RELIGIOUS IGNORANCE GUIDES THE LEFT
I saw an interesting story the other day. It seems that the left, namely Bill Moyers, the on-line environtmental journal Grist, and a host of other liberal organizations are saying that the Christian right wants and even encourages environmental disasters because, as signs of the return of Jesus Christ, these will hasten the second coming.
No really…stop laughing…that’s what the these left-leaning wack-jobs really think, or at least that’s what they think they can use to scare supporters into writing checks.
The funny thing about all this is, it’s completely contrary to what the bible teaches. From Genesis, Numbers, Collossians and all throughout the bible, God’s direction to his followers is clear. The earth is God’s creation and it is perfect. God appointed man as his steward of the earth and we will be held accountable for any harm we cause the earth and the creatures on it. The bible says that a sparrow does not fall to the ground without God knowing about it.
Again, the left and elitist speak with disregard for the facts and hopes to use fear to intimidate those they want to govern.
Julian Says: February 15th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Buck,
Perhaps you could provide a reference for Moyer’s article so folks could read it for themselves. Is it the one at the following address? http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0408&article=040810
Julian Says: February 16th, 2005 at 12:55 am
Funny thing happened to me on the way home today. My radio landed on a station playing a sermon by a preacher. Guess what he was saying? He said that the book of prophecies given in the Book of Revelations was unfolding before our very eyes in Iraq (Babylon and the Garden of Eden, from the Old Testiment days) and that Armagedon was at hand. I reckon if you shaved Bush’s noggin you might just find the number 666 right there if this fella is right.
Julian Says: February 16th, 2005 at 1:05 am
This is a hoot! Google the terms “Iraq” and “Armageddon”
Suzanne Says: February 16th, 2005 at 2:48 am
Hi Buck,
This may be way off base, but I have a couple of question.
I understand America is “One Nation under God”, and out democratic government was founded with this as the basic underlying principle. In the Constitution however, there are laws as to the separation between Church and State.
Now for my question - why have most all political issues become more of a religious debate in this country instead of a political debate?
Next – as a diverse culture, this country is also diverse in the many different religious beliefs, not all of which believe in the same bible from which you quote.
So, my second question – For those who do not believe in the same bible from which you quote, does this then classify these Americans as Liberals, or Conservatives, or someone on the Left or Right or is there one which I have not as of yet read on this site? Just would like to know.
Finally, I have always loved that one scripture that you quoted. I believe though, this scripture does not relate to the subject in which you have placed this quote.
I think those beautiful words from the bible and political issues do not mix. Politics and the words in the bible do not relate to each other, as politics were not around when the bible was written. Therefore, to me, it is anti Christian to use quotes from the bible when debating a political issue, be it on the Left or be it on the Right.
Just my opinion -
Thank you
Suzanne
K. Marx Says: February 16th, 2005 at 8:12 am
Suzanne; I realize you were asking buck, but I would like to chime in regardless, because I believe you ask some excellent and profound questions.
Some would argue that the state, our government, is a function of the people. Some would then argue that people are to be subject to God, Jesus Christ, Allah, Joseph Smith, Zeus, etc. If people are subject to God et al., and the state is a function of the people, some would then argue that the state should be subject to God et al. also.
As you noted, though, the United States is built upon separation of church and state. This would then lead to the notion that the United States was built upon functioning outside of the church (not necessarily, but possibly, still subject to God et al.). I suppose it would depend on whether one separates the church and God et al. Some people distinguish the two, some don’t.
Jim Wallis recent wrote a book God’s Politics that comments on the present condition of religion and politics in the U.S.
To be sure, Moyers only represents one “left-leaning whack-job,” not the entire poppulation of left-leaning whack-jobs.
Julian; Thanks for the link, it was well worth the read.
buck Says: February 16th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Suzanne,
Thank you for your questions and thank you Karl for your answers. In regards to the first part of your post Suzanne, I’d like you to post on this web-site the exact language from the constitution referring to church and state. Do you even know what it says? Go find it, email it to me, and I’ll post it center-page. It’s funny how you state that this nation was founded on the principle of “One nation under God”, and Karl says it was founded on the principle of “separation of church and state.” Which is it? That’s why I want you to read the articles and amendments to the constitution dealing with religion, churh and state, etc. So we can all be on the same page. To continue….
My article about Bill Moyers was in direct response to comments made by Bill Moyers and others about the “christian right”. They didn’t say anything about any other religions, so I’m not sure why your second question is even relevant. The implication and direct accusation by Moyers, and others, was that the “Christian Right” and by association, President Bush, want to poison the environment to help speed up and fulfill biblical prophecy. Their assertion is completely contrary to what I was taught about Christian stewardship of the earth. Do you agree that they are using religion to make a political point? If not, please explain what they are doing.
Besides reading the constitution you should read your bible. Politics and governments were most definately around in biblical times and there is direct instruction in the bible on how christians should address political issues.
Your homework assignments for the day. Write a report on what the constitution explicitly says about religion and I’ll post it. Secondly, use a concordance or on-line research and see if you can find one scripture in the bible dealing with politics and/or government. Pay attention Karl, there will be a test later.
Julian Says: February 16th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Buck, Could you point me to the passage of scripture that says that “that God’s creation is perfect”? For one thing, he must have created my knees, back, and eyes, and they are far from perfect. But I want to know where in the Bible to find that specific quote about the perfection of creation. Thanks in advance.
Emory Says: February 16th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
Julian, I think that the book of Genesis in the first chapter states God observed that everything He made was “very good.” Not sure, but I think that is one of the main scriptures scholars use to make the claim that creation was perfect. Of course, the creation was corrupted after Adam’s fall, which would explain my and your knees, back, and eyes and other painful life experiences that result from sin.
Julian Says: February 16th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
Thanks Emory. I was familiar with the scripture from Genesis “and he saw that it was good.” Just not sure where the reference to “perfection” is. On that note though, do you think that the protection of God’s creation is, or should be, a top priority for politicians. Also, if we notice that they are not behaving in a manner that respects the environment, what is our responsibility as God’s people? Should we hold their feet to the fire, so to speak.
Emory Says: February 16th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
I think that governmental leaders should want to find ways to get the most resources out of the environment with the goal of preserving it. Top priority? I think that the top priority now for the U.S. gov should be to defend it’s people and environment from attacks that could kill millions.
Julian Says: February 16th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
Emory, What if we have evidence that more people are killed by our politician’s environmental policies than are, or are likely to be, killed by terrorists? What would our obligation be then?
Julian Says: February 16th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Emory, I am also unsure about what you mean by “get the most out of the environment.” How does this fit in with protecting God’s perfect creation?
K. Marx Says: February 16th, 2005 at 7:32 pm
buck; Actually, my comment was that the United States was “built upon” separation of church and state. The phrase is a bit vague, so allow me to explain further. What I meant was that court opinions have shown the separation of church and state. Court opinions shape and build the U.S. because they are the ones that interpret the U.S. constitution, not you or I. To make an analogy: The Bible did not build all the sects of Christianity. The different sects interpreted (and translated) the Bible differently and therefore shaped Calvinism, Catholicism, Lutheranism, Protestantism, etc.
You won’t find “separation of church and state” in the constitution, as you alluded to (kind of like the old prank of asking someone to find a radiator for a Porsche 356: There isn’t one, they were air-cooled).
If you want evidence where the separation of church and state exists, look no further than court opnions on the Blaine Amendments, Establishment Cause, the Fourteenth Amendment, etc.
You’ll have to excuse my poor memory, as it brings me all the way back to One-L. It’s funny how, as you progress in school and then into your profession, you forget the first and most important things they teach you as a graduate.
Thomas Jefferson advocated a, “wall of separation between church and state.” This can be seen in the Establishment Clause.
For further recent articles on the matter, consult Steven Gey’s article in the Brigham Young University Law Review Issue 4 of 2004, pages 1617-1632.
see also: Davis, Derek H. Journal of Church and State. Vol. 46 Issue 4, page 717.
Or just plug in “church” and “state” into any academic source search.
buck Says: February 16th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
Julian,
Please refer to Emory’s post (thanks E) and the following for your answers.
The earth and all life within it are creations of God. God has pronounced them as sacred and good. Christians beleive God is infallable and therefore what he creates is infallable. It is man, that created imperfection, by sin. (Genesis 1)
God’s creations are praised and sanctified. (Psalms 104:24-30, Psalms 145:9,16-17, Psalms 148, Job 12:7-10)
God is concerned about all creation,(Matthew 10:29)and abusing God’s creation is an affront to God’s handiwork, because he cares for all creation.(Matthew 25:40,45)
God told the Israelites that defiling the land was a sin, because God was in the land with his people. (Numbers 35:33-34, Numbers 5:1-5, Leviticus 15:31, Deuteronomy 23:9-14)
The Old Testament law distinguishes between clean and unclean behavior, for the purpose avoiding acts that would defile God and his creations. (Leviticus chapters 11-15)
God repeatedly promises to care for the land and give it fruitfulness, prosperity, and abundance — if the people obeyed his Covenant, which included a long list of rules on cleanliness. (Leviticus 26:3-45)
God allowed Israel to consume what resources from the land they needed, but he ordered them not to waste it. (Deuteronomy 20:19-20)
God promises to destroy those who destroy the earth. (Revelations 11:18)
God does not allow people to kill and destroy. The bible explicity states that bad actions lead to bad consequences — “a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” (Matthew 7:17-20)
Destroying God’s creation wantonly and squandering that which God has given us is a sin and the wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23)
It doesn’t mean you can use the resources God has given you, it means you should use them wisely and fairly.
The earth is not perfect. God’s original creation was. He offered man the choice of keeping it that way, or of taking the path of sin and wordly knowledge. You know the rest of the story.
All of this commentary started as reaction to my original article, “RELIGIOUS INGNORANCE GUIDES THE LEFT” To be sure, there are religious wack-jobs out there who have their own ideas about stewardship that are contrary to what I beleive. But the scripture references I post and the teachings I have received and that guide me as a Christian tell me that I will be held accountable for how good a steward of God’s earth I am.
Excuse me while I go turn some lights off.
Emory Says: February 16th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
Julian, I wouldn’t consider our environmental policies at all to be more lethal than national security. I believe we have a responsibility to utilize our environmental resources to further our advancement and well-being. For example, we need to continue developing oil procurement technologies so that we can safely retrieve oil from Alaska instead of depending on states that are inclined to be sympathetic to terrorism. From what I’ve read, the technology already exists to do this. What good is an environment of smoldering ashes left by our enemies? We should also pursue other forms of energy besides oil for the long term.
Julian Says: February 16th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
Emory,
Have you read http://www.oiltruth.com? What is you view of the information presented there? Would you take a look at the following web site and tell me what you think. http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/caa90/10.htm
Julian Says: February 16th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
Buck, As children of God, should we treat each other with respect and honor, even when we disagree. Should we try to lift each other up. How does God expect us to treat each other, his creations?
Julian Says: February 16th, 2005 at 10:32 pm
Emory, Sorry but I just need to ask this question too. In comment 15 you said “we have a responsibility to utilize our environmental resources to further our advancement and well-being.” Is the term “we” meant to include every person on earth, the brother and sisterhood of all of humanity, or just a select group? I am not sure that the distribution of earthly resources is fair and equitable. The strange luck of where you happen to be born, and to whom you are born, seems to play a disproportionately large role in determining how you get to “use” God’s creation.
Emory Says: February 17th, 2005 at 2:55 am
Julian, I haven’t read the oiltruth.com article yet. I did look at the EPA press release you listed. I don’t remember very much about the 1990 Clean Air Act. I am skeptical of the EPA promoting how great the Clean Air Act and the Clinton Administration has been, especially when the report uses data from a “sophisticated array of computer models” from “distinguished economists, scientists, and public health experts.” If I missed a good point there, let me know, please.
Julian Says: February 17th, 2005 at 3:09 am
Emory, who would you prefer to do the analysis rather than people who are committed to doing excellent science and have to endure the scrutiny of the scientific peer-review process? I genuinely fear anti-intellecualism and anti-science attitudes. Historically such attitudes have been harbingers of facism. Carl Sagan was right, I believe, when he said that “We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster.”
from The Demon-Haunted World, 1996
Julian Says: February 17th, 2005 at 3:31 am
Emory and others, You may wish to read a non-partisan view of how Bush’s has regarded science, especially quality environmental science, in his administration’s policy-making process. http://www.scienceinpolicy.org is a good start. I know that some of you will think it is partisan since it is critical of Bush. I will argue that it is just honest and careful, which makes it seem biased against Bush. I urge you to avoid the ostrich position.
Emory Says: February 17th, 2005 at 3:45 am
Maybe every word in the EPA press release is objective and true, but I am still suspicious and think it’s a good practice to look at the source and possible motives behind press releases, that’s all.
Julian Says: February 17th, 2005 at 3:55 am
Emory,
I understand what you’re saying. Sorry if I was offensive in my previous remarks.
Suzanne Says: February 17th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Buck
The reason I asked about other religions, is that it seems as if there is some religion out there that I am unaware of. This religion, seems to be shoving its beliefs down my throat and the throat of all other Americans if they do not agree with the way that those who belong to this religion believe. This is why I asked the question!
Next, I will find where the Seperation of Church and State exists.
Next, if we are going to include parts of the Bible in our comments, that is great. As there are some great quotes that will stand up for the Liberals you so easly laugh at, and for the democrats you so easly laugh at. This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, as those I think I shall keep to myslef tonight.
Also, I would be interested if when quoting from the Bible, if the both the Old and the New may be used, or do you stick with only the new.
If the Old is accepted, then there is a quote that will stop the worry about the End Of The World Thing, you mentioned the Left Accused the Right of Creating. Actually, I was only trying to hold up what you wrote in your Post.
Will be back tomorrow with both items, but will not do homework for you, as I already know where my information is before I put it on this site
Thanks Buck
Oh, sorry if this one is out of Kilt, it is just late, and I don’t like being treated as a child
ME Says: February 17th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
LOL Suzanne. Dont look so hard that you make something up while looking for that whole seperation of church and state thing… wouldnt want that to happen. Also no matter how old you are, sometimes you still need to go back and do your homework when your wrong, dont forget that. I figure a college grad like yourself would know that… Shame Shame. Swallowing your pride sometimes maybe hard but its worth it in the end. =)
Suzanne Says: February 18th, 2005 at 4:33 am
Buck
The Separation between Church and State is in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights
“Amendment I
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”.
If this is not clear enough, and you still think that there are no laws as to the separation between church and state, then my next two questions would be;
1. Which Church are we talking about that is not separated from the Government.?
2. Who voted this Church to be the one that rules above the others?
Suzanne
TO: Me above -
Now to you LOL of course it is in the First Amendment I just could not remember which one it was in yesterday.
Nice to see you here and there and where ever I go. Actually, last night I could not remember which one it was in, so had to pull out my Bill of Rights just to make sure I was correct, as they will eat you alive on this site if you are wrong, right all of you out there!
Aren’t you a bit timid about being on this site?
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: February 18th, 2005 at 5:30 am
Buck,
Bill of Rights - Amendment 1 - The words - Separation Between Church and State do not exist;
Most legal professors would argue the words in the First Amendment by placing reference to “religion” and “Congress” in itself separates the two. In addition, by placing limits on Government in relation to Religion, also shows Separation between Church and State. If by only the reference to each as an individual entity, this alone implies that the two are separate. Most legal professional would argue that if there was no separation between the two, then there would not have been the need to place the words in the First Amendment stating – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” – In addition, this is the first words of the First Amendment next come the Freedom of Speech then the Freedom of the Press.
Considering how much value we as Americans place on the two latter freedoms, but our Forefathers place the Religion and Congress (Separation) before any and all other words and future Amendments. as the first of the first. This in itself could and has also been stated in court, to show how high the importance was placed on this separation.
I am assuming you do agree there is by law separation between State and Government; although this separation is becoming less to the States and more to the Government. When this government was created, the First 13 States demanded a separation between the laws which are controlled by each individual State and those by the Government. As time has gone by however, the government seems to have more power over the States than most States like. This is not relevant to the topic except to the Separation matter.
This provision for separation between government and State is not in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, before Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.
I wonder, could this be due to the memories of our Forefathers the memories they brought with them from England and the Church of England?
Could it be that our Founding Fathers learned from Europe that Religion and Government do not mix?
When the Bill of Rights was written, this separation was so important that it was placed in the First Amendment, not the 10th or the 5th.
But, as I said the exact words are not there or anywhere so as to satisfy you. I guess this is a “what do you believe” type thing.
To me, this is as basic of a belief for America as are the words, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of unreasonable Search - etc.
It is not necessary for you to turn and tell me that the exact words which I used are not in the Constitution, as I know that, knew that. The words of The Constitution are constantly being tested in court; this is why we have the Supreme Court. If necessary, I will look up and find specific cases where this separation was the argument and the Supreme Court found that the First Amendment does imply to a Separation between Church and State.
In addition, this decision has been upheld more than once by the Supreme Court.
Just ask I will find the exact cases for your reference.
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: February 19th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Buck
I see you have not replied to my information that you requested. So, I am providing more.
Is it that if the truth is presented to you, then you do not respond?
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
Republic
republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government Source: NMW
In the context of the United States, both definitions apply.
Redress
redress v. 1. To set right, remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends for. n. 1. Satisfaction for wrong done; reparation. 2. Correction. [
Amendment 1 - Freedom of religion, press
In my opinion, the single most important part of the Constitution. Some of the first colonists of the nation for which the Constitution was written had been seeking to escape religious persecution. The constitutions of several of the states prohibited public support of religion. And above all, the many varying sects of Christianity in America required that to be fair to all, there could be preference to none. It would have been disgraceful for anyone to wish to leave the United States because of religious persecution. So they decided it best to keep the government out of religion. Now, this is not to say that the United States was not or is not a religious one. Religion plays a big role in the everyday life of Americans, then and now. But what they were striving for is tolerance… something I fear contemporary Americans are lacking.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.”
The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.
Note: The bracketed section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion, though it was not actually deleted in his draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon Jefferson’s knowledge that his letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, he deleted the block, he says in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.
This is a transcript of the letter as stored online at the Library of Congress, and reflects Jefferson’s spelling and punctuation.
________________________________________
Mr. President
To mess? Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
In summery:
The words “Separation between Church and State” refer to the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.”
I don’t think this can really be argued as not to exisit.
Suzanne
Paul Says: February 25th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
Suzanne, this is the first time I have posted, though I have lurked for a while. I am reading your posts and cannot help but become curious about what you are trying to get at.
Do you feel that there is a religion that is being established by the government of the USA?
Do you beleive that there is some Machiavellian force at work to force you and yours to switch to this religion?
Have you become convinced that this religion is pressuring the government to accept it’s worldview and thus bring about some ulterior motive?
The implication I am getting about your whole line of questioning and the influence of your “freind” in Europe it that you believe all these questions to have the same answer.
Christianity
Please say no.
Otherwise this whole line of thought is scary.
Paul Says: February 25th, 2005 at 11:32 pm
We must have a separation of church and state. There must not be an established religion according to the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution. There is no debating this and I personally take comfort in the fact that the government via the tyranny of the majority cannot make me become Baptist or Hindu or Muslim.
The last time I checked (although I could be wrong), nobody in the Bush White House has forced anyone to convert to Christianity. Although there are people who call this a Christian nation, they do not say that to impose a government religion but instead say that to let people know that the founding ideas of this country were created by christians.
Now here is where we get to the meat of the matter. The majority of people in this country are christian of some form or another. We will vote our concience. We will run for office. Our beliefs will influence the decisions we make. Does that mean there is some Vast Christian Conspiracy out there waiting to rule the world?
Right……….
There is a reason why the socialist left is now scared of christians. Because of their ridicule and insistence that we are all ignorat fools, most of us, slowly but surely have been forced to drift right in our politics. This has not always been so, especially in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. Now, instead of being mostly Democrat, we find ourselves mostly Republican. I guess there just isnt enough room in the “big tent” for us ignorant hate-mongers.
But see, because we have drifted right en masse, we have become frightening to the Socialist left. Thus we have been accused of every maddog scheme that they can think of to discredit us (such as the topic of this particular thread).
The rhetoric is becoming more vitriolic since Bush was re-elected as we are either the heroes to be thanked or the scum to be accused, depending upon whom you ask (personally, I wish to be neither).
A student of history need only read the history of early 20th century Europe to find a group of people who were demonized as much as Christians are now. The rhetoric became obnoxious then too, and it cost 6 million of them their lives.
I can understand, on a basic level, people becoming uncomfortable with Christians and thier political power in the good ole USA. But the way to change that is with open communication and rapprochement(sic) instead of ridicule and shouts of “separation of church and state”. If given a chance, almost all of us would agree that there needs to be separation, but we also do not want to see it as a sword to separate us from our rights. Or to inflame the public. Kind of like, “Deutschland, uber alles”.
Bonniem Says: February 26th, 2005 at 9:47 pm
Paul, have you noticed, as I have, that some people, when they say they want separation of church and state, are really saying, “we don’t want to offend anyone who is not a Christian, even at the cost of taking away the freedom of religion from said Christians” who are arguably the majority religion in America. I get so tired of people thinking that separation of church and state, means no religion shown or spoken publically. It is my understanding that the “freedom of religion” means the government cannot require you to be of one religion or the other. Maybe you can tell these people more eloquently than I.
Paul Says: March 1st, 2005 at 9:30 pm
Well Bonnie, I think we should all just cling to the second phrase of the First Ammendment to the Constitution. “Or prohibit the free exercise thereof”. The founding fathers were well aware of tyranny and its consequences. They purposely added that phrase in there because they did not want government to take away the right to practice religion either. These two phrases are mutually exclusive, meant to approach the subject of religion from two different angles.
I am consistently amazed at the enshrinement of the victim mentality in America. Using this effective tool, atheists have done thier best to take Christianity and anything associated with it out of public discourse. In some places you cannot even mention God or Jesus or your faith or you will face serious consequences. To call that outrageous is mild.
In America, at this point, we are still capable of freely practicing our beliefs. For now. So those who oppose us for whatever political purposes (from the right or left) must do so by other means (once again, the purpose of the subject of this thread).
Mr. Jack Says: May 14th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
You do realize that the rule of seperation of church and state is there for a reason don’t you? because religion gets in the way, it causes conflect between people who worship the same god. for example, the protestant reformation in renassance europe. Or the Salem witch hunt. Or the Sheite muslims and the suni (forgive me if I I mispelled those) Or, a great example is the “Final solution to the Jewish question.” the fact is that if you don’t have seperation of religion and government then there is the possibility of genocide by a minority of wack jobs, no mater if theyre from the left or the right.