti monster moved into and unto the Earth which he had made.
And he beheld the mountains and the tress that were on them that he had placed there and was pleased.
And he said “I’m gonna make this like little guy” and it was so.
And this was the midget and the FSM called him pepe. And pepe did admire the mountains and the trees. And he did there genuflect in their wonder.
Al dente 1:6
Funny how Joe calls on ULTRA neocons as his role models, but still claims to be a liberal.
Do you even know what a liberal is Joe?
Al dente 1:6
Posted by: FsmF@web.net
Thanks Farm Girl. I appreciate it. I’ll send your information on to the main man.
I’m not posting the Pastafarian stuff, but I damn sure enjoy it!!!!
And the FSM made unto the midget all manner of things. And the midgets countenance was lifted.
Now these things were as discovered treasures to the midget. And the midget knew not the FSM. And
in the east, beer flowed from the beer volcano.
But of voice there was only the midget and his. And the midget
spoke and was not answered. And his was a voice as alone.
And the midget had sodden dreams. And in those dreams voices .Yea even in his wafefullness he heard them.
And the midget said to no one in particular. And he said, “All of this I have and lovely is the world.”
Al dente 1:8
0321 is recon, it is now assigned as a primary mos to those who complete recon training, and a Marine can go directly into recon from the school of infantry, which wasn’t the case when I served.
SemperFi, your description of those in a satanic church sound similar to those of Christian cults. And since satanists (different than LeVeyan Satanism) believe in and worship Satan, they were probably Christian at some time, as Satan has a Christian basis.
For those who aren’t aware…
LeVeyan Satanism, founded by Anton LeVey, is based on individualism and self-indulgence, and does not worship Satan. They believe each is his/her own god, or at least that was how it was explained to me.
Like all religions, “Satanism” has its different philosophies and sects within it.
FWIW for “Kansas”, Pagans are not Satanists, nor are Satanists Pagans. You do so love to use one term for another, but only show how uninformed you are by doing so.
End of Alternative Religions class for today. :)
And yes, kids are getting kicked out of school for silently praying at their desk.
Posted by: Max |
Can you give names of these kids and their respective schools.
Why not post facts instead of what your preacher tells you from some pulpit that he is using to separate you from your money.
Now presently, Pepe who was the midget whom the FSM had made did stumble. And the midget Pepe did fall. Fall did Pepe. And in the pool , Pepe did see a reflection and the reflection was his.
And Pepe wondered at this. And Pepe spake unto the reflection that was in the beer of the pool.
And Pepe said unto the reflection: “I am Pepe.”
And the reflection did not speak.
And Pepe gestured and made all manner of signs. And the reflection did ape Pepe. But speak
it did not.
And Pepe was sore troubled with this. And Pepe said, “Pepe is
in the beer and the beer is in Pepe. And I speak but am not answered.”
And Pepe who was alone, was thus not alone but solitary.
And the FSM saw this. And the FSM said,” Aww, the lil’ dude is gonna get like a complex.”
“I need to make him some buds.”
‘ksagnostic’, Why do continue to change the things people (in this case me) say for your own argument, twisting it to something I never said. I never said “that those who do not agree….are eternally damned”. My response in saying “Pretty blunt, huh? Ha, I love it” as I explained once, but shouldn’t have had to, let alone again, was simply an expression of appreciation of the clarity and authority with which Jesus spoke. I meant no expression of delight over someone being lost or damned. And even with the power of the Gospel to quote I am not in anyway judging or taking delight in the prospect of damnation.I also said I never meant to offend, but I’m losing that consideration out of boredom continuing this blog with you. I am very fearful of degrading anyone, not because of fearing them but out of respect and fear of what my own faith teaches. But I’d like to offer you a recognized definition to at least consider. “A person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning”. That is a characteristic I clearly see in you ‘ksagnostic’, and that is the definition of an idiot.And, I stand by my comments also.Bye!
…and yet ANOTHER fundie preacher, this one a disciple of falwell, falls to perverted sex?
WTF? WHAT is it with these people?
Read the comments too. They are priceless. Wanna bet this ape had a problem with gay marriage? Heheheheheh.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×2008564
Kansas, dear Kansas,
Here’s what you posted, directed at Chas:”Guess that just confirms that you are indeed a Pagan. A disciple of Satan from which all Christians and non-Christians should turn their backs on as an inherently evil person.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 05, 2007 at 01:57 PM
(Open Thread 10/5)
I commented on your lack of knowledge. Your reply to that was nothing more than a few fast avoiding sidesteps.
Do you need tutoring? Memory pills?
Max,
Did you ever come up with that link about students being kicked out of school for silent prayer?
Still wondering…
KsfrmgrlIt’s not that fundies become perverts…perverts become fundies in order to hide behind the facade of godliness and goodness in an attempt to manipulate others or control their urges.Whenever we admitted someone to the psychiatric unit and they came in thumping their bible, we often suspected them of being a sexual predator, and we were usually right.
TWO wet suits!?! I can barely wear one..talk about hot! No wonder the poor guy died.
Yeah Max, me too.I’m always amused how these crazy stories circulate with no proof or confirmation that they’re true.
What people don’t know is how long the neo-cons have been using the Christian right just to get their votes. Most of the televangalists are huge supporters of the neo-cons, one prime example is Pat Robertson whos job is to basically spew propaganda to Christians so they will continue to vote for the neo-cons that hi-jacked the Republican party in the 70’s, and yes, Pat Robertson has good reasons to try to sway Christians into voting, (which is against the Churches traditional stance to stay out of politics) he gets money, he gets paid to try and brainwash people.
God wants you to vote Republican.
How the hell can these evangelicals live with theirselves debasing the vaule of their relgion to push politcal agendas.
Ron Paul supporters will be basically voting for a Sam Brownback lite version.
“How the hell can these evangelicals live with theirselves debasing the vaule of their relgion to push politcal agendas.”
Easy..it’s in their blood. They absolutely drool at the thought of abolishing the separation between church and state.
Hey Max,Just out of curiosity, if they were praying silently, how did the schools know they were praying?
Mary,”They absolutely drool at the thought of abolishing the separation between church and state.”
To get a bit more specific, they want to abolish the separation of THEIR church and the state, leaving themselves as head of both.
I wondered the same thing when I read that post.
This is the typical “christian” persecution complex.
As for the purported words of Jesus, you have an assumption regarding the validity of those words as related to a hypothetical creator of the universe that I do not share. I really don’t care about them. What I do care about are people who are so certain about the validity of those words that they assume that those who do not agree with them are eternally damned. Assuming someone is eternally damned is to dehumanize them. Your response to that idea was “I love it.” Your words, sir.
I stand by my comments.
Posted by: ksagnostic | October 09, 2007 at 05:20 PM
Ksagnostic, thats pretty much how I feel. Thats the only thing I despise about the hardcore Christians, they look at other people as sub-human, or poor misguieded souls that will end up in an eternal hell. I know religion is a crutch for some people, which is good, everybody needs a crutch to get through the tough times, whether it be religion, God, your friends, or typing on here. But, I see some of the hardcore fundies use Christianity as a wheelchair, not a crutch, the kind of people that mention God every chance they get, I think I’ll start calling them the wheelchair fundies.
Remember the Nazis looked at those who didn’t agree with their vision as sub-human.History will keep giving us the lessons until we learn them.
Thats enough for me for one day…
Good night; Good luck; and God Bless; whatever you conceive Got to be!!
Blessings all!!
Christians, they look at other people as sub-human, or poor misguieded souls that will end up in an eternal hell. White Elephant
Shaking my head.
Some of you have some extreme notions and stereotyping of Christians. I really hope you are man or woman enough to admit that “all” is not inclusive of everyone.
The majority of Christians I know never express their faith to me. Nor I to them. They don’t brag or talk down non-Christians. I and they don’t see you as “mis-guided souls”.
I’d venture to guess, most of you truly do not even know the religion of the majority of co-workers, friends, and acquaintences in your life.
And many are probably Christians. But they don’t brag or spout it.
My beliefs are a very very personal thing to me. I am not an emotional sharing person anyway, so you are only likely to see me express my faith – in Church for two hours every Sunday morning.
I come home, change clothes, turn on the ball game, and crack open a beer. I belch with the best of them. But I do always crack the car window.
When you generalize – you really look stupid. More importantly, you have lost me on any of your opinions/views. BTW, I’m a democrat.
In short, it’s really dumb.
And it’s really dumb for Christians to assume I’m a Christian. It happens constantly. When my mother lay dying, a social worker came to her bedside and asked me, “Who do you think is waiting to greet your mom in heaven?”She had no idea what my beliefs were, she just assumed.The Christians in my life generalize about others much more than the non-belivers I know.
Sorry Joe, but I have to generalize and insult people because thats the only way people seem to want to discuss anything on here, if you piss them off. So I guess I’ll continue pushing the buttons, because I’m not getting paid to pour my intellect into a one way conversation.
Mary, you’d think after repeated lessons throughout history, not just the more recent, we would, but…
Makes a person wonder about the human race. Or is it a type of insanity?
I have met a few Christians that are fairly narrow minded. Not saying every Christian.
But for example, a co-worker, a mixed race female co-worker, that happened to be Christian, was discussing gay marriage with me. She basically said, can you beleive they might pass a gay marriage amendment. I said, “yea, why?” She said, “don’t you think thats disgusting allowing to guys to marry eachother”.I couldn’t believe what she was saying. She was a female minority. I told her, how do two guys marrying affect your life, what threat do they pose to you. She had nothing to say.
I’m a straight guy, I don’t see how gay people pose a threat to other people by marrying eachother. My point was, that she was a Christian, and her religion is what most likley influenced her stance on that issue, even though she couldn’t tell me how they pose a threat to her. I’ll quit religion bashing when Christianity and Islam pull their heads out of their asses.
I’m starting to lose hope, Rox. It seems like greed and the lust for power and control is the nature of man.
That why women need to be in charge of the world. We wouldn’t drops bombs on each other’s babies for oil and power.
Yeah that assuming Christian biz?
I’ve lived it.
My father was already mostly beyond understanding when we learned what it was that was slowly depriving him of his movement and faculties and that it would ultimately deprive him of his life.
We made the decision NOT to tell him. Little could have been served by it except to take his hope as well.
After my father’s death, I learned that his minister had TOLD
him that he was going to die. He did that against the wishes of the family and caused my dad un necessary angst.
When I learned this I confronted the minister. He was not apologetic.
“He had the right to know that he was going home to Lord and to ask his blessing.”
I didn’t do it. But I wanted to lay that sanctimonious creep out. How dare he?
Some times, most times, faith is better kept to one’s self.
White, I agree. The most devout Christians are usually the most intolerant people you can find.
Some times, most times, faith is better kept to one’s self.
Thats what Thomas Jefferson said. But he worded it slightly different.
Mary, a few women might rule more like men. Not you or I, of course. :)
It’s all very disheartening.
JR, I’d have to disagree with you. Most of the time, the patient seems to know no matter how out of it they may seem that their death is imminent, it usually causes them less angst to be told the truth. I’ve got STORIES of so many I’ve seen leave this world. I’m sure Mary would agree with me. Honestly, I think denying someone knowing they’re about to leave the world, is cruel and unusual.
Have you noticed that there is nothing more fervent than than an ex-smoker or an ex-Christian? I have.
I’m sure it’s psychological to some point to justify your choices in your own mind by demeaning what you left. If a tenth of the criticisms you see represented here were true, Christianity would have long since died out, or been banned.
Of course any institution or organization that has people in it is imperfect. And no matter how much we try, we can never meet God’s standards anyway.
That’s the beauty of God’s plan. “for God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son…” Christians believe that the Bible teaches that by accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior, your sins and failings are no longer held against you. They are washed clean by His blood.
So we can bicker and find fault with people of any persuasion. It’s easy. But you can’t find fault with God’s perfect message of forgiveness and redemption.
Good night all.
average Joe, you couldn’t be more wrong. Maybe you are young or something, but I could tell you the religion of almost every kid in my class, and most of my coworkers. Maybe men don’t talk about it like women do, but I can assure you that they DO judge all the time.
Or Outlander, perhaps it was washing away the clouding from our eyes to see clearly that made us so angry about religion in the first place? Yes, there is bitterness…to know I could have spent most of my life like you all….
“I mentioned Pagans in another thread, but I usually reserve Satanism for Steven Davis and the Capn. :)”
Please, DNFTT – he has dodo in his soul… hey, that rhymes, more lyrics coming…
Political mom
My dad died of KreutzfeldJacob disease.
That’s the human variant of “mad cow”.
His brain was being destroyed along with it’s ability to control his body. By the time we knew and COULD tell him, it could only have served as an in and out of conscience thing to frighten him. He died 3 weeks after the diagnosis. It wasn’t right of the minister to do what he did.
I commented on your lack of knowledge. Your reply to that was nothing more than a few fast avoiding sidesteps.
Do you need tutoring? Memory pills?
Posted by: Rox | October 09, 2007 at 07:12 PM
Okay, you got me, if I posted that. Not going to look.
It is considered impolite and improper to quote someone in the initial sense if you don’t give when and where you found the quote.
Yanking a four day old post and applying it here is something a smuck would do.
My hats off to you Rox for being deceptive, a trait of Satan.
All this talk about religion so butted up to politics reminds me of the best bumper sticker I’ve ever seen:
“God is not a Democrat…..Or a Republican”
Honestly, if you were God, would you give a shit about politics? I wouldn’t!
DNFTEFT – Do not feed this extremely FAT troll…
had nothing to say.
I’m a straight guy, I don’t see how gay people pose a threat to other people by marrying eachother. My point was, that she was a Christian, and her religion is what most likley influenced her stance on that issue, even though she couldn’t tell me how they pose a threat to her. I’ll quit religion bashing when Christianity and Islam pull their heads out of their asses.
Posted by: WhiteElephant
So you experienced ONE woman who told you HER opinion. Wow! What a shocker@!!!!
And she didn’t tell you why it was a threat to her. What you are not understanding is that to those who BELIEVE and follow the written word of the old and new testament – homosexuality is a sin.
It may be politically correct today in some circles, but the word did not change. Only those who want to change it’s interpretation changed. The word is still the word.
And she voiced her opinion. MY GAWD!!!
We should KILL HER!!!!
Her BELIEF was not the SAME as YOURS.
HOW DARE SHE!!!!!
She must be a communist, or a conservative, or a republican or SOMETHING.
My GAWD ALMIGHTY!!!
What right did this PIG of a woman have to VOICE her thoughts to you???????
OMYGODALMIGHTY!!!
How awful that must, must have been (sniffle, sniffle).
My goodness, I’ll bet someone like YOU never disagreed or voiced YOUR beliefs in front of others.
Nosiree the rat bastard had zero right to disagree with what YOU believed.
Not in the gawd damn United States of America, by golly.
The rat bastard!!!
And like you said – she was a MINORITY!!! Hells bells, surely SHE should have understood that you were correct.
You know elephant, I really don’t know what’s going on in this world anymore.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/open-thread-1-4.html#comment-85313482
“DNFTEFT – Do not feed this extremely FAT troll…”
You’re right, Stephen. But he DID ask upthread.
Cosmos,
Thank you.
I guess it’s okay for the troll(s) to use “history”, but not the rest of us. Anything to avoid the truth, huh? Pitiful.
It’s spelled S-C-H-M-U-C-K.
For those (ahem) who need a little education on the word “schmuck”…
schmuck (n) Americana pitiful, foolish or obnoxiouis person, usually male. (Well, that let’s me out.) Schmuck is from the Yiddish word “shmok”, itself from the German “Schmuck”, meaning ornament. In Yiddish usage the word was used first as a euphemism for the male member, then becoming a synonym for the English PRICK, figuratively as well as literally. As employed especially by non-Jewish speakers today schmuck is a fiarly mild term of abuse, often used ruefully, despairingly or affectinately. (How nice!) It was perceived as an obscneity in the USA for many years with the result that the euphemism “shmo” was invented in the 1940’s.–The Dictionary of Contemporary Slang
Rox,
You’re welcome, but it did not take any work, since you GAVE the “when and where” at 7:12 PM upthread.
Click on “Main” at top of page, find “Open thread 5″, find 1:57 PM, copy shortcut, and paste.
Re: Real Christians vs. Not-so-real Christians
I had a friend in high school (best friends sophomore year) who was very religious. Her “preaching” put a rift in our friendship, and we were never very close again, although I would always call her my friend.
A few years ago, she was suddenly diagnosed with brain cancer. Also affected were her liver and, I believe, lungs. She died 7 weeks later, much sooner than even expected.
I have never known anyone with as much faith in God as she had. She kept in touch with friends via email during those 7 weeks, and those emails were filled with love. In each, she talked about the joyful songs she sang to Jesus each day. She had no pain until the last couple of days before her death. There was a huge article in the Eagle when she died. I still cry when I think of her courage and bless her faith for giving her that.
A big DUH from me, Cosmos. “I knew that. I just forgot.” LOLOL
Next time (as if), I’ll remember. Or I’ll ask you. :)
Sorry Amazing Grace, it’s your religion not mine. I’m sure glad I don’t feel the need to defend something like Christianity to the death. Yea, she was half hispanic and Christian, which I find funny, since yesterday was Columbus day, and her decendents were raped tortured, killed, and forced to convert to Christianity by Columbus and his minions and destroyed their way of life, and today she’s defending that very same religion, which is younger than the Mayan pyramids.
Wow, what nutty world we live in, can’t believe we lock murderers and child molesters up in jail, while we let these homosexuals walk the streets, may they burn in hell for eternity those evil deviant f aggots, we should just shoot em in the street huh.
A big DUH from me, Cosmos. Blame it on blonde.
Next time (as if), I’ll remember. Or I’ll ask you. :)
we should just shoot em in the street huh.
Posted by: WhiteElephant |
Some day you may burn for your own words. I am not saying you will, nor do I really give a rats ass. But I never said them.
You really should change your nic to Archie Bunker.
Rox,
I apologize for not making it more clear… I did not mean any offense to you.
You provided ALL that was needed, the “when and where”, at 7:12 PM upthread.
The troll could have easily found his Oct 5, 1:57 PM post, in less time than he spent typing a false attack at you.
The troll could have easily found his Oct 5, 1:57 PM post, in less time than he spent typing a false attack at you.
Posted by: cosmos | October 10, 2007 at 12:22 AM
cosmos should know, he posts irrelevant crap I wrote 4-5 months ago as off topic ad hominem.
I just made!
If it weren’t for Kansas, there’d be no comedy relief on this blog.
Oh, except for the FSM.
Rox,
True… but the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafarian’s) belief system is more rational, scientific, and logical than the troll’s.
You got that right, Cosmos!
I’m off to get some sleep. Y’all have fun now, y’hear!
0321 is recon, it is now assigned as a primary mos to those who complete recon trainingPosted by: SemperFi71 | October 09, 2007 at 06:00 PM
ACK! When did they change the recon MOS number? It used to be 8651.
Wow – 285 opinions since yesterday. Nothing builds a larger thread than the topic of Christians, huh?
Especially when they feel threatend in losing their political power or they are starting to feel that ever-present persecution complex.
God, guns and gays.
That should be printed on our currency instead of “in god we trust”.
God, guns, and gays. Where would the cons be without those topics?
And the sheeple sleep…
Hey Mark – did I hit your nail on the head yesterday? From your defensive response, I think so.
BTW – I know exactly what you are about so try to not ‘pity’ me and I’ll pray for you – okay?
It was perceived as an obscneity in the USA for many years with the result that the euphemism “shmo” was invented in the 1940’s.–The Dictionary of Contemporary Slang
Posted by: Rox | October 09, 2007 at 11:28 PM
It’s spelled obscenity.
“Obscenity (in Latin obscenus, meaning “foul, repulsive, detestable”, possibly derived from ob caenum, literally “from filth”). The term is most often used in a legal context to describe expressions (words, images, actions) that offend the prevalent sexual morality of the time.
Despite its long formal and informal use with a sexual connotation, the word still retains the meanings of “inspiring disgust” and even “inauspicious; ill-omened”, as in such uses as “obscene profits”, “the obscenity of war”, etc. It can simply be used to mean profanity, or it can mean anything that is taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting.
The definition of obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities. Many cultures have produced laws to define what is considered to be obscene, and censorship is often used to try to suppress or control materials that are obscene under these definitions: usually including, but not limited to, pornographic material. Because the concept of obscenity is often ill-defined, it can be used as a political tool to try to restrict freedom of expression. Thus, the definition of obscenity can be a civil liberties issue.”
Indy; No you didn’t make me mad, you simply began to bore me. You seem fixated on something I didn’t say and I could not determine whether that was because you simply couldn’t read and understand or you were trying to force your agenda at someones else’s expense.
Read the treaty of tripoli and put this man’s ignorance in context. It was written to Theocratic muslims, and Jefferson was explaining that America is not a Christian Theocracy. He was in no way denying the Christian principles that underly our law and public policy
No, you are the one that insists on pitying someone for not believing the same way you do. And that came from your own mouth.
From your defensiveness, I can only assume that you know exactly what you are doing.
I have no quarrel with God, my quarrel is with the man-made religion of churchy people. You know, those people that go to church, look down their noses at those other people, get their pats on their pointy heads from their preacher that has just separated them from their money.
So, let’s not try to sound like you actually care about someone else and their soul. You only use that to feel superior, right?
Indy;To become frustrated trying to make sense out of talking to an idiot is not being defensive, and that what I have determined is happening.I simply have better and more productive things to do.
Mark – once again your condescending arrogance is talking. Do you even listen to the words you use when you talk to someone?
I have my doubts as to the depth of your Christianity, my friend. Jesus was never condescending nor arrogant.
Like I said – I’ll pray for you.
Jesus was very confident and knew when to walk away from certain people just as I am doing now.
Did he call them idiots too? I have yet to see a churchy self-righteous walk away from anything quietly.
From the looks of things! One would think we are an Islamic Country.
“Did he call them idiots too? I have yet to see a churchy self-righteous walk away from anything quietly.”Posted by: indy | October 10, 2007 at 06:18 PM
Matthew 23:17 “Ye fools and blind.” Psalm 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
Luke 11:40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?
And a few more:”O foolish people” (Moses speaking) Deuteronomy 32:06
“the princes of Zoan are fools” (Isaiah speaking) Isaiah 19:11
“ye fools” (David singing) Psalms 94:08
“O foolish people” (Jeremiah speaking) Jeremiah 5:21
“And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man”(Jesus speaking) Matthew 7:26
“You fools!” (Jesus speaking) Luke 11:40
“But God said to him, ‘You fool!’ ” (Jesus quoting god) Luke 12:20
“How foolish you are” (Jesus) Luke 24:25
“You blind fools!” (Jesus) Matthew 23:17
“You blind fools!” (Jesus) Matthew 23:19
“We are fools for Christ’s sake” (Paul writing) 1 Corinthians 4:10
“Thou fool” (Paul) 1 Corinthians 15:36
“O foolish Galatians” (Paul) Galatians 3:1
Reader (Mark??) – those are the words of the men who followed Jesus. Where did Jesus ever use the word idiot?
Furthermore, with all the translations of the Bible – are you really sure you have the correct version?
Are you willing to bet your afterlife on it?
Hell indy, they’re willing to throw away THIS life in order to bet on the “next” one…
The only time Jesus lost his temper was when he threw the vendors out of the Temple. The only people that Jesus talked about in a bad light were the so-called prophets and self-righteous church leaders. Are those the fools you keep referring to Mark?
“God Save the Queen”. UK national Anthem, “God keep our land glorious and free” Canadian Anthem. Both countries easily accept their countries created under God, they just dont’ put dogma into it…..although you can’t be a Roman Catholic and Prime Miister of the UK
Linda,”Read the treaty of tripoli and put this man’s ignorance in context. It was written to Theocratic muslims, and Jefferson was explaining that America is not a Christian Theocracy. He was in no way denying the Christian principles that underly our law and public policy.”
The christian powers of interpretation never cease to amaze me. These are the people who can read something as unequivocal as “Thou shalt not kill” and find justification for the slaughter of millions of nonchristians as well as christians who disagree with them on how many angels can dance…… Well you know the rest.So is it so amazing that they can take the statement “We are not a christian nation” and use it to try to prove we are?
On pages 18 and 19 of her book, “Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism,” Susan Jacoby details the role that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson played in establishing separation of church and state:
“The link between political and religious freethought was not so explicitly drawn, but it was always in the air. It should not therefore be surprising that, even before the end of the Revolutionary War, a radical new vision of absolute separation of church and state was set forward by freethinkers as the logical outgrowth of political independence. In 1779, Jefferson proposed a bill that would guarantee complete legal equality for citizens of all religions, and of no religion, in his home state of Virginia. Jefferson’s was the first plan in any of the thirteen states to call for complete separation of civil and religious authority, and seven years of fierce debate and political bargaining would pass before a version of his bill was enacted into law. Virginia stood alone in marshaling a legislative majority that, as Jefferson observed, ‘meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.’ It is impossible to overstate the importance of Virginia’s 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, for, much to the dismay of religious conservatives, it would become the template for the secularist provisions of the federal Constitution.”
Again on page 19, Jacoby details James Madison’s 1784 “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments,” which he conveyed to the Virginia General Assembly:
“Madison’s eloquent ‘Memorial,’ eventually signed by some two thousand Virginians, should be as familiar to students of American history as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. ‘Who does not see,’ he asked in a passage that delineated his concern for personal freedom of religion, ‘that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?’”
Jacoby writes, “Madison’s advocacy of government freedom from religious control is equally explicit,” and she quotes the Virginian as follows:
“If Religion be not within cognizance of Civil Government, how can its legal establishment be said to be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of Civil authority; in many instances they have seen the upholding of the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberty of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it (liberty), needs them not.”
Well-stated, Mr. Madison. Applause.