As in religion not get involved in government matters, and vice versa. I'm aware that there has been much controversy over some Fundamentalist groups pushing the Government to become more theocratic, and model the government based on their values. As we have seen in the past, and in the modern times, blending politics with spiritual matters is really not safe. Most of those politically motivated churches are all traditionalist, who seem more interested in the letter of the law, and their hardcore fire and brimstone supremist ideologies.
Difficult question. I think my answer it's impossible to seperate them. And in a way it's even undemocratic to seperate religion and government. Plus it's for exemple often hard to say some law has a religous background.
Few examples.
- An anti abortion law is fine if it's because humanitarian rights of unborn babies but if you motivate the same law with "The Bible says so" it's wrong.
- Right wing, left wing and chicken wing idealogies are just opinions like religion.
- "blending politics with spiritual matters is really not safe" I don't agree with that. Yes there have been a zillion religious wars. But that doesn't mean there wouldn't have been another war instead. Religion is just one of the many triggers.
- If the majority of the voters choses a president that wants a cross in each public building is that president forming a theocarcy or just carrying out his democratic duty when he actually does hang the crosses in the buildings?
Quote from: Universalist Catholic on March 26, 2010, 05:47:13 PM
As in religion not get involved in government matters, and vice versa. I'm aware that there has been much controversy over some Fundamentalist groups pushing the Government to become more theocratic, and model the government based on their values. As we have seen in the past, and in the modern times, blending politics with spiritual matters is really not safe. Most of those politically motivated churches are all traditionalist, who seem more interested in the letter of the law, and their hardcore fire and brimstone supremist ideologies.
I believe our current laws describe things properly. The government should not endorse any certain religious organization. But there is indeed a battle over what that is allowed to mean.
I believe not allowing Gay marriage is a religious restriction that has nothing to do with the freedom of consentual adults and hinders the pursuit of happiness that does not infringe upon anyone elses pursuit. Whether I religiously condone it or not is irrelevant.
Don't mean to create a hot button with that, but that is a heavy issue that would be religion getting involved in a theocratic way.
But as WW pointed out over all, it is very complex, because everyone wants it their way. ;)
To answer your question is that very simply, YES. However, it is not about separation, it is about the wording of our founding documents and defining what that rightly means.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on March 26, 2010, 09:42:10 PMI believe not allowing Gay marriage is a religious restriction
Not always Paul. I have no problem with a gay marriage or living together. But I have problems with some rights they get from that marriage. Call me old fashion but a a child needs a father and mother. For that reason alone I will always vote against any law that includes right of adoption of children for gay couples.
It's not also easy to know why people vote against something that possibly has religious background.
I think the abortion example I gave of that is avery good example of that. Christians aren't the only people that care for unborn life. But it 'always' the Christians that are blamed if a pro-abortian law is blocked.
The only problem I have with a theocratic government is that they often are not democratic.
I think it's safe to say most western countries have Christian roots. Those religious roots are now slowly being destroyed. But not because society turns atheist no for religious reasons. Islam.
Quote from: Paul HazelwoodBut as WW pointed out over all, it is very complex, because everyone wants it their way
But the ways of a religion should be banned...?
I find that a bit odd.
Christianity is an ideology based on the Bible.
But isn't any political ideology based on their set of beliefs? Sounds like a bible.
Voting is based on an opinion. But certain sources of opinions are excluded...
But theres quite a bit of stuff I do not agree with regarding Fundamentalism in the Government. I dont agree with sensoring TV. Thats the parents job to do, not the Government. And its not fair to others who have no problems with those shows.
In one way I look at this topic, I don't think it should be - nor that that's what the founders intended - not separate, but perhaps also not forced, as in having a State Religion one must bow to. I believe "separation of church and state" is a distorted statement that isn't an accurate representation of the origional statement(s) and intent. (Wasn't that phrase actually taken from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote at some point, i.e., not in a law or constitution, etc.?)
I believe God wanted Israel to be a Theocracy - which would be fine if truly ordained and led by God Almighty. But, I also believe there can really be some dangers with "religion" in government as well, as in potential abuses (see Iraq, Iran, etc.)
So that's one side of my personal looking at it. However, especially as things develop in the news these days, and I find myself getting caught up in them, frustrated, aggravated, even angry - wondering what it would mean to pay taxes to a government that would fund abortion and perhaps otherwise murder innocents - I really spend time wondering about some things, included in these five statements -
Respect those in authority.
Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
You are in the world but not of the world.
In the world you will have trouble but take courage for I have conquered the world.
My Kingdom is not of this world.
It seems it's really something to meditate on and pray about - seeking His will. I'm afraid I don't have all that completely satisfactorily settled yet . I do get concerned about what the process may be, what may happen in the meantime, and what I'm supposed to be doing relative to it, but I believe whatever all this looks like and wherever it goes, God's going to fix it. Reconciliation.
Quote from: jabcat on March 27, 2010, 01:02:58 AMI believe God wanted Israel to be a Theocracy - which would be fine if truly ordained and led by God Almighty. But, I also believe there can really be some dangers with "religion" in government as well, as in potential abuses (see Iraq, Iran, etc.)
I think it's not because of the religion. I'm sure you can think of some none religious dictators. Rise in power often requires something agreed upon by the masses. Religion. Hating Jews. Terrorism. Cheap oil. Etc
QuoteI really spend time wondering about some things, included in these five statements -
Respect those in authority.
Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
You are in the world but not of the world.
In the world you will have trouble but take courage for I have conquered the world.
My Kingdom is not of this world.
James,
I think those rules stay in effect as long as they are not overruled by higher rules.
Assume the state religion becomes Molech worship and you are required to goto a temple of Molech each month and kiss the altar. And your firstborn should be offered to Molech. That's the wish of Ceasar. So Molech worship is recommended by the verses you quoted?
Yeah, I don't think I should worship Molech. As a matter of discussion, sometimes I really wonder where's the line there though? Matter of conscience and being led by the Spirit? Because there could either be some real [possible] reasons to disobey such as tax $ to fund abortions, or, some that are more so just excuses and not real reasons, such as tax $ to support someone who could work but won't. Either way, give the $ to "Caesar" and after he takes it then it's his responsibility and accountability? I don't know if there's really any easy answers to this, tossing it out for further thought.
As far as "good" governments controlled by religion that weren't corrupt, maybe periods in Israel's history when they were truly being obedient to God, and perhaps the U.S. in the VERY earliest years when they were truly being obedient to God? Before the conquering and massacring began. :dontknow: Maybe there are other governments, such as some of the smaller states in the Middle East that aren't necessarily violent or overly corrupt...tough subject...
I DID NOT RELINQUISH MY CITIZENSHIP WHEN I BECAME A PASTOR
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin
January 11, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
One of the great fallacies in America today is the assumption that because one is involved in church ministry he is disqualified from being involved in political affairs. This is totally contrary to the values and principles that made this nation great.
If one will read American history, he or she will discover that pastors and religious leaders had as much to do with fighting The War for Independence and bringing into existence this great republic as did the political figures of that day. Furthermore, most of the political figures in Colonial America were Christians.
For example, fifty of the fifty-five men who signed the Declaration of Independence were faithful members of organized Christian churches. They were not atheists, agnostics, or Deists. They were not people that omitted God from their lives. They were not people to whom matters of faith were foreign. America's Founding Fathers were, on the whole, deeply religious. They were committed Christian men who believed in God and His Word.
In fact, we would not have the Bill of Rights today if it was not for a Baptist pastor by the name of John Leland. In addition, Lutheran pastor, John Peter Muhlenberg, Presbyterian pastor, John Witherspoon, and countless other Christian ministers were very influential in America's founding.
Frankly, I am a little weary of pastors and Christians who, under the myth of "separation of church and state," have allowed themselves to be removed from civic involvement. By doing this, they have allowed secularists, humanists, and others to expunge Christian influence from our society.
As I'm sure many readers know, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in any founding document of this country. That phrase was taken from a personal letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut.
The Danbury Baptists were concerned that the new U.S. Constitution might allow governmental intrusion into the private affairs of the church. And, as it was religious persecution that initially precipitated the flight of many Europeans to these shores, they certainly did not intend to go through that again. Therefore, they wrote President Thomas Jefferson inquiring of him what safeguards churches could expect regarding federal encroachments upon their liberties.
Jefferson wrote back a personal letter and said to them, (paraphrase) "You don't have to worry about the federal government intruding into the affairs of the church, because the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights puts a fence around the federal government which prohibits it from interfering with the affairs of the church." This was the spirit of Jefferson's "separation of church and state" letter.
It was not until 1962 and '63 that the United States Supreme Court reversed some 300 years of American history and legal jurisprudence by changing the accepted definition of the First Amendment from that of prohibiting the federal government from interfering with the affairs of the church to prohibiting individuals from exercising their religious freedoms. To do this, they took Jefferson's "separation of church and state" wording completely out of context and totally misapplied it. Since then, the misinterpreted "separation of church and state" has been used to thoroughly purge God and Christianity from America's public life.
Since those egregiously unconstitutional and un-American Supreme Court decisions in 1962 and '63, Christian influence upon civil government has all but disappeared in this country. So great has been this deception that we now hear people say that Christians (especially ministers) should not be involved in politics in any shape, manner, or form.
Yet, the truth is, I did not relinquish my citizenship when I became a pastor. Neither did any other American surrender his or her citizenship when he or she became a Christian. Just the opposite is true.
In order for America to regain its religious liberty, it is mandatory that Christians everywhere get involved in the political affairs of their country. We must stop surrendering our God-given liberties to would-be tyrants! Pastors and other Christian leaders who are actively engaged in the civil affairs of our country serve in the finest tradition of America. Stop apologizing for it!
As Daniel Webster so eloquently said, "I shall know but one country. The ends I aim at shall be my country's, my God's, and Truth's. I was born an American; I live an American; I shall die an American."
Christians are Americans, too; they need to start acting like it!
© 2005 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin210.htm
Separate for sure. The Christian right is SO off base about that - one of the reasons I had to leave "church".
The U.S. was not founded upon Christianity but upon principles of human freedom (AKA freedom from oppression - religious or otherwise). That's why Jesus is never mentioned even once in the constitution or in Declaration of independence (which is exactly as the Spirit of Christ would have it).
Smart fellers them founders. :thumbsup:
(BTW - many early settlers were fleeing Christian states, remember? There's a reason for that! :icon_flower:)
USA/Russia: Radical Atheist Michael Newdow Agrees With A Russian Communist
26 March 2010, 12:40
Russian Communist MP wants to "ban" God again
Moscow, March 26, Interfax – Deputy of the State Duma from the Communist Party Boris Kashin again proposes to change Russian national anthem excluding reference to God from it.
He introduced a correspondent draft to parliament on Thursday. However, the government decided that the MP made a mistake in calculations when he estimated expenses needed to realize his initiative in 120 thousand rubles, the Gazeta paper reports on Friday.
The deputy believes that changing of one word will consolidate citizens as the anthem will become religiously neutral. "To tell the truth, after all that has happened in our country, to claim that God keeps safe our country is only to provoke God," he believes.
Kashin proposes to replace the word "God" with the word "us" in the line "You are unique in the world! You alone are like this, Our dear land kept safe by God!"
"We have kept it safe once, and that led to a lot of bloodshed. History has shown that sometimes we try to keep our land without submitting to a higher moral authority. It's a very dangerous historical philosophy. We will make the same mistake again," Patriarch Kirill said commenting this initiative in November 2009.
http://americancrisis.us/Article.php?ID=69101&
Just asking, do the people who complain about changing the constitution wish for it to go back to the very original one? You know the one in which one of the changes would be removed granting the right for women to vote?
I have actually met one person who sees no problem with that. Any one here agree with him and if so, on what grounds? He says that women are too irrational to vote because of pms and stuff (he said another S word, lol).
Fair enough WW, since this isn't about gay marriage I am not going to debate the issue, but can I ask what "Old fashioned" is rooted in concerning fathers?
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on March 27, 2010, 11:34:23 PMHe says that women are too irrational to vote because of pms and stuff (he said another S word, lol).
PMs? They had message boards at that time? :msealed:
:winkgrin:
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on March 27, 2010, 11:37:17 PM
Fair enough WW, since this isn't about gay marriage I am not going to debate the issue, but can I ask what "Old fashioned" is rooted in concerning fathers?
Not "fathers"
I
I will add the the NT gives no indication that earthly governments are to be involved in prayer or enforcing any kind of Christian doctrine/belief at all. Jesus certainly is not recorded viewing the government He was born under in that way. "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's". A government which supports human and religious freedom WHILE STAYING THE HELL OUT OF OUR PERSONAL BELIEFS is the best possible scenario for people to have. They exist and operate by God's decree and as God's officers whether they know or acknowledge it or not.
Now - oppressive regimes also exist by God's decree but when they violate inalienable human rights they ultimately pay the price and fail miserably. It's a curious system (overall) for sure, but hey - here we are. :thumbsup:
Quote from: PaulJust asking, do the people who complain about changing the constitution wish for it to go back to the very original one? You know the one in which one of the changes would be removed granting the right for women to vote?
That's kind of a moot question in light of the fact that the current Congress has just denied men the right to vote. This Congress voted with Obama and against the vocal and majority oppositions of their constituents.
I think we need to return to a representative government first and then we can entertain such silly historical notions.
Should Church and state be separate?
most definitely!
we have seen what the implications are when they are joined at the hip...the church becomes like "the world"
the rulers of this earth is not interested in serving mankind, but only to serve themselves and the interests of their cronies
Jesus tells us that we should be peacemakers, yet the world cannot get enough of war...more war...more blood being spilt
Quote from: Molly on March 28, 2010, 11:55:49 AM
Quote from: PaulJust asking, do the people who complain about changing the constitution wish for it to go back to the very original one? You know the one in which one of the changes would be removed granting the right for women to vote?
That's kind of a moot question in light of the fact that the current Congress has just denied men the right to vote. This Congress voted with Obama and against the vocal and majority oppositions of their constituents.
I think we need to return to a representative government first and then we can entertain such silly historical notions.
Not my point, either you like the change made to the constitution concerning voting rights for women, or you don't.
Quote from: PaulNot my point, either you like the change made to the constitution concerning voting rights for women, or you don't.
The founders said this--
All men are created equalWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;[
Do you think they really meant to say, women and slaves were not equal to men, women and slaves were not endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights? Of course not.
In the classical sense, 'all men' refers to all mankind, men, women, black, white. The greek word is
G444
ἄνθρωπος
anthrōposanth'-ro-pos
From G435 and ὤψ ōps (the countenance; from G3700); manfaced, that is,
a human being: - certain, man.
Thus, it was always embedded in the Constitution that the equality was for all, the inalienable rights were for all. And, this is the genius of our founders, because they could see and embrace and make allowance for a thing that was not yet revealed.
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam,..,--Gen 5
Quote from: Molly on March 29, 2010, 08:48:51 PM
Quote from: PaulNot my point, either you like the change made to the constitution concerning voting rights for women, or you don't.
The founders said this--
All men are created equal
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;[
Do you think they really meant to say, women and slaves were not equal to men, women and slaves were not endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights? Of course not.
In the classical sense, 'all men' refers to all mankind, men, women, black, white. The greek word is
G444
ἄνθρωπος
anthrōpos
anth'-ro-pos
From G435 and ὤψ ōps (the countenance; from G3700); manfaced, that is, a human being: - certain, man.
Thus, it was always embedded in the Constitution that the equality was for all, the inalienable rights were for all. And, this is the genius of our founders, because they could see and embrace and make allowance for a thing that was not yet revealed.
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam,..,
--Gen 5
Great, then states that have banned gay marriage based on that equality are violating constitutional rights. Do you object then to the changes made to the constitution concerning voting rights for women?
Quote from: PaulGreat, then states that have banned gay marriage based on that equality are violating constitutional rights. Do you object then to the changes made to the constitution concerning voting rights for women?
I have no idea what you are talking about. Marriage as a civil union is determined by the states. If banning gay marriage was violating any Constitutional rights, you would see it in the Supreme Court by now. States have their own Constitutions, as well, you know.
If you wish to change the U.S. Constitution, this is how to do it. Be my guest.--
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
Quote from: Molly on March 30, 2010, 03:02:10 AM
I have no idea what you are talking about. Marriage as a civil union is determined by the states. If banning gay marriage was violating any Constitutional rights, you would see it in the Supreme Court by now. States have their own Constitutions, as well, you know.
Whether it has gone there by now doesn't indicate anything concerning that. It's really an easy question to answer. I am glad there was an amendment to the constitution stating the countries stand on womens voting once and for all. There should be one for gay marriage too. And there really is no argument against it that overwhelms a debate on the subject until you decide that you want a christian theocracy in america, than all you have to say is that a certain sects intepretation is what should rule.
Some do, at least admit it if you want one.
Quick jump-in here. Your post got me thinking Paul.
God's government is going to look a whole lot different than any of our governments. It will truly be a Theocracy like no other has ever been or will be. When God sets up His righteous government over a new heaven and new earth, then I personally truly wouldn't expect there to be any sin, homosexual marriage included – but the following covers a whole lot of territory. It gets me thinking about my own life (a couple of "oaths" I need to take care of) as well as our current government -
I Timothy 1:9-10 "....being aware of the fact that law isn't laid down for the just person, but for those who are lawless and insubordinate, for those who are...wrongdoers, for those who adulterate pure things and are impure, for those who illtreat their father or mothers, for those who are murderers, for those who have nonmarital sexual intercourse, for those who are homosexuals, ..liars...break their oaths...who do anything else that is in opposition to healthy teaching..."
I Cor. 6:9 "Or aren't you aware that the unjust won't inherit a share of God's Kingdom? You must stop being led astray; neither those who are having nonmarital sexual intercourse, nor those who are idol worshipers, nor those who are having extramarital sexual intercourse... nor those who are homosexuals ..thieves ..greedy ..drunkard..nor those who wound with words..."
How should all that influence us now? I suspect the change needs to come from the inside out, yet again, "law is for the lawless and insubordinate" - and there is no authority that is not established by God....
P.S. Quote PaulH - "then all you have to say is a certain sects intepretation is what should rule."
And that's a huge part of the problem, huh? I do know I don't personally want a government that's not truly headed by God Almighty telling me what I should or shouldn't be doing morally - yet they do, regarding stealing, killing, etc. - so it really becomes a complicated issue :sigh:. And since it is, and since we sin, and since God's not established his total, righteous government yet, I guess that's why we're waiting and the whole creation's groaning for deliverance.....
I don't want to complain, so I'll end on a positive note. God's still good, He still protects and is leading us right where He wants us to go, and He still says this - "in the world you will have trouble, but take courage for I have conquered the world." :thumbsup:
Quote from: PaulThere should be one for gay marriage too. And there really is no argument against it that overwhelms a debate on the subject until you decide that you want a christian theocracy in america, than all you have to say is that a certain sects intepretation is what should rule
Again, I don't understand how you equate woman's vote with gay marriage, but I will say that you are not likely to ever get a Constitutional amendment for gay marriage.
As to there being no argument, you should really take a look at what has happened in MA before you make such a glib statement. Fathers have been put in jail in MA because they objected to the public school giving their 5 year old a story book of two men marrying complete with two men kissing each other on the lips---and so forth. Families have moved out of the state. It's not as simple as you seem to think, and all have rights--not just gays. You don't have to be a Christian to object to gay pride parades marching half naked past your children in the city streets, or to object to your teenager getting books in high school on the finer details of gay sex. All of that and more comes part and parcel with a state certifying gay marriage.
Actually I am just making some comparisons, you should of just said you do not like the changes to the constitution concerning womens voting rights because if you did, you would say so.
Quote from: jabcat on March 30, 2010, 07:03:27 AM
P.S. Quote PaulH - "then all you have to say is a certain sects intepretation is what should rule."
And that's a huge part of the problem, huh? I do know I don't personally want a government that's not truly headed by God Almighty telling me what I should or shouldn't be doing morally - yet they do, regarding stealing, killing, etc. - so it really becomes a complicated issue :sigh:. And since it is, and since we sin, and since God's not established his total, righteous government yet, I guess that's why we're waiting and the whole creation's groaning for deliverance.....
I don't want to complain, so I'll end on a positive note. God's still good, He still protects and is leading us right where He wants us to go, and He still says this - "in the world you will have trouble, but take courage for I have conquered the world." :thumbsup:
Well James, one thing we can be sure of despite claims of religion, there would be no human government truly ran by men of God.
So we can be sure that a Christian theocracy would be as corrupt as the one now and quite possibly more barbaric but it would be hidden deeply within dogma even harder to spot and deal with than it is now. For how do you argue against someone in authority who saysd God said to do it? Try just debating with someone in a forum with no authority who says "God said it not me" and you see the problem.
When I hear people say that our country is worse off than before, that just seems to be a perspective based on appearances rather than the reality of things we have overcome. The fact that we still have work to do doesn't change what we have overcome.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on March 30, 2010, 02:49:24 PM
Actually I am just making some comparisons, you should of just said you do not like the changes to the constitution concerning womens voting rights because if you did, you would say so.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
--Emma Lazurus
Galatians 4:26
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Quote from: Molly on March 30, 2010, 07:36:43 AM
Fathers have been put in jail in MA because they objected to the public school giving their 5 year old a story book of two men marrying complete with two men kissing each other on the lips---and so forth.
In jail for objecting? I'd love to read that story. Can you provide a reference?
Quote from: firstborn888 on April 01, 2010, 10:32:33 PM
Quote from: Molly on March 30, 2010, 07:36:43 AM
Fathers have been put in jail in MA because they objected to the public school giving their 5 year old a story book of two men marrying complete with two men kissing each other on the lips---and so forth.
In jail for objecting? I'd love to read that story. Can you provide a reference?
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Father faces trial over school's 'pro-gay' bookArrested after objecting to kindergartner's reading material
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 04, 2005
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily.com
A Massachusetts man faces a court trial over a dispute about the teaching of homosexuality in his son's kindergarten class.
David Parker, of Lexington, spent a night in jail and was charged with criminal trespassing after refusing to leave a scheduled meeting with school officials April 27, unless they gave him the option of pulling his child out of certain classes.
Parker says the officials had indicated they would agree to a notification policy then suddenly refused. He insists he has done nothing wrong and is willing to contest the charge rather than plea-bargain.
At a hearing Tuesday, Parker's trial date was set for Sept. 21.
The Lexington School Board contends Parker deliberately set out to be arrested and make national headlines.
Parker's attorney, Jeffrey Denner, rejected that claim as supporters picketed outside the courthouse.
"That is simply untrue. I don't speak for the school, but that is simply untrue," he said. "He was invited to come in, he came in, there was a dialogue going back and forth, there were faxes sent back and forth, from the school to the school committee. His intent was absolutely not to be arrested. His intent was to establish a dialogue to protect his own children and other children as well."
The dispute began last spring when Parker's then-5-year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled, "Who's in a Family?" The optional reading material, which came in a "Diversity Book Bag," depicted at least two households led by homosexual partners.
"There's a larger issue here locally and nationally and internationally about the role of family and what kind of encroachments government can make into children's and people's lives," Denner told reporters.
The illustrated book, according to the local non-profit group Article 8 Alliance, says, "A family can be made up in many different ways" and includes this text:
"Laura and Kyle live with their two moms, Joyce and Emily, and a poodle named Daisy. It takes all four of them to give Daisy her bath."
Another illustrated page says:
"Robin's family is made up of her dad, Clifford, her dad's partner, Henry, and Robin's cat, Sassy. Clifford and Henry take turns making dinner for their family."
Article 8, an opponent of the state's same-sex marriage law, says the book "uses subtle but powerful emotions to normalize homosexual relationships in the minds of the young children."
A backer of the Lexington School District, Laura Tully, argued, according to WCVB-TV in Boston, "A 5-year-old who is coming to the classroom with two moms deserves to be in a classroom that includes books that show his family."
Denner said he is negotiating with school officials to prevent the trial, but he also indicated that Parker likely will file a civil suit in federal court by this fall against the town of Lexington, the school system and its officials.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45594
David Parker's first-grade son surrounded and beaten up at school.
Caps year-long public campaign of anti-Parker hate by pro-gay activists in town.
Hostile school officials work with local gay groups to demean Parker family and discredit facts about incident. Create alternative, watered-down version of story a month after incident. Disgraceful campaign of disinformation.
Young children polarized by intolerant atmosphere created by adults. School at first acknowledges facts about beating. But later radically changes story and works with gay activists to demean Parkers.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/parker_son_incident/index.html
"Safe Schools" czar Kevin Jennings to get $410 million in Obama's 2011 federal budget
To push homosexual and transgender programs in America's schools!
POSTED: Feb 25, 2010
Despite the national recession and federal budget deficits, Barack Obama is including $410 million in the 2011 budget for his "safes schools" czar Kevin Jennings (an increase of $45 million). As we've documented by his actions over the years pushing homosexuality to schoolchildren, Jennings will use this money to force the homosexual/transgender agenda into America's public schools.
This year, his main approach is through "school climate" surveys given to kids in schools. The survey "tests" how gay-friendly and transgender-friendly schools are. If the schools don't meet a certain standard, the administration can determine that the school is "unsafe" and require more homosexual programs and activities. These surveys have already been pushed as a jump-start in many Massachusetts schools for years by GLSEN and the Massachusetts Commission for GLBT Youth.
Here's what CitizenLink recently reported about this:
So what does Jennings intend to do with this money?
For starters, he says he's going to make "school climate" measurement a top priority -- and, in fact, he'd love for "school climate" to eventually be made part of the "Common Core" national standards movement! He plans to begin with "a new grant program coming out of this department where we'll be providing possibly as much as $70 million for investments in school climate projects." (He revealed all this and much more in this month's Phi Delta Kappan magazine. Scroll down to the "Safe at School" title.)
So at this point, you might be wondering, What on earth does "school climate" really mean? I think it's best to take that definition from Kevin Jennings-based on his record as the longtime founder and leader of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network).
Under Jennings' leadership, GLSEN has provided students with a "school climate" continuum measurement tool. This tool reveals a lot about Jennings' true goals: A positively rated "inclusive school," for instance, is defined as one where "LGBT themes are fully integrated into curricula across a variety of subject areas and grade levels."
I.e., Jennings and GLSEN want homosexual, bisexual and transgender themes taught in every subject at every grade, all the way down to the kindergarten level, maybe even preschool.
By contrast, a "hostile school," is one where "Curricula are devoid of LGBT themes" and homosexuality is "characterized" as "sin." Does this mean that a school that acknowledges Christian students' free speech rights to express their opinions about things like same-sex marriage is rated as "hostile"? Does this mean that if students disagree with lessons taught in class about homosexuality and same-sex marriage that they will be in violation of "school climate" safety policies?
Is this how Kevin Jennings will use taxpayer-funded money to measure our schools and force changes?
Read entire article HERE
Currently in Maine, the spokesman for GLSEN is a major proponent of transgender bathrooms in Maine's schools (even at the elementary level). See the
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/kevin_jennings/410_million/index.html
What's this?
Public Law 97-280
"We should live our lives as though Christ were coming this afternoon."
- Jimmy Carter
"I was humbled to learn that God sent His Son to die for a sinner like me."
- George W. Bush
"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
- Thomas Jefferson,
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 165, with thirty-three co-sponsors, and as House Joint Resolution 487 with 219 co-sponsors, a request was delivered before Congress to honor the Bible as Holy Scripture. The resolution suffered no amendments, no exclusions, no demands that it be stricken of religious references. It became law.
The 97th Congress of the United States publicly declared 1983 the national "Year of the Bible". The bipartisan document known as Public Law 97-280, was signed on October 4, 1982 by Speaker of the House Thomas P. O'Neill, President of the Senate - Pro Tempore Strom Thurmond, and President of the United States Ronald Reagan. It reads as follows:
WHEREAS the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;
WHEREAS deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;
WHEREAS Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States;
WHEREAS many of our great national leaders--among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson--paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as in the words of President Jackson that the Bible is "the Rock on which our Republic rests";
WHEREAS the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies; WHEREAS this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and
WHEREAS that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: NOW, THEREFORE, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. 33
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Hist/H-0901.htm
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
- Patrick Henry
Molly, are you in support of a Christian theocracy in America?
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 03, 2010, 01:10:47 AM
Molly, are you in support of a Christian theocracy in America?
I don't know what a "Christian theocracy" would be.
But I'm in support of this--
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions,
but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
- Patrick Henry
and this--
The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever."--Rev 11:15
And this--
Daniel 2:44
"In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.
Quote from: Molly on April 02, 2010, 03:44:25 PM
Quote from: firstborn888 on April 01, 2010, 10:32:33 PM
Quote from: Molly on March 30, 2010, 07:36:43 AM
Fathers have been put in jail in MA because they objected to the public school giving their 5 year old a story book of two men marrying complete with two men kissing each other on the lips---and so forth.
In jail for objecting? I'd love to read that story. Can you provide a reference?
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Father faces trial over school's 'pro-gay' book
Arrested after objecting to kindergartner's reading material
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 04, 2005
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily.com
A Massachusetts man faces a court trial over a dispute about the teaching of homosexuality in his son's kindergarten class.
David Parker, of Lexington, spent a night in jail and was charged with criminal trespassing after refusing to leave a scheduled meeting with school officials April 27, unless they gave him the option of pulling his child out of certain classes.
Well, WND is spinning the story the same as you did. He wasn't arrested for objecting, he was arrested because he wouldn't leave the building when it was time to close. It was a smart move because anyone knows civil disobedience and arrests make news and can get your base motivated. But to say he was arrested for objecting to the class material is a flat out lie.
Quote from: Molly on April 03, 2010, 12:50:09 AM
What's this?
Public Law 97-280
"We should live our lives as though Christ were coming this afternoon."
- Jimmy Carter
"I was humbled to learn that God sent His Son to die for a sinner like me."
- George W. Bush
"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
- Thomas Jefferson,
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 165, with thirty-three co-sponsors, and as House Joint Resolution 487 with 219 co-sponsors, a request was delivered before Congress to honor the Bible as Holy Scripture. The resolution suffered no amendments, no exclusions, no demands that it be stricken of religious references. It became law.
The 97th Congress of the United States publicly declared 1983 the national "Year of the Bible". The bipartisan document known as Public Law 97-280, was signed on October 4, 1982 by Speaker of the House Thomas P. O'Neill, President of the Senate - Pro Tempore Strom Thurmond, and President of the United States Ronald Reagan. It reads as follows:
WHEREAS the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;
WHEREAS deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;
WHEREAS Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States;
WHEREAS many of our great national leaders--among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson--paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as in the words of President Jackson that the Bible is "the Rock on which our Republic rests";
WHEREAS the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies; WHEREAS this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and
WHEREAS that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: NOW, THEREFORE, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. 33
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Hist/H-0901.htm
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
- Patrick Henry
So they honored the influence and inspiration of the bible - that's awesome.
The founding fathers were a diverse bunch - Christians, diests, agnostics - but ALL understood the problems involved when a government endorses
any religious creed.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
The purpose above is crystal clear.
Plus - I believe the Patrick Henry quote you gave is bogus (do some research - from what I understand it's not in any of his writings). In fact there is a
boatload of false quotes going around by the folks that want to make Christianity the U.S. state religion.
Like I said - the right wing "Christian nation" movement is
way off base. History has proven that whenever a government endorses a state religion (Christianity, Islam or whatever) the result is ALWAYS disastrous. The pilgrims were
fleeing this sort of system!!! That's why the founders intelligently left out any reference to Jesus in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The government needs to stay the hell out of faith matters except to protect the right of citizens to believe as they wish. It's called 'freedom'.
QuoteThe pilgrims were fleeing this sort of system!!!
The Pilgrims were fleeing Christian governments who were telling them they must, as Christians, believe and behave in a certain way. The Pilgrims themselves were Christians. They came here as a church relocation program. Once they got here, when different Christian groups agreed to disagree, they built a new church or founded a new town, much as happens here on the internet. The fact that they allowed each other to do this, this freedom of worship, is memorialized in the New England town square which is always flanked by at least two different Christian churches. But, they were ALL Christians.
THAT's the point. This country was founded by Christians on Christian principles based on the New Testament. Is that something you want to argue?
QuotePlus - I believe the Patrick Henry quote you gave is bogus (do some research - from what I understand it's not in any of his writings). In fact there is a boatload of false quotes going around by the folks that want to make Christianity the U.S. state religion.
Unconfirmed Quotations
David Barton - 01/2000
(This article has created controversy in some quarters; read the background behind the "Unconfirmed Quotations" article controversy.)
The following quotations have been seen and heard in numerous books, periodicals, editorials, speeches, etc. In our research, we have not previously used a quote that was not documented to a source
in a manner that would be acceptable in a scholarly work or a university text. However, we strongly believe that the debates surrounding the Founders are too important to apply solely an academic standard. Therefore, we unilaterally initiated within our own works a standard of documentation
that would exceed the academic standard and instead would conform to the superior legal standard (i.e., relying solely on primary or original sources, using best evidence, rather than relying on the writings of attorneys, professors, or historians).
It is only in using this much higher standard that we call the following quotes "unconfirmed": that is, while the quotes below have been documented in a completely acceptable fashion for academic works, they are currently "unconfirmed" if relying solely on original sources or sources contemporaneous to the life of the actual individual Founder. These original sources for these quotes may still surface (for example, a major primary document from James Madison surfaced as late as 1946), and in fact you will note that we have actually located the original sources for some to the quotes below that originally we listed as unconfirmed. However, with the remaining quotes listed below, we recommend that you refrain from using them until such time that an original primary source may be found, notwithstanding the fact that the quotes below may be documented to a number of contemporary sources.
One may only speculate as to how these quotes originated. In two cases, the errors appear obvious. In others, there are historical clues and possibilities. In the final analysis, the words in question - despite the fact that they are currently "unconfirmed" in primary source documents -
are nevertheless completely consistent not only with the character of these men but also with the character of their era, including U. S. Supreme Court decisions. Nonetheless, for us, only primary documentation will justify pulling these quotes off of the shelf. We offer brief comments where appropriate, to include supporting quotations and citations.
1. It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! -- Patrick Henry (unconfirmed)
Few could dispute that this quotation is consistent with Henry's life and character. (Interestingly, those who advocate a secular society today view Henry as an arch enemy.) One early biographer describes how Henry reprinted and distributed Soame Jennings book, View of the Internal Evidence of Christianity, 1 and also that Henry looked to the restraining and elevating principles of Christianity as the hope of his country's institutions. 2 Bishop Meade, writing of Virginia families in general, says of Henry that, despite possible periods of alienation, his attachment to the [Episcopal] Church of his fathers is clearly established. 3 In one of many courtroom speeches, Henry offered these thoughts (one need not agree with his ideas to understand the context):
I know, sir, how well it becomes a liberal man and a Christian to forget and forgive. As individuals professing a holy religion, it is our bounden duty to forgive injuries done us as individuals. But when the character of Christian you add the character of patriot, you are in a different situation. Our mild and holy system of religion inculcates an admirable maxim of forbearance. If your enemy smite one cheek, turn the other to him. But you must stop there. You cannot apply this to your country. As members of a social community, this maxim does not apply to you. When you consider injuries done to your country your political duty tells you of vengeance. Forgive as a private man, but never forgive public injuries. Observations of this nature are exceedingly unpleasant, but it is my duty to use them. 4
In a 1796 letter to his daughter Henry stated:
Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number; and, indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast. 5
Bishop Meade, mentioned above, also describes a letter from Rev. Dresser, who was addressing two Church historians. Concerning Patrick Henry, Dresser wrote:
It is stated, in an article which I saw some time ago, from the Protestant Episcopalian, and, I presume, from one of you, that Patrick Henry was once an infidel, &c. His widow and some of his descendants are residing in this county, and I am authorized by one of them to say that the anecdote related is not true. He ever had, I am informed, a very abhorrence of infidelity, and actually wrote an answer to Paine's Age of Reason, but destroyed it before his death. His widow informed me that he received the Communion as often as an opportunity was offered, and on such occasions always fasted until after he had communicated, and spent the day in the greatest retirement. This he did both while Governor and afterward. Had he lived a few years longer, he would have probably done much to check the immoral influence of one of his compatriots [?], whose works are now diffusing the poison of infidelity throughout our land. 6
Henry's religious persuasion is well-established. However, there is more evidence that should be considered. Biographer William Wirt Henry relates that a visiting neighbor recalled Henry holding up the Bible and stating:
This book is worth all the books that ever were printed, and it has been my misfortune that I have never found time to read it with the proper attention and feeling till lately. I trust in the mercy of Heaven that it is not yet too late. 7
Despite his regret for not having spent more time in the Bible, Henry knew the value of Scripture. Taken together with his efforts while in public life, there is an ample foundation for this excerpt from his Last Will and Testament:
This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed. 8
As a final thought, there is a possibility that the unconfirmed quote came from Henry's uncle, the Reverend Patrick Henry. We find no record of the Reverend's letters or writings. Therefore, until more definitive documentation can be presented, please avoid the words in question.
2. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. -- George Washington (unconfirmed)
Although the modern secularists avoid his numerous religious maxims, Washington's views on religion are easily documented. He often spoke on religious themes, to include the ruler of nations, the light of Revelation, and the symbiotic relationship between the Church and the state. There is overwhelming evidence to support this thought as belonging to Washington. However, since the quote has not been documented to date, it appears unlikely to be found. Too much research has been done on the life of Washington to see the prospect of a new quotation.
There is a very real possibility that the quotation has its origin in an 1835 biography by James K. Paulding. In a description of Washington's character, with supporting quotations, Paulding declares Washington to have said:
It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being. 9
The similarities are obvious; a paraphrase of these quotes could have easily generated the words in question. However, we have not been able to trace Paulding's cite to a more scholarly reference. He offers no footnotes. For an extensive selection of Washington's religious sayings, see the Maxims of Washington: Political, Social, Moral, and Religious, John F. Schroeder, ed. (Mount Vernon, Virginia: The Mount Vernon Ladies Association, © 1942). (The book has also been reprinted, albeit in a slightly different format. We recommend the older versions.)
3.
Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian. --
Holy Trinity v. U. S. (Supreme Court) (inaccurate confirmed! -- Richmond v. Moore, Illinois Supreme Court, 1883)
This quotation appeared in many modern works, each attributing the wording to the U. S. Supreme Court's 1892 decision in the Holy Trinity case. After researching and being unable to locate this quote in that case, we concluded that it was probably was a cut-and-paste typographical error, for several of the phrases do appear in that case, 10 but not in the exact wording given above; we therefore at that time recommended that this quote not be used.
Now, however, after more than a decade of searching, we have located and confirmed the original source for this quote: it appears not in an 1892 U. S. Supreme Court case 11 but rather in an 1883 Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Richmond v. Moore. 12 While we previously recommended against using this quote, it is now authenticated and can be cited, providing that it is attributed to the proper source. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=126
Quote from: Molly on April 03, 2010, 02:22:58 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 03, 2010, 01:10:47 AM
Molly, are you in support of a Christian theocracy in America?
I don't know what a "Christian theocracy" would be.
But I'm in support of this--
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
- Patrick Henry
and this--
The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever."
--Rev 11:15
And this--
Daniel 2:44
"In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.
Well, what does that mean to you when it would come to running the country? Would you jail people for having another God before them?
Molly,
Is is beyond dispute that most of the Europeans who first settled here wore some sort of Christian label. What is also beyond dispute is that the founding fathers were smart enough to make sure the government stayed out of religious matters.
The Christian political movement which seeks to unite the government with Christianity is defying the bill of rights, particularly the 1st amendment. They also go on this rampage to keep the 10 commandment engraved granite blocks (which were produced around the country and donated to various cities TO PROMOTE THE MOVIE RELEASE BY THE SAME NAME) in front of courthouses and city halls etc.
Of course this works great for end time conspiracy theory alarmists who see a 666 behind everything that they disagree with. They really need to find a better use of time and resources than trying to tear down a wall which the founders wisely placed right where it belongs.
QuoteWould you jail people for having another God before them?
No of course not. As you know, our freedom comes from God--for that reason, our rights are unalienable. Think about the difference between this country [before we started turning into a police state, that is] and Iran, for instance. That is because our founders read the Bible.
If we do turn into a total police state, it will be because our leaders and the people have turned their backs on our Christian heritage, as the founders well knew, so they spelled it out in the Bill of Rights [which are now being removed from us, one by one, by a lawless generation]--
For the Lord is the Spirit, and wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
--2 Cor 3:17
Quote from: firstborn888 on March 28, 2010, 11:10:43 AM
I will add the the NT gives no indication that earthly governments are to be involved in prayer or enforcing any kind of Christian doctrine/belief at all. Jesus certainly is not recorded viewing the government He was born under in that way. "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's". A government which supports human and religious freedom WHILE STAYING THE HELL OUT OF OUR PERSONAL BELIEFS is the best possible scenario for people to have. They exist and operate by God's decree and as God's officers whether they know or acknowledge it or not.
Now - oppressive regimes also exist by God's decree but when they violate inalienable human rights they ultimately pay the price and fail miserably. It's a curious system (overall) for sure, but hey - here we are. :thumbsup:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
firstborn888,
I certainly share in like mindedness with what you have pointed out here, especially a Government that supports human and religious freedom WHILE STAYING TO HELL OUT OF OUR PERSONAL BELIEFS is the best possible scenario for people to have.
Peace,
Fire Walker
Quote from: Molly on April 04, 2010, 03:10:34 AM
QuoteWould you jail people for having another God before them?
No of course not. As you know, our freedom comes from God--for that reason, our rights are unalienable. Think about the difference between this country [before we started turning into a police state, that is] and Iran, for instance. That is because our founders read the Bible.
If we do turn into a total police state, it will be because our leaders and the people have turned their backs on our Christian heritage, as the founders well knew, so they spelled it out in the Bill of Rights [which are now being removed from us, one by one, by a lawless generation]--
What in the world are you talking about? Many slave owners read the bible. It's not reading a book which brings justice to the heart. Thomas Jefferson for instance took to heart Jesus'
moral teachings but REJECTED the bible's literal miracle stories.
The bill of rights was not given so we wouldn't forget our Christian heritage. It was given so the government couldn't (legally) become oppressive of it's citizens. Christian states do
not have a good human rights track record.
Please - just look in the bible itself at how Jesus and Paul viewed the government's role. There is NOTHING there about posting the ten commandments at courthouses or the government backing Christianity. In fact ALL the problems with Christianity started when Constantine made Christianity the official state religion. :thumbdown:
It's great to site the faith's wonderful influence on people and their ideas. I believe God gave the founders the wisdom to set things up as they are. :thumbsup:
When I got ready to post this, I saw what you said Byron about citing faith's influence on people, and I think really that's pretty much exactly what I was getting at while I was posting the following;
Is it possible a big part of what's being missed in our government is what's being missed in society at large - and often within each one of us - the less we love Jesus and live in obedience to God, we reap what we sow? Not that anything to do with "religion" should be forced legislatively, but that the more we love God and seek Him as a nation/people, the more that influence will be experienced and permeate our individual and collective beings, and will then more "naturally" occur? I agree we need a righteous and holy everything - including government. What would things look like if our hearts were truly changed and turned towards God - if things were cleansed from the inside out, not attempted from the outside in?
Maybe it's how much we seek God and walk humbly before Him. Not by might, nor by power, but by His Spirit. His righteous government is coming. Will it take Is. 26:9 to usher it in? ["when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness"] How do we get there? The fight is Light against darkness and it's fought best on our knees.
Wouldn't true holiness beget true holiness? "Yet you must first be continually seeking His Kingdom and the things that are right [and just] according to Him, and all these things will be added to you!" Matthew 6:33 (CB)
QuotePlease - just look in the bible itself at how Jesus and Paul viewed the government's role.
They were dealing with a pagan government where the ruler considered HIMSELF God.
I can't understand where your fear and hostility is coming from because I'm not advocating anything other than what the founders gave us--which, by the way, we no longer have at this point in time--we do not have a functioning Republic and we do not have a representative government and we do not have moral men in power,--we haven't for at least 100 years-- and yes, the founders put God first, and that makes a difference in how you behave and what type of government you have. There is a reason why Communism insists on atheism.
Government's role:
...and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
--Isaiah 9:6
QuoteWhat is also beyond dispute is that the founding fathers were smart enough to make sure the government stayed out of religious matters.
QuoteThe founding fathers were a diverse bunch - Christians, diests, agnostics - but ALL understood the problems involved when a government endorses any religious creed.
Who should I believe? You or them--
John Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1
The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious –
there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation.2
Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.3
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!5
I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.6
John Quincy Adams
SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; "OLD MAN ELOQUENT"; "HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION"
My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.7
The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made "bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God" [Isaiah 52:10].8
In the chain of human events,
the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.9
Samuel Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; "FATHER OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION"; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS
I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period
when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace.12
Josiah Bartlett
MILITARY OFFICER; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Called on the people of New Hampshire . . . to confess before God their aggravated transgressions and to implore His pardon and forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ . . . that the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
may be made known to all nations, pure and undefiled religion universally prevail, and the earth be fill with the glory of the Lord.16
Gunning Bedford
MILITARY OFFICER; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; FEDERAL JUDGE
To the triune God – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost – be ascribed all honor and dominion, forevermore – Amen.17
Elias Boudinot
PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; SIGNED THE PEACE TREATY TO END THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; FIRST ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO THE U. S. SUPREME COURT BAR; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; DIRECTOR OF THE U. S. MINT
Let us enter on this important business under the idea that
we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned... Let us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ's sake, to preside in our councils . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore.
Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.18
Jacob Broom
LEGISLATOR; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION
A letter to his son, James, attending Princeton University:
I flatter myself you will be what I wish, but don't be so much flatterer as to relax of your application – don't forget to be a Christian. I have said much to you on this head, and I hope an indelible impression is made.21
Charles Carroll
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; U. S. SENATOR
Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which,
through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He had conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation and on myself in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 89 years, and to survive the fiftieth year of independence, adopted by Congress on the 4th of July 1776, which I originally subscribed on the 2d day of August of the same year and of which I am now the last surviving signer.23
Congress, 1854
The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.25
Congress, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854
Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity...
That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.26
John Dickinson
SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE; GENERAL IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works,
for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.27
[Governments] could not give the rights essential to happiness...
We claim them from a higher source: from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth.28
Gabriel Duvall
SOLDIER; JUDGE; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; COMPTROLLER OF THE U. S. TREASURY; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
I resign my soul into the hands of the Almighty Who gave it, in humble hopes of His mercy through our Savior Jesus Christ.29
Benjamin Franklin
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION; DIPLOMAT; PRINTER; SCIENTIST; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.30
Elbridge Gerry
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
He called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . .
And for our unparalleled ingratitude to that Adorable Being
Who has seated us in a land irradiated by the cheering beams of the Gospel of Jesus Christ . . . let us fall prostrate before offended Deity, confess sincerely and penitently our manifold sins and our unworthiness of the least of His Divine favors, fervently implore His pardon through the merits of our mediator.33
Alexander Hamilton
REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; AUTHOR OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS; SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
One other consequence of Hamilton's untimely death was that it permanently halted the formation of a religious society Hamilton had proposed. Hamilton suggested that it be named
the Christian Constitutional Society, and listed two goals for its formation: first, the support of the Christian religion; and second, the support of the Constitution of the United States. This organization was to have numerous clubs throughout each state which would meet regularly
and work to elect to office those who reflected the goals of the Christian Constitutional Society. 37
John Hancock
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS
Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement.38
He called on the entire state to pray "that universal happiness may be established in the world [and] that all may bow to the scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole earth be filled with His glory."39
that the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be established in peace and righteousness among all the nations of the earth.46
. . . . And finally to overrule all the commotions in the world to the spreading the true religion of our Lord Jesus Christ in its purity and power among all the people of the earth.47
John Hart
JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION
Thanks be given unto Almighty God therefore, and knowing that it is appointed for all men once to die and after that the judgment [Hebrews 9:27] . . . principally, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of Almighty God who gave it and my body to the earth to be buried in a decent and Christian like manner . . . to receive the same again at the general resurrection by the mighty power of God.48
Patrick Henry
REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; LEGISLATOR; "THE VOICE OF LIBERTY"; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA
Being a Christian... is a character which I prize far above all this world has or can boast.49
The Bible... is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed.50
Righteousness alone can exalt America as a nation. Whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others.51
The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible.52
This is all the inheritance I can give to my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.53
Samuel Huntington
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; JUDGE; GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT
It becomes a people publicly to acknowledge the over-ruling hand of Divine Providence and their dependence upon the Supreme Being as their Creator and Merciful Preserver . . . and with becoming humility and sincere repentance to supplicate the pardon that we may obtain forgiveness through the merits and mediation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.54
James Iredell
RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON
For my part, I am free and ready enough to declare that I think the Christian religion is a Divine institution; and I pray to God that I may never forget the precepts of His religion or suffer the appearance of an inconsistency in my principles and practice.55
John Jay
PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; DIPLOMAT; AUTHOR OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS; ORIGINAL CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U. S. SUPREME COURT; GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK
Condescend, merciful Father! to grant as far as proper these imperfect petitions, to accept these inadequate thanksgivings, and to pardon whatever of sin hath mingled in them for the sake of Jesus Christ, our blessed Lord and Savior; unto Whom, with Thee, and the blessed Spirit, ever one God, be rendered all honor and glory, now and forever. 56
Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved Son. . . . Blessed be His holy name.57
Mercy and grace and favor did come by Jesus Christ, and also that truth which verified the promises and predictions concerning Him and which exposed and corrected the various errors which had been imbibed respecting the Supreme Being, His attributes, laws, and dispensations.58
I recommend a general and public return of praise and thanksgiving to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend. The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow.60
The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.61
The evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds... they who undertake that task will derive advantages.62
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.63
Cont'd....
Thomas Jefferson
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; DIPLOMAT; GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA; SECRETARY OF STATE; THIRD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.64
The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.65
I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.66
I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.67
William Samuel Johnson
JUDGE; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; PRESIDENT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE; U. S. SENATOR
I . . . am endeavoring . . . to attend to my own duty only as a Christian. . . . let us take care that our Christianity, though put to the test . . . be not shaken, and that our love for things really good wax not cold.68
In an address to graduates:
You this day. . . . have, by the favor of Providence and the attention of friends, received a public education, the purpose whereof hath been to qualify you the better to serve your Creator and your country. You have this day invited this audience to witness the progress you have made. . . . Thus you assume the character of scholars, of men, and of citizens. . . . Go, then, . . . and exercise them with diligence, fidelity, and zeal. . . . Your first great duties, you are sensible, are those you owe to Heaven, to your Creator and Redeemer. Let these be ever present to your minds, and exemplified in your lives and conduct. Imprint deep upon your minds the principles of piety towards God, and a reverence and fear of His holy name. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and its [practice] is everlasting [happiness] . . . . Reflect deeply and often upon [your] relations [with God]. Remember that it is in God you live and move and have your being, – that, in the language of David, He is about your bed and about your path and spieth out all your ways – that there is not a thought in your hearts, nor a word upon your tongues, but lo! He knoweth them altogether, and that He will one day call you to a strict account for all your conduct in this mortal life. Remember, too, that you are the redeemed of the Lord, that you are bought with a price, even the inestimable price of the precious blood of the Son of God. Adore Jehovah, therefore, as your God and your Judge. Love, fear, and serve Him as your Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. Acquaint yourselves with Him in His word and holy ordinances. . . . Go forth into the world firmly resolved neither to be allured by its vanities nor contaminated by its vices, but to run with patience and perseverance, with firmness and [cheerfulness], the glorious career of religion, honor, and virtue. . . . Finally, . . . in the elegant and expressive language are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things" – and do them, and the God of peace shall be with you, to whose most gracious protection I now commend you, humbly imploring Almighty Goodness that He will be your guardian and your guide, your protector and the rock of your defense, your Savior and your God.69
James Kent
JUDGE; LAW PROFESSOR; "FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE"
My children, I wish to talk to you. During my early and middle life I was, perhaps, rather skeptical with regard to some of the truths of Christianity. Not that I did not have the utmost respect for religion and always read my Bible, but the doctrine of the atonement was one I never could understand, and I felt inclined to consider as impossible to be received in the way Divines taught it. I believe I was rather inclined to Unitarianism; but of late years my views have altered. I believe in the doctrines of the prayer books as I understand them, and hope to be saved through the merits of Jesus Christ. . . . My object in telling you this is that if anything happens to me, you might know, and perhaps it would console you to remember, that on this point my mind is clear: I rest my hopes of salvation on the Lord Jesus Christ.70
Francis Scott Key
U. S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; AUTHOR OF THE "STAR SPANGLED BANNER"
May I always hear that you are following the guidance of that blessed Spirit that will lead you into all truth, leaning on that Almighty arm that has been extended to deliver you, trusting only in the only Savior, and going on in your way to Him rejoicing.71
James Madison
SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; AUTHOR OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECRETARY OF STATE; FOURTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.72
James Manning
MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; PRESIDENT OF BROWN UNIVERSITY
I rejoice that the religion of Jesus prevails in your parts; I can tell you the same agreeable news from this quarter. Yesterday I returned from Piscataway in East Jersey, where was held a Baptist annual meeting (I think the largest I ever saw) but much more remarkable still for the Divine influences which God was pleased to grant. Fifteen were baptized; a number during the three days professed to experience a change of heart. Christians were remarkably quickened; multitudes appeared.74
Henry Marchant
MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RHODE ISLAND; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; FEDERAL JUDGE APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON
And may God grant that His grace may really affect your heart with suitable impressions of His goodness. Remember that God made you, that God keeps you alive and preserves you from all harm, and gives you all the powers and the capacity whereby you are able to read of Him and of Jesus Christ, your Savior and Redeemer, and to do every other needful business of life. And while you look around you and see the great privileges and advantages you have above what other children have (of learning to read and write, of being taught the meaning of the great truths of the Bible), you must remember not to be proud on that account but to bless God and be thankful and endeavor in your turn to assist others with the knowledge you may gain.75(to his daughter)
George Mason
DELEGATE AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; "FATHER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS"
I give and bequeath my soul to Almighty God that gave it me, hoping that through the meritorious death and passion of our Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ to receive absolution and remission for all my sins.76
My soul I resign into the hands of my Almighty Creator, Whose tender mercies are all over His works. . humbly hoping from His unbounded mercy and benevolence, through the merits of my blessed Savior, a remission of my sins.77
Cont'd
James McHenry
REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; SECRETARY OF WAR UNDER PRESIDENTS GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JOHN ADAMS
Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. Without the Bible, in vain do we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions.78
Bibles are strong protections. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.79
Thomas McKean
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE
In the case Respublica v. John Roberts,80 John Roberts was sentenced to death after a jury found him guilty of treason. Chief Justice McKean then told him:
You will probably have but a short time to live. Before you launch into eternity, it behooves you to improve the time that may be allowed you in this world: it behooves you most seriously to reflect upon your past conduct; to repent of your evil deeds; to be incessant in prayers to the great and merciful God to forgive your manifold transgressions and sins; to teach you to rely upon the merit and passion of a dear Redeemer, and thereby to avoid those regions of sorrow – those doleful shades where peace and rest can never dwell, where even hope cannot enter. It behooves you to seek the [fellowship], advice, and prayers of pious and good men; to be [persistent] at the Throne of Grace, and to learn the way that leadeth to happiness. May you, reflecting upon these things, and pursuing the will of the great Father of light and life, be received into [the] company and society of angels and archangels and the spirits of just men made perfect; and may you be qualified to enter into the joys of Heaven – joys unspeakable and full of glory!81
Gouverneur Morris
REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; "PENMAN OF THE CONSTITUTION"; DIPLOMAT; U. S. SENATOR
There must be religion. When that ligament is torn, society is disjointed and its members perish... The most important of all lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every state that rejects the precepts of religion.82
Jedidiah Morse
HISTORIAN OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; EDUCATOR; "FATHER OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHY"; APPOINTED BY SECRETARY OF STATE TO DOCUMENT CONDITION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. All efforts made to destroy the foundations of our Holy Religion ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation... in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom... Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government – and all the blessings which flow from them – must fall with them. 84
John Morton
LEGISLATOR; JUDGE; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION
With an awful reverence to the Great Almighty God, Creator of all mankind, being sick and weak in body but of sound mind and memory, thanks be given to Almighty God for the same.85
James Otis
LEADER OF THE SONS OF LIBERTY; ATTORNEY & JURIST; MENTOR OF JOHN HANCOCK AND SAMUEL ADAMS
Has [government] any solid foundation? Any chief cornerstone?... I think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God... The sum of my argument is that civil government is of God.86
Robert Treat Paine
MILITARY CHAPLAIN; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS; JUDGE
I desire to bless and praise the name of God most high for appointing me my birth in a land of Gospel Light where the glorious tidings of a Savior and of pardon and salvation through Him have been continually sounding in mine ears.87
I am constrained to express my adoration of the Supreme Being, the Author of my existence, in full belief of His Providential goodness and His forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ, through whom I hope for never ending happiness in a future state.88
I believe the Bible to be the written word of God and to contain in it the whole rule of faith and manners.89
William Paterson
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; U. S. SENATOR; GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan. [invoking Proverbs 29:2 to instruct a grand jury].90
Timothy Pickering
REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; JUDGE; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; POSTMASTER GENERAL UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON; SECRETARY OF WAR UNDER PRESIDENTS GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JOHN ADAMS; SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS
Pardon, we beseech Thee, all our offences of omission and commission; and grant that in all our thoughts, words, and actions, we may conform to Thy known will manifested in our consciences and in the revelations of Jesus Christ, our Savior.91
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; LEGISLATOR; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; DIPLOMAT
To the eternal and only true God be all honor and glory, now and forever. Amen!93
John Randolph of Roanoke
CONGRESSMAN UNDER PRESIDENTS JOHN ADAMS, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JAMES MADISON, JAMES MONROE, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, ANDREW JACKSON; U. S. SENATOR; DIPLOMAT
I am at last reconciled to my God and have assurance of His pardon through faith in Christ, against which the very gates of hell cannot prevail. Fear hath been driven out by perfect love.95
I have looked to the Lord Jesus Christ, and hope I have obtained pardon.96
I still cling to the cross of my Redeemer, and with God's aid firmly resolve to lead a life less unworthy of one who calls himself the humble follower of Jesus Christ.97
Benjamin Rush
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SURGEON GENERAL OF THE CONTINENTAL ARMY; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; "FATHER OF AMERICAN MEDICINE"; TREASURER OF THE U. S. MINT; "FATHER OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION"
The Gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey them in all situations! . . . 98
I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as satisfied that it is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament.99
By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects... It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published.100
The only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government is the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible.102
The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effective means of limiting Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools.103
Christianity is the only true and perfect religion; and... in proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obey its precepts, they will be wise and happy.104
The Bible contains more knowledge necessary to man in his present state than any other book in the world.105
The Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life... The Bible... should be read in our schools in preference to all other books because it contains the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public happiness.106
Roger Sherman
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; "MASTER BUILDER OF THE CONSTITUTION"; JUDGE; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; U. S. SENATOR
I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him. . . .
God commands all men everywhere to repent. He also commands them to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and has assured us that all who do repent and believe shall be saved... God... has absolutely promised to bestow them on all these who are willing to accept them on the terms of the Gospel – that is, in a way of free grace through the atonement. "Ask and ye shall receive [John 16:24]. Whosoever will, let him come and take of the waters of life freely [Revelation 22:17]. Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out" [John 6:37].108
"The volume which he consulted more than any other was the Bible. It was his custom, at the commencement of every session of Congress, to purchase a copy of the Scriptures, to peruse it daily, and to present it to one of his children on his return."111
Richard Stockton
JUDGE; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
As my children will have frequent occasion of perusing this instrument, and may probably be particularly impressed with the last words of their father, I think it proper here not only to subscribe to the entire belief of the great and leading doctrines of the Christian religion, such as the being of God; the universal defection and depravity of human nature; the Divinity of the person and the completeness of the redemption purchased by the blessed Savior; the necessity of the operations of the Divine Spirit; of Divine faith accompanied with an habitual virtuous life; and the universality of the Divine Providence: but also, in the bowels of a father's affection, to exhort and charge [my children] that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, that the way of life held up in the Christian system is calculated for the most complete happiness that can be enjoyed in this mortal state, [and] that all occasions of vice and immorality is injurious either immediately or consequentially – even in this life.112
Thomas Stone
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SELECTED AS A DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Shun all giddy, loose, and wicked company; they will corrupt and lead you into vice and bring you to ruin. Seek the company of sober, virtuous and good people... which will lead [you] to solid happiness.113
Joseph Story
U. S. CONGRESSMAN; "FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE"; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT JAMES MADISON
One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations.114
I verily believe that Christianity is necessary to support a civil society and shall ever attend to its institutions and acknowledge its precepts as the pure and natural sources of private and social happiness.115
Caleb Strong
DELEGATE AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO FRAME THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; RATIFIER OF THE CONSTITUTION; U. S. SENATOR; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS
He called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . . all nations may know and be obedient to that grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ.116
Zephaniah Swift
U. S. CONGRESSMAN; DIPLOMAT; JUDGE; AUTHOR OF AMERICA'S FIRST LEGAL TEXT (1795)
Jesus Christ has in the clearest manner inculcated those duties which are productive of the highest moral felicity and consistent with all the innocent enjoyments, to which we are impelled by the dictates of nature. Religion, when fairly considered in its genuine simplicity and uncorrupted state, is the source of endless rapture and delight.117
Charles Thomson
SECRETARY OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; DESIGNER OF THE GREAT SEAL OF THE UNITED STATES; ALONG WITH JOHN HANCOCK, THOMSON WAS ONE OF ONLY TWO FOUNDERS TO SIGN THE INITIAL DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE APPROVED BY CONGRESS
I am a Christian. I believe only in the Scriptures, and in Jesus Christ my Savior.118
Jonathan Trumbull
JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT; CONFIDANT OF GEORGE WASHINGTON AND CALLED "BROTHER JONATHAN" BY HIM
The examples of holy men teach us that we should seek Him with fasting and prayer, with penitent confession of our sins, and hope in His mercy through Jesus Christ the Great Redeemer.119
Principally and first of all, I bequeath my soul to God the Creator and giver thereof, and my body to the earth to be buried in a decent Christian burial, in firm belief that I shall receive the same again at the general resurrection through the power of Almighty God, and hope of eternal life and happiness through the merits of my dear Redeemer Jesus Christ.120
He called on the State of Connecticut to pray that . . .
God would graciously pour out His Spirit upon us and make the blessed Gospel in His hand effectual to a thorough reformation and general revival of the holy and peaceful religion of Jesus Christ.121
George Washington
JUDGE; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE CONTINENTAL ARMY; PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; "FATHER OF HIS COUNTRY"
You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.122
While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.123
The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.124
I now make it my earnest prayer that God would... most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion.125
Daniel Webster
U. S. SENATOR; SECRETARY OF STATE; "DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION"
The Christian religion – its general principles – must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society.126
Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.127
To the free and universal reading of the Bible... men are much indebted for right views of civil liberty.128
The Bible is a book... which teaches man his own individual responsibility, his own dignity, and his equality with his fellow man.129
Noah Webster
REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; EDUCATOR; "SCHOOLMASTER TO AMERICA"
The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles... This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.130
The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.131
All the... evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.132
Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.133
The Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children under a free government ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.134
The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good and the best corrector of all that is evil in human society – the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men.135
The Christian religion... is the basis, or rather the source, of all genuine freedom in government... I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence.136
John Witherspoon
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; PRESIDENT OF PRINCETON
Christ Jesus – the promise of old made unto the fathers, the hope of Israel [Acts 28:20], the light of the world [John 8:12], and the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth [Romans 10:4] – is the only Savior of sinners, in opposition to all false religions and every uninstituted rite; as He Himself says (John 14:6): "I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me."137
No man, whatever be his character or whatever be his hope, shall enter into rest unless he be reconciled to God though Jesus Christ.138
There is no salvation in any other than in Jesus Christ of Nazareth.139
I shall now conclude my discourse by preaching this Savior to all who hear me, and entreating you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ; for "there is no salvation in any other" [Acts 4:12].140
It is very evident that both the prophets in the Old Testament and the apostles in the New are at great pains to give us a view of the glory and dignity of the person of Christ. With what magnificent titles is He adorned! What glorious attributes are ascribed to him!... All these conspire to teach us that He is truly and properly God – God over all, blessed forever!141
If you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ – if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness – you must forever perish.142
He is the best friend to American liberty who is the most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.143
Oliver Wolcott
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; MILITARY GENERAL; GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT
Through various scenes of life, God has sustained me. May He ever be my unfailing friend; may His love cherish my soul; may my heart with gratitude acknowledge His goodness; and may my desires be to Him and to the remembrance of His name....144
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755
Quote from: Molly on April 04, 2010, 02:21:18 PM
QuotePlease - just look in the bible itself at how Jesus and Paul viewed the government's role.
They were dealing with a pagan government where the ruler considered HIMSELF God.
I can't understand where your fear and hostility is coming from because I'm not advocating anything other than what the founders gave us--which, by the way, we no longer have at this point in time--we do not have a functioning Republic and we do not have a representative government and we do not have moral men in power,--we haven't for at least 100 years-- and yes, the founders put God first, and that makes a difference in how you behave and what type of government you have. There is a reason why Communism insists on atheism.
Government's role:
...and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
--Isaiah 9:6
Molly,
If you sense fear and hostility coming from me - it is in your mind. My passion and sense (what I am attempting to express) is from history and personal experience. Men in government trying to take upon themselves spiritual responsibility for the faith and beliefs of the citizenry is
way out of order. You quote a passage about God's sovereign government and try to apply it to what - the U.S. government? Good luck with that (you'll need it!).
I am not even denying that the far left have a very undesirable personal agenda as well. BOTH extremes are detrimental to our free society. Hopefully the extremes will cancel each other out and cooler heads (moderates) will prevail. That way we can (on the one hand) avoid communism and (on the other hand) avoid a religiously produced Armageddon. :sigh:
*double post* :mblush:
Molly,
Your long posts detailing the personal religious beliefs of some fine leaders is great, but has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If any of those men moved to impose their personal religious views through governmental policy they would be in absolute violation of the 1st amendment. Do you understand this?
Hopefully we can elect enough people of good moral character to uphold freedom (AND the first amendment) and stop the government takeover of private businesses etc. I am as concerned as anyone about that. But again - that's not the subject of this thread.
QuoteI am not even denying that the far left have a very undesirable personal agenda as well. BOTH extremes are detrimental to our free society. Hopefully the extremes will cancel each other out and cooler heads (moderates) will prevail. That way we can (on the one hand) avoid communism and (on the other hand) avoid a religiously produced Armageddon.
I assume you are thinking that the religiously produced Armageddon folks are Christians? Whatever would make you think that? Just calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one. You are referring to the neocons and their 'religious right' movement? They are fascists, not Christians. Where in the Bible does God tell us to cause 'Armageddon' by starting wars? I must have missed that scripture. You are talking about the people who deny that Jesus is the Messiah? Isn't that the antiChrist? The neocons are neither new nor conservative.
Main Entry:
neo·con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation: \ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
Function: noun
Date: 1952
1 : a former
liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of
democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through
military means
There is NO difference between the far left and the far right.
You think these people don't have a religion which is directing their every move? Of course they do-- on both the right and the left. But it's not Christianity.
QuoteIf any of those men moved to impose their personal religious views through governmental policy they would be in absolute violation of the 1st amendment. Do you understand this?
Did you read what the founders were all saying? This country was founded on Christian principles. This country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Those in government should be Christians. There is no just government without Christian principles. The Bible should be taught in school. I am a Christian and Jesus Christ is my Savior. Congress should begin every session with a prayer. We should endeavor to elect Christian leaders. They were not silent about their purpose and their beliefs. This is still a Christian country, founded as such, and we lose that at our peril.
Now as far as not imposing views through governmental policy, what exactly do you think Barack Obama is doing? He has now taken over 50 percent of our economy. Would you like to explain to me what kind of government system owns the economy of a nation? [hint: that would be communism or fascism]
QuoteYou quote a passage about God's sovereign government and try to apply it to what - the U.S. government? Good luck with that (you'll need it!).
Not only do I apply it, the founders applied it. What do you think they thought they were doing? They even said as much, that they were creating the kingdom of God on earth, that the government was on the shoulder of Jesus.
Don't you know that you are the right hand of God--his holy arm?
John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."
You never saw Jesus, His followers or the early church get involved with the kingdoms (Goverments) of this world! America is a kingdom, and you can't be citizens of two kingdoms! Yes, I still vote but care not of the outcome... as All is of God! :2c:
Paul
36Jesus answered, `My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my officers had struggled that I might not be delivered up to Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence.'
"now"
G3568
νῦν
nun
noon
A primary particle of present time; "now" (as adverb of date, a transition or emphasis); also as noun or adjective present or immediate: - henceforth, + hereafter, of late, soon, present, this (time). See also G3569, G3570.
Pray like this
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Quote from: Molly on April 05, 2010, 03:26:27 AM
36Jesus answered, `My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my officers had struggled that I might not be delivered up to Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence.'
"now"
G3568
νῦν
nun
noon
A primary particle of present time; "now" (as adverb of date, a transition or emphasis); also as noun or adjective present or immediate: - henceforth, + hereafter, of late, soon, present, this (time). See also G3569, G3570.
Pray like this
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
So we agree, Thy kingdom come is not America! Our kingdom has a King!
Paul
QuoteOur kingdom has a King!
I agree with Samuel Adams--
As members were signing the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams, the father of the Revolution, said, "We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come." After the public reading of the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams noted, "The people, I am told, recognize the resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven."
Quote
Firstborn888 Wrote:
"The government needs to stay the hell out of faith matters except to protect the right of citizens to believe as they wish. It's called 'freedom'. "
Amen to that, brother! Freedom to think and believe as one will is essential. Anything less is not liberty.
A~
Quote from: Molly on April 05, 2010, 02:05:43 AM
Did you read what the founders were all saying? This country was founded on Christian principles. This country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Those in government should be Christians. There is no just government without Christian principles. The Bible should be taught in school. I am a Christian and Jesus Christ is my Savior. Congress should begin every session with a prayer. We should endeavor to elect Christian leaders. They were not silent about their purpose and their beliefs. This is still a Christian country, founded as such, and we lose that at our peril.
After reading the above - I'm just glad you were not in a position to prevent the passage of the 1st amendment and the bill of rights which puts a stop to the nonsense being put forth here.
First you say that
saying you're a Christian doesn't make you one (so true). Bot then you say only Christians should be in government. So (under your plan) first we need a committee to investigate each candidate and determine whether their claims of being "a Christian" are really true (now - that would be an interesting confirmation process :mblush:).
Once THAT part is done I guess it's on to implementing Christian doctrine. Hmmmm.. back to men demanding obedience from their wives and gee - I'd like to own a few slaves -
that's biblical (of course being a Christian I would treat my property well) and um... let's get all the shaggy long haired hippie men to stop going against nature and the women to stop evilly 'bobbing' their hair http://www.bible.acu.edu/crs/doc/ccbh.htm (cutting off their glory??? What impudence!).
Now - we keep all the other commandments but IGNORE the no work Sabbath so we need to reinstitute the death penalty for that (or at least 39 stripes!) complete with a committee to determine what is the equivalent of modern day donkey watering - wouldn't want to execute or beat a technically innocent man).
And now for school - okay - first we baptize all the students (after we have a committee to determine the proper words "Jesus" or "Father Sin and Holy Spirit") and then those who don't start speaking in tongues immediately can go back for re-education till they can get it biblically right (biblical baptisms end in tongue talking).
Then time for government bible class!!! We'll start with the evils of women speaking in church or (gasp) teaching men! Of course, no female high school teachers can have males 18 or above in their class. Being that the country is founded on the bible and all.
Wow Molly, - all this sounds great! you've convinced me. Just tell the supreme court you want all our present elected officials fired immediately unless they can PROVE (not just say) that they are real Christians (but of course we'll have to elect the Christian confirmation committee first *but* ooops... who will determine if the confirmation committee are true Chr... , shucks, you just start by picking them Molly! We trust you! :icon_flower:
Do you see my point here? At all?
QuoteAfter reading the above - I'm just glad you were not in a position to prevent the passage of the 1st amendment and the bill of rights which puts a stop to the nonsense being put forth here.
No I was not but John Adams was--
The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. Elias Boudinot was
Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned... Let us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ's sake, to preside in our councils . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.18 Alexander Hamilton was
Hamilton suggested that it be named the Christian Constitutional Society, and listed two goals for its formation: first, the support of the Christian religion; and second, the support of the Constitution of the United States. This organization was to have numerous clubs throughout each state which would meet regularly and work to elect to office those who reflected the goals of the Christian Constitutional Society. 37
James Otis was--
Has [government] any solid foundation? Any chief cornerstone?... I think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God... The sum of my argument is that civil government is of God.86 QuoteSo (under your plan) first we need a committee to investigate each candidate and determine whether their claims of being "a Christian" are really true (now - that would be an interesting confirmation process ).
No I think you should just vote for any goofy candidate the main stream media tells you to vote for. Don't bother vetting them yourself. Don't put any thought into it. Or, better yet, just close your eyes at the ballot box and play pin the tail on the donkey. Or better yet, don't vote. :msealed:
YOU are the committee. You don't get that?
Quote from: Molly on April 05, 2010, 05:44:53 AM
QuoteAfter reading the above - I'm just glad you were not in a position to prevent the passage of the 1st amendment and the bill of rights which puts a stop to the nonsense being put forth here.
No I was not but John Adams was--
The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost.
Elias Boudinot was
Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned... Let us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ's sake, to preside in our councils . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.18
Alexander Hamilton was
Hamilton suggested that it be named the Christian Constitutional Society, and listed two goals for its formation: first, the support of the Christian religion; and second, the support of the Constitution of the United States. This organization was to have numerous clubs throughout each state which would meet regularly and work to elect to office those who reflected the goals of the Christian Constitutional Society. 37
James Otis was--
Has [government] any solid foundation? Any chief cornerstone?... I think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God... The sum of my argument is that civil government is of God.86
All these guys were there and tried to stop it? I wouldn't know but - Wow - I'm glad they failed! And that this got in there instead: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech".
Praise God!!! :happy3: :cloud9:
Quote from: Molly on April 05, 2010, 05:44:53 AM
YOU are the committee. You don't get that?
I do Molly, and I am very concerned that an ever growing federal government is taking away the power of the people's committee. We probably share many of the same concerns. I just think the opposition to the clear/wise separation of church and state is not the answer at all, in fact - I believe the barrier it's absolutely necessary. As long as the basic human rights we all agree on are maintained we will be fine if we are dutiful in our spiritual lives. The transformation of society is a bottom up process, not a government down process. Let's protect
freedom (something I'm sure we agree on) and the rest will work itself out as it should. :thumbsup:
As a show of good faith and to prove I'm not at all opposed to Christians in office I hearby announce a grassroots movement to elect Jabcat as the next president of the United States. I have seen in this forum that He is a fair and just man (I'm sure springing from his relationship with God) and am confident he will be faithful to uphold the constitutional freedoms this country was founded upon.
So who's in?
I'll even put you in as VP Molly IF you swear to God not to reinstitute prohibition or slavery OR make the male hippies cut their hair short. :happygrin:
QuoteThen time for government bible class!!!
So you think it is much more harmful to introduce children to Jesus than to teach five year olds about homosexual relationships?
People haven't figured out yet how to take back their public schools, but they will. Either that, or they will home school.
QuoteOnce THAT part is done I guess it's on to implementing Christian doctrine.
The modern definition of "separation of church and state" is so far removed from the original meaning of the First Amendment that it is downright preposterous. All the First Amendment does is prohibit (the federal) Congress from passing any law establishing a state church or from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
The idea that James Madison and the other authors of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights intended to prohibit children from praying in school, or state and local governments from posting the Ten Commandments and from erecting Nativity scenes is the invention of modern-age humanists, whose real goal is to eviscerate America's Christian heritage. Such reasoning is a complete inversion of the real meaning of the First Amendment. All the First Amendment was designed to do was recognize religious liberty..--Chuck Baldwin
Do we currently have religious liberty? I would argue no. I could not send my children to a public school today because what they teach violates my religion. Nor would they allow my children to practice their religion freely.
QuoteAll these guys were there and tried to stop it? I wouldn't know but - Wow - I'm glad they failed! And that this got in there instead: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech".
No, those guys who loved Christ wrote it.
I'm with you re: Jab.
PS prohibition was a plot instituted by the Rockefellers so that they could corner the feul market and make themselves zillionaires. Before prohibition, every farmer had his still and you could just pull over and fill up your car on the family farm. And, you thought it came about through the mighty power of little old ladies who hate hippies and drunks, right?
Quote from: Molly on April 05, 2010, 06:27:03 AM
QuoteThen time for government bible class!!!
So you think it is much more harmful to introduce children to Jesus than to teach five year olds about homosexual relationships?
People haven't figured out yet how to take back their public schools, but they will. Either that, or they will home school.
It doesn't matter what the government wants to teach my kids. I don't need the government (AKA: "Public") schools to teach my kids one thing! That's why neither of my two daughters EVER set foot inside a government run school. :thumbsup: The only "taking back" would be the abolishment of government run schools. If you ask me sticking thousands of kids together in one place all week is one of the worst ideas ever. :thumbdown: :Sparkletooth:
Quote from: firstborn888 on April 05, 2010, 06:43:52 AM
Quote from: Molly on April 05, 2010, 06:27:03 AM
QuoteThen time for government bible class!!!
So you think it is much more harmful to introduce children to Jesus than to teach five year olds about homosexual relationships?
People haven't figured out yet how to take back their public schools, but they will. Either that, or they will home school.
It doesn't matter what the government wants to teach my kids. I don't need the government (AKA: "Public") schools to teach my kids one thing! That's why niether of my two daughters EVER set foot inside a government run school. :thumbsup: The only "taking back" would be the abolishment of government run schools. If you ask me sticking thousands of kids together in one place all week is one of the worst ideas ever. :thumbdown: :Sparkletooth:
well, I'm with you on that. Unfortunately, around here they make you pay thousands of dollars every year to support the government run schools. You have to pay that even if you are paying thousands of dollars a year to send your children to a private school. Most mothers have to send their kids to public school because they have to work to afford the taxes for them. It's a catch 22.
But, I'm hopeful people will begin to wake up.
Quote from: Molly on April 05, 2010, 06:49:07 AM
Quote from: firstborn888 on April 05, 2010, 06:43:52 AM
Quote from: Molly on April 05, 2010, 06:27:03 AM
QuoteThen time for government bible class!!!
So you think it is much more harmful to introduce children to Jesus than to teach five year olds about homosexual relationships?
People haven't figured out yet how to take back their public schools, but they will. Either that, or they will home school.
It doesn't matter what the government wants to teach my kids. I don't need the government (AKA: "Public") schools to teach my kids one thing! That's why niether of my two daughters EVER set foot inside a government run school. :thumbsup: The only "taking back" would be the abolishment of government run schools. If you ask me sticking thousands of kids together in one place all week is one of the worst ideas ever. :thumbdown: :Sparkletooth:
well, I'm with you on that. Unfortunately, around here they make you pay thousands of dollars every year to support the government run schools. You have to pay that even if you are paying thousands of dollars a year to send your children to a private school. Most mothers have to send their kids to public school because they have to work to afford the taxes for them. It's a catch 22.
But, I'm hopeful people will begin to wake up.
Well, it's a big, well entrenched racket isn't it? The school taxes are even higher out is the rural county where I live because there are fewer businesses.
QuoteWell, it's a big, well entrenched racket isn't it? The school taxes are even higher out is the rural county where I live because there are fewer businesses.
Yes it is all a racket. We are drowning in rackets. We have parasites sucking our blood dry. Do people even realize it?
If a local community wants to run their public school without teachers unions, teaching their children to read using the Bible, there is NO reason why they should not be able to do that. The federal government should have NOTHING to say about that. It should be up to the local community.
That is what the first amendment is all about. If a certain parent objects, they can deal with that in a way that makes allowances for their concerns about their child. In the case of David Parker, he was blindsided when his son brought books home from kindergarten. He was just a parent trying to protect his son, and he was told he could not protect his son, and that is when he refused to leave until the principal would talk to him about how his son could opt out of these classes on this subject matter, and he was arrested. That is not a lie. He wasn't trying to make the papers; he was just trying to protect his son.
We have all been bamboozled by people who tell us it's not ok to sing Jesus loves the little children in school, but it IS ok to sing Obama loves the little children. The children sang songs to Hitler, too. You think that's not a religion? What about global warming, and how 12 years olds are terrified in public schools by algore's movie on how the ice caps are going to melt and drown us all unless their parents pay him huge sums of money. You think that's not religion, too?
Religion is ok, and even mandated, as long as it is their religion--humanism, secularism, atheism, paganism [Earth day], scientism, witchcraft [Harry Potter is ok, but not the Bible]. That's a violation of the first amendment in my book.
Quote from: Molly on April 05, 2010, 10:21:09 AM
If a local community wants to run their public school without teachers unions, teaching their children to read using the Bible, there is NO reason why they should not be able to do that. The federal government should have NOTHING to say about that. It should be up to the local community.
This is a simple matter, all they have to do is not accept public funds and they can make this local school as public as they like there is no law against this.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 05, 2010, 05:03:50 PM
Quote from: Molly on April 05, 2010, 10:21:09 AM
If a local community wants to run their public school without teachers unions, teaching their children to read using the Bible, there is NO reason why they should not be able to do that. The federal government should have NOTHING to say about that. It should be up to the local community.
This is a simple matter, all they have to do is not accept public funds and they can make this local school as public as they like there is no law against this.
But aren't you talking there about private school? Private school has always been an option for the wealthy. What is not an option is to refuse to pay property and state taxes, the majority of which goes to the schools, and pay that money to a private school instead. Then, you would really see a mass exodus from the public schools. People would vote with their feet. Maybe that is the way to handle this?
You say 'public funds,' but the exclusion clause referred to in the Constitution is aimed at the Federal government, so maybe a more appropriate phrase would be Federal funds? If local schools refused to receive federal funds, would that make a difference? The states and the people have wide birth when determining how they wish to conduct their affairs, even if that is not currently honored. Don't forget, for almost 200 years children were taught to read using the Bible in public schools. You think those people were just ignorant of the Constitution? Or are people today the ignorant ones?
What happened in Massachusetts is that the decision for gay marriage was decided in the courts by an activist Judge. It was then challenged by the people of the state who collected tens of thousands of signatures to request the state legislature to put it on the ballot. The legislature refused. It has since come out that Teddy Kennedy called his democratic friends in the state legislature and told them to vote against their constituents. Meanwhile, the people who signed that petition had now publically revealed themselves and became the object of death threats, harrassing phone calls from all over the country, property damage, and general mischief, which I'm sure has made people reluctant to come forth again. The gay community moved very quickly into the school system with their programs, so this is now forced on all children who go to public schools.
Is that freedom as conceived by our Founders? I don't think the public school should have any say in the sexual education of our children. That is a matter of conscience and a matter for the parents alone.
Quote from: Molly on April 05, 2010, 06:50:12 PM
Don't forget, for almost 200 years children were taught to read using the Bible in public schools. You think those people were just ignorant of the Constitution? Or are people today the ignorant ones?
Yes I believe they were, in the same way slavery happened, witch burning happened, segregation happened, not allowing women to vote happened, the way gay marriage is not recognized in the 50 states now.
The bible is easily read in public school in a class that is specifically designated as religion or philosophy, so there is no problem actually. The only problem is when Christians want the bible as part of a curriculum that professes a hard truth, rather than in the light of faith.
You point at the constitution as if it was a no brainer that those things were against the constitution yet, they happened.
You can stand and say they were not Christians, but that is the whole problem, the primary thought of religious Christianity has those roots and denying it doesn't change anything.
Quote
I don't think the public school should have any say in the sexual education of our children. That is a matter of conscience and a matter for the parents alone.
And I am with you on that, so christians need to quit making it a homosexual issue and make it a sexuality issue. But that is not what it is. They want abstinence based education on this hand and on the other hand they do not want homosexuality recognized as normal human behavior by equating it with sexual immorality. They are ignorant that among heterosexuals and homosexuals alike there is deviant behavior that is apart from normal comitted monogomous loving relationships.
David was not making an issue of "sexuality" he was making an issue of homosexual relationships by the ignorantly equating the two.
QuoteYes I believe they were, in the same way slavery happened, witch burning happened, segregation happened, not allowing women to vote happened, the way gay marriage is not recognized in the 50 states now.
'Witch burning' was an isolated incident in the colonies where it seems the motive might have been a transference of property by some unscrupulous individuals. It's hardly fair to paint the Christian colonists with that broad brush. Slavery was a part of the culture when the Constitution was written. We still have slavery today, it has just taken a different form. Unless you consider that working three months for the government is not slavery or working as a domestic housekeeper for low wages is not slavery. At least they get paid, right? So did the slaves in the south get paid with room and board, and their necessities met. The only difference is that today most of the slaves can vote, and they have a little more freedom to chose their masters. But other than that, not much difference. In fact, they might even be worse off today, living in tents and in their cars with their families instead of on the master's plantation.
Quoteand on the other hand they do not want homosexuality recognized as normal human behavior by equating it with sexual immorality.
That is a matter of religious belief for a lot of Christians, so can you tell me how their freedom of religion is not being violated when they are forced to recognize something as normal that they consider immoral based on religion? Prostitution is normal, too? Shall we write books for 5 year olds about the lifestyle of a prostitute? We can tell the children how she takes these pretty colored pills all day to make her job more fun.
Quote from: Molly on April 05, 2010, 07:37:34 PM
'Witch burning' was an isolated incident in the colonies where it seems the motive might have been a transference of property by some unscrupulous individuals. It's hardly fair to paint the Christian colonists with that broad brush. Slavery was a part of the culture when the Constitution was written. We still have slavery today, it has just taken a different form. Unless you consider that working three months for the government is not slavery or working as a domestic housekeeper for low wages is not slavery. At least they get paid, right? So did the slaves in the south get paid with room and board, and their necessities met. The only difference is that today most of the slaves can vote, and they have a little more freedom to chose their masters. But other than that, not much difference. In fact, they might even be worse off today, living in tents and in their cars with their families instead of on the master's plantation.
It's fair when I come across Christians today that aren't bothered by witch burning. And to equate todays economic stories to the slavery of blacks is preposterous. I have been poor and down on my luck, I have lived that life and it is not even close to the same. I was not a slave because I left one job for another, and even then that job was a worse one, so I left it for another one. It was not an easy life, but to say I was a slave would be a lie.
QuoteThat is a matter of religious belief for a lot of Christians, so can you tell me how their freedom of religion is not being violated when they are forced to recognize something as normal that they consider immoral based on religion?
This is an easy one. No one forces you to believe anything. But since your intepretation of the bible has no place in law making, your religious beliefs as anyones often will take a back seat to what may be allowed in this country whether you like it or not.
If you can cite something that is violating that, it doesn't change that it's the goal. Blacks should have never been slaves in this country based upon what this country was founded upon, but they were, so that fact was irrelevant to someone saying they are a Christian trying to say their religious freedom was being violated by being forced to recognize that they ARE free and that they must conduct themselves accordingly.
So personally, you have every right to believe that God says Gays are an abomination, your convictions are irrelevant to whether it is determined in this country that they are free to be married and have relationships that are considered normal by law.
QuoteProstitution is normal, too? Shall we write books for 5 year olds about the lifestyle of a prostitute? We can tell the children how she takes these pretty colored pills all day to make her job more fun.
As I said, you ignorantly equate homosexual relationships with "sexual behavior" that is inappropriate to be introduced to 5 year olds. When you learn the difference then you will see that I agree that sexually based materials of any orientation should not be introduced to very young children in public schools.
[/quote]
QuoteIt's fair when I come across Christians today that aren't bothered by witch burning.
huh? I'm not sure what that means.
QuoteAnd to equate todays economic stories to the slavery of blacks is preposterous.
I am talking in general. Whenever a man is separated from the fruits of his labor, that constitutes slavery. So I am postulating to you that if you pay 25 percent taxes, you are a slave to the government for 3 months out of the year. If your taxes go to 50 percent, then you are a slave to the government for 6 months of the year. If you do not pay your property taxes, whatever percentage that is of your labor, you will lose your house. How does that make you that different from a slave in the old south?
QuoteBut since your intepretation of the bible has no place in law making, your religious beliefs as anyones often will take a back seat to what may be allowed in this country whether you like it or not.
Let's back up here a bit. I thought we were talking about the exclusion clause--where the federal Congress is prohibited
from passing any law establishing a state church or from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. I am saying that by forcing my children to learn things in public schools that are contrary to my religion, and giving me no option at all, and by refusing them the right to practice their religion in school, they are doing just that. That is the argument. So if witchcraft is contrary to my religion, my children should not be forced to be exposed to Harry Potter in the public school. You can't have it both ways--but they demand to have it both ways.
As they know full well, anything you teach a little child is truth to him, whether it is truth or not. Children are not capable of having the type of discussion we are having now. Therefore, they are forcing their beliefs on my children, whether they be humanism, atheism, scientism, paganism, or witchcraft, and thereby denying me and my children freedom of religion. That is the argument.
This could all be solved by getting the feds out of our state school systems.
My second argument is that a belief system is
always a part of lawmaking, and therefore, I am arguing that we should be very careful about whom we elect to office--that is, that they share our belief system.
Quote from: Molly on April 05, 2010, 11:50:30 PM
I am talking in general. Whenever a man is separated from the fruits of his labor, that constitutes slavery. So I am postulating to you that if you pay 25 percent taxes, you are a slave to the government for 3 months out of the year. If your taxes go to 50 percent, then you are a slave to the government for 6 months of the year. If you do not pay your property taxes, whatever percentage that is of your labor, you will lose your house. How does that make you that different from a slave in the old south?
We are not taxed without representation. I am still allowed to vote federally and locally on my represenatives. they do not always do what I like and sometimes they do, that is the way it is. Blacks were not allowed to own property at all, let alone be represented through a tax burden paid on that property.
Quote
I am saying that by forcing my children to learn things in public schools that are contrary to my religion,
That is your problem. All your kids have to do is walk around in society and they are forced to be subject to things that are against what you believe, none of that prevents you from pursuing happiness, if it does, all it proves is that your religion is useless. Muslim women should not be able to conceal their identity for things concerning public identification such as a drivers license. You would not want that either, however that is against their religion and in this country, the only responce they should get is "too bad, your problem".
QuoteSo if witchcraft is contrary to my religion, my children should not be forced to be exposed to Harry Potter in the public school. You can't have it both ways--but they demand to have it both ways.
It is not having it both ways. Harry potter is postulated by religion to contain religion when it is a work of fiction and is not a religious text in the first place. Just because religious people lie and make a mockery of their own beliefs through such nonsense doesn't mean anything they say about it is true.
Quote
As they know full well, anything you teach a little child is truth to him, whether it is truth or not. Children are not capable of having the type of discussion we are having now. Therefore, they are forcing their beliefs on my children, whether they be humanism, atheism, scientism, paganism, or witchcraft, and thereby denying me and my children freedom of religion. That is the argument.
Not the same at all, christians actually refuse that the bible be in schools in the same light as those other terms.
If you will postulate the bible as a work of fiction, as general philosophy and something that if believed or not is on the same emotional level as any of those other terms you mentioned then you will find that it would be much easier to have biblical texts remain in the schools.
But you will not be willing to do that which proves that you want control rather than freedom, so it is right to refuse religion such control. Religious people by and large only prove everyday that laws preventing their control are great laws. and YES the founding fathers knew , yep, they did, even if there were things they hated to see. They knew the greater good came from allowing some things they hate in the name of freedom.
But Christians want to deceive people into thinking the founding fathers would agree with all their religious nonsense, some of us don't buy it for a second.
QuoteThat is your problem.
Why is this my problem? Exactly what religion is being forced on me? I'd like to know. And, 'no religion' is not an acceptable answer. Harry Potter might be fiction but it contains all the trappings and allures of the real thing--witchcraft. So calling it 'fiction' doesn't help you out any more than calling Lady Chatterly's Lover 'fiction.' It's a fictional story about the real thing.
Even though Darwinism and Global Warming are fiction, they are still taught to children as the real thing. Do you really think children know the difference between fact and fiction?
Quotewhich proves that you want control rather than freedom, so it is right to refuse religion such control.
That's right. I want control of my freedom. That's why, if I am surrounded by like minded people in my own community, we should be free to do that in our local school, and the feds should have nothing to say about it.
You still haven't explained to me why the schools are allowed to force the religions of humanism, atheism, scientism, paganism, and witchcraft on my children. Nor will you, because your goal is to attack Christianity. In other words, every religion is ok in your book except Christianity. You are just pretending that the others are not religion, which they most certainly are. And, they are being forced on us and we are being forced to pay for them being forced on us. That's your idea of freedom?
Panel approves Bible classes for public schools
By Daniel Tencer
Friday, February 19th, 2010 -- 12:4
'Angel sent down' to put Bible on Kentucky school curriculum, legislator says'
A Kentucky state Senate committee has approved legislation allowing the Bible to be studied as a literary subject in public schools, a move that means the state will likely follow Tennessee, Texas and a handful of others in bringing the Christian text into the curriculum.
The bill, put forward by three Democratic state senators, orders the Kentucky Board of Education to draw up guidelines for teaching the Bible as a literary work in the context of "literature, art, music, mores, oratory and public policy," reports the Louisville Courier-Journal. The Bible courses would be elective.
The bill passed the committee 12-0, and is expected to sail smoothly through the legislature. "It's the kind of legislation that most Kentucky lawmakers dare not vote against, especially in an election year," reports the Associated Press.
In praising the legislation, state Sen. Elizabeth Tori told the bill's sponsors that "an angel was sent down on your shoulders" prompting "you to put this bill together," as quoted at the Courier-Journal.
"I've said for many years that until we put God back into our households, things in society will not change for the better," Tori said.
"So our politicians believe in imaginary cherubs from the sky dropping down to suggest legislation. Alert the writers at the Jon Stewart show," writes Rick Redding at the Louisville Mojo blog. "Sorry, Ms. Tori, but there are schools you can send your kids to if you want a religious education. Those aren't the ones funded by taxpayers."
But the bill's sponsors insist the new law wouldn't amount to religious indoctrination and steers clear of violating the principle of separation of church and state.
"There are so many aspects in the scripture relevant to literature -- it's relevant to art, to music, to social issues as well," Democratic state Sen. David Boswell, the bill's chief sponsor, told ABC affiliate WTVQ. "I know of no other book out there with the thousands of years of documentation on all of these social issues that can be used for instructional purposes."
The American Civil Liberties Union says that, while the bill doesn't appear to be unconstitutional, it will likely lead to abuses that will violate students' rights.
"It's not clearly unconstitutional on its face, but it will likely lead to a host of unconstitutional actions by school boards," ACLU of Kentucky executive director Michael Aldridge told AP. "It's obviously kind of a backdoor means to open the door to teach unconstitutional Bible courses in public schools."
The national legal director of American Atheists told WTVQ that he views the proposed law as unconstitutional.
"Nowhere does this book or this course intend to say these are mythological stories. They are presented as fact and they are presented as true history," Edward Kagin said. "I would readily support a bill to teach comparative religion, but I am opposed to teaching essentially the Christian religion."
Late last month, Tennessee's state board of education approved guidelines for a secular Bible course, which will be taught starting this fall as "part of a secular curriculum."
Texas has had a similar law on the books since 2007, and as of this fall, offering the class will be mandatory in Texas school districts.
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/angel-bible-kentucky-curriculum/
Quote from: Molly on April 06, 2010, 02:10:34 AM
QuoteThat is your problem.
Why is this my problem? Exactly what religion is being forced on me? I'd like to know. And, 'no religion' is not an acceptable answer. Harry Potter might be fiction but it contains all the trappings and allures of the real thing--witchcraft. So calling it 'fiction' doesn't help you out any more than calling Lady Chatterly's Lover 'fiction.' It's a fictional story about the real thing.
Even though Darwinism and Global Warming are fiction, they are still taught to children as the real thing. Do you really think children know the difference between fact and fiction?
That is your religious opinion which has no place in determining law or what is allowed. No religion is an acceptable answer because you did exactly what I said you would do. You will not allow your own religion to be placed into schools in the same light as what you call other religions. And since you refuse to do that, your religious assertions should be kept out of public school.
Quote
That's right. I want control of my freedom. That's why, if I am surrounded by like minded people in my own community, we should be free to do that in our local school, and the feds should have nothing to say about it.
You do have that right, just don't accept public funds in order to advance your religious cause and no one can say anything about it.
QuoteYou still haven't explained to me why the schools are allowed to force the religions of humanism, atheism, scientism, paganism, and witchcraft on my children. Nor will you, because your goal is to attack Christianity.
I did explain, you just refuse to allow your own beliefs to be seen in the same light. It is called freedom of religion and the fact that you paint other religions as evil and yours as good and want your religion to prevail in the schools proves exactly why they have no place, because you are not about freedom of religion, you are about promoting your religion as what everyone else should learn. If you do not want Christianity attacked, perhaps it should actually amount to something that doesn't make it so easy to see the root of it's evil.
QuoteThe bill, put forward by three Democratic state senators, orders the Kentucky Board of Education to draw up guidelines for teaching the Bible as a literary work in the context of "literature, art, music, mores, oratory and public policy," reports the Louisville Courier-Journal. The Bible courses would be elective.
Lets see where those guidelines end up. There is great literature in the bible no matter what someone believes, will these people be content with leaving the bible as just another literary book? We will see.
QuoteThe bill passed the committee 12-0, and is expected to sail smoothly through the legislature. "It's the kind of legislation that most Kentucky lawmakers dare not vote against, especially in an election year," reports the Associated Press.
Yeah, funny how Christians hate politics until something goes thier way, then they whore out themselves.
Major combat in the Chinese Civil War ended in 1949 with the Communist Party of China in control of mainland China, and the Kuomintang (KMT) retreating to Taiwan. On 1 October 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China.[28] "Communist China" or "Red China" were two of the names of the PRC.[29]
The economic and social plan known as the Great Leap Forward resulted in an estimated 36 million deaths.[30] I
The Great Leap Forward (simplified Chinese: 大跃进; traditional Chinese: 大躍進; pinyin: Dàyuèjìn) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) was an economic and social plan used from 1958 to 1961 which ostensibly aimed to use China's vast population to rapidly transform China from an agrarian economy into a modern communist society through the process of agriculturalization,[citation needed] industrialization, and collectivization. Mao Zedong led the campaign based on the Theory of Productive Forces, and intensified it after being informed of the impending disaster from grain shortages.
Chief changes in the lives of rural Chinese included the introduction of a mandatory process of agricultural collectivisation, which was introduced incrementally. Private farming was prohibited, and those engaged in it were labelled as counter revolutionaries and persecuted. Restrictions on rural people were enforced through public struggle sessions, social pressure, and violence. Food rationing was introduced, in some cases leaving rural Chinese with less than 250g (half a jin, 8.82 ounces) of grain per day. The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, triggering a widespread famine that resulted in up to thirty million deaths.[1
--wikipedia.com
wow--they murdered 30 million people in 3 years. That has to be some kind of communist record. Funny how no one ever mentions this genocide. I guess it's not genocide when communists do it because they are the people's party.
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
--John 10:10
Rev. Jim Wallis, a member of President Obama's "faith council" who is described as a spiritual adviser to the president, is a socialist activist who has championed communist causes and previously labeled the U.S. "the great captor and destroyer of human life."
The Associated Baptist Press described Wallis as a "politically progressive evangelical and longtime advocate for the poor." The Huffington Post identified Wallis as a "Christian author and social-justice advocate."
Wallis, however, is a longtime socialist advocate and founder of a far-left magazine, Sojourners, that has championed communist causes He currently serves on Obama's White House Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. He reportedly is a spiritual adviser to Obama and has known the president for years.
Wallis began his activism as a protester and then later Michigan leader of the Students for a Democratic Society, the 1960s anti-war group from which Bill Ayers' Weatherman domestic terrorist organization splintered.
Discover the Networks said that as a theology student, Wallis founded an anticapitalism magazine called the Post-American, which identified wealth redistribution and government-managed economies as the keys to achieving "social justice."
In 1971, Wallis renamed his magazine Sojourners. He has since served as editor of the publication.
Sojourners' official "statement of faith" urges readers to "refuse to accept [capitalist] structures and assumptions that normalize poverty and segregate the world by class."
Sojourners has published a slew of radicals, including socialist activist Cornel West and James Cone, considered the founder of Black Liberation Theology, which spawned the likes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of nearly 20 years.
Wallis' magazine actively lobbied for communist regimes that seized power in Latin America in the late 1970s, including the Sandinista dictatorship in Nicaragua. Sojourners in the 1980s was a fierce opponent of the U.S. nuclear buildup, claiming the policy was "an intolerable evil" irreconcilably at odds with Christianity.
Discover the Networks notes how Sojourners originally formed a socialist commune in Washington, D.C., where members shared finances and launched anticapitalist activism.
In his 1976 book, "Agenda for Biblical People," Wallis called the U.S. "the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs."
Wallis continues to openly support socialism. Along with socialist activist West, Wallis in 1995 founded Call to Renewal, a coalition of religious groups demanding the spread of U.S. wealth to promote "social justice."
As a guest on MSNBC last week, Wallis stated "social justice" is at the heart of the Bible.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128053
I believe in the separation of church and state. No single church has the right to influence their agenda in government matters.
Now separation of church and state doesn't have to mean separation of God and state. A Godless nation cannot stand.
QuoteI did explain, you just refuse to allow your own beliefs to be seen in the same light. It is called freedom of religion and the fact that you paint other religions as evil and yours as good and want your religion to prevail in the schools ...
Yes, that's right, I do, because the majority of these children come from Christian families, and children are not capable of making religious choices at 5 years old, or 10 years old, nor are they capable of discerning for themselves why they might choose Christianity over paganism, humanism, atheism, communism, scientism, or any other non Christian religion one might choose to teach them at a tender age. They will believe everything you tell them is Truth. That is why the propagandists work so hard to teach our children anything other than Christian principles because they know that if they can reach the child at a young enough age, they can change the society. It's simple.
Otherwise, stick to reading, writing, and arithmetic with a very bland curriculum, which they do not do these days--or give tax vouchers to private schools and watch the public schools empty out. They are happy to celebrate Halloween in the schools with every kind of ghost, goblin, and witch, but Christmas?--That's anathema. And this continues all the way through the university level.
You will see what the founders were guarding against if you look at a Communist country where the state religion is atheistic statism, and everyone who disagrees is either murdered or put in jail. Nor did they want a situation like in England, where the King is also the head of the Episcopal Church. But the founders saw no conflict between teaching the Bible in public school and their own Constitution, in fact, they encouraged it.
The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [extinguishing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools.[54] The Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life. . . . It should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness.[55]
BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Quote from: Molly on April 07, 2010, 05:51:47 PM
Yes, that's right, I do, because the majority of these children come from Christian families, and children are not capable of making religious choices at 5 years old, or 10 years old, nor are they capable of discerning for themselves why they might choose Christianity over paganism, humanism, atheism, communism, scientism, or any other non Christian religion one might choose to teach them at a tender age.
Of course you do not want freedom, that is what I have been saying.
QuoteOtherwise, stick to reading, writing, and arithmetic with a very bland curriculum, which they do not do these days--or give tax vouchers to private schools and watch the public schools empty out. They are happy to celebrate Halloween in the schools with every kind of ghost, goblin, and witch, but Christmas?--That's anathema. And this continues all the way through the university level.
Yes and the people promoting christianity have not seen their own error. It is the knowledge that you want control as you have just admitted that causes the problem. Ghost goblins and witches around halloween hasn't caused anyone to be religious in that nature. More lies. More hiding that you want religious control, and when youir opposed you cry foul and start yapping on about the founders. The founders understood what you want is wrong.
Quote
But the founders saw no conflict between teaching the Bible in public school and their own Constitution, in fact, they encouraged it.
Of course, that's why the lies from Christianity has nothing to do with having biblical texts in school in the correct context. You do not want the bible in schools you want your religious interpretation to control it.
But because you want that, all of the sudden it's constititional, more lies.
QuoteOf course you do not want freedom, that is what I have been saying.
Yes, I do want freedom. I have had the great pleasure of growing up in complete freedom because of Christianity. And, I realize that without Christianity and without Christ subsequent generations are at great risk of losing that freedom. Name one free country in the world that does NOT have its roots in Christianity. Name ONE.
QuoteYes and the people promoting christianity have not seen their own error. It is the knowledge that you want control as you have just admitted that causes the problem. Ghost goblins and witches around halloween hasn't caused anyone to be religious in that nature. More lies. More hiding that you want religious control, and when youir opposed you cry foul and start yapping on about the founders. The founders understood what you want is wrong.
Shall we look at the statistics on the increase in pagan religions and atheism in this country? You think that might be because these religions were taught in school to children? I do. I don't 'yap' about the founders, as you so eloquently put it, I quote them. Why don't you quote where they say they
don't want the Bible or Christianity taught in schools? Oh, you can't because they didn't say that. They said the opposite. I would rather listen to them than to you misrepresenting them. So quote them, and I might listen to you.
I don't want to control knowledge to adults. Adults are welcome to learn and do whatever they want. I studied just about every religion known to man as a young adult. But I want to make sure our children learn the religion that this country was founded on as the religion of their forefathers. Just like I would like to insist that all people in this country speak English, and that English is insisted upon in the schools as our native language.
QuoteYou do not want the bible in schools you want your religious interpretation to control it.
That is not true. You don't even know what I believe, do you? But know this, I'm a Christian. I .would greatly object to the Bible being taught as 'myth,' and that would NOT be teaching it in a neutral sense as some would like to trick us into believing. Those who wrote the Bible believed in God and the God they were writing about.
And, it is very clear to me that God has given us his word and invites us to interpret it as is fitting to us, through the Holy Spirit. My own understanding of it has grown as I have grown. Introduce children to Jesus and the New Testament in schools and I have total confidence that they will understand who he is better than most adults, no interpretation necessary.
Quote from: Molly on April 07, 2010, 07:54:22 PM
Yes, I do want freedom. I have had the great pleasure of growing up in complete freedom because of Christianity. And, I realize that without Christianity and without Christ subsequent generations are at great risk of losing that freedom. Name one free country in the world that does NOT have its roots in Christianity. Name ONE.
That is the religious lie, Christianity is not what our country was founded upon, it was founded upon a freedom that can be seen as better than we are and Godly values are what will align with that freedom.
Which means you have to live with the fact that your poor poor children might learn something you do not like and disagree with and perhaps make a decision one day based on that very freedom.
You avoid the fact that I see that you wish to erradicate other beliefs you do not like if you had the control and power to do so. You are not for freedom, you speak a lie.
Quote
Shall we look at the statistics on the increase in pagan religions and atheism in this country? You think that might be because these religions were taught in school to children? I do. I don't 'yap' about the founders, as you so eloquently put it, I quote them. Why don't you quote where they say they don't want the Bible or Christianity taught in schools? Oh, you can't because they didn't say that. They said the opposite. I would rather listen to them than to you misrepresenting them. So quote them, and I might listen to you.
Religion misrepresents the facts, I am a pagan based on those stats and I live more free than ever because I do not conform to religious ideologies. Yes you yap about the founders because when you quote them you think they side with you and your wish for control and you are wrong. I have not once said I am against the bible being in schools, but you equate the bible to your religious ideologies and that is not what this is about. Christians want the bible in school in the manner of instructing kids in how they should be through the intepretations they accept and that any other way is evil and wrong and that is not what the founders intended. They did not intend for your ideology to be the acceptable light of control. They would oppose you because you do not want people to be free you want them religiously controlled.
Quote
I don't want to control knowledge to adults. Adults are welcome to learn and do whatever they want. I studied just about every religion known to man as a young adult. But I want to make sure our children learn the religion that this country was founded on as the religion of their forefathers. Just like I would like to insist that all people in this country speak English, and that English is insisted upon in the schools as our native language.
[/quote]
Nope, because in all your quoting you only include what is convenient to your point, quote all the founders where they show that some were only deists and that they do not accept that Christianity founded this country.
And it is that nonsense there that has caused Christians the trouble that they find themselves in concerning public schools. You want ytour religious intepretations taught as truth in schools and want that control and you hide behind half truths to promote your lies.
Christians blame the devil and the liberals and the one world order and now they blame obama, and in the furture they will blame someone, when they are their own problem and until they understand what freedom of religion actually means, they will continue to have the problems that are only caused by their own hand.
QuoteI am a pagan
Then why are you here?
QuoteThey did not intend for your ideology to be the acceptable light of control.
You don't know what my 'ideology' is, you are just pretending you do to set me up as your straw man that you can then knock down.
QuoteI have not once said I am against the bible being in schools,..
Then we agree, unless you have an ideology that the Bible be taught as NOT the word of God which the Bible itself claims to be.
QuoteChristians want the bible in school in the manner of instructing kids in how they should be through the intepretations they accept ..
I can't speak to that because I was taught the Bible with the Bible as a child. I was not taught a specific interpretation that I couldn't see for myself in the scripture. The scripture itself is enough and stands alone. How you interpret it is up to you and the Holy Spirit.
Quotequote all the founders where they show that some were only deists and that they do not accept that Christianity founded this country.
Ok, you give me the quotes. I'm waiting. You can be a deist and a Christian, you know. A deist just maintains that God does not interfere with day to day existence. I feel sorry for them if that is the case in their lives, but they are welcome to believe that. Yet, founder after founder say how they owe everything to God and that God did interfere with blessings in their favour.
QuoteYou want ytour religious intepretations taught as truth in schools ..
Why don't you tell me what my religious interpretations are that you object to and I'll tell you whether or not I have those interpretations and try to defend them. Stop making things up about me.
Quote from: Molly on April 07, 2010, 08:52:02 PM
Then why are you here?
I am here because religion does not determine who I am. I am a pagan according to Christianity, but that does not determine that I am.
Quote
You don't know what my 'ideology' is, you are just pretending you do to set me up as your straw man that you can then knock down.
Not hardly, you have already told me that you want Christianity in control, that is not what the founders would agree with. So there is no strawman, you have stated it yourself.
QuoteYou can be a deist and a Christian,
That is probably the best evidence yet that "Christianity" has no bearing on the founding of this country.
There is no teaching associated with christianity that would make a statement such as that.
QuoteI am here because religion does not determine who I am. I am a pagan according to Christianity, but that does not determine that I am.
well, I don't know what that means, but pagan actually has a definition, none of which seem compatible with Christianity.
pa·gan (pgn)
n.
1. An adherent of a polytheistic religion in antiquity, especially when viewed in contrast to an adherent of a monotheistic religion.
2. A Neopagan.
3. Offensive
a. One who has no religion.
b. An adherent of a religion other than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
4. A hedonist.
QuoteNot hardly, you have already told me that you want Christianity in control, that is not what the founders would agree with.
I have given you multiple quotes to show that they did want us to remain a Christian country. You have not shown me one to the contrary.
QuoteThere is no teaching associated with christianity that would make a statement such as that.
Deism also actually has a definition and a history.
de·ism (dē'ĭz'əm, dā'-)
n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
An 18th-c. movement in religious belief for the educated laity, especially the philosophes; not confined to France. The word originated in the 16th c. as a pejorative term for
antitrinitarian and similar ideas among sects such as the Socinians, and was taken over to denote analogous views in secular writings: the deist is essentially one who, on the positive or constructive side, limits his religion to the belief in God, and on the negative or critical side remains independent of Christianity, and often hostile. 'Natural religion', often taken as synonymous,
is in principle compatible with Christianity, or can even be its basis.
... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...--Declaration of Independence
Quote from: Molly on April 08, 2010, 01:47:46 AM
a. One who has no religion.
That could be me.
Quote
An adherent of a religion other than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
Could be me, I do not stake a claim in any of those.
QuoteI have given you multiple quotes to show that they did want us to remain a Christian country. You have not shown me one to the contrary.
That contradicts freedom of religion. They had no problem with basic concepts, but that is not what you have said, you want control, they would oppose you and your quotes would not help your case.
QuoteDeism also actually has a definition and a history.
That's great, Christianity needs to be aware of that because you will not find any teaching with in christianity that will accept deism as being compatible with it. That is why christianity did not found this country.
QuoteThat contradicts freedom of religion. They had no problem with basic concepts, but that is not what you have said, you want control, they would oppose you and your quotes would not help your case.
Think of it this way. Our founders came from a homogenous background in the sense that they all came from Christian countries. Christians had been notoriously fighting among themselves for centuries. On the one hand you had the Pope who claimed power over sovereign governments, on the other hand you had the King of England who claimed power over the church.
This was what they wished to avoid. Thomas Jefferson had a horror of recreating another English government with the Episcopal church in charge, or the Pope, for that matter.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government" [12], and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." [13--Thomas Jefferson
Among the various Protestant sects themselves, Jefferson pointed to the infighting that threatened civil harmony and freedom.
The serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects, to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous. Their pulpits are now resounding with denunciations against the appointment of Dr. Cooper whom they charge as Monarchist in opposition to their tritheism. Hostile as these sects are in every other point, to one another, they unite in maintaining their mystical theology against those who believe there is one God only. The Presbyterian clergy are the loudest. The most intolerant of all sects, the most tyrannical, and ambitious; ready at the word of the lawgiver, if such a word could be now obtained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere, the flames in which their oracle Calvin consumed the poor Servetus..."[15]So here he is pointing to two groups fighting over what flavor of Christianity is acceptable and his fear is not of Christ, the Bible, or of God being worshipped in a Christian manner, but of a particular Christian sect demanding and gaining ascendency over another Christian sect--in this case, the Calvinists.
In summary, then, Jefferson was a Christian deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines of the Trinity and that Jesus was the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion was fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day.--Avery Cardinal Dulles, Roman Catholic theologian
Yet, Jefferson calls himself at the end of his life, 'a Christian,' a follower of Jesus Christ. I maintain that it is impossible to spend any serious amount of time in the New Testament and not fall in love with Jesus. And, I believe that Jefferson, much as he tried to control his public expression of that fact, finally succumbed to it.
One can only imagine what it was like in their day, coming to this country for the freedom to worship God as they pleased, fleeing religious prosecution, but always with their own flavor of Christianity.
There is no doubt that this was a Christian country founded by those who had fled Christian countries. They didn't come here for the urbane society it offered. They came here for religious [read Christian] freedom. And, they set up a Constitution to achieve that effect, but they wanted the power, not in the hands of the federal government, but in the hands of the people and of the states. The states at that time were by definition the most powerful entities of the time, and they wished it to remain that way, where the states themselves derived their power from the people. For the federal government to tell the states what they can and cannot do in their state run institutions, against the will of the people, blatantly contradicts that fact. The federal government itself is now forbidding freedom of religion by requiring the states to follow their rules, which I maintain violates the first amendment.
Quote from: Molly on April 08, 2010, 12:20:06 PM
Among the various Protestant sects themselves, Jefferson pointed to the infighting that threatened civil harmony and freedom.
Anyone representing "Christianity" today who wants control will be opposed because it is not about freedom, it is about control, you can water it down all you like. There is nothing in the written constitution that says we are a Christian nation and that freedom of religion is freedom only of a brand of Christianity. That is another lie.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 08, 2010, 05:36:39 PM
Quote from: Molly on April 08, 2010, 12:20:06 PM
Among the various Protestant sects themselves, Jefferson pointed to the infighting that threatened civil harmony and freedom.
Anyone representing "Christianity" today who wants control will be opposed because it is not about freedom, it is about control, you can water it down all you like. There is nothing in the written constitution that says we are a Christian nation and that freedom of religion is freedom only of a brand of Christianity. That is another lie.
Taking my statements out of context doesn't serve you well.
Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the Congress. However, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.--Wikipedia
Maybe it's time to repeal the 14th amendment [which was not written by our founders]. And, I think the states might just be in the mood to do it. I would like to see freedom of religion restored in my lifetime.
Quote from: Molly on April 08, 2010, 06:59:18 PM
Taking my statements out of context.
I'm not.
Quote
I would like to see freedom of religion restored in my lifetime.
There is, but you think that freedom only applies to people within Christianity and you are wrong.
Paul,
I wonder if you have seen this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rqw4krMOug
It demonstrates the reason why I try to stay far away from religious groups, particular the ones that insist that I believe everything just as they do.
Religion can be so creepy. If we do not insist on having our own freedom of thought, there will always been someone standing by who is eager to "tell you
what truth is" and insisting you believe it (or else!).
We really are like sheep, made vulnerable to following something or someone. Each person should respect others' right to follow the spirit of Truth for themselves
and not try to dictate their notions on others. You would think those who have come into the understanding of UR would have learned that by now, but there is
still a strong tendency even among UR believers to try to control everyone. This whole world is a lot like an insane asylum.
Anne
p.s.... I think there is a spiritual law that goes something like this: 'So long as you despise the other (those not like yourself)', you cannot be set free from religious prison. Wasn't that a lot of what kept the Jews in bondage thousands of years ago - despising the foreigner and stranger ? Isn't that what is causing hell on the earth now?
Psalm 124
A song of ascents. Of David.
If the Lord had not been on our side—
let Israel say —
if the Lord had not been on our side
when men attacked us,
when their anger flared against us,
they would have swallowed us alive;
the flood would have engulfed us,
the torrent would have swept over us,
the raging waters
would have swept us away.
Praise be to the Lord,
who has not let us be torn by their teeth.
We have escaped like a bird
out of the fowler's snare;
the snare has been broken,
and we have escaped.
Our help is in the name of the Lord,
the Maker of heaven and earth.
Quote
I would like to see freedom of religion restored in my lifetime.
QuoteThere is, but you think that freedom only applies to people within Christianity and you are wrong.
No there is not freedom of religion at this time.
Ok let me try once more to explain and to be as clear as possible, although I'm close to giving up. The founders never intended for the first amendment to prevent a public school from teaching Christianity. The states, which were the most powerful entities of that time, would not have agreed to that because the states were made up of Christian people who wanted to pass their religion along to their children--and that would include in school. So they would have never allowed the founders to write a Constitution which would limit that freedom. What we call the Ivy League schools were originally created to teach ministers of the Protestant religion.
Freedom of religion means that my little community of Paradise, South Carolina can teach whatever we feel is important for our children to know in our public schools, including Christianity. It should be left up to the states and to the community within the states if we are to stay within the intent of the founders. That is religious freedom.
What we have today is not religious freedom because the courts have ruled that the fourteenth amendment which was not written until 1862 applies the first amendment to the states and the communities. This allows the feds to take away my religious freedom as granted to me by the founders. Without the 14th amendment, my little community of Paradise can teach our children anything that pleases us that we as a majority agree upon. THAT is freedom. If you don't like what we are doing in Paradise, you can move to another city or state that is more to your liking and that is different. THAT is freedom.
Therefore, repeal the fourteenth amendment and restore my freedom of religion as the founders intended.
Quote from: Molly on April 08, 2010, 08:42:48 PM
No there is not freedom of religion at this time.
Yes there is.
QuoteThe founders never intended for the first amendment to prevent a public school from teaching Christianity.
A public school is not prevented from teaching about Christianity when in the correct context.
What Christians often hate is that they do not get to have church in school. Because that is what they really want.
QuoteTHAT is freedom. If you don't like what we are doing in Paradise, you can move to another city or state that is more to your liking and that is different. THAT is freedom.
Nope, you have it all wrong. First the states have never been able to absolutely anything they wanted apart from the federal government. But I would say that it would be possible for a state to free itself from more federal control if it refused to take one penny of federal money. The freedom you seek is actually there, but you are not willing to have it. Few Christians are, they demand freedom,. but cannot bear the full price of what that freedom really means so they seek control being nothing but hypocrites.
QuoteFirst the states have never been able to absolutely anything they wanted apart from the federal government
Are you kidding me? You need to seriously study some American history. You have it all backwards. The States, even though they were at first 'colonies,' were like little countries in Europe, and they were around long before the Federal government. Good grief. The Constitution wasn't even ratified until years after the Revolutionary war. And the Constitution itself only gave the federal govt a few discrete things they could do. The founders would be rolling over in their graves if they saw us today.
Take no money from the feds? Ok, that's a deal if they take no money from the states. And, while we're at it, let us restore our money as well. This healthcare bill is going to force this all to a head. We shall see if Freedom can once again reign supreme in this land.
"In 1607, Captain John Smith established the first permanent English settlement in America at Jamestown. Many settlers died that winter from starvation; fortunately, ships bringing new colonists with food and supplies arrived early in the spring.
John Rolfe of Jamestown began planting tobacco in 1612. He developed a method that enabled tobacco to be exported, allowing it to become the leading industry in Virginia. In 1619, the House of Burgess became the first legislature in America. This group and the governor met together to create laws for the colony.
The
First Continental Congress was a convention of delegates from twelve of the thirteen North American colonies that met on September 5, 1774, at Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, early in the American Revolution. Called in response to the passage of the Coercive Acts (also known as Intolerable Acts by the Colonial Americans) by the British Parliament, the Congress was attended by 56 members appointed by the legislatures of twelve of the Thirteen Colonies, the exception being the Province of Georgia, which did not send delegates. At the time, Georgia was the newest and smallest province and declined to send a delegation because it was seeking help from London in pacifying its smoldering Indian frontier.[1]
The Congress met briefly to consider options, including an economic boycott of British trade; publish a list of rights and grievances; and petition King George for redress of those grievances.
The Congress also called for another Continental Congress in the event that their petition was unsuccessful in halting enforcement of the Intolerable Acts. Their appeal to the Crown had no effect, and so the Second Continental Congress was convened the following year to organize the defense of the colonies at the onset of the American Revolutionary War. The delegates also urged each colony to set up and train its own militia
The
Thirteen Colonies were British colonies on the Atlantic coast of North America,
which declared their independence in the American Revolution and formed the United States. The colonies, whose territory ranged from what is now Maine (then part of the Province of Massachusetts Bay) to the north and Georgia to the south, were Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. At the time of the Revolution, these colonies contained territory now outside of the borders of the modern states.
The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People". The Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times; the first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.[1][2]
The United States Constitution is
the shortest and oldest written constitution
still in use by any nation in the world today.[3]"
--Wikipedia
Quote from: Molly on April 08, 2010, 10:17:25 PM
Are you kidding me? You need to seriously study some American history.
We are talking about constitutional issues so citing things before the constitution is a different argument. If you think that was a better time in history, then try to get rid of the constitution altogether. Go ahead try, you have the right to try.
Fact is, you only want freedom for those who you decide are acceptable Christians, that is not freedom no matter how you wish to slice it and I for one am glad there are people who will oppose you because they have the right to as you have the right to try. S
Succeeding in your endeavors to redefine freedom to be only seen in the name of religious control is quite another matter.
QuoteWe are talking about constitutional issues so citing things before the constitution is a different argument.
LOL You don't have a clue what you are talking about. You have everything backwards. You have no knowledge of history and you have no desire to learn. You have no interest in freedom as was intended by our founders and by our constitution. You are the one who wants to control, to control from a central government, to control our children with atheism, paganism, scientism, witchcraft, humanism, statism, any foul thing as long as it's not Christianity.
But the states are now recognizing that this has gone too far. One of two things will happen, either the states will prevail, or the lights will go out.
Which one it is --that's not up to me.
2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Quote from: Molly on April 08, 2010, 11:46:07 PM
You are the one who wants to control, to control from a central government, to control our children with atheism, paganism, scientism, witchcraft, satanism, statism, any foul thing as long as it's not Christianity.
Well, there is the problem for the most part, I have stated things to the contrary of what your saying. You have admitted you want Christianity to control public schools so that will speak for itself no matter what you say.
I have no problems with a religion class in school so students can study the various beliefs that make up this great country. Teach them all, including Christianity.
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the fundamental governing document of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, one of the 50 individual state governments that make up the United States of America. It was drafted by John Adams, Samuel Adams, and James Bowdoin during the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention between September 1 and October 30, 1779. Following approval by town meetings, the Constitution was ratified on June 15, 1780, became effective on October 25, 1780, and remains the oldest functioning written constitution in continuous effect in the world.
The Massachusetts Constitution was the last of the first set of the state constitutions to be written. Consequently, it was more sophisticated than many of the other documents. Among the improvements was the structure of the document itself: instead of just a listing of provisions, it had a structure of chapters, sections, and articles. This structure was replicated by the United States Constitution. It also had substantial influence on the subsequent revisions of many of the other state constitutions. The Massachusetts Constitution has four parts: a preamble, a declaration of rights, a description of the framework of government, and articles of amendment
--Wikipedia
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: 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 the 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.
And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subject an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.
Provided, notwithstanding, That the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right and electing their public teachers and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.
And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship and of public teachers aforesaid shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid toward the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.
And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.
--The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1780
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2010, 12:55:17 AM
And every denomination of Christians
Yes, the word "And" meaning not exclusively of Christians.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 09, 2010, 01:07:06 AM
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2010, 12:55:17 AM
And every denomination of Christians
Yes, the word "And" meaning not exclusively of Christians.
LOL No it does not. There were only Christians in those days. It means 'And finally.' It is stating the ending of the provisions of the article.
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2010, 01:10:35 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 09, 2010, 01:07:06 AM
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2010, 12:55:17 AM
And every denomination of Christians
Yes, the word "And" meaning not exclusively of Christians.
LOL No it does not. There were only Christians in those days. It means 'And finally.' It is stating the ending of the provisions of the article.
It reads quite clearly, it makes provisions of religious freedom not exclusive to only Christians.
QuoteThe founders would be rolling over in their graves if they saw us today.
Yeah, you might be right, I'll bet it would piss them right off that blacks are free in this country and we actually allow people to practice witchcraft and it be against the law for a good Christian to burn them to death.
Oh yeah, I'll bet they are rolling over.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 09, 2010, 01:33:28 AM
QuoteThe founders would be rolling over in their graves if they saw us today.
Yeah, you might be right, I'll bet it would piss them right off that blacks are free in this country and we actually allow people to practice witchcraft and it be against the law for a good Christian to burn them to death.
Oh yeah, I'll bet they are rolling over.
You are making that statement based on nothing, as usual. They would be delighted that blacks and women had the vote. They were all about freedom--in Christ--which is the only place that freedom exists.
QuoteIt reads quite clearly, it makes provisions of religious freedom not exclusive to only Christians.
It reads clearly alright--it is referring to
towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision,{That would be only Christians because that is all there was in Massachusetts in that day, and I'm sure they could not imagine otherwise.}
to make suitable provision to fund teachers and schools to teach
the public instructions in piety, religion, and moralityWhich would be only Christian because no matter how you try to slice and dice and hide it, this is a Christian country founded by Christians for the benefit of Christians.
But, you can keep lying about history. Find me one town, precinct, or parish that publically funded the teaching of witchcraft in 1780.
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2010, 02:10:06 AM
towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision,
Exactly, nothing specific to Christianity there.
Quote
{That would be only Christians because that is all there was in Massachusetts in that day, and I'm sure they could not imagine otherwise.}
They imagined otherwise even if it meant they couldn't have everything the way they might have wanted it.
Quote
Which would be only Christian because no matter how you try to slice and dice and hide it, this is a Christian country founded by Christians for the benefit of Christians.
Well some think that, that is why some fools thought it should be right to burn people alive if they thought they practiced witchcraft, but we understand that the freedoms that were intended had nothing to do with the exclusivity of Christians. Such ridiculous nonsense that suggests that the true history of this country was to allow freedom for only Christians. Further evidence of the lies of religion that should be opposed and actively is. Thank goodness.
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:163
"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian Senate. And I do believe that if the Almighty has not decreed that man shall never be free (and it is blasphemy to believe it), that the secret will be found to be in the making himself the depository of the powers respecting himself, so far as he is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond his competence by a synthetical process, to higher and higher orders of functionaries, so as to trust fewer and fewer powers in proportion as the trustees become more and more oligarchical." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816. ME 14:421
"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332
"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. ME 17:445
"[We are] determined... to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man or body of men on earth." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:386
"We are willing to sacrifice to [union with our sister States, and to the instrument and principles by which we are united] everything but the rights of self-government in those important points which we have never yielded, and in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson C. Nicholas, 1799. ME 10:131
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1060.htm
"The support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:321
"I wish... to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the Constitution for the limitation of both [the State and General governments], and never to see all offices transferred to Washington where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
"What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the State powers into the hands of the General Government!" --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168
"[Since] no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press [was] delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain and were reserved to the States or the people... Thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:381
"Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
"[We] believe that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in [the Federal] compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:386
"I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. ME 16:146
"Though the experiment has not yet had a long enough course to show us from which quarter encroachments are most to be feared, yet it is easy to foresee, from the nature of things, that the encroachments of the State governments will tend to an excess of liberty which will correct itself,... while those of the General Government will tend to monarchy, which will fortify itself from day to day instead of working its own cure, as all experience shows." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791. ME 8:276
QuoteSuch ridiculous nonsense that suggests that the true history of this country was to allow freedom for only Christians.
The founders were very clear that this country with its freedom could not survive without the underpinnings of Christian morality and piety, --and such are not taught nor able to be taught outside of the Christian religion. I have already given you numerous quotations from them to this regard.
For you to think that you, especially as a minority position, can force my children to be exposed to things which are anathema to me, and withhold from them things I hold dear, for 8 or more hours a day, 5 days a week, is so far off base of what the founders intended as to be a totally different form of government.
However, in their infinite wisdom, they did endeavor to reserve all rights to the states and the people except those few they gave to the federal government amid numerous checks and balances, therefore, technically, you could live in your antiChristian state with fellow antiChristians, teaching your children any manner of non-Christian religion you please, and I could live in my Christian state teaching my children only Christianity--which for me would take the form of a simple reading of the Bible in public school and a belief in the God of the Bible and honoring those beliefs in government. Or, it could even take the form of the public schools being supported by the various Christian sects on the local level as outlined in the Massachusetts State Constitution.
That is, this was the case before the 14th amendment and the power grab by the fed govt in the 20th century.
So the remedy seems simple enough--to repeal the 14th amendment, shrink the federal government back to its footprint, restore the Republic, and return the powers of government to the states and the people where they rightfully belong. This, of course, would include restoring our money, as well.
QuoteThe founders were very clear that this country with its freedom could not survive without the underpinnings of Christian morality and piety, --and such are not taught nor able to be taught outside of the Christian religion. I have already given you numerous quotations from them to this regard.
Your right, christianity does not contain that morality today, that is why this country was not founded upon what it stands for today. Most atheists would not object to the idea of the days of old and what freedom actually meant back then. But today, christians want to control and favor only their own, the only question today is which vile sect of it would gain control.
Jefferson
QuoteThe legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
This is not what Christianity today would even dream of stating.
QuoteOther important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.
Christianity today will not recognize deism as being Christian, the idea is preposterous.
Jefferson knew what the fundamentalists of today would be like, because religious leaders wanting control are all the same.
QuoteJefferson said, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes"
QuoteJefferson was just as suspicious of the traditional belief that the Bible is "the inspired word of God." He rewrote the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament and compiled his own gospel version known as The Jefferson Bible, which eliminated all miracles attributed to Jesus and ended with his burial. The Jeffersonian gospel account contained no resurrection, a twist to the life of Jesus that was considered scandalous to Christians but perfectly sensible to Jefferson's Deistic mind.
Christianity would accept that huh? Not hardly, what nonsense to say Christianity founded America.
Quote"There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites"
LOL, Christianity.........
QuoteWilliam Linn, a Dutch Reformed minister in New York City, made perhaps the most violent of all attacks on Jefferson's character, all of it based on religious matters. In a pamphlet entitled Serious Considerations on the Election of a President, Linn "accused Jefferson of the heinous crimes of not believing in divine revelation and of a design to destroy religion and `introduce immorality'" (Padover, p. 116). He referred to Jefferson as a "true infidel" and insisted that "(a)n infidel like Jefferson could not, should not, be elected" (Padover, p. 117). He concluded the pamphlet with this appeal for "Christians to defeat the `infidel' from Virginia"
Will you, then, my fellow-citizens, with all this evidence... vote for Mr. Jefferson?... As to myself, were Mr. Jefferson connected with me by the nearest ties of blood, and did I owe him a thousand obligations, I would not, and could not vote for him. No; sooner than stretch forth my hand to place him at the head of the nation "Let mine arms fall from my shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone" (quoted by Padover, p. 117).
Oh my, an accusation against our beloved founding father by a religious person, oh what a surprise.
QuoteJames Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion. This paper, long considered a landmark document in political philosophy, was also cited in the majority opinion in Lee vs. Weisman. The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly, and in 1786, the Assembly adopted the statute of religious freedom of which Jefferson and Madison were the principal architects. The preamble to this bill said that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." The statute itself was much more specific than the establishment clause of the U. S. Constitution "Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise [sic] diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities".
Oh, say it isn't so.
It is clear that there is a mixture of beliefs and opinions involved in the founding of this nation and the intent for freedom was to include those who believed in 20 Gods and Atheists as well to be free from religiousd tyranny. They were all considered in the forging of what was intended to be the context of freedom.
Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Waterhouse, (26 June 1822), published in The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, Federal Edition, Paul Leicester Ford, ed., New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1904, Vol. 12, pp. 241–243.
Billy Graham: No! We're not a Christian Country. We've never been a Christian Country. We're a secular Country, by our constitution. In which Christians live and which many Christians have a voice. But we're not a Christian Country.
The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.
--James Madison, Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate "On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees" (1794-01-10) [4]
The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it.
--James Madison, Letter to Rev. Frederick Beasley (1825-11-20)
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 09, 2010, 07:10:49 PM
Billy Graham: No! We're not a Christian Country. We've never been a Christian Country. We're a secular Country, by our constitution. In which Christians live and which many Christians have a voice. But we're not a Christian Country.
LOL When have you ever listened to anything Billy Graham has to say? You really should include dates, or some sort of reference with your quotes, though.
"a God" something that Christianity cannot accept, you must believe in their God. If you believe he was making a statementy of Christianity, you are wrong.
Atheists have no problem accepting that morality could perhaps come from "A God" and they understand morality exists and is favorable towards living decent lives, but Christianity lies and twists what atheists say so that it appears that they deny God. No the reality is they deny what Christianity says their God will do to the atheist for not agreeing with them.
all the quotes lead to a more balanced and non religious view of a creator.
QuoteWhatever else it might turn out to be, the Convention would not be a `Barebone's Parliament.' Although it had its share of strenuous Christians like Strong and Bassett, ex-preachers like Baldwin and Williamson, and theologians like Johnson and Ellsworth, the gathering at Philadelphia was largely made up of men in whom the old fires were under control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in their part of the country--the New Englanders Congregationalists, and Presbyterians, the Southerners Episcopalians, and the men of the Middle States everything from backsliding Quakers to stubborn Catholics--and most were men who could take their religion or leave it along. Although no one in this sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, neither would anyone have dared to proclaim that his opinions had the support of the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit" ("The Men of Philadelphia," 1787 The Grand Convention, New York W. W. Norton & Company, 1987, pp. 147-148, emphasis added).
Benjamin Rush (December 24, 1745 – April 19, 1813) was a Founding Father of the United States. Rush lived in the state of Pennsylvania and was a physician, writer, educator, humanitarian and a devout Christian, as well as the founder of Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Rush was a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and attended the Continental Congress. He was also a staunch opponent of Gen. George Washington and worked tirelessly to have him removed as the Commander-In-Chief of the Continental Army.[1] Later in life, he became a professor of medical theory and clinical practice at the University of Pennsylvania. Despite having a wide influence on the development of American government, he is not as widely known as many of his American contemporaries. Rush was also an early opponent of slavery and capital punishment.
Despite his great contributions to early American society, Rush may be more famous today as the man who, in 1812, helped reconcile the friendship of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams by encouraging the two former Presidents to resume writing to each other.[2][3]
He is generally deemed Presbyterian and was a founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society.[17] He was an advocate for Christianity in public life and in education. In line with that, he advocated that the U.S. government require public schools to teach students using the Bible as a textbook, that the government furnish an American bible to every family at public expense and that "the following sentence be inscribed in letters of gold over the door of every State and Court house in the United States. The Son of Man Came into the World, Not To Destroy Men's Lives, But To Save Them." [18][19] He publicly advocated such government actions even after the ratification in 1791 of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ....."[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Rush
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2010, 07:23:55 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 09, 2010, 07:10:49 PM
Billy Graham: No! We're not a Christian Country. We've never been a Christian Country. We're a secular Country, by our constitution. In which Christians live and which many Christians have a voice. But we're not a Christian Country.
LOL When have you ever listened to anything Billy Graham has to say? You really should include dates, or some sort of reference with your quotes, though.
What difference does that make? Christianity hails Billy Graham as a great spiritual leader it's your religious beliefs that would look up to billy graham complain to billy graham for contradicting you.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 09, 2010, 07:33:55 PM
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2010, 07:23:55 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 09, 2010, 07:10:49 PM
Billy Graham: No! We're not a Christian Country. We've never been a Christian Country. We're a secular Country, by our constitution. In which Christians live and which many Christians have a voice. But we're not a Christian Country.
LOL When have you ever listened to anything Billy Graham has to say? You really should include dates, or some sort of reference with your quotes, though.
What difference does that make? Christianity hails Billy Graham as a great spiritual leader it's your religious beliefs that would look up to billy graham complain to billy graham for contradicting you.
I don't look up to Billy Graham. I think he was used by the powers that be for their own ends.
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2010, 07:33:43 PM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion .....
Exactly.
QuoteChristians have often claimed that most non-Christians make death-bed professions of faith when they realize that they are dying. These claims almost always turn out to be unverifiable assertions, but Conway made it very clear that Washington, even on his death bed, made no profession of faith
When the end was near, Washington said to a physician present--an ancestor of the writer of these notes--"I am not afraid to go." With his right fingers on his left wrist he counted his own pulses, which beat his funeral march to the grave. "He bore his distress," so next day wrote one present, "with astonishing fortitude, and conscious, as he declared, several hours before his death, of his approaching dissolution, he resigned his breath with the greatest composure, having the full possession of his reason to the last moment." Mrs. Washington knelt beside his bed, but no word passed on religious matters. With the sublime taciturnity which had marked his life he passed out of existence, leaving no act or word which can be turned to the service of superstition, cant, or bigotry" (quoted by Remsberg, pp. 132-133, emphasis added).
QuoteAt the constitutional convention, Luther Martin a Maryland representative urged the inclusion of some kind of recognition of Christianity in the constitution on the grounds that "it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." How ever, the delegates to the convention rejected this proposal and, as the Reverend Bird Wilson stated in his sermon quoted above, drafted the constitution as a secular document. God was nowhere mentioned in it.
This is the text of George Washington's October 3, 1789 national Thanksgiving Proclamation; as printed in The Providence Gazette and Country Journal, on October 17, 1789.
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
G. Washington.
Quote from: Molly
I don't look up to Billy Graham. I think he was used by the powers that be for their own ends.
Do you only consider the people who share your exact viewpoint only, as christians and those that don't share your viewpoint as anti-christians and pagans etc
Even if so I don't see rules that prohibit "non-christians" from participating, people are expected to conduct a civilized conversation and show respect for another persons viewpoint though, without resorting to name calling and speculation about their motives etc
BTW I mostly agree with Paul Hazelwood, however I do agree with you on one thing, a sexual agenda should not be imposed on young and impressionable minds
Quote from: Shadow on April 09, 2010, 09:38:49 PM
BTW I mostly agree with Paul Hazelwood, however I do agree with you on one thing, a sexual agenda should not be imposed on young and impressionable minds
I agree with that also, however, that is not necessarily the issue. Homosexuality in any form is considered a sexual agenda by some who say they oppose sexually oriented material for very young children is schools. So depicting a family with two parents who are of the same physical gender is promoting a sexual agenda even if such a depiction is that of a family oriented nature and not with sexual implications.
For instance if it is sexually offensive to have two same sex parents holding hands or gently kissing then it is also sexually offensive to show two opposite sex parents holding hands or gently kissing.
I do not believe kindergardeners need to be shown any orientation kissing and I am fine with neither being depicted physically touching at all.
If same gender parents are generally promoted and depicted without any physical contact there are those that would still describe that as a sexual agenda.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 09, 2010, 09:50:11 PM
For instance if it is sexually offensive to have two same sex parents holding hands or gently kissing then it is also sexually offensive to show two opposite sex parents holding hands or gently kissing.
I do not believe kindergartners need to be shown any orientation kissing and I am fine with neither being depicted physically touching at all.
If same gender parents are generally promoted and depicted without any physical contact there are those that would still describe that as a sexual agenda.
Exactly, this is the point I was trying to make, unfortunately schools are not the only places where kindergartners learn these types of things, the internet is chock a block full with the vilest pornographic filth imaginable at the touch of a mouse click, not to mention cable television with xxx-rated movies or even R-rated movies on a normal TV station etc etc
Sometimes I wonder if the best way to get away from all of it is to live in the middle of nowhere, where one cannot get easy access to these types of things, the trouble is today that childhood innocence is taken away far, far too soon
QuoteDo you only consider the people who share your exact viewpoint only, as christians and those that don't share your viewpoint as anti-christians and pagans etc
Even if so I don't see rules that prohibit "non-christians" from participating, people are expected to conduct a civilized conversation and show respect for another persons viewpoint though, without resorting to name calling and speculation about their motives etc
BTW I mostly agree with Paul Hazelwood, however I do agree with you on one thing, a sexual agenda should not be imposed on young and impressionable minds
I consider followers of Christ Christians. I realize that can take many forms. You must understand that the people of Massachusetts have no choice in the matter regarding teaching children about the existence, normalcy, and acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle. Christians are not allowed to opt out of that teaching for their children. What do you think of that? Do you think that is right? Parents have no choice or say in the matter.
PS I saw your post above. Two men kissing and even having children together is part of the teaching in the school books I've seen.
This is where we're going with this. Have a nice day! :boyheart:
Frequently Asked Questions About NAMBLA and Man/Boy Love
Q: What do you seek to accomplish?
A: NAMBLA was formed in the belief that if people knew more about the actual nature of typical man/boy love relationships, that there would be less unjust scapegoating and persecution of boys and men who have such relationships.
Q: Why do you oppose age-of-consent laws?
A: Opposing age-of-consent laws is not our only focus; it is one part of our broader criticism of North American social and legal practices. We believe that these laws do great harm to people and relationships that do not deserve to feel the crushing weight of the heavy hand of the law. Just as important, age-of-consent laws do not adequately protect young people. They have often been applied arbitrarily and unjustly, and have long been used to terrorize gay males. Gay youth in particular have been targets of extreme persecution through the selective application of age-of-consent laws.
Q: What is this "ageism" you refer to?
A: Ageism refers to age-based discrimination, and includes the tendency to discount and devalue the feelings and opinions of children and youth. This tendency pervades our society and has implications in every area of a young person's daily life: at home, at work, while shopping, hanging out with friends or going places, and especially at school. It has the socially corrosive -- and costly -- effect of breeding fear and distrust between the generations and isolating them from each other.
Q: What do you propose in place of age-of-consent laws?
A: Age-of-consent laws are those which say that if you are under a certain age, then what you say doesn't matter. We believe young people would be much better protected by laws -- and social attitudes -- that take their opinions, feelings and decisions into consideration. We have never proposed specific laws, but in general we advocate changes in society and the law to include greater respect and consideration for children and youth -- not merely in the abstract, but in each individual case. We reject the cookie-cutter approach often used by authorities, moralists, and legislators who presume to know what someone wants without asking them, and who claim to know what is best for every person without having met them. Individualism -- the belief that each person is important and deserving of respect -- is one of the core founding values of North American society. We advocate for a society that lives up to this ideal, as it applies to people of all ages.
Q: How can society best protect vulnerable people?
A: The claim is made that age-of-consent laws protect the vulnerable. In practice, they give undue power to those who already have power -- police and prosecutors -- while removing power from some of society's most vulnerable populations -- notably, gay youth. We believe that vulnerable people are better served by giving them more choices, not fewer. Children and youth can be made less vulnerable by giving them more options. Those who need to escape abusive family members or other abusive situations need more options than we as a society currently provide them with. Those who live in poverty, those who face racial, religious, and sexual prejudice -- all need more options, not fewer.
Q: You make this seem like such a noble cause, but isn't it really just a selfish one?
A: There is a much bigger dimension to the issues we raise, with implications for everyone. The interest that all people share in widespread access to truthful information is more than just philosophical. Too often, politicians take advantage of gaps in public knowledge, and play on public fears to divert attention from their own actions. When they are allowed to do this, the result is bad government for everyone (something we've all seen plenty of in the last few decades). Our efforts to educate the public on the issues of man/boy love, ageism and anti-sexualism are intended to help bring about better informed public policy and an electorate less vulnerable to politicians who would use their fears against them.
Q: Do you believe it's possible for a boy and a man to have a close, even sexual relationship, without any harm?
A: Yes it's possible, and it happens every day. Many studies have confirmed that the large majority of sexual contacts between boys and older partners are both consensual and harmless. See below for a listing of some of these published, peer-reviewed studies.
Q: But aren't these relationships always initiated by the adult?
A: No. We know from experience that some boys do initiate sexual contacts with adults. This is confirmed by several published studies, which have found that a substantial percentage of boys' sexual contacts with older partners were initiated by the boy (see references below for details).
Q: Do you believe there are actually boys who find men attractive that way?
A: It is well established that some boys do find men very attractive. Certainly, plenty of gay men have reported being infatuated during early- and middle-childhood (5 to 10 years of age) with masculine icons such as the "Marlboro Man" and even Peter Graves, the silver-haired leading man of Mission Impossible. Gay novels, biographies and autobiographies provide abundant examples. And not all boys who find men attractive identify as gay. It is very easy to underestimate the sheer scale of the multidimensional rainbow of human diversity -- and the strength of teenaged male sexuality.
Q: Ok, but if a boy does come on to you, wouldn't it be better simply to refuse the advance?
A: If your concern is for the safety of the man (any man), in today's climate, then the answer is probably, yes -- walk away, and stay away, and just don't have anything to do with kids in general. But boys take rejection very hard, and they take isolation even harder. It has a deeply negative effect on their outlook, which can have lifelong implications -- and broad implications for society. Unfortunately, this kind of self-segregation of men from boys has become a major social problem in its own right -- a problem which will never be solved while man/boy love is stigmatized as harshly as it is now.
Q: So, does this mean you believe the relationship can benefit the boy?
A: We know it can; some of us have seen examples in person. And several peer-reviewed studies have shown that boys who have consenting relationships with men usually feel positively about their relationship and feel that the relationship has had a positive effect on them.
Q: But isn't the harmfulness of sex supported by scientific research?
A: Actually, no it isn't. Peer-reviewed studies have shown clearly that there is nothing intrinsically harmful about sexual experiences between boys and men. For a full explanation, see: Outcomes: Can Science Shed Some Light?
http://www.nambla.org/faq.htm
Obama appointee lauded NAMBLA figure
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
10/01/09 12:40 PM EDT
Kevin Jennings, President Obama's Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug FreeSchools at the U.S. Department of Education, is in hot water this week for having failed to report that a 15-year-old sophomore student in his school had told him of having sex with an older man.
But failure to report what appeared to be a case of statuatory rape of a child may be the least of Jennings' worries. Lori Roman of Regular Folks United points to statements by Jennings a decade or more ago when he praised Harry Hay of the North American Association for Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which promotes the legalization of sexual abuse of young boys by older men.
Roman provides damning details and links here. She also notes that Jennings wrote the forward "to a book called Queering Elementary Education. And another fellow you may have heard of wrote one of the endorsements on the book jacket—Bill Ayers." Ayers, of course, is the Weather Underground bomber from the 1960s who is just an "acquaintance" of Obama.
Every presidential administration ends up with scandals inspired by controversial appointees, but typically those tend to revolve around financial improprieties, conflicts of interest, or some other form of white-collar misconduct. For Obama, the scandals seem to be develping in a pattern of disclosures revolving around radical left ideology that raises questions about their fitness for any job in government.
And that in turn raises the inevitable question: Is nobody minding the White House personnel store?
UPDATE: Who was Harry Hay?
Folks at Media Matters are agitated by the above post and others pointing out Jennings' praise of Harry Hay and the latter's link to NAMBLA. Hay was not an employee or official of NAMBLA, but was during his later years, according to his entry on Wikipedia, a frequent defender of the group, including this 1983 statement: "f the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."
MM has a point - Jennings praise of Hay was not specifically in the context of the latter's support of NAMBLA. Readers will decide for themselves whether it is appropriate for an individual who publicly praised an advocate of pedophilia to be appointed Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-appointee-lauded-NAMBLA-figure-63115112.html#ixzz0kdJBtPre
QuoteI consider followers of Christ Christians. I realize that can take many forms. You must understand that the people of Massachusetts have no choice in the matter regarding teaching children about the existence, normalcy, and acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle. Christians are not allowed to opt out of that teaching for their children. What do you think of that? Do you think that is right? Parents have no choice or say in the matter.
PS I saw your post above. Two men kissing and even having children together is part of the teaching in the school books I've seen.
My honest opinion on homosexuality, I once thought it was a lifestyle choice, however I have personally read and heard stories of people agonizing over and having to come to terms with their sexuality, TBH I don't know if it is wrong, however, I don't condemn them for it anymore, I can learn to accept people for what they are, even although I may not agree with their viewpoint, besides I'm not perfect either
HOWEVER
I fully agree with you that 5 years old is far too young to be exposed to this type of teaching and christians should be able to opt out of it if they want (in fact anyone should), children being exposed to sex education too young is wrong, no matter what the orientation is
Unfortunately in this day and age, sexuality is so in your face all the time, it's as if the whole planet has become fixated on it, not to mention that the world is rife with pedophiles
The point I'm trying to make is that it should be up the parents to educate their children about sex and not up to the government
And I saw your post on the article before mine...I'm sure that there, we are in 100% agreement there...I find it absolutely horrifying :omg: :ticked: :Shoot: :eek:
QuoteThe point I'm trying to make is that it should be up the parents to educate their children about sex and not up to the government
Nambla makes it pretty clear that they believe that boys as young as 5 to 10 years old want to have sex with men.
So what do you think they are hoping for in normalizing homosexuality for this age group?
The attack on Christians is brutal and vicious--intolerant, hypocritical witch burners that we all know they are. :mblush:
When you push and push and push the boundaries--where do you expect to end up?
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2010, 10:46:52 PM
Nambla makes it pretty clear that they believe that boys as young as 5 to 10 years old want to have sex with men.
So what do you think they are hoping for in normalizing homosexuality for this age group?
The attack on Christians is brutal and vicious--intolerant, hypocritical witch burners that we all know they are. :mblush:
When you push and push and push the boundaries--where do you expect to end up?
Although I can come to terms with homosexuality between 2 consenting ADULTS, words can't express the horror and shock I feel towards Nambla's motives, to me this is legalizing pedophilia and making a legal loophole for any sexual pervert to get off the hook regarding their pedophilia, I'm not American so this is the first I'm hearing about Nambla
I can just see it now...oh the child found me attractive and I just obliged to make them happy, if indeed the abuse ever comes to the light...talk about blaming the victim
Believe me, I am just as enraged about this as you are :Shoot: :Shoot: :Shoot: :Shoot: :swordfight: :swordfight: :swordfight: :swordfight:
QuoteHomosexuality in any form is considered a sexual agenda by some who say they oppose sexually oriented material for very young children is schools. So depicting a family with two parents who are of the same physical gender is promoting a sexual agenda even if such a depiction is that of a family oriented nature and not with sexual implications.
You seem to think that you can let the genie out of the bottle and then control it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You can't be a little bit pregnant, either.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2010, 11:08:18 PM
QuoteHomosexuality in any form is considered a sexual agenda by some who say they oppose sexually oriented material for very young children is schools. So depicting a family with two parents who are of the same physical gender is promoting a sexual agenda even if such a depiction is that of a family oriented nature and not with sexual implications.
You seem to think that you can let the genie out of the bottle and then control it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You can't be a little bit pregnant, either.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
No, that is a statement showing you have no real argument against monogomous homosexual couples comitted to one another and neither does anyone else.
Hi Paul. Do you mean from a legal aspect, or spiritual? I think we probably see this at least s/w differently, and I realize there are various interpretations and arguments - and I'm not looking for an argument - but my understanding is that Apostle Paul did address it several times from a spiritual aspect. But legally, it might be a tough issue. I think many things are, because we really can't legislate a change of heart, yet many of our laws of the land do appear to based on The Law. :dontknow: I think it's complicated, and though I do actually pay quite a bit of attention to political stuff, I continue to wonder how much a believer should really be too tied up in "worldly politics". :sigh:
Quote from: jabcat on April 10, 2010, 12:18:17 AM
Hi Paul. Do you mean from a legal aspect, or spiritual? I think we probably see this at least s/w differently, and I realize there are various interpretations and arguments - and I'm not looking for an argument - but my understanding is that Apostle Paul did address it several times from a spiritual aspect. But legally, it might be a tough issue. I think many things are, because we really can't legislate a change of heart, yet many of our laws of the land do appear to based on The Law. :dontknow: I think it's complicated, and though I do actually pay quite a bit of attention to political stuff, I continue to wonder how much a believer should really be too tied up in "worldly politics". :sigh:
Both legally and spiritually. Whatever people think the bible says about homosexuality is only through intepretation, there are no direct words from ancient hebrew or greek that directly correlates to the term homosexual.
We can discuss the phrases used in that interpretation if you like, but I find it quite interesting that from the UR perspective there is so much emphasis on mistranslation - misintepretation concerning eternal damanation that it is suprising that more don't see the problem in this issue as well.
That is because from a societal level it is much easier to be against it than for it. It is only hard on a religious level to be a universalist, society couldn't care less.
QuoteNo, that is a statement showing you have no real argument against monogomous homosexual couples comitted to one another and neither does anyone else.
Why does it have to be monogamous and committed? Why are you putting that boundary on it? You still like boundaries yourself? And, you think you can create the boundaries to your liking?
Personally, I could care less what adults do behind closed doors. That's between them and God. It does bother me though if it is constantly in my face, on prime time tv, changing the curriculum in school, forcing me to share the ladies' room with men, forcing children to deal with it, teaching my young children values that I disagree with, and so forth. That's what bothers me.
I want my children to be taught my values, not somebody else's values. And, my values are pretty standard Christian values.
And, I want all children to be protected. I do not believe that children should be sexualized or viewed as sex objects.
Paul, I'll probably say only a few things, because I prefer to not debate. But I believe much of the argument over the words in question is probably opportunistic by a group that is attempting to legitamize the homosexual agenda. I am aware of the arguments over the words, including by the (what I consider) very suspect "Jesus Seminar" folks. Based on what I've personally seen and studied (limited, I'm no scholar) I believe the translations of the following words actually are accurate - not just the words themselves, but within a larger context of other scriptures, such as the few lines I end the post with -
I'll post the words and translations, but then also say that even without the specific words in question, the NT also defines the situation in other words -
The words and their references;
"Be not deceived, neither ...effeminate [Gk: malakos-catamite/boy with man sex] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).
"Be not deceived, neither ...abusers of themselves with mankind [Gk: arsenokoites-sodomites/male bed partners/male-liers] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).
Some of the other passages without "the words"...in Romans 1
"to dishonor their own bodies between themselves"
"women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"
"men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men"
Anyway, that's how I see it, don't know if I have a lot else to say about it. Take care, James.
Quote from: Molly on April 10, 2010, 12:50:04 AM
Why does it have to be monogamous and committed? Why are you putting that boundary on it? You still like boundaries yourself? And, you think you can create the boundaries to your liking?
Because it is easy to understand that sexual promiscuity from any orientation has a reasonable argument to why it is better not to be that way. I have yet to have even a homosexual argue with me in any reasonable manner about promiscuity.
I have never argued that there should be no boundaries, but that is the lie from Christianity, I dare to agree something is ok that they do not like and all of the sudden reason flies out the window and that I must also like man boy love, you have to do that because you have no case against what I have said.
QuoteI want my children to be taught my values, not somebody else's values. And, my values are pretty standard Christian values.
Then teach them, if you expecting ANY adult other than yourself to have that responsibility you have already lost the battle.
Quote from: jabcat on April 10, 2010, 12:55:28 AM
Paul, I'll probably say only a few things, because I prefer to not debate. But I believe much of the argument over the words in question is probably opportunistic by a group that is attempting to legitamize the homosexual agenda.
James, I am not going to try to get you to debate. I will say at this point about what you wrote is that having an agenda does not determine if something is scripturally right or wrong.
A homosexual agenda does not speak inherantly that a homosexual orientation or relationship is right or wrong.
It appears more that your opening statement here is the filter in which you justify your conclusions. No offense intended, just an observation.
QuoteBecause it is easy to understand that sexual promiscuity from any orientation has a reasonable argument to why it is better not to be that way. I have yet to have even a homosexual argue with me in any reasonable manner about promiscuity.
I have never argued that there should be no boundaries, but that is the lie from Christianity, I dare to agree something is ok that they do not like and all of the sudden reason flies out the window and that I must also like man boy love, you have to do that because you have no case against what I have said.
What gives you the right to tell homosexuals they must be in committed, monogamous relationships?
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 10, 2010, 02:42:31 AM
Quote from: jabcat on April 10, 2010, 12:55:28 AM
Paul, I'll probably say only a few things, because I prefer to not debate. But I believe much of the argument over the words in question is probably opportunistic by a group that is attempting to legitamize the homosexual agenda.
James, I am not going to try to get you to debate. I will say at this point about what you wrote is that having an agenda does not determine if something is scripturally right or wrong.
A homosexual agenda does not speak inherantly that a homosexual orientation or relationship is right or wrong.
It appears more that your opening statement here is the filter in which you justify your conclusions. No offense intended, just an observation.
Good, no debate, but communication and perhaps some clarification since you make said observation. The opening statement could either be a filter (as we all have them) but it could also be that I've actually studied the issue as I said, and come to what I believe to be an accurate conclusion. If others think differently, that's between them and God and we're all learning.
I understand we all have filters, yet I do try to look to the scriptures and how God reveals them to me as the final authority - sometimes I learn and have to
re-learn as I go. I know there are things I don't understand, but if anyone can truly scripturally show that "women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" and "men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men" is not speaking against the active lifestyle of homosexuality, then I'll listen. But IMO, it's pretty clear - and that's not even discussing the translation of malakos and arsenokoites. Others do as well, but the most literal translation I know of translates arsenokoites as 'homosexual' - add that to the context of the references above, "women..burned.." and "men with men", and for me (as well as my conscience) it's an acceptable saying.
If you're OK leaving as is, that's fine with me. If you'd like to explain how you see the specific verses, I'll surely listen. :bigGrin: (Don't want to hijack the thread though :punish:).
Thanks, James.
Quote from: Molly on April 10, 2010, 02:54:04 AM
QuoteBecause it is easy to understand that sexual promiscuity from any orientation has a reasonable argument to why it is better not to be that way. I have yet to have even a homosexual argue with me in any reasonable manner about promiscuity.
I have never argued that there should be no boundaries, but that is the lie from Christianity, I dare to agree something is ok that they do not like and all of the sudden reason flies out the window and that I must also like man boy love, you have to do that because you have no case against what I have said.
What gives you the right to tell homosexuals they must be in committed, monogamous relationships?
Because I can.
"Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
This means that to Jefferson's mind he had written a Constitution that left all matters of religion to the discretion of the states and of the people. That was his idea of freedom. If Massachusetts wanted to run a Puritan government, as they did [read blue laws], that was their choice. If VA wanted to run a government that left it up to the people of various sects, that was their choice. The choice resided in the people and in the states.
This is no longer the case in this country. The control of religious exercise has now been wrested from the states, and is under the thrall and control of a minority agenda in the name of equality and 'social justice'.
But, be assured that someone is going to control it, as they do today. It's just a question of who.
By the same token, people are going to have some religion--even Atheism is a religion--it's just a matter of which one.
And, 5 year olds are not capable of picking a lifestyle or a religion off a smorgasbord.
Thus, freedom of religion requires that the matter is put back into the hands of the states and the people. As it stands, we no longer have freedom of religion.
Quote from: jabcat on April 10, 2010, 03:12:46 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 10, 2010, 02:42:31 AM
Quote from: jabcat on April 10, 2010, 12:55:28 AM
Paul, I'll probably say only a few things, because I prefer to not debate. But I believe much of the argument over the words in question is probably opportunistic by a group that is attempting to legitamize the homosexual agenda.
James, I am not going to try to get you to debate. I will say at this point about what you wrote is that having an agenda does not determine if something is scripturally right or wrong.
A homosexual agenda does not speak inherantly that a homosexual orientation or relationship is right or wrong.
It appears more that your opening statement here is the filter in which you justify your conclusions. No offense intended, just an observation.
Good, no debate, but communication and perhaps some clarification since you make said observation. The opening statement could either be a filter (as we all have them) but it could also be that I've actually studied the issue as I said, and come to what I believe to be an accurate conclusion. If others think differently, that's between them and God and we're all learning.
I understand we all have filters, yet I do try to look to the scriptures and how God reveals them to me as the final authority - sometimes I learn and have to re-learn as I go. I know there are things I don't understand, but if anyone can truly scripturally show that "women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" and "men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men" is not speaking against the active lifestyle of homosexuality, then I'll listen. But IMO, it's pretty clear - and that's not even discussing the translation of malakos and arsenokoites. Others do as well, but the most literal translation I know of translates arsenokoites as 'homosexual' - add that to the context of the references above, "women..burned.." and "men with men", and for me (as well as my conscience) it's an acceptable saying.
If you're OK leaving as is, that's fine with me. If you'd like to explain how you see the specific verses, I'll surely listen. :bigGrin: (Don't want to hijack the thread though :punish:).
Thanks, James.
We don't actually have to make this an issue about homosexuality. The argument you raise here is ambiguous.
What proves something scripturally true? What makes a verse clear?
Even from the perspective of UR, is the lake of fire real literal fire, is it clear that it is now. Is it true punishment, how long is it, how terrible will it really be?
Why do we constantly assert that clarity while disagreeing day in and day out concerning what scripture says? It is an appeal to emotion and has no bearing on truth, so when we say it is clear we try to paint an emotional picture of our opposite to bring a question as to their mental state. I do not think in most cases it is mean spirited, it is simply our nature as we wrestle to gain the advantage of thought.
It is not clear, never has been. We decide that clarity to ourselves while forgetting the unclear road to coming to some of those conclusions in the first place.
When you start seeing things of a spiritual nature, then that clarity becomes even less apparent. The literal word no longer applies to what we think it may apply to.
The arguments are the same from any side, we always hear how clear something is. All this from a standpoint and assumption that there is a perfect undisputable translative factor in the first place.
Religion has actually defiled common sense. No translator will agree that there is any perfect translations, but we are left with perhaps a general message that gets us in the ball park.
Even LOVE, we conclude that LOVE is central to the bible, but it is not clear that it is. God hated Esau. Not so clear.
OK, have a good night.
*Edited removed*.
Ephesians 5
11 Have nothing to do with the barren unprofitable deeds of darkness, but, instead of that, set your faces against them;
12 for the things which are done by these people in secret it is disgraceful even to speak of.
Quote from: jabcat on April 10, 2010, 06:41:13 AM
Molly, we're hijacking your thread. If it's going to keep going (without outright debate) is there something with the OP you want to revisit? Or are we tuckered out? You and PaulH have already put a lot of energy into this thread. :sweat:
Allow me to think out loud. Is any of this UR related? :laughing7: James.
I have noticed I can hijack a thread quicker than a blink of the eye.
I just could not let my thoughs on Nambala go without speaking...Sorry Molly
SQ and Molly -
I removed my posts, thought I'd just shut up. By doing so, I may have "messed up" your posting that I see you're now doing - pardon sil vous plait :mblush:.
LOL SQ - funny. Blink of an eye, eh? :winkgrin:
Quote from: jabcat on April 10, 2010, 06:41:13 AM
Molly, we're hijacking your thread. If it's going to keep going (without outright debate) is there something with the OP you want to revisit? Or are we tuckered out? You and PaulH have already put a lot of energy into this thread. :sweat:
Allow me to think out loud. Is any of this UR related? :laughing7: James.
I dunno. We found out Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian at the end of his life. Is that related to UR? :happygrin:
This isn't my thread, though, although I've gotten a lot out of it. Seems like UniversalCatholic lobbed a grenade and walked away rofl.
For me, it is crystal clear what is going on. I think a lot of people are blindsided and stunned when they hear what is happening in schools, what our children are being taught. I've only touched on it here, but, believe me, it is being carried on like a war, with strategy, preparation, and a lot of thought. I'm sure they are just picking certain states for their grand experiment. In two States, Ct and MA, the decision was made by the judiciary (maybe CA, too?). In MA, the state legislation blocked the people from voting on it, after the people demanded a referendum, but phone calls from Ted Kennedy to the legislators prevailed over the people. Our country is now being run like one big insiders club, and it's a club I, for one, don't want to belong to, and most people are unaware, and just trying to make it through the day with all that's going on with the economy and everything else. But, our government, our society, our values, are being changed practically overnight.
But, maybe, just maybe, this is God's way of waking us up, making us take a stand. Call it shock therapy. lol
Quote from: Molly on April 10, 2010, 07:01:27 AM
But, maybe, just maybe, this is God's way of waking us up, making us take a stand. Call it shock therapy. lol
oh, thought it was your thread...silly me. Guess I could have checked first.
What you say above is what I've thought for some time now. The new heaven and new earth, the next age will be ushered in somehow. Unless I'm mistaken, all the transitions from one age to another have been brought about with cataclysm, an upheaval, rather than a whimper. I just keep wondering what's going to occur as we move into the next age, and I really think we either already are, or are
about to find out.
Quote from: jabcat on April 10, 2010, 07:16:28 AM
Quote from: Molly on April 10, 2010, 07:01:27 AM
But, maybe, just maybe, this is God's way of waking us up, making us take a stand. Call it shock therapy. lol
oh, thought it was your thread...silly me. Guess I could have checked first.
What you say above is what I've thought for some time now. The new heaven and new earth, the next age will be ushered in somehow. Unless I'm mistaken, all the transitions from one age to another have been brought about with cataclysm, an upheaval, rather than a whimper. I just keep wondering what's going to occur as we move into the next age, and I really think we either already are, or are about to find out.
wow. :mshock: Sure feels that way. Brings this to mind--
5According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.
6For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;
7And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
--Haggai 2
I have followed this dialogue all the way through. One thing seems to be certain, when it comes to 2 people arguing back and forth, I tend to think both sides want to win more than to promote the accuracy of truth.
We all feel strongly about our beliefs, and in my personal experience, an argument can become ungodly if one of the contestants only wants to win the debate, regardless of truth and justice. I see a lot of people who are well versed in bible knowledge, and a heavy dose of their own interpretation. But those same people lack the Love of God. What does it profit a person to have such knowledge and no charity? I find people who aren't so versed walking in a whole lot more love than those who are. Why? Probably because they are walking in the purity of the spirit more than the legality of a letter.
Contributing to the derailing of this thread :happygrin:
Yet your own point reflects no more of what you say others lack.
Quotewhen it comes to 2 people arguing back and forth, I tend to think both sides want to win more than to promote the accuracy of truth.
It's a hot topic.
Objection noted. :happygrin: I was thinking the same thing myself, that I was lacking kindness and patience, and I was feeling badly about it, and then the phone rang with a number I didn't recognize, and I answered it, "who are you and what do you want?" :mshock: Scared the person half to death lol. Turns out I have pneumonia. So you never know what the other person is going through on here which is why I like to always give people a wide latitude, and I always try to be kind to strangers, even telemarketers. Sometimes I fail. I do hear you.
But we are living in the times that try men souls, as they say. We are going to have to face a lot and be strong. Anger is a type of strength, but then it has to be channeled into more productive outlets, or it eats you up.
Thanks for bringing it up.
"Turns out I have pneumonia."
that's was funny Molly.
Truly, I pray you heal soon.
As I see it two people have a passion for what they believe is right. Never apologize for standing up for what you believe to be right no matter who does not share what you believe.
I've had pneumonia, your doing much better that I did Molly, I never had the urge to even get on the computer when I had it. Get well soon.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on April 11, 2010, 05:58:10 PM
As I see it two people have a passion for what they believe is right. Never apologize for standing up for what you believe to be right no matter who does not share what you believe.
I've had pneumonia, your doing much better that I did Molly, I never had the urge to even get on the computer when I had it. Get well soon.
Yes, I agree--passion. We probably actually agree on the principles, just disagree on how they should be achieved. [Not starting a fight lol]
Walking pneumonia. I've probably had it for weeks, but it was starting to gain ground so I went for an x-ray. Thanks to you and Beloved Servant for your prayers. I'm feeling much better thanks to a pill that could kill anything within a 100 yards.
and thank you for the laughter — that's twice today!
Quote from: Raggedy Anne on April 08, 2010, 07:43:15 PM
Paul,
I wonder if you have seen this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rqw4krMOug
It demonstrates the reason why I try to stay far away from religious groups, particular the ones that insist that I believe everything just as they do.
Religion can be so creepy. If we do not insist on having our own freedom of thought, there will always been someone standing by who is eager to "tell you
what truth is" and insisting you believe it (or else!).
We really are like sheep, made vulnerable to following something or someone. Each person should respect others' right to follow the spirit of Truth for themselves
and not try to dictate their notions on others. You would think those who have come into the understanding of UR would have learned that by now, but there is
still a strong tendency even among UR believers to try to control everyone. This whole world is a lot like an insane asylum.
Anne
p.s.... I think there is a spiritual law that goes something like this: 'So long as you despise the other (those not like yourself)', you cannot be set free from religious prison. Wasn't that a lot of what kept the Jews in bondage thousands of years ago - despising the foreigner and stranger ? Isn't that what is causing hell on the earth now?
Oh my, me sister, you remind me of the answer jacob gave when
they ask him how he got it so quickly. "because the lord brought it to me, that's
how I got it!!!!!"
A City upon a Hill
"Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck and to provide for our posterity is to follow the Counsel of Micah, to do Justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God, for this end, we must be knit together in this work as one man, we must entertain each other in brotherly Affection, we must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others' necessities, we must uphold a familiar Commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality, we must delight in each other, make others Conditions our own rejoice together, mourn together, labour, and suffer together, always having before our eyes our Commission and Community in the work, our Community as members of the same body, so shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, the Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us, as his own people and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of his wisdom power goodness and truth then formerly we have been acquainted with, we shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies, when he shall make us a praise and glory, that men shall say of succeeding plantations: the lord make it like that of New England: for we must Consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world, we shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God and all professors for Gods sake; we shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into Curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whether we are going: And to shut up this discourse with that exhortation of Moses that faithful servant of the Lord in his last farewell to Israel Deut. 30. Beloved there is now set before us life, and good, death and evil in that we are Commanded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another to walk in his ways and to keep his Commandments and his Ordinance, and his laws, and the Articles of our Covenant with him that we may live and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God may bless us in the land whether we go to possess it: But if our hearts shall turn away so that we will not obey, but shall be seduced and worship other gods, our pleasures, and profits, and serve them, it is propounded unto us this day, we shall surely perish out of the good Land whether we pass over this vast Sea to possess it; Therefore let us choose life, that we, and our Seed, may live; by obeying his voice, and cleaving to him, for he is our life, and our prosperity."
--John Winthrop, First Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, 1630
Hmmm. . . Chuck ya got me thinking . . .
How many times have I been passionate about something to the point that I did more harm than good because of my "passion". In the delivery of sharing out my heart, am I opening the ears of the deaf? Or am I cutting the ears off with my swinging of the sword?
One thing I do try to remind myself from time to time is when I become too passionate, is God resisting? Or is he giving me grace? As we all know, he resists the proud and he gives grace to the humble. If I'm as mature as I assume everyone thinks I am, just how much humility am I presenting in my presentations? May God have mercy on us all!!
Psalm 127:1
Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain.
In the good ol USA we can stand on a street corner still, to this day, and protest our government. Whenever there is freedom there are always going to be interest groups promoting agendas. The responsibility of democracy is that we have to be vocal and active on behalf of our interests and there is nothing wrong with that.
According to the declaration of independence, when government gets to oppressive, the people have the right to react. Revolution is an absolute foundation of democracy. There is no other way to attain it. You cannot impose democracy- as we have discovered in Vietnam and Afghanistan and Iraq. Only if the people truly support it, can we enable it in their defense- as we found in South Korea.
Revolution is also the only way to maintain democracy. The activity of the people is the only way to keep government free of special interest control, where minorities rule against the best interests of general society in order to promote their welfare and influence. Christians have to stand up and be counted, apart from their theological differences- but even more importantly, everyone who walks under the seven Noahide laws, whether Jewish, Islamic or whatever should recognize the greater common ground in our society, preserving the nuclear family through common law and in social support. This is a part of the revelation of God that is demonstrated in creation and written in the heart of everyone so that all are without excuse.(Romans chapters 1 & 2).
I object to the teaching of homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle in schools. Communities are established upon families. So I can say so and make noise about it and vote because that is my right as an American, and because that is how democracy works. Early Christians did not and could not because there were no democracies. Greece and Rome were oligarchies (representation only for the elite wealthy families and intelligentsia.) The United States of America is the first lasting democracy ever established, and now it is on the verge of becoming an oligarchy-(rule by the wealthy elite and intelligentsia).
I can pray about that and cry out to God about it because that is my right as a Christian.
Of course, if there is no freedom in the body of Christ and no revolution for righteousness and justice and equity and mercy among American Christians- then the salt has lost its savor and the preservative is lost. Maybe the fact that we are being tossed out and trampled under the feet of men is the result of our own apostasy.
If the salt has lost its savor......
The only theocracy I want to be under is one that Jesus is ruling. They used to persecute Universalists, and anyone else who disagreed with them in England, France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Holland, Italy- you paid the price for your beliefs in blood and imprisonment and confiscation of your property. Calvin, Knox and Luther were terrible oppressors as was Rome. I prefer the natural pressures and responsibilities of representative government to being ruled by religionists or humanists or any other ideologue. All I can say to people who are worried about where this country is going is MAKE NOISE. Use your voice.
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
(2Ch 7:14)
Quote from: eagleswayThe only theocracy I want to be under is one that Jesus is ruling. They used to persecute Universalists, and anyone else who disagreed with them in England, France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Holland, Italy- you paid the price for your beliefs in blood and imprisonment and confiscation of your property. Calvin, Knox and Luther were terrible oppressors as was Rome.
True.
However, things were mostly handled differently in the New World. When Roger Williams ran afoul of the Massachusetts Puritans, instead of allowing himself to be deported, he simply pulled up stakes, went south, and founded Rhode Island. That way, both groups maintained freedom of religion.
He preached first at Salem, then at Plymouth, then back to Salem, always at odds with the structured Puritans. When he was about to be deported back to England, Roger fled southwest out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, was befriended by local Indians and eventually settled at the headwaters of what is now Narragansett Bay, after he learned that his first settlement on the east bank of the Seekonk River was within the boundaries of the Plymouth Colony. Roger purchased land from the Narragansett Chiefs, Canonicus and Miantonomi and named his settlement Providence in thanks to God. The original deed remains in the Archives of the City of Providence.
Poland is mourning the loss of its leadership as Polish President Lech Kaczynski's plane crashes near Katyn in Western Russia where he, the first lady and a large delegation were going to be part of Katyn commemoration. The president is dead. None of the 132 passengers survived.
The Katyn massacre, also known as the Katyn Forest massacre (Polish: zbrodnia katyńska, 'Katyń crime'; Russian: Катынский расстрел), was a mass murder of Polish nationals imprisoned by the Soviet NKVD, based on a proposal from Lavrentiy Beria to execute all members of the Polish Officer Corps. Dated 5 March 1940, this official document was then approved (signed) by the entire Soviet Politburo including Joseph Stalin and Beria.[1][2][3] The number of victims is estimated at about 22,000, the most commonly cited number being 21,768.[4] The victims were murdered in the Katyn Forest in Russia, the Kalinin and Kharkov prisons and elsewhere.[5] About 8,000 were officers taken prisoner during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, the rest being Polish doctors, professors, lawmakers, police officers, and other public servants arrested for allegedly being "intelligence agents, gendarmes, saboteurs, landowners, factory owners, lawyers, priests, and officials."[4] Since Poland's conscription system required every unexempted university graduate to become a reserve officer,[6] the NKVD was able to round up much of the Polish intelligentsia, and the Russian, Ukrainian, Protestant, Muslim Tatar, Jewish, Georgian,[7] and Belarusian intelligentsia of Polish citizenship.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
~ Thomas Jefferson
http://constitutingamerica.org/
"Let us do 90 readings in 90 days – as 90 plus 90 equals 180! Let us turn around, do a 180, and seek the history that holds the key to our future. Let us read the United States Constitution and the Federalist Papers in 90 days, 5 days for the Constitution and 85 days for the 85 Federalist Papers. Read it with your children at the dinner table or before bed. It will only be about three pages a night. Let us have a national discussion one day at a time, one paper at a time, for 90 days at www.constitutingamerica.org Let's start on April 20th. Let's do 90 in 90 and do a 180 – back to the history that yields our future."
Quote from: Molly on April 09, 2010, 10:05:52 PM
Parents have no choice or say in the matter.
Sure they do - don't send them to the government school. If parents are so concerned why send them to be educated by the government? It's NOT the governments job in the first place. Government BY LAW and constitution cannot be partial on religious grounds - you know this.
Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty,
but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.
--John Adams, Letter to Zabdiel Adams (21 June 1776)
Yesterday the greatest question was decided which ever was debated in America; and a greater perhaps never was, nor will be, decided among men. A resolution was passed without one dissenting colony, "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and
independent States."
--John Adams, On the decision to proclaim independence from British rule, which was made on 2 July 1776, in a letter to Abigail Adams (3 July 1776), published in The Adams Papers : Adams Family Correspondence (2007) edited by Margaret A. Hogan
The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated
as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.
--John Adams, Letter to Abigail Adams (3 July 1776); because of the official adoption of the United States Declaration of Independence two days later, the fourth of July rather than the second, became known as the US Independence Day.
Quoteyou know this
It was never the intent of the founders that the States would be controlled in matters of religion the way the federal government was controlled. The States belong to the people. The States each have their own independent Constitutions. And, they would never have signed the U.S. Constitution had they thought otherwise. The intent was for the States to remain, each one,
"free and independent". The intent of the 'establishment clause' in the US Constitution was to reign in the Federal Govt and allow the States to maintain their freedom and independence in all matters, including religion.
George Washington - the Founding Father of our Nation – has been the subject of great confusion and debate about his faith, leading to the misconception that he was a deist. The purpose of "George Washington's Sacred Fire" is to prove definitively that George Washington was indeed a devout, practicing Christian.
Through the 15 years of sound academic and scholarly research that has gone into this book, "George Washington's Sacred Fire" supplies a thorough and historically accurate definition of deism and how it was impossible for Washington to have been a deist. The book addresses and critiques the evidence used by 20th century scholars to "prove" that Washington was a deist and produces extensive primary source documents, illustrations and quotes from Washington's own papers and those of his closest colleagues and family that categorically refute this claim, clarifying why the faith of our founding father matters in 21st century America and beyond.
Most other books published about George Washington's faith argue for Washington's religious convictions based on anecdotal evidence that often either cannot be substantiated, or possess questionable authenticity. "George Washington's Sacred Fire" will leave you awestruck by the faith, values and ideals of this great founder of our nation – the reader will see him as a unique role model for generations of Americans.
Pages: 1208
http://superstore.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2022
"The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered... deeply, ...finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."
-- George Washington quotes (American commander in chief of the colonial armies in the American Revolution (1775-83) and subsequently 1st US President (1789-97), 1732-1799)
Quote from: jabcat on March 27, 2010, 01:02:58 AM
In one way I look at this topic, I don't think it should be - nor that that's what the founders intended - not separate, but perhaps also not forced, as in having a State Religion one must bow to. I believe "separation of church and state" is a distorted statement that isn't an accurate representation of the origional statement(s) and intent. (Wasn't that phrase actually taken from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote at some point, i.e., not in a law or constitution, etc.?)
I believe God wanted Israel to be a Theocracy - which would be fine if truly ordained and led by God Almighty. But, I also believe there can really be some dangers with "religion" in government as well, as in potential abuses (see Iraq, Iran, etc.)
So that's one side of my personal looking at it. However, especially as things develop in the news these days, and I find myself getting caught up in them, frustrated, aggravated, even angry - wondering what it would mean to pay taxes to a government that would fund abortion and perhaps otherwise murder innocents - I really spend time wondering about some things, included in these five statements -
Respect those in authority.
Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
You are in the world but not of the world.
In the world you will have trouble but take courage for I have conquered the world.
My Kingdom is not of this world.
It seems it's really something to meditate on and pray about - seeking His will. I'm afraid I don't have all that completely satisfactorily settled yet . I do get concerned about what the process may be, what may happen in the meantime, and what I'm supposed to be doing relative to it, but I believe whatever all this looks like and wherever it goes, God's going to fix it. Reconciliation.
:thumbsup:
I will only add to a topic that is hot, to blistering in the world today. And I have been caught up in the politics, and find shutting off my voice and thoughts as difficult as any bad habit and fighting any bad complusion I can think of. But Paul wrote in Phil.
Php 3:20 For our citizenship is in the heavens, whence also a Saviour we await--the Lord Jesus Christ--
And I tell myself this verse when I find myself going into the fray
Mat 8:22 and Jesus said to him, `Follow me, and suffer the dead to bury their own dead.'
We often blame leaders, but God gives a people the king they deserve. He turns the heart of the king which ever way He wills. If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and heal their land. When we are the salt of the earth the earth rejoices. When we lose our savor, we are no longer good for anything but to be cast out under the feet of men.
"By this will all men know that you are my disciple- by your love for one another." How could anybody possibly know?
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.
-- Benjamin Franklin
30 "A horrible and shocking thing
has happened in the land:
31 The prophets prophesy lies,
the priests rule by their own authority,
and my people love it this way.
But what will you do in the end?
--Jer 5
For I, through law, died to law, that I should be living to God.
Thanks be to God!
Quote from: micah7:9 on May 22, 2010, 05:35:12 AM
I will only add to a topic that is hot, to blistering in the world today. And I have been caught up in the politics, and find shutting off my voice and thoughts as difficult as any bad habit and fighting any bad complusion I can think of. But Paul wrote in Phil.
Php 3:20 For our citizenship is in the heavens, whence also a Saviour we await--the Lord Jesus Christ--
And I tell myself this verse when I find myself going into the fray
Mat 8:22 and Jesus said to him, `Follow me, and suffer the dead to bury their own dead.'
I see your point but yet AISI - establishing equity and justice for the oppressed through agape love is the only thing that really matters on earth - that's why we are here
on the earth.
My problem with the Christian right in the U.S. is that they seek to establish dogma and doctrinal beliefs which have nothing to do with the real Jesus.
Of course - since I don't believe that Jesus came to set up the thing we call "Christianity" in the first place - many have trouble seeing my point.
A government which stays neutral on spiritual issues and does it's job to protect basic freedoms is the
best possible scenario (as far as earthly government goes). I think since most of us in the U.S. have never lived under an iron heel we may not appreciate what we have.
Quote from: firstborn...establishing equity and justice for the oppressed through agape love is the only thing that really matters on earth - that's why we are here on the earth.
The Great AppealWhat did Christianity offer its believers that made it worth social estrangement, hostility from neighbors, and possible persecution?
Helmut Koester:
John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School
A NEW COMMUNITY
Why was the Christian community something that people wanted to join? I think that only because at least certain parts of the early Christian mission were intent in creating new community, that only for that reason this movement was successful. Now what does it mean "new community?" Let me talk about this in two different levels. One was certainly that the message that was preached here promised gifts, spiritual gifts, to people that went beyond the everyday life experience and promised also immortality, a future life which would be liberation from sickness and from disease and from poverty, and individual isolation. There is a future for the individual. And the message of the possibility for a human being to be related to something that is beyond the powers of this world was certainly one great attraction. But that alone would not have been enough. I think it's a very important spiritual-religious factor. But it would not have been enough, because, in spite of all the glories of the Roman Empire, people lived in the world in which there was inequality, there was great poverty on the one hand and immense wealth in the hands of a very few people. There were sickness and disease and there were no public health services, and doctors were expensive.
Now here's also the question of the inequality which Rome really reinforced through the Augustan system. Rome is a very strict hierarchical system, in which the emperor is at the pinnacle, all the way up and then all the blessings in the world that come to people come down from above. The emperor is the conduit to the divine world. And if you're at the bottom of that social pyramid, not a whole lot of things are coming down to you anymore. Slavery slowly diminished, but continued to exist.
Now the Christian community, as we have it particularly in the letters of Paul, begins with a formula that is a baptismal formula, which says in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, neither slave nor free. This is a sociological formula that defines a new community. Here is a community that invites you, which makes you an equal with all other members of that community. Which does not give you any disadvantages. On the contrary, it gives even the lowliest slave personal dignity and status. Moreover, the commandment of love is decisive. That is, the care for each other becomes very important. People are taken out of an isolation. If they are hungry, they know where to go. If they are sick, there is an elder who will lay on hands to them to heal them.
WELFARE INSTITUTIONS
Now we have increasingly in the Christian churches, in the time up to Constantine, the establishment of hospitals, of some kind of health service, we have a clear establishment of social service - everything from soup kitchens to money for the poor if they need it. We have the very important establishment of the institution of widows, because a widow in the Roman society who had lost her husband and did not have money of her own was at the very bottom of the social ladder. One of the first welfare institutions we find in the church was all the widows who were recognized as virgins of the church, considered particularly precious possessions of the church; they were paid by the church and therefore were rescued from utter poverty in most instances.
Christianity really established a realm of mutual social support for the members that joined the church. And I think that this was probably in the long run an enormously important factor for the success of the Christian mission. And it was for that very reason that Constantine saw that the only thing that would rescue the empire is to take over the institutions that the Christians had already built up, [including], by that time, institutions of education in reading and writing, because Christians wanted to have their members knowledgeable and capable of reading the Bible.... We find that in administration of the last pagan emperors, before Constantine, at the very end of the third century, a large number of the people in the imperial administration are Christians, because they could read and write. Which constituted a big problem with the persecution of the Christians because they were thrown out of their office first when the persecution began, and suddenly the government didn't work anymore.
One should not see the success of Christianity simply on the level of a great religious message; one has to see it also in the consistent and very well thought out establishment of institutions to serve the needs of the community.
more at...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/appeal.htmlWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...
:thumbsup:
http://www.breitbart.tv/former-marine-stuns-crowd-at-georgia-tea-party-event/
Last verse of Star Spangled Banner
Oh, thus be it ever when free men shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto, "In God is our trust"
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!