http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41149562/ns/politics-more_politics/?gt1=43001
The Governor for Alabama . . .any red flags pop up as you read this article??
As a Nation GB has its faults like all others- religious bigotry like this would last nigh on two minutes before this guy was OUSTED- :sigh:
Red flags? Just that the adl doesn't like free speech whenever they disagree with what is being said. :mblush: People are sick and tired of being bullied.
The Governor had every right to say what he said. And, I find it refreshing that some officials still feel free to talk about their deeply held Christian beliefs
47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
--Mat 12
I might question some of the style, delivery, and wisdom of saying it how he appears to have said it - context, reason, could it have been said more effectively :dontknow: - but scripturally, he is correct. I won't post more of the very clear scrips that back it up right now, but I can if anyone must see them beyond what Molly posted above. Briefly, Paul said not all are of the faith, and to watch out for evil men.
If this guy was a Muslim Molly speaking the Koran- would your veiw be the same--
tis all I was saying- the Guy is In a political position- Did he really need to say it-
:icon_flower:
Taf, that's along the lines of what I'm saying. Maybe another time, another way, etc., again, was it wisdom when/where/how he said it? The other thing I see though is his scriptural accuracy. Again, because I often lack wisdom I can't judge him, but I might suggest he reconsider the setting and delivery, etc.
Jab are you saying it's scriptually accurate or not accurate?
I think he's the best judge of the setting and why he was elected by his state and my guess is that he was elected at least in part because he's not shy about his Christian values.
This is not a national debate as the adl would like to make it. It is up to the State that elected him.
If such things were a national debate, I would have a few choice things to say about California.
Quote from: Taffy on January 19, 2011, 08:51:12 PM
If this guy was a Muslim Molly speaking the Koran- would your veiw be the same--
tis all I was saying- the Guy is In a political position- Did he really need to say it-
:icon_flower:
No my view would not be the same.
Do you really think people separate their most deeply held beliefs from their method of governing?
We certainly have the right to know everything about the people we are electing.
If you don't like it, don't vote for them.
Quote from: Molly on January 19, 2011, 08:56:07 PM
Jab are you saying it's scriptually accurate or not accurate?
Absolutely accurate. I believe scrips are clear. Not all are saved yet, so not all are brothers and sisters in the Lord. Paul made CLEAR distinctions. For the rest of it, I'll let you more politically savvy decide that. :laughing7:
Quote from: jabcat on January 19, 2011, 08:53:11 PM
:icon_flower: Maybe another time, another way, etc., again, was it wisdom when/where/how he said it? The other thing I see though is his scriptural accuracy. Again, because I often lack wisdom I can't judge him, but I might suggest he reconsider the setting and delivery, etc.
:icon_flower:
Hi James
This certainly not a topic to give much thought to- the guy did what he did- The probable outcome will no doubt be backlash- :icon_flower:
again if this man is of one denominatiion - again it will cause more division with thoseeven of the faith in others-
Thats Just my two pennies-
anyway for mine nough said on this :icon_flower: -
No business holding the elected office of governor; besides his governing perhpas being prejudice, it goes against the very Constitution of the united States.
It does not, Micah.
Go and read the constitutions of the original states that signed the Constitution.
Those States were like countries are now.
And you will see our God all over their State Constitutions.
Quote from: Taffy on January 19, 2011, 09:01:31 PM
Quote from: jabcat on January 19, 2011, 08:53:11 PM
:icon_flower: Maybe another time, another way, etc., again, was it wisdom when/where/how he said it? The other thing I see though is his scriptural accuracy. Again, because I often lack wisdom I can't judge him, but I might suggest he reconsider the setting and delivery, etc.
:icon_flower:
Hi James
This certainly not a topic to give much thought to- the guy did what he did- The probable outcome will no doubt be backlash- :icon_flower:
again if this man is of one denominatiion - again it will cause more division with thoseeven of the faith in others-
Thats Just my two pennies-
anyway for mine nough said on this :icon_flower: -
Me too on the political part of it. :bigGrin: Blessings to all in this conversation.
Quote from: Molly on January 19, 2011, 09:05:48 PM
It does not, Micah.
Go and read the constitutions of the original states that signed the Constitution.
Those States were like countries are now.
And you will see our God all over their State Constitutions.
:sigh:
I see you posting Nathan. Share your thoughts and I may go ahead and lock this thread. No need for us to get too sidetracked and lock horns over politics. :Shoot:
Jesus, Savior of the World!!! :bigGrin:
Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several Towns, parishes, precincts and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own Expense, for the institution of Public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. ~
--Massachusetts State Constitution, John Adams, 1780
There is a tv commercial on air right now, and to tell you the truth, I don't even know for sure what they're trying to sell. but it opens up with Abe Lincoln when a comment about his name being "honest Abe" and he's standing there with his overly plump wife as she's posing for him, asking him the question . . ."Does this dress make me look fat?" and he gets all fidgety, she gets all upset and after an extremely long and awkward moment, he raises his hand and with his thumb and pointer finger slightly apart he winces and says . . ."maybe just a smidge". To which she lets out a sound of great disgust and she stomps out of the room.
When I read this article, I felt that perhaps this commercial applies to this as well. My question now is, what message is this Governor portraying to the general public? Does this cause people to be drawn "to" him? Or does it create a more difinitive line in the sand separating them "from" him? I think much can be said for one who has the gift to mix truth with tact. And that just seems to be painfully missing in this particular incident.
Quote from: jabcat on January 19, 2011, 09:45:31 PM
Jesus, Savior of the World!!! :bigGrin:
who seeks Him :winkgrin:
He's giving his acceptance speech. He's speaking to his constituents. Don't you think he knows more about who elected him and what they want then the adl?
It's none of the adl's business or msnbc or GE.
Quote from: Nathan on January 19, 2011, 09:49:32 PM
There is a tv commercial on air right now, and to tell you the truth, I don't even know for sure what they're trying to sell. but it opens up with Abe Lincoln when a comment about his name being "honest Abe" and he's standing there with his overly plump wife as she's posing for him, asking him the question . . ."Does this dress make me look fat?" and he gets all fidgety, she gets all upset and after an extremely long and awkward moment, he raises his hand and with his thumb and pointer finger slightly apart he winces and says . . ."maybe just a smidge". To which she lets out a sound of great disgust and she stomps out of the room.
When I read this article, I felt that perhaps this commercial applies to this as well. My question now is, what message is this Governor portraying to the general public? Does this cause people to be drawn "to" him? Or does it create a more difinitive line in the sand separating them "from" him? I think much can be said for one who has the gift to mix truth with tact. And that just seems to be painfully missing in this particular incident.
OK, seems a relevant point, even to a UR discussion. That's kind'a what I've been saying. Timing, etc. That's probably actually a lesson for us all, even in this "getting swarmed in a debate" thread...it takes a lot of wisdom, and a WHOLE lot of leading by the Holy Spirit. It's easy to miss and get in the flesh. Step by step. :thumbsup:
(or maybe he was completely led by God. probably not for me to say. :dontknow:) we all have our place. now abe lincoln, that's another story. btw, it's geico. their commericals are AWESOME. I love the "does a woodchuck really chuck wood?" one
Quote"Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother,"
Quote"His comments are not only offensive, but also raise serious questions as to whether non-Christians can expect to receive equal treatment during his tenure as governor,"
Bit of a nonsense article.
Obama is a Muslim. Is the same said about him?
Bill Clinton was a hetrosexual. Did it mean he was bad for gay people?
Judge X is white. Does it mean his verdicts are all racist?
Etc.
Quote from: WhiteWings on January 19, 2011, 09:55:53 PM
Quote"Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother,"
Quote"His comments are not only offensive, but also raise serious questions as to whether non-Christians can expect to receive equal treatment during his tenure as governor,"
Big of a nonsense article.
Obama is a Muslim. Is the same said about him?
Bill Clinton was a hetrosexual. Did it mean he was bad for gay people?
Judge X is white. Does it mean his verdicts are all racist?
Etc.
Everything is OK except Christianity, even, and especially cheating on your wife and lying about it.
Quote from: Molly on January 19, 2011, 09:47:21 PM
Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several Towns, parishes, precincts and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own Expense, for the institution of Public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. ~
--Massachusetts State Constitution, John Adams, 1780
Many of the Founding Fathers wrote mentioning God on this I agree, but the Constitution hardly mentions God past the preamble.
Quote from: micah7:9 on January 19, 2011, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: Molly on January 19, 2011, 09:47:21 PM
Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several Towns, parishes, precincts and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own Expense, for the institution of Public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. ~
--Massachusetts State Constitution, John Adams, 1780
Many of the Founding Fathers wrote mentioning God on this I agree, but the Constitution hardly mentions God past the preamble.
I am saying these State Constitutions were in effect when the States signed the Constitution. They didn't want to give power to the Federal Gov't to dictate what our national religion should be [and that includes secular humanism, and atheism].
But you will notice that they did not believe that impacted in any way what the States wanted to do about it, as you can see in this example of the Massachusetts State Constitution where they have the State funding Protestant schools by decree.
This is a State issue and the Governor is completely within the US Constitution to reflect the religious orientation of his State and constitutents.
:cloud9: I think the way he said it, probably set people off. As to his right to say it, absolutely. Christians are the only ones who have watch their p's and q's, I've noticed. There is so much discrimination towards them, it's not funny. In my own school system here, a kid can't take a bible on property, but a kid could and did take a Satanic bible on site. What's wrong with this picture?
I just read an article about Clinton getting $150 MILLION deposited into his "foundation" (read tax shelter here) every time he meets with a foreign government now to make connections/introductions to secure oil rights for Big Oil. If it's true, why aren't they screaming about that? :2c:
QuoteI just read an article about Clinton getting $150 MILLION deposited into his "foundation" (read tax shelter here) every time he meets with a foreign government now to make connections/introductions to secure oil rights for Big Oil. If it's true, why aren't they screaming about that
:faint:
:icon_flower:
Quote from: Cardinal on January 19, 2011, 11:45:46 PM
:cloud9: I think the way he said it, probably set people off. As to his right to say it, absolutely. Christians are the only ones who have watch their p's and q's, I've noticed. There is so much discrimination towards them, it's not funny. In my own school system here, a kid can't take a bible on property, but a kid could and did take a Satanic bible on site. What's wrong with this picture?
I just read an article about Clinton getting $150 MILLION deposited into his "foundation" (read tax shelter here) every time he meets with a foreign government now to make connections/introductions to secure oil rights for Big Oil. If it's true, why aren't they screaming about that? :2c:
Cardinal, I see the opposite where I live here in Texas. Very small town who still get away with forcing others to endure their own beliefs. Which happen to be Christian. The thing is though, there is a separation of church and state. If you want Christianity...or any other religion being taught, then it needs to be done in a private school. Not government run schools. This is all just my opinion of course.
I see this as relating to UR, because people who are turned off by Christianity see and hear these things like in this article, and it turns them off of God all together. I am currently trying very hard to heal the hurt a lot of people who feel Christians are bullies, not open minded, and they are in rebellion of God because of it.
Quote from: Nathan on January 19, 2011, 08:09:37 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41149562/ns/politics-more_politics/?gt1=43001
The Governor for Alabama . . .any red flags pop up as you read this article??
Nathan, I see red flags in this. I would be worried he was not looking out for his neighbor. I'm sure I don't need to quote scripture where our Christ gives the parable of who's your neighbor.
:cloud9: I understand that different things happen in different States.
This thread was on my mind quite a bit last night. It occurred to me that the reason I personally felt there were some major red flags with the article is because this guy is not professing Christ AS MUCH as he is denouncing those that, in his eyes, need to know Chirst. If he wants to pronounce Jesus . . .that's awesome . . . but he message was aimed at people who've fallen short . . .not illuminating anything . . .other than the fact that if you want to be my brother, you have to go through the right gate to get there.
My message isn't about getting you to be my brother. My message is Jesus is the Christ who's not only already finalized our destination, but we can also be enabled to "see" NOW how his kingdom works even though we're still exposed to the death experiences of this realm around us.
His intentions may have been good, but for me, it comes off as a negative, a slap in the face to those who we're supposed to lay our "selves" down for. I still sense that rather than bring "pre-believers" closer to believers, his actions only solidified the wall between the two even more.
When I first posted this, I wasn't looking at the political side of it . . . didn't even realize it'd go there. My point was concerning the outcome of what he said . . .spiritually, not politically.
QuoteThe thing is though, there is a separation of church and state. If you want Christianity...or any other religion being taught, then it needs to be done in a private school. Not government run schools.
We unfortunately have lost/are losing the difference between State and Feds, to our peril IMO, and this 'separation of church and state' does not apply to States. What applies to States is whatever is in their State constitution. Unfortunately again, States are now so dependent on Fed money that a case can be made that the State has to play ball with the Fed.
But it was never meant to be this way. The States were meant to be a higher authority than the Fed and the individual a higher authority than the State. You can see from the Ma State Constitution that there was no intention of any 'separation of church and state' by John Adams who was also one of the framers of the US Constitution. That idea of separation of church and state is a modern idea started by those who do not want this to be a Christian nation.
Don't forget, these people understand what it means to train up children, just as much as the Founders did, which is why Founders such as John Adams wanted children given a Christian education, and they wanted the State to pay for it. They felt that was the only way this country could survive and I think today we are seeing the wisdom of their position.
So the Gov of Alabama to my mind is sending a shot across the bow of those who would destroy the Christian heritage of this country. And we see who is complaining about it--the far left--msnbc et al. I have to imagine that he is reflecting the attitude of his State [or he is a fool lol] and therefore, this places him right squarely in the last battle being fought for freedom in this country--States rights.
If the States fail to secure their authority over the Fed, then the individual can kiss his God-given rights goodbye, because the Founders never intended a strong central gov't as they knew that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Quote from: Molly on January 20, 2011, 06:14:35 PM
QuoteThe thing is though, there is a separation of church and state. If you want Christianity...or any other religion being taught, then it needs to be done in a private school. Not government run schools.
We unfortunately have lost/are losing the difference between State and Feds, to our peril IMO, and this 'separation of church and state' does not apply to States. What applies to States is whatever is in their State constitution. Unfortunately again, States are now so dependent on Fed money that a case can be made that the State has to play ball with the Fed.
But it was never meant to be this way. The States were meant to be a higher authority than the Fed and the individual a higher authority than the State. You can see from the Ma State Constitution that there was no intention of any 'separation of church and state' by John Adams who was also one of the framers of the US Constitution. That idea of separation of church and state is a modern idea started by those who do not want this to be a Christian nation.
Don't forget, these people understand what it means to train up children, just as much as the Founders did, which is why Founders such as John Adams wanted children given a Christian education, and they wanted the State to pay for it. They felt that was the only way this country could survive and I think today we are seeing the wisdom of their position.
So the Gov of Alabama to my mind is sending a shot across the bow of those who would destroy the Christian heritage of this country. And we see who is complaining about it--the far left--msnbc et al. I have to imagine that he is reflecting the attitude of his State [or he is a fool lol] and therefore, this places him right squarely in the last battle being fought for freedom in this country--States rights.
If the States fail to secure their authority over the Fed, then the individual can kiss his God-given rights goodbye, because the Founders never intended a strong central gov't as they knew that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I was wrong. It's not in the constitution but,
" In the United States Constitution, the First Amendment, commonly mentioned as part of the Bill of Rights, states in part that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Much later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made broad strokes to prohibit discrimination based on religion or association with those of any religion. A key court case that helped further the concept of separation of church and state was the 1947 Supreme Court Case, Everson v. Board of Education, in which it was considered a misappropriation of funds to use school moneys to transport children to religious events. 1962 saw this separation extend further by prohibiting group prayer in school, especially as composed or organized by teachers or administrators."
I'm sorry but in my opinion this needs to stay the law. I see everyone, regardless of religion as my "brother and sister," if education is to be equal, there needs to be laws to protect against discrimination. Public schools are for the public, and private schools are where religion should stay-educationally speaking. I've seen too many people around me who go about as if Christians have the market on public schools. We don't. And it makes people of other religions resent us for thinking we do.
Can you clarify? DId you mean only Christians know what it means to raise up children? I wasn't sure what you meant.
I don't think they are sending a "shot across the bow," they are using language that is polarizing. As far as UR goes, I'm not sure how someone has this position and does not see that this doesn't build bridges, and turns those in rebellion off even more. My :2c: of course.
Quote" In the United States Constitution, the First Amendment, commonly mentioned as part of the Bill of Rights, states in part that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Yes, this is the first amendment of the US Constitution. This applies to the FED.
The Founders did not want the FED announcing a national religion, which at that time would be some flavor of Christianity. In other words, they didn't want what they had in England, for instance, where the head of state, the king, was also the head of the Episcopal church. When they said 'freedom of religion' they were thinking of different flavors of Christianity. All of New England was founded by one group of people breaking off from a particular Christian church and setting up a new Christian church [and town] down the road.
That's the history of it. The Founders never intended for it to be used as a club the way it is today to prevent Christian values from being taught in public schools. Just the opposite, as I tried to show you with the Ma State Constitution written by John Adams. John Adams wanted the State of MA to pay for Protestant education and he wrote it into the State Constitution.
Now, as I said, once the states start taking money from the Feds then these games can be played around what the State might want versus what the Fed can impose using the Fed constitution. And, you begin to blur the lines between Fed and state until the Fed takes over.
I hope you and everyone will think about the Fed dictating to the states what they can and cannot do [as we see is happening now with health care and terrorist laws] and understand that this is a slippery slope into the tyranny that is produced by any strong central gov't, and which our Founders did everything possible to protect us from.
The tenth amendment:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,
are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
:cloud9: Unfortunately, I think we dropped down that slippery slope some time ago.
Quote from: Cardinal on January 20, 2011, 07:36:08 PM
:cloud9: Unfortunately, I think we dropped down that slippery slope some time ago.
Yeah I'm fighting an uphill battle--particularly since people are so thoroughly brainwashed and they have not been taught history--
but, I'm used to dancing on ice. :happygrin:
:cloud9: :laughing7: It's true.
I can "see" what is happening, but I don't think many are going to wake up until we're completely overthrown; for many reasons, not the least of which, are complacency and unbelief. Giving all those billions to the "failing" banks, was essentially "looting" this country's assets, something that usually happens prior to a complete collapse. God help us all, I hope I'm wrong. :sigh:
According to the much loved Pat robertson :winkgrin: he said that we have until 2012 to get out of personal debt, that the creditors will go hunting for their stake at this time, so be prepared to lose your house if one has huge debts, or be prepared to keep your house rather if in debt, by taking steps to eliminate it.
I don't think I can keep this on topic anymore as to how it relates to UR. And my politics to not align with a lot of you here :mshock: so I think I stop this for now. I will add though that for a very interesting book on the history of the United States, (which in my opinion go better with UR views,) Howard Zinn's A People's History of The United States, is a great read.
Quote from: lightningfrommymouth on January 20, 2011, 09:44:18 PM
I don't think I can keep this on topic anymore as to how it relates to UR. And my politics to not align with a lot of you here :mshock: so I think I stop this for now. I will add though that for a very interesting book on the history of the United States, (which in my opinion go better with UR views,) Howard Zinn's A People's History of The United States, is a great read.
Howard Zinn is not without his charms, but when you see a historian saying he doesn't care about the past--you know you are dealing with a GATEKEEPER.
By their fruits, you will know them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WXU4eir-i8