I would feel better about a person being sworn in on a book that they believe in then one they could careless about.Originally Posted by Jetdawgg
I'd prefer, rather than a religious text of any denomination, that people simply affirm when they are sworn in. Or...place your hand on a copy of the Constitution and swear to uphold it.
What a load of crap by that writer of this ridiculous article, saying that a Muslim congressman swearing in on the Koran is wrong. His arrogant, Bible-induced prejudiced view is exactly what shouldn't be going on in this country. People like this need to take a course on the American Constitution and shut the hell up.Originally Posted by Jetdawgg
Like said above, the only book that should be used to swear in is the Constitution. No religious doctrine should be used, and if religious doctrines are to be used, then it should be the person's choice.
Last edited by 49ersJetsfan; 12-01-2006 at 11:52 PM.
Most of yuo probably know I am a "fundamentalist right wing" Christian, but our Constitution mentions God. Now the overwhelming part of our forefathers were Christian ..... and they only said 'God". If we were to try to overrule this man's right to his own God (as wrong as I might personally feel his conception of God may be), I'd be acting like one of the activist judges I complain so vigorously about. The man clearly has that right.
People care way too much about silly things.
Whatever he, the swearor, takes seriously, is what he should swaer on. Bible, Koran, hell the D & D Monster Manual for all I friggin care, if THAT is your book of belief, and will make your swearing serious and honorable to YOU, then go right ahead.
Why anyone cares boggles my mind here.
No, not at all.Originally Posted by JCnflies
The US Constitution DOES NOT mention God. When the forefathers wrote it, they specifically made sure that they would not mention God, because that would be a public endorsement of religion and God. Those Christian forefathers wanted to prevent issues like this today and prevent the government from using God and religion in any of their doctrines or procedures because that undermines freedom of religion.
Contrary to popular belief, the United States of America were not founded on Christianity, but by Christians who wanted to build their country as one that accepted all beliefs and did not show prejudice through their doctrines and actions. Unfortunately because too many selfish Christians have had too much power in this country, they've ignored those specific rules and instead constantly pushed their beliefs onto others instead of doing the ethical thing.
Read the Constitution yourself if you don't believe me.
You may be right about the Constitution not mentioning God (I was thinking of the Declaration), but you are very, very wrong if you do not believe there was a deep Christian conscience behind our Constitution. Our forefathers erected that document for a afith - filled nation - or as Washington once said, the Bible and religion (and at that time it was specifically Christianity) should be taught in all public education. As well, the division of branches of gov't and plenty of others aspects of our laws and gov't, are modeled after Biblical concepts.
You are very, very right if you say (as I did) that our forefathers wanted religious tolerance. But remember also that many of the original states even had state sponsored religion............. it was only the federal gov't that was forbidden to sponsor it. I was shocked when I found that out. I would not have belileved it until I read the book, Original Intent. I'm not sure every state sponsored a religion, but I recall seveeral t hat did..... Pennsylvania was quaker. I think NY even had one.
I think if everyone had the perspective that yui mentioned in your post, most Christians would be content. While too many Christians are forceful in their attitude, Christ was not forceful in whether you accept him. Free will, as we say. But, and t his is a big but, many of today's liberal judicial edicts are actually hostile to Christianity. A small example would be this. Our forefathers would definitely approve of public displays on gov't property of the 10 Commandments (they are displayed on some gov't buildings already) and they would permit displays from other faiths, too. The free exercise of a faith........ But rulings since (I think) Everson have been highly antagonistic and try to stifle the Christian faith.
Personally, I hope that this Congressman swearing in by the Koran helps our country return to its God centered roots, if only in a counterinuitive way.
Last edited by JCnflies; 12-02-2006 at 11:36 AM.
Originally Posted by 49ersJetsfan
You are so full of it.
..."or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Just restricted to one's attic?
Or just OK for Muslims?
A statement like
"Contrary to popular belief, the United States of America were not founded on Christianity"
is pure, undadulterated, academic baloney.
We werent founded on Wicca, Atheism, Islam thats for sure.
Almost everyone in America at the time was a Christian, so
It was not a big deal to cite the Bible or make religious
references, unlike the Bizarro world of today.
Of course not. This country was founded as a free country, not a religious dictatorship government. The whole point of the US was to not be like England, which was to not have government-sponsored religion at all.Originally Posted by flushingjet
Just because the founders happened to be Christian does not mean that the government should be. To start throwing around your weight as a majority is simply a corruption of power and shouldn't be stood for.
Bottom line is this - this country's ideals was to promote freedom of religion, not to start pushing any belief on others. Once you start thinking that the founding of this country by Christians and that everyone should follow Christianity or the government to support it, you're no different than those Muslim countries where religion is no longer a choice and you're raising a middle finger at the founders of this country.
This is so silly, it's sickening:
Religion should be a personal thing.
When it comes to Govt. as in the GOVERNMENT, there should be NO mention of God in any form. The GOVERNMENT should be 100% absolute neutral when it comes to matter fo faith or faithlessness.
Now, the people who work as elected officials, write laws, etc, etc, CAN AND SHOULD take their faith with them, be open about what their faith is, what it means to them, and how it reflects in their voting on issues. The elected official has every right to vote on issues as his logic AND Faith would require. As long as he does not break the point above (GOVERNMENT doesn' mention or deal in Faith), then he's 100% fine.
A few examples......
--Voting down abortion because it's "wrong" = RIGHT!
--Voting for Gay Marriage because it's wrong to discriminate on sexuallity = RIGHT
--Voting to put the Ten Commandments on Govt property = WRONG
--Voting to put the Koran in every public school teaching program = WRONG
GOVERNMENT = NO FAITH, OPEN TO ALL
PUBLIC SERVANTS = FAITH when they make and vote on issues.
Freedom for all, freedom to vote your "conscience", no problems whatsoever.
Were the forefathers Christians or Deists?
In America, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by Deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of separation of Church and State, expressed in the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Founding Fathers who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson, James Wilson and James Madison. While all of these men were members of traditional Christian denominations (Hugh Williamson was a Presbyterian and the rest were Episcopalians) their political speeches show distinct deistic influence. Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly Deist. These include Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe). Elihu Palmer (1764-1806) wrote the "Bible" of American deism in this Principles of Nature (1823), and attempted to organize deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York."
Currently (as of 2006) there is an ongoing controversy in the United States as to whether or not America was founded as a "Christian nation" based on Judeo-Christian ideals. This has spawned a subsidiary controversy over whether or not the Founding Fathers were Christians or Deists or something in between.
Particularly heated is the debate over the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington, for all of whom the evidence is mixed.
There is no controversary except in the minds of those who would like to rewrite history. Christianity was not only at the core of everything Amererican at that time - not only was it taught in schoiols, not only was the Judeo - Christian God prayed to before every school day, every opening of Congress, every Supreme Court session and every pretty much anything in our country, it was reflected in that 55 of 58 signers of hte Constitution (or about that number - don't remember exactly) were active and leaders in their local churches.Originally Posted by SnuffTheRooster
The debate has been created by those who wish our country was not founded as such. One of the essences contained in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists (from which we get the misguided phrase found nowhere in our Constiution "separation of church and state") is that thuogh we are a religious people (many other founders of the era would say Christian people), the government will not endorse oner particular sect or denomination over another. If religion did not play a role, why on earth would Jefferson (one that the liberals love to point to) write such notions. It weas Jefferson (he of hte great Enlightenment influence that liberals parade as their poster boy) who initiated the prayer at the beginning of each session of hte Supreme Court.
The only debate that some credence can be given to is the notion of whether our Constitution is evolving or should it be strictly interpreted.
I don;t remember who said it, but I think it was a Nazi propogandist. He said something like if you repeat a lie long enough the people will believe it. That the United States of America was founded squarely on religious/ Christian principles is established fact. Butu I guess college history porofessors can't sell truthful books with such a simnple, truthful premise............ so they write what they will. One of the few things that saves my sanity when I read such lies that are spawned at our universities of "higher learning" is that wonderful quote from Winiston Churchill, 'If you are not a liberal at 20, you do not have a heart. If yo are not a conservative at 30, yuo do not have a brain>"
I know a lot of my references sound vague because I don't reserach history for a living. But I do enjoy it, love a good biography (Lincoln and Adams are two of my favs) and walk away with more impressions than cold facts. Super in depth study goes to my work as a steach (math), coaching, flyfishing and the Bible. But I thought I should try to give those who might be following this post a more specific source. As I think I mentioned, the book Original Intent by David Barton details time nad again from the originmal national and state Consitutions and documents and court records exactly what was going on - no second or htird hand history as revisionists are wont to do. But here is a quick counter argument to the revisionists notion that there is no religion found in our Constitution. I got it from Barton'd website
A Godless Constitution?: A Response to Kramnick and Moore
by Daniel L. Dreisbach
In their provocative polemic The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (W. W. Horton, 1996), Cornell University professors Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore argue that the God-fearing framers of the U. S. Constitution "created an utterly secular state" unshackled from the intolerant chains of religion. They purportedly find evidence for this thesis in the constitutional text, which they describe as radically "godless" and distinctly secular. Their argument, while an appealing antidote to the historical assertions of the religious right, is superficial and misleading.
There were, indeed, anti-Federalist critics of the Constitution who complained bitterly that the document's failure to invoke the Deity and include explicit Christian references indicated, at best, indifference or, at worst, hostility toward Christianity. This view, however, did not prevail in the battle to ratify the Constitution. The professor's inordinate reliance on the Constitution's most vociferous critics to describe and define that document results in misleading, if not erroneous, conclusions. Furthermore, like the extreme anti-Federalists of 1787, the professors misunderstand the fundamental nature of the federal regime and its founding charter.
The U. S. Constitution's lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God.
Relationships between religion and civil government were defined in most state constitutions, and the framers believed it would be inappropriate for the federal government to encroach upon or usurp state jurisdiction in this area. State and local governments, not the federal regime, it must be emphasized, were the basic and vital political units of the day. Thus, it was fitting that the people expressed religious preferences and affiliations through state and local charters.
Professors Kramnick and Moore find further evidence for a godless Constitution in the Article VI religious test ban. Here, too, they misconstrue the historical record. Their argument rests on the false premise that, in the minds of the framers, support for the Article VI ban was a repudiation of state establishments of religion and a ringing endorsement of a radically secular polity. The numerous state constitutions written between 1776 and 1787 in which sweeping religious liberty and nonestablishment provisions coexisted with religious test oaths confirm the poverty of this assumption. The founding generation, in other words, generally did not regard such measures as incompatible.
The Article VI ban (applicable to federal officeholders only) was not driven by a radical secular agenda or a renunciation of religious tests as a matter of principle. The fact that religious tests accorded with popular wishes is confirmed by their inclusion in the vast majority of revolutionary era state constitutions.
Professors Kramnick and Moore also blithely ignore Article I, sec. 2 of the U. S. Constitution, which deferred to state qualifications for the electors of members of the U. S. House of Representatives. This provision is significant since the constitutional framers of 1787 knew that in some states--such as South Carolina--the requisite qualifications for suffrage included religious belief.
Significantly, there were delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia who endorsed the Article VI ban but had previously crafted religious tests for their respective state constitutions. The constitutional framers did not appreciate this apparent contradiction, which arises under a secular construction of Article VI. The framers believed, as a matter of federalism, that the Constitution denied the national government all jurisdiction over religion, including the authority to administer religious tests. Many in founding generation supported a federal test ban because they valued religious tests required under state laws, and they feared that a federal test might displace existing state test oaths and religious establishments. In other words, support for the Article VI ban was driven in part by a desire to preserve and defend the instruments of "religious establishment" (specifically, religious test oaths) that remained in the states.
The late-eighteenth-century view of oaths and religious test bans is illustrated in state constitutions of the era. The Tennessee Constitution of 1796 included the language of the Article VI test ban; however, the same constitution states that "no person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State." Adopting a standard definition of oaths, the Kentucky Constitution of 1792, which omitted an express religious test but prescribed a basic oath of office, stated that required oaths and affirmations "shall be esteemed by the legislature [as] the most solemn appeal to God." This understanding of oaths, which was largely unchallenged in the founding era and frequently repeated in the state ratifying conventions, suggests that the U. S. Constitution, contrary to Professors Kramnick and Moore, was not entirely devoid of religious affirmations and did not create an utterly secular polity. The argument was made in ratifying conventions that the several constitutionally required oaths implicitly countenanced an acknowledgment of God (which, in a sense, constituted a general, nondenominational religious "test"), while the Article VI test ban merely proscribed sect-specific oaths for federal officeholders.
The debates in Article VI in state ratifying conventions further indicate that few, if any, delegates denied the advantage of placing devout Christians in public office. The issue warmly debated was the efficacy of a national religious test for obtaining this objective.
The Godless Constitution's lack of clear documentation is a disappointment. In order to examine the book's thesis more fully, I attempted to document the claims and quotations in the second chapter, which sets forth the case that the "principal architects of our national government envisioned a godless Constitution and a godless politics." It was readily apparent why these two university professors, who live in the world of footnotes, avoided them in this tract. The book is replete with misstatements or mischaracterizations of fact and garbled quotations. For example, the professors conflate two separate sections of New York Constitution of 1777 to support the claim that it "self-consciously repudiated tests" (p. 31). Contrary to this assertion, neither constitutional section expressly mentions religious tests and, indeed, test oaths were retained in the laws of New York well into the nineteenth century. The Danbury Baptists, for another example, did not ask Jefferson to designate "a fast day for national reconciliation" (pp.97, 119).
The book illustrates what is pejoratively called "law office history." That is, the authors, imbued with the adversary ethic, selectively recount facts, emphasizing data that support their own prepossessions and minimizing significant facts that complicate or conflict with their biases. The professors warn readers of this on the second page when they describe their book as a "polemic" that will " lay out the case for one" side of the debate on the important "role of religion in public and political life."
The suggestion that the U. S. Constitution is godless because it makes only brief mention of the Deity and Christian custom is superficial and misguided. Professors Kramnick and Moore succumb to the temptation to impose twentieth-century values on eighteenth-century text. Their book is less an honest appraisal of history than a partisan tract written for contemporary battles. They frankly state their desire that this polemic will rebut the "Christian nation" rhetoric of the religious right. Unfortunately, their historical analysis is as specious as the rhetoric they criticize.
1. Daniel L. Dreisbach, D. Phil. (Oxford University) and J. D. (University of Virginia), is an associate professor at American University in Washington, D. C.. He is the author of Religion and Politics in the Early Republic (University Press of Kentucky, 1996), and Real Threat and Mere Shadow: Religious Liberty and the First Amendment (Crossway Books, 1987).
Copyright 1997 by Daniel L. Dreisbach. All rights reserved. Used by permission of the author.
(Return to Text)
Dreisbach, Daniel, L. "'Sowing Useful Truths and Principles': The Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson, and the 'Wall of Separation.'" Journal of Church and State 39 (Summer 1997).
-----------. "In Search of a Christian Commonwealth: An Examination of Selected Nineteenth-Century Commentaries on References to God and the Christian Religion in the United States Constitution." Baylor Law Review 48 (1996): 927-1000.
-----------. "The Constitution's Forgotten Religion Clause: Reflections on the Article VI Religious Test Ban." Journal of Church and State 38 (1996): 261-295.
Ok JC. I just wonder what you think is so wrong with the "rules" as I outlined them above. Why is THAT not a good way to run things?
thought I would jump into the mix.
FIrst off, Warfish, I get what you are saying. People in government cannot be completely neutral in the sense that their decisions will be dictated by their beliefs. People who say that if your a Christian/Muslim etc... you should leave your beliefs at the door if you are in politics are quite simply ignorant.
However, the country, for right or wrong, was based on Christian beliefs....
NOW, I am going to say something that will shock a few people (since many know my stance on many of these topics)...
I truly do not agree with what is being said here by many of the fellow Christians, that they are upset or supporting a guy who is upset at the fact he wanted to be swore in with the Koran... Guys, there should be NO swearing in of ANY kind on the bible what-so-ever!!!!!!!!!
Why do I say this? Because I am just repeating JC:
Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
This whole swearing thing, in my opinion, is counterintuitive to the Christian faith. If you are being asked if you will uphold the duties of your office, let your yes be a yes. If you do the work, you are a man of honor. If you do not do your job, you are a man of deceit. This whole swearing on the bible thing....I think it is NOT biblically sound.
Always good to hear from you CSteve. I tip a Molson Golden in your honour, eh!Originally Posted by CanadaSteve
But on the topic, you could accurately say this too:
"However, the country, for right or wrong, was based on the principle of slavery"
The founders were damn smart, and I would enjoy hearing someone more educated than I debate with you on the true intent they had when it came to religion supported by Govt. But my point here is they were not infallable, and could not see the entirety of future events and social change. Just because they founded us with one particular principle, does not mean it must always be so.
I truly believe a Govt. that oversees a Freedom-based Democracy of over 300 million people, of all walks of life, of all faiths, of all sexual whatevers, should be utterly, absolutely neutral on issues of God. No support, no attack.
I truly believe that any and every man or woman who runs for office, or votes for those who run for office, SHOULD be free to vote based on their own moral code, which most often comes from their background of Faith.
I truly believe these two things can peacefully co-exist. Govt. is not here to weight in on God. Govt. is here to administer the requiste services a Goct must, to all of the people that allow it to continue to rule.
If we could all agree on this principle, and stop trying to have "our way" be the way Govt. works, I think the country would be a much better place. No one fearing a Theocracy, no one afriad to tell us their faith when running for office.
But who knows, I have been known as a Utopian in my past, so eh?
I just typed out a 30 minute response to Warfish and then lost it. Ughhhhh!I'll try again.Originally Posted by Warfish
First off, what you think should be and what I think should be do not matter at all compared to what is in our Constitution. Like it or not, our country has, since it's inception, functioned with a Christian conscience. Every session of Congress opens with prayer. Every session of the Supreme Court opens with prayer. Every witness is told to tell the truth "so help you God." During times of war, we have had Presidents declare days of prayer and fasting (which is right out of the Old Testament). Christmas is a national holiday. Easter is, too. Kwanza is not. Nor is Yom Kippur or Roshashanah. But we respect everyone's right to practice their faith and want them to observe their religious events. Consequently, they are not permitted to be fired if they take a day off to celebrate their own faiths. But our roots are in Christianity, so our country shuts down in observation. You might want religion out of how our government acts, but the truth is that a religious core has been in place since our inception.
I have been very careful to refer to term the role of religion in our government as a Christian conscience. It is not a theocracy - something I and all Christians should be against; after all, if Christ did not demand you believe in Him, who is anyone or thing else to?
The tenet of a God is the heartbeat of our Constitution. I forget if it was Adams or Madison that once said that "our Constitution is wholey unfit for an amoral people." The great threat to our Constitution is the modern liberal. Our Constitution assumes that everyone understands that rights only come with responsibility. Unfortunately, the modern liberal thinks that their rights come first - even at the expense of any responsibility to an absolute right as determined by a Creator - the same one referred to in our Declaration. Now back in the day, people knew the Bible like we know football. Right and wrong were pretty clear and the sense of responsibility guided our land. Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton and the rest of the liberal elite will twist that document into an unrecognizable image should they get the chance. Filibustering justices is only a tiny example of what would be to come........
If we can substitute the phrase worldview for religion, I'd like to. I want Congressmen and women and Presidents and justices who hold a worldview that says there is a God - some being higher than us who has set forth certain prionciples of life that we are all subject to. Our country was founded in large part on such an idea, our forefathers felt it important enough that they insisted it be taught in public school (imagine that) and those who feel that way rarely lose sight of the notion of responsibility first, rights second - at least rarely compared to the other worldview.
The other worldview is one of relativism. What we think is right and wrong is up to the individual. Not only is this is easily defeated in an argument, but under such logic, who is to say Hitler, Pol Pot or Stalin is wrong? This is a HUGE issue. Until the mid 1900s, our justices interpreted law as from a supreme being, God. Under this system, such things as abortion would never be permitted. Around 1950, the Courts reinterpreted law as what is best for society. Under this worldview, abortion is OK (after all, it helps control everything from the crime rate to the poor kids who would not have had a "good life" and it is HER body and SHE can do with it what SHE wants).
Every person's values are guided by their worldview. So when we send people off to office, I prefer candidates that believe that our rights arise from our sense of responsibility. I prefer a candidate who believes he has to do his best to work within a very well established sense of right and wrong (perhaps even managing to avoid things like bribes and kickbacks and Lord knows what else). Candidates who think this way seem to have the same mindset as many of our founding fathers - a fact I appreciate.
So it leads up to these thoughts:
1) Voting down abortion because it is wrong regardless of what an individual might feel, RIGHT!
2) Voting against Gay Marraige because (1) the overwhelming majoprity of Americans are against it and this is a Democracy and (b) marraige is a privilege not a right (I want what I want because I WANT IT!) and because (3) there are plenty of studies that show that children raised in the traditional home are far more likely to be healthy citizens than those not raised in such homes (an argument to satisfy those who do not feel subject to a God - RIGHT! (And I'm not a homophobe - I have worked in Fire Island Pines nad have had and still have many gay friends.)
3) Putting the 10 Commandments on Gov't property? Obviously RIGHT. They are on the entrance to the Supreme Court! They are the foundation of our laws. No action should try to revise factual Amertican history. It is entirely accurate to state unequivocally that the 10 Commandments are an integral source for the laws of this land. Any action on the part of the government to change that is both deceitful and playing right ionto the notion that law is not absolute.
4) Putting a Koran or Bible or other religious text in school as a source of teaching the faith - WRONG. But referencing what they say as a means to understand cultural clashes or literature and themes, etc. OK
5) Stopping school prayer in the form of a moment of silence - WRONG. Let those who want to pray, pray. Let those who want to sit and do hwk or sleep or daydream do that. But do not intefere with the free exercise of religion.
A quote from the "Father of the Constitution""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."
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
I also remember someone saying the Constitution speaks of God, I don't think it does? I would like to see the passage and it's reference. In fact the preamble very specifically states that it is "We the People...who are securing the blessings of Liberty on ourselves and our posterity" Religious terms but not referring to God or a Creator at all but specifically referring to something we the people are giving to ourselves and our future. They could have easily put God in but didn't.
Many Christians often mistake the Declaration of Independence which predates our Constitution with our Constitution. It is the declaration that speaks of all men endowed by "Their Creator" and the "Laws of Nature and Natures God" not the Constitution. The Constitution was formed after the war was won.
It is also interesting that they had so much respect for all people and all religion that they specifically used the "Laws of Nature and Natures God and Their Creator not the Creator in the Declaration of Independence.
Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 12-03-2006 at 09:08 AM.
Appreciate the long and thought out reply JC (and I too know the pain of losing a very long post to this website....never hit the "esc" key when writing a post, I'll tell you that! )
We're just going to have to agree to disagree my friend. I don't have a long reply for you, I just think for what you write here that you'd be 100% happy in a "Christian" Theocracy. You won't come out and say that explicitly, but I think you know it to be true in your heart. Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity run Govt. State sponsored and supported Faith. That view is all over everything you write.
And I don't think you really care how that would affect other not of your faith, frankly. I get the vibe you think we're all dreadfully wrong, and a little conversion by Govt. might be good for us. At the least, you want anything that goes against your faith to be illegal.....be it by a Faith based Govt. or via a majority of Christian legisaltors voting in faith based rules.
Freedom and Faith based Govt. can never co-exist. Ever.
By the way, as I said to Steve, using the "Well, our Country was Founded...." logic means you MUST, by logical extention, ALSO support both Slavery and the removal of the right for women to vote. After all, "Our Founders founded this country on Slavery and Male Landowner's Only Voting". Proof of their belief in both is widespread in their writings and actions.
If they are assumed to be 100% right on the faith issue (as you see it), and cannot be contested (as you claim), why then do you not defend these other core beliefs the same way?