AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > September > 22 > Entry
How religious do we want our presidential candidates to be?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Quick quiz: Which recent presidential candidate encouraged us to “question with boldness even the existence of God…”?
Answer: None, of course. The speaker was actually Thomas Jefferson, whose tolerance of agnosticism would surely tank a campaign 225 enlightened years later. Religiosity is a requirement in a viable 2008 candidacy, right up there with being a natural-born citizen, and not being Dennis Kucinich.
Yet a recent Pew Research Center poll reveals that “so far religion is not proving to be a clear-cut positive in the 2008 presidential campaign”. The current frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, are considered the least religious, although both are church-goers and speak frequently of their faith.
More conservative religious candidates grab both headlines and votes when hot button social issues dominate a campaign. Yet the Pew report goes on to explain that many domestic debates continue to be overshadowed by the war in Iraq.
This trend troubles Ken Blackwell of the conservative, Christian-based Family Research Council, who also noted that concerns about the war make it hard to focus attention on his group’s key issues like abortion, stem cell research and gay rights.
“…I think we have to make more Americans believe the war is being prosecuted competently, and for a reason…” he said last spring.
One can understand Mr. Blackwell’s dilemma; it’s difficult to make citizens believe something that simply isn’t true. There’s conflicting, dispiriting news coming out of Iraq, a mounting deficit and an accelerating health care crisis. No wonder we aren’t focusing on controversial domestic matters, even though they’re portrayed as threats to our democracy-and our souls.
Thomas Jefferson said of God, “…if there be one, he must more approve of .. reason than…blindfolded fear.” His words have the air of prophesy, for not even divine intervention can redeem George Bush’s presidency, propagating fear, immune to reason.
This endless campaign season promises to be a roller coaster of accusation and spin, none of it very holy. As we examine our various candidates of faith, facing down the challenges that loom before them, the most important question is this: who truly deserves our faith?
Rebuttal
Ironic that Andy quotes Ken Blackwell. Blackwell is also a former gubernatorial Republican candidate from Ohio, beaten last November by Democrat Ted Strickland - who also happens to be an ordained minister. Americans put their faith in people of faith all the time, and that doesn’t make them less enlightened — or in this case, less Democrat.
Our country will always be indebted to Thomas Jefferson for championing religious freedom, Christian and otherwise. But that doesn’t mean we want a non-religious president to lead us. In fact, the September Pew Research poll showed that while Americans may be reasonably accepting of a secular-oriented president, they prefer one whose life is bounded by faith. As Pew put it, “Most Americans continue to say that it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs. And voters who see presidential candidates as religious express more favorable views toward those candidates than do voters who view them as not religious.” In fact, 61 percent of Americans would not vote for an atheist candidate, no matter how qualified he or she was otherwise.
Why is that?
Well, the vast majority of Americans share some fundamental religious beliefs. And if the average Working Joe recognizes how much he needs the guidance of the Almighty in his own day-to-day life and work, surely, he instinctively feels, the most powerful leader in the world should need it even more. Something deep within us recognizes that with all the problems in our world, we need a President who recognizes that we can’t “go it alone.”
Americans can flip-flop with the best of them on issues and often lack patience to see military or domestic policies implemented fully over time. But the one thing we have consistently been is a country where faith matters. And I pray that never changes.
Follow-up quiz: which president said he did not want his administration to be a “government without religion,” allowed church services in government offices, and wrote in his Bible that, “I am… a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator.” That would be our third president, Thomas Jefferson.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By candide
September 23, 2007 8:42 AM | Link to this
Religion at best is a delusion, at worst a fraud. I want nothing said about religion by presidential candidates. A president’s faith in the Blue Fairy is not something I would like to hear about.
By Billy
September 23, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this
I’d like to say that the President’s religion wouldn’t matter as long as he didn’t make policy based on those beliefs. Truthfully, however, that just rarely happens.
The fact of the matter is that religion is little more than mythology with a large following. People who are truly religious will not question their beliefs, though they will claim otherwise. I want a skeptic. I don’t want someone who believes the world is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
By Billy
September 23, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
I don’t know why the blog is letting me post on the weekend, but I’m going to avail myself of it since I won’t be able to during the week…
Look, our nation was intended to be a secular one. You can be religious, but the nation itself won’t be. The founding fathers were largely deists. This is exemplified by the phrase, “nature and nature’s god” in the Declaration of Independence. Sure, they may have believed in a god, but they were wise enough to know that they couldn’t know the god they believed in was THE God. Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli stated that the U.S. was NOT founded as a Christian nation. That is still the case, despite what the religious reich wants to believe.
By Billy
September 23, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this
And since I’m sure this will come up soon enough, let me go ahead and say it…Religious people are responsible for most of the atrocities throughout human history. And I know the response that will follow…”But what about Stalin, Mao, and Hitler? They were atheists!” The societies they controlled were atheistic in name only. When a leader demands his followers blindly follow his every whim, when he foments a cult of personality that glorifies him to no end, it results in a dogmatic worship of him by his followers, essentially deifying him. It becomes a secular religion, completely different from our founders’ goal of the state having no religion.
In regards to Hitler, the rise of Nazism (and subsequent extermination of six million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and others considered deviants or whatnot) cannot be dissociated from religion. Although some Nazi vitriol may have been couched in secular language, it appealed to the biases of the German people — biases fostered by centuries of religion. German Catholicism provided the antisemitism (and homophobia and other fears/hatred) necessary for such atrocities to take place. Hitler and his officers sometimes attended Christian services in the Nazified church. Add to that the fact the in his final days he expected to be saved by reinforcements that did not exist (hoping for a miracle) and it is clear that he and his regime were not atheist in nature.
By Monica
September 23, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this
I don’t want a president who is “religious;” anyone can be religious. It is safe to assume that bin Laden is religious.
What I don’t want is someone who plays “church” for political gain, someone who attends mass at Easter aand Christmas because it’s expected of them, someone who frequents the Baptist Convention because it wins him or her votes. If we have a president who attends church on a regular basis, I hope it’s because he or she has a relationship with God. If one does have that relationship, it will be evident.
One has to be careful in answering this question. While I might want someone who is religious, I only want them religious in the same manner as I am, and I’m sure that I don’t have to point out the dangers in that way of thinking. :)
By Lyrazel
September 24, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this
Actually I don’t feel Americans actually care what religion their politicians are but for TV the politicians MUST show they got one for PR photos. If one looks at the life of a politician it runs on glitz and panhandling money with reflection and faith happening when caught at some no no—then its back to family. Its the politicians wife who keeps the pew warm in temple, who shuttles her kids for their sunday display so that when asked about faith they have a place, and have been seen, know the audience and warble in choir maybe—even believe. I have seen male candidates have to prove their commitment to faith and they do so with peacock display and with enforced TV modesty the women politicos bob their heads like a doll on the dashboard as they speak of strong beliefs and being tested. Its good PR to be churchy and politicians pay millions to have the best public relations companies available to make photo ops of leaving and going and going and waving as they leave service. What was the sermon? Who cares? Its the fact they were there being churchy that matters in PR.
If being churchy ever meant anything to Americans and their politicians there would be no war, no axis of evil, no pursuit of economic wealth without care for the needy…
By NetBanker
September 24, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this
I don’t think that this should matter, but unfortunately in this day and age religion does affect social politics. And I have a bit of an issue with this. Lyrazel touches on this quite nicely If being churchy ever meant anything to Americans and their politicians there would be no war, no axis of evil, no pursuit of economic wealth without care for the needy… My issue is that the application of religious belief to social policy is extremely inconsistent. For many Christians homosexuality is a sin so we must pass laws to ensure they can’t marry, but what about policy that supports religious direction to be good stewards of the earth or to ‘feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, feed the poor’ for example?
If a President takes comfort in the faith and it helps them do their job that’s great. I just don’t want to hear things like “I prayed about this and God told me….”
Slightly off topic, but a thought just occured to me (and you know I just have to share these things when they pop into my head). In school we all learned about Greek and Roman mythology. In those days it wasn’t mythology, but the religion they practiced and for quite a long time. In say, another 2,000 years will children in school learn about “Christian and Muslim” mythology?
By GOB
September 24, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this
In school we all learned about Greek and Roman mythology. In those days it wasn’t mythology, but the religion they practiced and for quite a long time. In say, another 2,000 years will children in school learn about “Christian and Muslim” mythology?
Net - that kind of thinking is what played a huge part in my becoming agnostic. I was listening to a lecture series on ancient Eygpt, and after hearing some of the things they believed, I realized that it really wasnt much crazier than what modern christians or muslims believe.
By JokesOn
September 24, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this
NetB,
In say, another 2,000 years will children in school learn about “Christian and Muslim” mythology?
I sure hope so. If the past is any indicator, we are about to pass into another “age” and at that time will be another period of enlightenment. For example, the past processions moses/commandments marked the the passing of age of the bull into the ram, and then jesus marking the passage of ram to the fish.
2012ish will be the next one after jesus. Hopefully there will be a movement that progresses spirituality and takes yet another step away from dogma type beliefs.
By Anthony
September 24, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
I highly doubt Jefferson wrote that quote no matter what the Christian website you got it off says. He was a deist not a Christian and he was the one who wrote in the treaty with tripoli that we are not a Christian nation. I love how they are trying to rewrite history it really turns my stomach.
By Anonymous
September 24, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
A large number of Americans—millions and millions of them—also thought that Saddam was behind 9/11. Don’t we want a president to be a bit smarter than that?
Maybe that’s a poll worth conducting: How many Americans want a “regular joe” to lead the country, as compared to someone who’s actually smarter and better informed than the average American? (Hint: We got a disturbing preview of that answer in 2000.)
Government by the lowest common denominator is not a good choice, people.
By Archie
September 24, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
The phrasing on the topic question makes a little hard to answer. If I say a little religious,well, what does that mean? I don’t want the candidate to be agnostic because I am not but I don’t want the candidate to be hardcore fundamentalist either. What I want is a candidate that leans left on their religiosity, in other words, a candidate that would allow gays to be married or at least involved in a civil union so that they can allocate their property in a way they see fit and yet I want a candidate that doesn’t mind praying in public.
By comp133xi7y
September 24, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this
Jefferson DID write those quotes, but typically they are taken out of context.
It’s somewhat amusing that Shaunti chose them - in particular the “disciple of Christ” line. The edited part of the quote, the one abridged by the eliding, is “I am a real Christian”. He used those words to differentiate between himself and those Christians who embraced the supernatural rather than the ethical tenets of the religion.
See, Jefferson wholeheartedly believed in the ethics taught by Christ. He rejected the supernatural aspects of the religion. He even re-wrote the gospels, removing all supernatural aspects from them. No miracles. No virgin birth. No born-of-the-holy-spirit. It was the ETHICAL, humanist aspects of Christianity that appealed to Jefferson.
He would consider Shaunti and all the other fundamentalists who are so concerned with biblical literalism to be among the false Christians that he held in contempt.
By Anonymous
September 24, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this
I know the Constitution forbids any religious test for holding public office, but I’d be very reluctant to vote for an openly fundamentalist or evangelical candidate.
They fail the intelligence test.
By Chilao
September 24, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this
I think it is important that we see our Presidents on the Sunday Evening news, entering the National Cathedral earlier in the day, waving at the cameras “See America, Iza going to church, Yessiree”.
My main if only dislike of Clinton was that action of his every Sunday morning.
dripping sarcasm in that post.
The 61 percent who would not vote for an atheist, well that can only be considered Progress as I am sure that percentage would have been much higher in earlier decades. Perhaps people are learning having some sort of religious beliefs does not make that person the superior person so many Insinuate that it would mean. But rather is just means that they have some religious beliefs, nothing more.
By NetBanker
September 24, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this
Perhaps people are learning having some sort of religious beliefs does not make that person the superior person so many Insinuate that it would mean. Good point, Chilao! It does seem that people immediately assume that because one attends church one is superior to those who don’t. Just think about how often we hear comments on the news to the tune of “I just can’t believe [insert appropriate phrase here] because he/she is a good Christian.”
By John Arm
September 24, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this
Hi, I want to introduce you to http://images.google.com http://images.google.com/ > An amazing collection of images iv’e ever seen
By John Arm
September 24, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this
Hi, I want to introduce you to http://images.google.com http://images.google.com/ > An amazing collection of images iv’e ever seen
By John Arm
September 24, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this
Hi, I want to introduce you to http://images.google.com http://images.google.com/ > An amazing collection of images iv’e ever seen
By muefojx gxbz
September 24, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this
cxaemor maleh rgjxtip yrophm tmfukysp eiljb zmjg
By John Arm
September 24, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this
Hi, I want to introduce you to http://images.google.com http://images.google.com/ > An amazing collection of images iv’e ever seen
By John Arm
September 24, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this
Hi, I want to introduce you to http://images.google.com http://images.google.com/ > An amazing collection of images iv’e ever seen
By John Arm
September 24, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this
Hi, I want to introduce you to http://images.google.com http://images.google.com/ > An amazing collection of images iv’e ever seen
By comp133xi7y
September 24, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this
In a recent Fresh Air interview, former Fed chief Alan Greenspan spent some time talking about his tenure vis-a-vis his own personal philosophies. Greenspan is a laissez-faire economist, yet his job required that he work to help regulate the very market he believed should be free of regulation. In the interview, he said that when he first took the position of Fed Chairman, he had to decide if he would do his job within the framework that was required, or if he should attempt to insert his personal philosophies into policy. He chose the former.
The fear that I and many others have is that someone who lives up to the phrase of “Person of Faith” as it is defined by Shaunti and other far-right evangelicals will neither choose nor be able to make the same intellectual break between his duties and his personal beliefs.
Given the percentage of people in this country who express some degree of religious faith or another, I would hardly expect to find a mainstream candidate who is not a member of one or another mainstream religion. Neither would I demand that a candidate have no personal religion. No - my concerns come from a fear of seeing this nation slowly turned into a Theocracy that espouses and codifies into law a specific, narrow set of beliefs that cater only to the “chosen few” and leave everyone else as second- or third-class citizens.
I think it somewhat interesting that this discussion begins on a day when the political leader of one of the world’s most reviled theocracies is creating a tremendous furor for doing nothing more than what Shaunti seems to expect any candidate acceptable to her should do - speaking out vocally and governing by his personal religious beliefs.
How much longer will we refuse to acknowledge that injecting religious belief into our legal and political systems makes us no better than the Islamic Fundamentalist governments we claim to abhor?
By Anonymous
September 24, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this
The Islamic theocrats actually have a great deal in common with our own home-grown theocrats. They despise our “decadent, corrupt” secular society. They’re appalled at the licentious, immoral behavior and crass commercialism. And they long for a return to traditional, righteous, religion-based values, where morality is enforced by law if people don’t have the common sense to already belong to the Right Church.
The difference between our evangelicals and the Taliban is really a very small one. In their goals and mentality, they’re the same. Ours just endorse a different flavor of religious oppression than their Islamic counterparts do.
And, of course, both are enormously grateful for the presidency of George W. Bush to further their cause.
By Gary Gibbs
September 24, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this
God says in the Old Testament “Blessed is the nation whose god is the Lord”
Charles Darwin had this to say about his book:I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religeon of them.
Charles Robert Darwin had this to say about Jesus: Christ Jesus and His salvation. Is not that the best theme?
Thomas Jefferson declared that religeon is: Deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support.
James Madison the father of our constitution had this to say about God and our government: We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the 10 commandments of God.
By lozen
September 24, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this
Applauding for Anonymous post at 2:44pm. It’s all the same: control, force everyone to do what you have decided is RIGHT, MORAL, RELIGIOUS. Who is that idiot televangelist who spends all his time ranting against a hate crime bill? (I refuse to remember his name.) I know the first time I saw/heard him on tv, I wondered why he wasn’t in an institution. Seriously, his actions and words were insane.
By Billy
September 24, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this
What, Google’s spamming the board now?
By Gary Gibbs
September 24, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this
In 1788 James Madison the Father of our Constitution stated: The belief in 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(care/protectiveness) to the different characters and capacities impresed with it. Charles Darwin the current god of the godless stated: Christ Jesus and His salvation. Is not that the best theme.
There are many unbelievers that responded to the Shaunti column the ignorance and hatred displayed is very troubling. As a nation we are far removed from where we were in George Washingtons time in the spiritual sense. He and our other founding fathers would be terribly dissapointed with what we’ve done with what they gave us . Many of us Christians are becoming acutely aware of whats being done to desroy our Christian heritage. Many of us Christians believe the Church has a ministry of grace and civil govwernment has a ministry of justice. If God is restricted either in the Church or in civil government both miniistries will result in quackery and injustice.
By comp133xi7y
September 24, 2007 4:17 PM | Link to this
Gary Gibbs could not have stated the case against religion in government had he tried.
Many of us Christians believe the Church has a ministry of grace and civil govwernment has a ministry of justice. If God is restricted either in the Church or in civil government both miniistries will result in quackery and injustice
His accusations of “ignorance and hatred” aside (apparently failing to agree with someone now represents hatred), this statement is exactly what we supporters of secular government fear. This idea that God lays demands on civil government and that only one set of his followers should determine what those demands are and how they are executed is nothing less than what The Taliban demanded of Afghanistan.
Christians are welcome to live their lives as they choose. No one is destroying their so-called Christian Heritage. Are Christians not free to attend church? Are Christians not free to pray? Are Christians not free to gather in numbers, openly and without barrier? Are Christians not free to marry, worship and live as they choose, in accord with their beliefs and traditions? Absolutely.
No, by claiming that his “heritage” is being destroyed, Gary invokes the great new myth of the Religious Right - that not only were our Founding Fathers fundamentalists and evangelicals of modern stripe, but that they always intended for this to be a nation of Christians , by Christians, and for Christians. No one who reads the works of those great men in fullness, with full understanding of history, context, the meaning of The Enlightenment, and the philosophies of their day could ever make this most basic and egregious of mistakes.
By comp133xi7y
September 24, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this
By the way, in reference to the supposed Madison quote.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030620063744/http://www.au.org/press/pr4401.htm
This was debunked - the above article is just one source of actual information. Not surprisingly, this false quote was created by a revisionist Fundamentalist, who later admitted that the quote was false.
As anyone who has studied actual history knows, Madison was a STAUNCH supporter of the separation of Church and State.
By Just One Question
September 24, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this
Here we have somewhat conflicting arguments:
First comp133xi7y states: It was the ETHICAL, humanist aspects of Christianity that appealed to Jefferson.
Then he states: No - my concerns come from a fear of seeing this nation slowly turned into a Theocracy that espouses and codifies into law a specific, narrow set of beliefs that cater only to the “chosen few” and leave everyone else as second- or third-class citizens.
If Jefferson were truly a deist who believed in the ethical aspects of Christianity, wouldn’t it make sense that he and the other like-minded Founding Fathers would try to codify these Christian ethics into law?
My friend, MOST Christians are not trying to establish a theocracy - that goes against the New Testament teaching of “render unto Caesar”. MOST Christians simply believe that codifying SOME of the moral ethical aspects of Christ’s teachings will make this country better. Whether or not the Founding Fathers were evangelical Christians, they believed in this practice to a certain extent.
By comp133xi7y
September 24, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this
Those arguments do not conflict at all…the first statement referred to the beliefs of one man, Jefferson. The second referrs to a current, modern-day issue. It is fallacious of you to conflate them in the way you have done.
However, to answer your questions, Jefferson most certainly included the ETHICAL teachings of Christ into his beliefs - treating each other with respect and dignity, turning the other cheek, etc. These are the basic tenets that all great religions share - he simply felt that Christ summed them up better than anyone else.
However, in no way should it be assumed because Jefferson personally appreciated the ethical system espoused by Christ that he would approve of any and all Christian beliefs being enforced on the populace.
Unfortunately, “my friend”, we know what MOST Christians want. A return to the days when private sexual behavior was punishable by law, the days when only the wealthy could afford to safely end unwanted pregnancies, the removal of science from our classrooms in favor of superstition…through such “little” things does liberty die.
No, “friend”, keep your personal morality just that - personal. We’ve no need for our own version of the Saudi Morality Police stormtroopering their way down our streets, beating up the gays and the harlots and the scientists and the non-Christians, and hauling them into prison.
By Gary Gibbs
September 24, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this
Writing on June 20,1785 James Madison stated that religeon is the basis and foundation of government.`
In 1892 the Supreme Court chronicles Christianity’s role in shaping Ameica’s political institutions and traditions: 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; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphaphatically Christian. In support of this I point out that Harvard University was founded using the property and funds of Rev. John Harvard for the purpose of training a literate clergy.
By Billy
September 25, 2007 7:58 AM | Link to this
Yeah, Gary…There’s no evidence to indicate Lady Hope’s “Darwin deathbed confession” story is anything other than just that — a story. His children denied it and his posthumous autobiography clearly shows his agnosticism. There’s just no evidence to support your claim. But then, you have no problem believing things that are unsupported by evidence, do you?
By Anonymous
September 25, 2007 8:49 AM | Link to this
Oh, goody. Another day of carefully-mined and context-free quote swapping. That’s bound to resolve the debate.
By Peter
September 25, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this
Today is Vertical Day! To learn more, go to:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=VerticalDay.Home&l=0A8242CD3D2CBFD6D6C0957CD339A949
By lovelyliz
September 25, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this
We the voters confuse public profession of religion with the actually practice of religion; the public profession of morality with actual behavior both in public and private; the public profession of religion and actual goodness.
The idea behind the theory of strong moral values and religion is that one actually embraces such values in the public and private lives. Unfortunately since religion became a political issue, those running for public office have a tendency to publicly issue edicts that the voting public wants to hear. It works because we the voter don’t bother to do basic research and find out if such public proclamations have any basis in reality.
I am a rather religious person myself, but give me a presidential candidate who is a good person, a truly good person, and let the reasons, religious or otherwise, behind such behavior speak for themselves.
By lovelyliz
September 25, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this
I like my politicians to be like my doctor and plumber. Proficient at their job and available when needed. As to why, I really don’t care?
By lozen
September 25, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this
What our founding fathers were smart enough to know was that government and religion should always be separate and that everyone in this country should be free to practice their religion with nobody forcing a particular brand of religion on others. They had studied the past. They had seen what happens when church and state are one! They didn’t want that here. I don’t want that here. Anybody in their right mind does not want that here.
By lozen
September 25, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this
Just One Question states: MOST Christians simply believe that codifying SOME of the moral ethical aspects of Christ’s teachings will make this country better. And I guess all christians agree as to what ‘SOME’ is! Are you talking about “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”? And “if someone asks for your cloak give him your coat also.” How about “forgive your enemies, pray for those who hate you.” You think we should be praying for the Taliban instead of fighting them? You believe by bombing Iraq we are treating them as we would like to be treated? Oh, I doubt you mean those particular moral ethical aspects!
By Chilao
September 25, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this
Oh, I doubt you mean those particular moral ethical aspects!
Stonings for adultery would probably suffice. LOL Not to mention Blue Laws.
By lozen
September 25, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this
Yep Chilao you got it. Stoning adulterers, homos, atheists, witches, and loose women! You read “Handmaids Tale” right? There ya go!
By Jack
September 25, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
Horizonal Day is much more fun.
By Mara
September 25, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this
Chilao - Stonings for adultery would probably suffice
brought to mind an article I read the other day about some guy trying to live by for a time by all the Biblical rules, one of which is the injunction to stone adulterers. Your post brought this to mind - :^)
I was in the park, dressed in my white garb, and this man in his 70s came over and asked what I was doing. I explained I was trying to follow every rule in the Bible as literally as possible, including growing my beard, not mixing fibers, stoning adulterers, and he said, “I’m an adulterer, are you going to stone me?” I said, “Yeah that would be great.” The Bible doesn’t say what size the stones have to be, so I had been carrying around these pebbles in my pocket for just such an occasion. I took the pebbles out of my pocket, and he instantly picked one up and threw it at me, so I decided, an eye for an eye, and I tossed one at him.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20910659/site/newsweek/
By Gary Gibbs
September 25, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this
In the New Testament Romans chapter 1 verse 20 says: Since earliest times men have have seen the earth and and sky and all God made, and have known of His erxistance and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse[when they stand before God on judgment day].
Ben Franklin a supposed athiest wrote to the Ministry of France in March 1778 the following: Whoever shall introduce into public affairs principals of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.
I can continue this dialog for years if necessary, however I would prefer to answer specific questions about Christianity taking into consideration the Bible says the unsaved man cannot accept the things of God for they seem foolish to him and he cannot understand them because they are discerned by the Spirit.
By Jack
September 25, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this
My speling was wrng. I meant horizontal. Sorry….
By Jack
September 25, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this
Yea tho I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil. Fore I am the meanest S.O.B. in the valley….
By Chilao
September 25, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this
now that’s funny, him now being a reverent agnostic AND still coveting his neighbor’s wife(and he is married).
want to hear a good one? That book I read, The Prince of the Marshes, well, at some point the natives were restless and insurgent activity was increasing. And intel discovered there was a warehouse on the outskirts of town where men were meeting at night, and would arrive on foot or by car, but only 1-2 men at each time. The Brits sent in a special forces team, covertly, at night, night-vision googles and all, and got up close to the building, to learn what was going on. Get a heads up on the insurgency.
The warehouse ceased to be considered a threat when the Special Forces team learned it was basically a gathering of men for some man-on-man in and out.
By Gary Gibbs
September 25, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
Some protest against the fact that our Chritiian values and heritage are under attack. Following are some that are currently under attack are lost: -School prayer -Public display of 10 Commandments -the right to life(abortion) -many want “In God We Trust” from our money -many want to abolish the rank of Military chaplin -Many also want to end the celebration of Christmas as a national holiday
By lovelyliz
September 25, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
Gary Gibbs
I used to be a math teacher. Trust me there is plenty of prayer in schools. It’s just not established by the schools and government.
By JokesOn
September 25, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this
Gary,
You need to revisit what a “right” is:
Following are some that are currently under attack are lost: -School prayer -Public display of 10 Commandments -the right to life(abortion) -many want “In God We Trust” from our money -many want to abolish the rank of Military chaplin -Many also want to end the celebration of Christmas as a national holiday
You will always have the “right” to do these things. You will no longer have the right to force them on others is the only truth you reveal.
By Vilyamyl
September 25, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
By Chilao
September 25, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this
Gary Gibbs -
Unfortunately your kind of Christian has a historically POOR RECORD of respecting the rights of those who think differently than you do, so it is important that you NOT be allowed to continue with your previously established POOR RECORD.
I bet you think In God We Trust was added to coins when the USA started making coins. Try 1954, during the Cold War fears. Gosh, the Reds might nuke us, we better put something on our money.
By Gary Gibbs
September 25, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this
I would like to clarify a few things regarding the Christian life and sin. The only person who went through life without sinning was Jesus Christ. Everyone else has sinned. God provided for sin by having Jesus die on the cross for our sins. Once we repent of our sins and accept Christ as savior our past and present sins are forgiven. If we but ask in the name of Jesus and repent when we sin in the future God instantlyforgives us. I don’t know Ben Franklins true status with God but in my opinion his public statements indicate he was a believer and for at least part of his life perhaps a immature believer.
By lozen
September 25, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this
….the Bible says the unsaved man cannot accept the things of God for they seem foolish to him and he cannot understand them because they are discerned by the Spirit.
ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE (1) [arbitrary passage from Old Testament] (2) [arbitrary passage from New Testament] (3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM HAVING SPECIAL FAITH
I’ve heard it all before Gary. I don’t really care what the bible says. I love nature, the sky and the flowers and the bees and the trees. But that doesn’t mean your Yahweh exists.
By Sandra-fb
September 25, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
By comp133xi7y
September 25, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
Gary Gibbs continues to show exactly why religion should be kept out of government.
And Gary - I suggest you do a little research on David Barton. All of the “quotes” you have mentioned were used by him in a revisionist history book. It was proved that they were false, and he himself later admitted that there was no historical evidence for them. He manufactured them.
If you knew the first thing about Madison other than what you’ve read on fundamentalist reactionary web sites, you would realize how ridiculous it is to claim he believed in a Christian government.
By lozen
September 25, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
Oh please. Here we have another Chuck who is going to enlighten us all. Such total arrogance and they don’t even admit it because “god says it”. Jeez. Chilao, I know that’s the truth - POOR RECord.
By Mara
September 25, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
JokesOn - You will always have the “right” to do these things. You will no longer have the right to force them on others
that was quite well put.
Gary - the fact that our Chritiian values and heritage are under attack
Not only should you look up the definition of “right”, as Jokes advised, but you should also check the meaning of “fact”.
The only “attack” against your Christian values and heritage is the insistance of many that ALL religions be afforded the same consideration that YOUR religion receives from the state. It isn’t an attack on your religion, it is an uprising against the preferential treatment that your religion has historically enjoyed.
And btw, they aren’t our “christian values”, they are yours and your fellow Domonionists.
Chilao - speaking of which, did you find it as hilarious as I (and the Columbia student body) when Amadagin insisted that Iran has no gays?! LOL!! That got a laugh…
By Mara
September 25, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
ooops. That should have been “Ahmadinejad”…
By Jack
September 25, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
Ditto to Lovelyliz’s 9:54.
By Sandra-dy
September 25, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this
By Sandra-vi
September 25, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this
By Chilao
September 25, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
Mara - yeah, that is why I mentioned that warehouse, real close to the Iranian border. But those kinds of activities must cease at the border. LOL
By Chilao
September 25, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this
Maysan province in green. I guess they don’t do that kind of stuff on the other side of the dark-black line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maysan_Governorate
By Chilao
September 25, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this
I hear it is pronounced Ima-Nut-Job.
By Mara
September 25, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this
Chilao - LOL! I followed your link and the name of the provincial capital, Amarah, caught my eye. I wondered if it was a derivative of the goddess Amara so I “searched” wiki for ‘amara goddess’ and guess what came up for a 100% match? A page called “Homosexuality and Hinduism”! Do you suppose there’s a connection?! :^D
By JokesOn
September 25, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this
Mara,
Thank you for the complement.
By Mara
September 25, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this
I hear it is pronounced Ima-Nut-Job
Well, we hear a lot of things about Iran and Crazy Mahmoud, but remember that everything we hear comes through several filters. And the Let’s-Bomb-Iran wardrums are beating, beating, beating. Just…take these media reports with a grain of salt because they might not be exactly honest. For example, this from an internet poster titled “quaxon” on a DIGG site…
http://digg.com/politicalopinion/DemonizingAhmadenijadPreparingforWarAgainst_Iran?OTC-widget
Anyone know if it’s possible to find a copy of his speech at columbia or his 60 minutes interview without the translation voice over? i speak Farsi and am curious as to how good the translations were. i know that during the 60 minutes interview they left out some key things such as when he asked him for the 2nd time if they had plans to build nukes, Ahmedinejad began with “i can answer that with a definite NO” before going on to give support for his answer. The translator conveniently left this out and instead went straight to the explanation in an attempt (that apparently worked really well) to brand him as “dancing around questions.” This was done a couple of times, including when questioned about sending weapons to Iraq. I’d like to say that I in no way back Ahmedinejad as he has plenty of human rights violations under his belt, however i don’t like the US propaganda machine twisting every single thing to get hatred boiling against what is deemed bad/evil at the moment. If we actually held the media responsible for unethical reporting/journalism and forced them to hold some journalistic integrity then maybe we would not be in Iraq right now. It was them after all who sold the war to America.
now I don’t speak Farsi so I don’t know if it’s true or not, but all things considered…I wouldn’t set Ahmadenijad-is-a-dangerous nutjob in stone quite yet. He, like Hussein, may just be trying to save face and “Irani honor”, or to protect his status in the Persian Gulf.
By Just Two More Questions
September 25, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this
The only “attack” against your Christian values and heritage is the insistance of many that ALL religions be afforded the same consideration that YOUR religion receives from the state. It isn’t an attack on your religion, it is an uprising against the preferential treatment that your religion has historically enjoyed.
Stonings for adultery would probably suffice.
Jesus saved the woman caught in adultery from stoning. Pejorative comments like this add little to the discussion.
Lozen - you are correct that Christians have a poor record. However, I hope you do not believe (as does Billy) that Stalin and Hitler’s attrocities were religous in nature.
No, “friend”, keep your personal morality just that - personal.
I have heard that argument many times before. Translation - “not only should we have seperation of church and state, but we MUST stop all influences of Christian people on public policy. They shouldn’t be allowed to vote nor run for public office”.
By Gary Gibbs
September 25, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this
On June 28, 1787, the Constitutional convention was deadlocked and embroiled in bitter controversy. Benjamin Franklin rose and made the following statement to the delegates: I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid. In Jeremiah 27 God says, “By my great power I have made the earth and all mankind and every animal; and I give these things of mine to anyone I want to”. Before the Pilgrims arrived God owned our land and He still owns it today.
By comp133xi7y
September 25, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this
*I have heard that argument many times before. Translation - “not only should we have seperation of church and state, but we MUST stop all influences of Christian people on public policy. They shouldn’t be allowed to vote nor run for public office”. *
Patently false. Anyone can vote or run for public office, but as with my Greenspan example above, their personal beliefs should not intrude on the performance of their duty.
Real translation - forumlating law based strictly on religious law is inimical to freedom. Laws that limit or restrict personal behaviors that are neither injurious nor unconsenting simply because your personal religious beliefs declare those things to be unacceptable, by definition, violates the separation of church and state.
Our CIVIL laws are just that - civil. They apply to every individual in this nation, a nation that has as one of its foremost tenants the freedom of, and conversly from religion.
Laws that are based solely on religious taboo, dogma or canon are inherently theocratic and have no place in our society. The Tyranny of the Majority is not a new concept, but it is one that the fundamentalist extremists - not just in this country, but everywhere - wish to impose.
By lozen
September 25, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this
Before the pilgrims arrived the native americans owned this land! They did not, of course, think they did. Owning land just wasn’t part of their religion. They believed the great spirit owned the land and allowed them to use it.
Then the europeans came. As a native once said, “When the missionaries came, they had the bible and we had the land. They said ‘let us close our eyes and pray.’ When we opened our eyes we had the bible and they had the land.” Same old story…. I don’t know if Hitler and Stalin were religious. I do know that the missionaries who came to the Southwest and cut off the feet of the natives to keep them from dancing their prayers were christians. I do know the men who burned witches at the stack for hundreds of years in europe were christians. I do know some of the most arrogant and holier-than-thou people I’ve ever known are christians. That’s enough for me. Religion, spirituality are one thing. The church and christian dogmatism are totally something else.
By comp133xi7y
September 25, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this
It is also intellectually dishonest to automatically associate secularism with athiesm, as you are so obviously doing with your Dawkins barb.
I think you will find that most advocates of a purely secular government in this country are religious themselves. However, we have made the distinction between religion as a personal journey and responsibility, and religion as a State-enforced cudgel.
You have no idea about my personal religious beliefs - you merely assume that because I am adamantly opposed to religious-based laws in a supposedly free nation that I am irreligious or atheist. Neither is true, though I do believe that fundamentalism is anathema to reason, freedom and liberty.
By Monica
September 25, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this
You have no idea about my personal religious beliefs - you merely assume that because I am adamantly opposed to religious-based laws in a supposedly free nation that I am irreligious or atheist. Neither is true, though I do believe that fundamentalism is anathema to reason, freedom and liberty.
2D, is that you in disguise? :)
lozen, I thought you might like this story: my 6 year old son is obsessed with Indians (ever since they studied them at school last year and made a tipi in the classroom). He wants to know any and everything about the different Native American tribes. This summer when we were in Daytona, we went to Tomoka State Park and walked through their museum that highlights the Indian tribes that were in Tomoka. When my son saw pictures of the invading Europeans, he stated, “I just hate the white men!” He was quite shocked when I told him that he was a “white man” as well! Ahh, the innocence of childhood.
By Gary Gibbs
September 25, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this
The fact that you are not a beleiver does not prve God does not exist nor does it disprove the fact our country is and was founded upon Christian principles.
Patrick Henry was a well known orator and revolutionary leader and 5 time governor of Virginia. He once declared: It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religeons, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
William Livingston was a signer of the Constitution and the first Governor of New Jersey and in 1768 he said: The land we possess is the gift of heaven to our fathers, and Divine Providence seems to have decreed it to our latest posterity.
By Sandra-ey
September 25, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this
By Sandra-py
September 25, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this
By lovelyliz
September 25, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this
Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestoes encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the War of Independence. But he was a Deist:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
John Adams, second US President, was a Unitarian who rejected the Trinity and the deity of Jesus.
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; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity… Benjamin Franklin.
Thomas Jefferson said that the writings of John in Revelation were the ravings of a maniac.
James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was highly critical of Christianity:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
By comp133xi7y
September 25, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this
Gary Gibbs, I don’t know how many times I need to say this - I suspect it won’t do any good, but Patrick Henry never said that. Like just about every “quote” you’ve posted, it is among the many debunked, historically baseless falsehoods concoted by the Religious Right to convince people of the myth of a Christian Nation.
And Gary, words like “Creator” and “Divine Providence” are words straight out of the Deist handbook. Almost excusively, you see the Founding Fathers, Men of the Elightenment all, using these words without reference to specific religion or sect.
I direct you to the wikipedia entry on Deism as a starting place for your own Enlightment, much good may it do you.
By lovelyliz
September 25, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this
Thomas Jefferson
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. - Notes on Virginia, 1782
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. - Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. - Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. - Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. - letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. - letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion. - to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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. * - letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. - letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. - letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God. - letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. - letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. - letter to William Short, April 13, 1820 * And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors. - letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823*
By JokesOn
September 25, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this
Gary,
You state:
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religeons, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
But you do not adhere to the fact that jesus never mentioned gay marriage. If you had it your way you would make laws outlawing same-sex marriage based on religion, even though you state above: “not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religeons.”
To think christ is a good example to live by says nothing in terms of religious beliefs. Winnie the Pooh is a good example of how to live, but does not mean one believes he existed or that all the related writings should be law.
By Sandra-rz
September 25, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this
By Sandra-ni
September 25, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this
By Sandra-hb
September 25, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this
By Chilao
September 25, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this
Thomas Jefferson said that the writings of John in Revelation were the ravings of a maniac
Revelations was written by someone(John) drinking way too much assassi(cannibis) tea.
Mara - I have thought for several years that Bush will bomb Iran before he leaves office, simply because he can. It won’t provide more stout or length for Laura, but he will feel better. I tried to find a cartoon I had, to post, but could not. It showed a spokesman from the State Department pointing out the Iranian weapons found in Iraq, the side of the bomb was labeled Made in Iron.
By comp133xi7y
September 25, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this
And no, Monica - I’m not 2D in disguise ;-)
By Just a few statements
September 25, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this
You have no idea about my personal religious beliefs
And neither do you about mine - but apparently it is OK for you to make assumptions about what “most” Christians believe, while it is not OK for me to make assumptions about what most secular people believe.
You merely assume that I hate homosexuals and science. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have had many working relationships with homosexuals. I was respected by them because I treated them with respect. I am actively engaged in programs that feed, clothe, and give monetary assistance to those who are in need.
I, like Jefferson, believe that we need to challenge the very existence of God. I constantly review the tenets of my faith in light of science to insure they still make sense. I have simply come to different conclusions than you. And I can certainly believe that a squared plus b squared equals c squared without believing that humans evolved from some primordial soup.
By comp133xi7y
September 25, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this
lovelyliz, the “Question boldly” quote has always been one of my favorites. It is indeed true.
If God created the universe and gave Mankind the truly remarkable gift of thought, along with a nearly endless capacity for inquiry and discovery, then most certainly God would want us to use that gift to its fullest, rather than only to heap upon Him/Her/It the most servile and unquestioning obedience. After all, were obsequious pandering the only homage demanded of us, surely we would have been made less than we are.
By who?
September 25, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this
No Monica, it is 72John in disguise.
By comp133xi7y
September 25, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this
Just a few - I have made no assumptions about you whatsoever. In your own first post, you wrote:
MOST Christians simply believe that codifying SOME of the moral ethical aspects of Christ’s teachings will make this country better.
This is the point against which I have been arguing. I have not attacked your personal beliefs, nor will I. You are free to believe what you will. Nor have I made assumptions about your sentiments towards gays or scientists (though your reference to gays as “them” does say somewhat about how you categorize people - I’m minded of the old favorite “But I have black friends!”).
Most of my general comments were not directed towards you, but referred to the various right-wing Christian political movements that have as their stated purpose things like the re-criminalization of gay relationships, the removal of science that does not fit in with the requirements of Biblical Literalism, the banning of abortion on the basis that a zygote is an ensouled being, etc. etc. I could go on and on.
Do you deny that the Political wing of the Religious Right has as its goal these items I mentioned, in addition to others? Do you deny that their stated agenda includes enshrining into the law of the land - that law which affects ALL Americans - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Bhuddist, Agnostic and Atheist alike - specific Christian tenets based on nothing other than Biblical injunction?
By Monica
September 25, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this
No, I don’t think it’s 72John. As I remember he is an atheist. Are you lurking John? Correct me if I am wrong. And how are ya, by the way?
By Gandalf, the Gray
September 25, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this
LET ME SEE…The religion of HATE (that’s Islam for you idiots) seems to be making decisions based on thier religious beliefs..Maybe it’s time for another crusade? Meca would look lovely covered with a mushroom cloud..Medina and Bagdad with Biological clouds hanging over them..let’s not forget about a Nerve gas cloud over Tehran! Super fun!
By xzedqoymh psgzr
September 25, 2007 10:34 PM | Link to this
tlzerdugf bcyhv ysdrxt jifdl brwd fimtaq ebzqr
By Billy
September 26, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this
However, I hope you do not believe (as does Billy) that Stalin and Hitler’s attrocities were religous in nature.
I never said, and do not believe, that Stalin’s and Hitler’s atrocities were religious in nature. I was preemptively refuting the claim that humanity’s worst acts are committed by secular regimes, a charge that invariably comes up when the atrocities of the religious are exposed.
Neither Stalin’s nor Hitler’s atrocities would have come to pass were it not for the cult of personality that each fostered, intentionally, around himself. As followers eschewed reason for blind loyalty, each became a religious figure. Furthermore, 1500 years of Christian antisemitism in Europe laid the groundwork for the extermination of the Jewish people. The point was, I think, fairly clear, and any continued misunderstanding of it on your part will leave me no choice but to believe you are either intellectually dishonest and/or an idiot.
By Mara
September 26, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this
the question was “how religious do we want our presidential candidates to be?” From what I’m reading here, I’d guess that for those who favor “religous candidates”, it would depend on what god they worship. For example, Gary sees nothing wrong (and a lot of good) with codifying Christian tenets into the law. Gary wants a very religious candidate because he assumes that the candidate will be some flavor of “christian”. Would he still want religion and politics to connect if the candidate was a devout Hindu, or a 5-prayers per day Muslim who wanted to legislate some of their moral teachings?
My perception of Gary is that he is Christian first and an American second. And, IMHO, anyone who advocates for intermingling politics with religion probably has the same view…sectarian affiliation first, nation second.
By War Eagle
September 26, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this
Gandalf is correct. If we do not stop the Muslims now, like Hitler, there will be another WW. Europe, as before are collectively sticking their heads in the sand. I say blow them up, that no troops are needed unless wal mart and target argue over which street corners they want, and then we will have peace on earth because, as you can see, with the exception of Ireland, all wars have one thing in common-MUSLIMS! Just look at Kashmir-Muslims, Israel-Muslims, Philippines-Muslims, Africa-Muslims. Muslims are the problems of the world. And then, once they have been dealt with, can we start seeing oil at 1 dollar a gallon again.
By Just a statement
September 26, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this
No Billy, the point WAS clear and no I did not misunderstand nor am I and idiot or intellectually dishonest. It IS intellectually dishonest to say that these SECULAR societies weren’t responsible for these horrors.
I am honest enough to admit that religious people have committed untold numbers of atrocities throughout the course of history. Based on your posts, I doubt I can expect the same candor from you when evaluating secular governments.
By HeeHaw
September 26, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
can we start seeing oil at 1 dollar a gallon again.
for nuking all the Moslems, seems we out to be able to get oil to a lot less than $55 a barrel.
By Mara
September 26, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this
Gandalf, War Eagle - I say blow them up
shall we assume that you want to eradicate American muslims too? Even the ones who’ve been helping the government weed out the violent ones? The translators, the soldiers, the police officers, border guards and all? Our AMERICAN brethren? Just the American Muslim men or are we gonna frag the grannies and babies too? How about the disabled Muslims, the “retarded”, and the stupid? Let’s cleanse the ALL the lands of these vermin…just like Hitler did to the Jews…
isn’t that what you wrote, that we need to stop the muslims now, like Hitler lest there be another world war? Great. Just what I want my country to do, emulate Hitler.
Sheesh!
(btw, it’s Mecca and Baghdad, not Meca and Bagdad)
By Gary Gibbs
September 26, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this
The Bible tells us to love God with all our heart, mind, soul,and strength. I also love my wife, children and country.
President James Madison appointed Joseph Story to the Supreme Court in 1811. Justice Story wrote the following concerning the real meaning of the First Amendment: The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance much less advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian denominations and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government. He also said sometime la