NationStates Jolt Archive

http://ericblumrich.com/faith.html

Watch that, and whatever you do, DON'T CLOSE IT!!! Watch it all.

I live in Texas, and I live in a community full of these people. 4 more years until I get myself the hell out of here.
(you'll understand after you watch the flash vid)

Hopefully, I'm not the only one scared and appalled by this.

I love these sorts of presentations because they're factual, they reveal the Christian right for what it really is, and they leave its supporters speechless.

C-Bass

P.S. I find it less than comforting learn that quotes from my President closely resemble those of Adolf Hitler.

I agree, but this will soon be called a "conspiracy theory".

As much as I dislike Bush, it's only fair to point out that Hitler really loved the sound of his own voice, and consequently he spoke a lot and on many topics. I'm sure one could clip parts of Hitler's speeches out that would be similar to the words of Ghandi or Thomas Jefferson.

Sure. But these aren't fragments taken out of context. They're simple, short statements. And they compare closely.

I agree, but this will soon be called a "conspiracy theory".

Of course. If you feel threatened or confused by something, just label it a distortion of the truth to make yourself feel better. Works every time, eh?

C-bass

I'd like to point out just about EVERY leader in history (or at least a GREAT many of them) has claimed god was with them. Ever notice our money says "In God We Trust"? Even at the DNC "God Bless America" was repeated.

The seperation of the church and the state is a myth. It's also impossible so long that a large number of people in that nation are of the same religion.

BTW, I'd like to point out that the Christian Right does NOT represent the entire right. I am definitely right-wing and I am opposed to Christianity.

So then, the flash presentation is factual, and you're spewing opinions. Find your proof please.

So this thing starts by saying all the bad things that religion will spur the Right-wing on to do, including abolishing abortion etc in accordance with religious ideals... then it does an about face and says that the Bush administration isn't really following Jesus, and turning the cheek....well, is it suggesting that they should follow religious ideals? Those ideals are taking away women's rights etc etc... Certainly following religion in legislation is wrong and unconstitutional... so it's bad that the administration isn't conducting foreign affairs in that same manner?? Did I miss a jump in logic?
That being said, I think division of Church and state is necessary, but this is an example of how people will go for the pleasing righteous indignation involved in showing dead Iraqis rather than stick with a logical train of thought.

So then, the flash presentation is factual, and you're spewing opinions. Find your proof please.

If you call attempting to compare President Bush to Adolph Hitler and inconsistancies regarding whether the creator of teh flash film wants the government to follow Christian ideals or not (as the poster above me mentioned) factual, then yeah... it's factual...

Oh, and it's not my opinion that many leaders in history have claimed god was with them. It's fact. It's pure idiocy to try and dispute that and I'm sure you know that.

It is also a fact that America is littered with things that cater towards the idea that America is indeed, a Christian nation beneath it all (even though most religions are allowed to practice freely within the nation).

It is also true that Christianity is the dominant religion in America. This is also not just an "opinion".

And in that I said the Christian Right does not represent the entire Right, are you saying that that is not factual? If it's a lie, then why is it that I oppose the Christian religion so strongly when I am clearly right wing? (fairly extreme right wing at that).

So, now please actually say something regarding my arguments, rather than sitting there ignoring people when they show you to be wrong.

Its not just like that in the US. Got the same problem in Germany. But at least our religious christian parties (what irony) are not fundamentalists who want to oppress everyone with their religion.We are past this dark time of religious idiocy (inquisition) I hope!!!

God, why are Christians so scary? :(

So this thing starts by saying all the bad things that religion will spur the Right-wing on to do, including abolishing abortion etc in accordance with religious ideals... then it does an about face and says that the Bush administration isn't really following Jesus, and turning the cheek....well, is it suggesting that they should follow religious ideals? Those ideals are taking away women's rights etc etc... Certainly following religion in legislation is wrong and unconstitutional... so it's bad that the administration isn't conducting foreign affairs in that same manner?? Did I miss a jump in logic?
That being said, I think division of Church and state is necessary, but this is an example of how people will go for the pleasing righteous indignation involved in showing dead Iraqis rather than stick with a logical train of thought.

I'm not saying that they should "follow religious ideals." It's just that the right is so hypocritical when it comes to this subject. They say one thing and do another.

If you call attempting to compare President Bush to Adolph Hitler and inconsistancies regarding whether the creator of teh flash film wants the government to follow Christian ideals or not (as the poster above me mentioned) factual, then yeah... it's factual...

That poster he's talking about was me! I'm being noticed! And by a Right Winger of all things! There are just so many people to thank... I just don't know where to start!

Of course. If you feel threatened or confused by something, just label it a distortion of the truth to make yourself feel better. Works every time, eh? C-bass

Umm ... but what if it really IS a distortion of the truth?

Give me one example from that flash presentation where the truth is distorted.

God, why are Christians so scary? :(

Only those who promote themselves and attempt to "convert" people by the weight of their words are "scary." One of the biggest problems in America, and this includes both the political right and left, is the virtually total absence of a key tenet of "original" Christianity ... humility.

I'm not saying that they should "follow religious ideals." It's just that the right is so hypocritical when it comes to this subject. They say one thing and do another.
Well, I'm not commenting on anything you said (unless of course you made that flash film). But it kind of confuses the issue if it's saying that first of all religion isn't something to base legislation on, and therefore the Right is bad, and then goes on to say that doing things to Iraqis goes against religion, so the Right is bad. The alternative is to base foreign policy on religion. The film shouldn't bring that up, nor quote scripture. It has nothing to do with the rest of the issue. Unless of course the aim of the film is to say that there is some goal aside from religion on the Republican agenda. This, however, is not even suggested by any of the other content. While I agree with the majority of what is being said, it is apparent that the film-maker just wanted to take the obligatory shot at big bad Bush Imperialism.

Sometimes I get the feeling that conservatives and liberals alike support/disagree with something just because the average person with whom they share views would. You're just classifying yourself. Can you really say that that flash doesn't creep you out, or are you just defending this position because it's what the average conservative would stand for?

Give me one example from that flash presentation where the truth is distorted.
To be fair, there are no straight out lies in this, as far as I can tell. On the other hand, quoting Bush saying God is on his side and then quoting Hitler saying more or less the same thing attempts to make a connection that doesn't necessarily exist. Joan of Arc said God was on her side, but I wouldn't compare her with Hitler. Jesus (funny guy who got crucified one time) also said God was on his side. Gandhi probably thought God was on his side... need I go on?

Sometimes I get the feeling that conservatives and liberals alike support/disagree with something just because the average person with whom they share views would. You're just classifying yourself. Can you really say that that flash doesn't creep you out, or are you just defending this position because it's what the average conservative would stand for?
Who are you talking to? Is this directed at me?

Well, I'm not commenting on anything you said (unless of course you made that flash film). But it kind of confuses the issue if it's saying that first of all religion isn't something to base legislation on, and therefore the Right is bad, and then goes on to say that doing things to Iraqis goes against religion, so the Right is bad. The alternative is to base foreign policy on religion. The film shouldn't bring that up, nor quote scripture. It has nothing to do with the rest of the issue. Unless of course the aim of the film is to say that there is some goal aside from religion on the Republican agenda. This, however, is not even suggested by any of the other content. While I agree with the majority of what is being said, it is apparent that the film-maker just wanted to take the obligatory shot at big bad Bush Imperialism.

The scriptures and such are presented because Bush and other assorted right-wingers describe the US as a Christian society, yet so many of their actions contradict the teachings of Jesus and God. If they really lived their lives according to the bible, they'd be tree-hugging, peace-loving communists! Well, the day the right is like me is a day I'm very confused (minus the communist part).

Who are you talking to? Is this directed at me?

No, it's not

To be fair, there are no straight out lies in this, as far as I can tell. On the other hand, quoting Bush saying God is on his side and then quoting Hitler saying more or less the same thing attempts to make a connection that doesn't necessarily exist. Joan of Arc said God was on her side, but I wouldn't compare her with Hitler. Jesus (funny guy who got crucified one time) also said God was on his side. Gandhi probably thought God was on his side... need I go on?
"Mahatma Gandhi has become a spokesman for the concience of all mankind. He was a man who made humility and simple truth more powerful than Empires. And Albert Einstein added: Generations to come will scarcely not believe that such a man as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth."

I think Gandhi had the greatest image of God in his heart - love, humility and compassion. I can approve this use of religion. Everything else however is detestable.

To be fair, there are no straight out lies in this, as far as I can tell. On the other hand, quoting Bush saying God is on his side and then quoting Hitler saying more or less the same thing attempts to make a connection that doesn't necessarily exist. Joan of Arc said God was on her side, but I wouldn't compare her with Hitler. Jesus (funny guy who got crucified one time) also said God was on his side. Gandhi probably thought God was on his side... need I go on?

yeah...comparing Joan of Arc to Hitler. Joan of Arc wasn't a terrorist. Hitler was, and Bush is. Now to justify my statement that Bush is a terrorist:

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

(dictionary.com)

Doesn't this describe the War on Iraq? The UN was against it, as was the majority of the world. Because this war was offensive and had no ties to the claims with which it was declared, it was unlawful. The organized group, the United States, wanted to oust Saddam. That's where the coercing comes in.

It's like this definition was written to describe the War on Iraq!

God, why are Christians so scary?

I wouldn't say "scary" so much as troublesome. Christains tend to oppose the sort of targetted murder campaigns that follow every successful Leftist dictatorship. That's why so many Left wing factions feel the need to slaughter Christians after a takeover, as for example was done in Russia and , later, in Vietnam and Cambodia.

As for Adolf Hitler, teh common misconception is that he was a "Rightist", because he hated the Bolsheviks. He was not. At the time, Trotskyites hated "Bolshevik" Stalinists too, and vice versa. Hitler was a Leftist, the advocate for a sort of modified "national" socialism called Nazism that replaced class warfare with race warfare (by equating Jews with "capitalists"), which was decidedly hostile to the old "Rightist" junkers, and which syndicated industry into huge state monopolies rather than took them over directly, as in more conventional Leftist dictatorships of the time.

The Left has consistently used sophist arguments to obscure Hitler's socialist ideology. These days they attempt to equate Hitler with the president of a democratic republic. They even pretend that Hitler was friendly to Christians (news to a number of Catholic priests that ended up in concentration camps...):

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

--Night of July 11-12, 1941, p. 7 in Table Talk.

"Originally war was nothing but a struggle for pasture grounds. To-day war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to him who conquers them. The great migrations set out from the East. With us begins the ebb, from West to East. That's in accordance with the laws of nature. By means of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed.

The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

--October 10, 1941, p.51

Then there was the planned "Final Solution II":

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/102/52.0.html

The Left does seem to have the bad habit of labelling non-mainstream factions of their own ideology as "Rightist". That doesn't instantly transform a socialist into a capitalist, however. Hitler was a bastard creature of the Left, a result of their unsuccessful earlier attepts to conquer Germany after WW I. From one of those "politically conscious" factions the NSDAP was born.

God, why are Christians so scary?

I wouldn't say "scary" so much as troublesome. Christains tend to oppose the sort of targetted murder campaigns that follow every successful Leftist dictatorship. That's why so many Left wing factions feel the need to slaughter Christians after a takeover, as for example was done in Russia and , later, in Vietnam and Cambodia.

As for Adolf Hitler, teh common misconception is that he was a "Rightist", because he hated the Bolsheviks. He was not. At the time, Trotskyites hated "Bolshevik" Stalinists too, and vice versa. Hitler was a Leftist, the advocate for a sort of modified "national" socialism called Nazism that replaced class warfare with race warfare (by equating Jews with "capitalists"), which was decidedly hostile to the old "Rightist" junkers, and which syndicated industry into huge state monopolies rather than took them over directly, as in more conventional Leftist dictatorships of the time.

The Left has consistently used sophist arguments to obscure Hitler's socialist ideology. These days they attempt to equate Hitler with the president of a democratic republic. They even pretend that Hitler was friendly to Christians (news to a number of Catholic priests that ended up in concentration camps...):

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

--Night of July 11-12, 1941, p. 7 in Table Talk.

"Originally war was nothing but a struggle for pasture grounds. To-day war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to him who conquers them. The great migrations set out from the East. With us begins the ebb, from West to East. That's in accordance with the laws of nature. By means of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed.

The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

--October 10, 1941, p.51

Then there was the planned "Final Solution II":

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/102/52.0.html

The Left does seem to have the bad habit of labelling non-mainstream factions of their own ideology as "Rightist". That doesn't instantly transform a socialist into a capitalist, however. Hitler was a bastard creature of the Left, a result of their unsuccessful earlier attepts to conquer Germany after WW I. From one of those "politically conscious" factions the NSDAP was born.

Hitler wasn't a leftist. He was a socialist, but he was also a fascist authoritarian. He wasn't left or right, he was a radical stoned straight up hater, dawg.

The scriptures and such are presented because Bush and other assorted right-wingers describe the US as a Christian society, yet so many of their actions contradict the teachings of Jesus and God. If they really lived their lives according to the bible, they'd be tree-hugging, peace-loving communists! Well, the day the right is like me is a day I'm very confused (minus the communist part).
But it's WRONG for them to describe the US as a Christian community! And the film says that too. So, if they're doing something that doesn't strictly follow Christian dogma, that's a good thing because they aren't foolishly following religion. Also, religion and war are not necessarily mutually exclusive, so to say that the right is defying it's religion by invading other countries is inaccurate. Read the old testament sometime: the Hebrews slaughter lots of heathens. You might also want to look up the Just War Doctrine. St. Augustine was one of it's main proponents. These are issues that religious authorities have debated for centuries, but never mind that because a flash film on the internet can quote one short passage and sum up all Christendom's views. :rolleyes:
To say "Turn the other cheek" alongside pictures of (presumably) innocent casualties just encourages prejudice, not a reasonable assessment of a situation. Do I think that the Neo-cons' plan for Pax Americana is good? No, but my view is a bit more complex then "Is this loving your enemy." That's something I find offensive, not because I'm a Republican (I'm not), nor a suporter of any war effort (I'm ambivalent), but because I find reason more powerful then emotional appeals to bias.

But it's WRONG for them to describe the US as a Christian community! And the film says that too. So, if they're doing something that doesn't strictly follow Christian dogma, that's a good thing because they aren't foolishly following religion. Also, religion and war are not necessarily mutually exclusive, so to say that the right is defying it's religion by invading other countries is inaccurate. Read the old testament sometime: the Hebrews slaughter lots of heathens. You might also want to look up the Just War Doctrine. St. Augustine was one of it's main proponents. These are issues that religious authorities have debated for centuries, but never mind that because a flash film on the internet can quote one short passage and sum up all Christendom's views. :rolleyes:
To say "Turn the other cheek" alongside pictures of (presumably) innocent casualties just encourages prejudice, not a reasonable assessment of a situation. Do I think that the Neo-cons' plan for Pax Americana is good? No, but my view is a bit more complex then "Is this loving your enemy." That's something I find offensive, not because I'm a Republican (I'm not), nor a suporter of any war effort (I'm ambivalent), but because I find reason more powerful then emotional appeals to bias.

I know it's wrong for them to describe the US as a Christian society, you must have not understood that I believe that too. But if they do label it that way, acting in another fashion, a fashion that contradicts Christian morals is hypocritical. The Old Testament may have been bloody, but these are closet anti-Semites here. What they don't realize is that the New Testament is a liberal's handbook. It's funny that way.

Quick reply:

Hitler was a Fascist. Fascism is an extreme form of the authoritarian Right. Hitler was against most social programs except for control of the education system and the media, in all forms that could be placed under state-administrated stranglehold. Hence the infamous Nazi bookburnings.

Hitler was never in the Left wing of any political spectrum. Yes, he did have an axe to grind against some Christians, primarily those who spoke up to say "What the heck are we doing?"

But calling Hitler a Lefty is like calling Ted Bundy a woman's rights activist.

C'mon bass, I can follow you around for a week, taping everything you say, splice it together and make you sound like whatever I want. The fact is, we invaded Iraq because they violated the UN peace treaty Saddam signed. The fact is, nobody else had the balls to do it. The fact is, you would rather have a one eyed baboon in the office instead of Bush, much like I would like the same instead of Kerry.

Quick reply:

Hitler was a Fascist. Fascism is an extreme form of the authoritarian Right. Hitler was against most social programs except for control of the education system and the media, in all forms that could be placed under state-administrated stranglehold. Hence the infamous Nazi bookburnings.

Hitler was never in the Left wing of any political spectrum. Yes, he did have an axe to grind against some Christians, primarily those who spoke up to say "What the heck are we doing?"

But calling Hitler a Lefty is like calling Ted Bundy a woman's rights activist.

lol nicely put

there is no such thing as acting without faith. Athiesm and secular political ideology take ON FAITH (i.e. not provable) that God does not exist or at least that He is irrelevant to the process. Evolution takes ON FAITH an explanation that is beyond the ability of science to prove (science is based on that which is directly observable and repeatable; evolution is neither.) so the real problem you have with christian politicians (and I'll admit there are some scary ones, just like there are some scary ones that are secular or from other religions) is that they don't start off with your basic assumptions about reality and corresponding worldview (i.e. faith)

oh, and you might want to actually investigate what historical figures mean when they say "God." Hitler's God was not the Judeo-Christian God, and funny enough, neither was Thomas Jefferson's. Just food for thought.

also for the record, separation of church and state was a statement made in a letter by Jefferson . . . who had no hand in writing the constitution (just the declaration of independence); he was a bit busy in europe at the time. just more food for thought.

yeah...comparing Joan of Arc to Hitler. Joan of Arc wasn't a terrorist. Hitler was, and Bush is. Now to justify my statement that Bush is a terrorist:

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

(dictionary.com)

Doesn't this describe the War on Iraq? The UN was against it, as was the majority of the world. Because this war was offensive and had no ties to the claims with which it was declared, it was unlawful. The organized group, the United States, wanted to oust Saddam. That's where the coercing comes in.

It's like this definition was written to describe the War on Iraq!

Very good. I agree. Now, did the flash film you're defending provide any definition of "terrorist"? No. It quoted Bush, and then it quoted Hitler, and assumed that these quotations proved a connection between the two, but all they really did was point out a similarity that Hitler ALSO has to Joan of Arc, Gandhi, the pope, and countless others. I didn't say Joan of Arc is like Hitler, you inferred I meant that from a similarity I pointed out. You're right to say they have very little in common, because they DO have very little in common. By the same right, Democrats who support gun control aren't Nazis just because Hitler supported gun control as well. And by the same right, Bush doesn't necessarily have much in common with Hitler just because they each said something similar to what the other said. That doesn't mean they have nothing in common, but a minor thing like what they said one time proves nothing, but that flash video uses these quotations as though they are damning evidence. They aren't. That was my original point... you know, the one you completely missed?

Things like abolishing the IRS, Endangered Species Act, and the National Endowment for the Arts really are part of the Republican platform and things I generally support. This doesn't scare me at all.

Ashcroft and DeLay are fundamentalist Christians who believe that God guides them through the events and situations in their lives. Not that scary of a viewpoint. A little open-mindedness, please.

The biggest problem I have with this presentation is that it advocates "turning the other cheek" in response to terrorism. Yes, that is what Jesus taught, but in reponse to personal attacks. He did not condemn the soldier who asked him to heal his daughter; rather, he went to the man's house and roused her from a lifeless (or near-lifeless) state.

The bible quote that condemns the "man who does not act" (paraphrasing here) seems to support a response to terrorism. What good is it to sit idly by and let evil men kill the innocent?

The Hitler quotes are simply non-sequiturs. Just because you claim God is on your side doesn't invoke a Divine endorsement. History will decide.

Never forget, with that Manifest Destiny thing going on, the USA's got the "Jesus Magic" to keep us winning. (borrowed this from another forum posting - thought it was an original viewpoint).

C'mon bass, I can follow you around for a week, taping everything you say, splice it together and make you sound like whatever I want. The fact is, we invaded Iraq because they violated the UN peace treaty Saddam signed. The fact is, nobody else had the balls to do it. The fact is, you would rather have a one eyed baboon in the office instead of Bush, much like I would like the same instead of Kerry.

The peace treaty? You mean the one that said Iraq couldn't possess WMDs. But we never found any. Bush has been flip-flopping on why we went to war like a fish out of water. First, it was because Saddam was being 9/11, then it was because Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction. When none were found, it was back to plan A.

If you agree that Saddam had absolutely no ties to 9/11 (along with the Commission), go here:

http://www.frontsteps.com/creations/1001/89/index.php?t=1096182758

You'll get a kick out of it :)

Americans with disabilities act - Bush 1
EPA - Nixon.

These are the folks who CREATED these posts. Both republican.

Touche'

I carry a wmd in my wallet all the time. It is called a box cutter blade. Instrumental in the hijacking of the planes that took out the WTC and the Twin Towers. The point is that Saddam was not allowing inspections, and we GAVE the WMD to Iraq when they were fighting their own war against Afghanistan. If they don't have them, who does and where are they aimed at?

Very good. I agree. Now, did the flash film you're defending provide any definition of "terrorist"? No. It quoted Bush, and then it quoted Hitler, and assumed that these quotations proved a connection between the two, but all they really did was point out a similarity that Hitler ALSO has to Joan of Arc, Gandhi, the pope, and countless others. I didn't say Joan of Arc is like Hitler, you inferred I meant that from a similarity I pointed out. You're right to say they have very little in common, because they DO have very little in common. By the same right, Democrats who support gun control aren't Nazis just because Hitler supported gun control as well. And by the same right, Bush doesn't necessarily have much in common with Hitler just because they each said something similar to what the other said. That doesn't mean they have nothing in common, but a minor thing like what they said one time proves nothing, but that flash video uses these quotations as though they are damning evidence. They aren't. That was my original point... you know, the one you completely missed?

Alright alright, you've made some good points. The Bush-Hitler thing really sets the mood for the video and frankly, I do see a lot of similarities between the two men. Both radicals, both terrorists, and both very ugly.

I'm so damn tired I really need to log off and get to sleep.

Lata

I know it's wrong for them to describe the US as a Christian society, you must have not understood that I believe that too. But if they do label it that way, acting in another fashion, a fashion that contradicts Christian morals is hypocritical. The Old Testament may have been bloody, but these are closet anti-Semites here. What they don't realize is that the New Testament is a liberal's handbook. It's funny that way.

Oh, I understand you agree about seperation of church and state. Here's the thing: religion and war aren't mutually exclusive. ST. AUGUSTINE: JUST WAR. Look it up. Some pretty respected theologians have justified war in the past, so simply saying "turn the other cheek" is appealing in it's simplicity, but cannot possibly reflect the whole history of Judeo-Christian thought on the matter. So it's not a reasonable comment; it's rhetoric. You know what, if you're not sure about this just war thing, I'll just copy it down for you:

What is Just War?

CCC 2302-2317

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraphs 2302-2317, authoritatively teaches what constitutes the just defense of a nation against an aggressor. Called the Just War Doctrine, it was first enunciated by St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD). Over the centuries it was taught by Doctors of the Church, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and formally embraced by the Magisterium, which has also adapted it to the situation of modern warfare. The following explanation of Just War Doctrine follows the schema given in the Catechism.

Righteous versus Unrighteous Anger (2302-3)

Anger is a desire for revenge. Anger is the passion (emotion) by which a man reacts to evil, real or apparent, and seeks vindication of his rights, that is, justice. By itself the passion is neither moral or immoral, but becomes so by reason or its being ordered or disordered - that is, reasonable according to the circumstances. An ordered anger is directed to a legitimate object, and, with an appropriate degree of vehemence. An inordinate anger is directed either to an illegitimate object, or, with an unreasonable vehemence. As St. Thomas Aquinas notes, vice may be by defect, as well as excess. So, the presence of evil should provoke a righteous anger, which if absent constitutes a sinful insensibility.

Consider the just anger of the Lord to the presence in the Temple of the money-changers and the action He took (John 2:13-17). Provoked by this offense against His Father, Jesus formed whips and drove them from the Temple. Righteous anger, and the acts which flow from it, intend the correction of vice (both for the good of the individual sinner and the common good), the restoring of the order of justice disturbed by sin, and the restraint of further evil.

On the other hand, unjust anger seeks to do evil to another for its own sake, the harm to body or soul that it entails. While one may desire, and employ, physical force for the sake of correction, restraint of evil and restoring justice, even if it entails injury and death, one may never desire it for its own sake. To desire some slight injury for an evil motive would be venially sinful. To desire grave injury or death would be gravely sinful. A Christian may never, of course, desire the damnation of the evil doer. Charity requires that we will the good, especially the ultimate good, salvation, for every human being. Unfortunately, the entertainment media often promotes an image of anger and vengeance which is closer to blood lust than to justice.


Peace - the Work of Justice and the Tranquility of Order (2304-6)

Whether it is justice within society, or the interior justice of holiness, peace is its fruit. Righteous anger, and the means it employs, should not knowingly produce less justice and less peace than existed before evil intervened. Human prudence, however, is fallible. It cannot necessarily predict the ploys of the adversary, both human and demonic. In addition, fallen human nature is inclined to sin, and thus prone to respond with excess to provocation. Thus, even virtue and a well-formed conscience can fail to produce the desired result of justice and peace. Great restraint must be shown, therefore, in the use of violence to achieve justice. In addition to the efforts of those who work assiduously for peace, "the peacemakers", society needs the example of those who renounce violence altogether. Their "witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death" should serve to restrain the use of even justified force. Such conscientious objection is a valuable service to society. As the Catechism makes clear, it must be accompanied by the willingness to serve in other capacities (cf. 2311), however.


Just War (2307-17)

All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. Despite this admonition of the Church, it sometimes becomes necessary to use force to obtain the end of justice. This is the right, and the duty, of those who have responsibilities for others, such as civil leaders and police forces. While individuals may renounce all violence those who must preserve justice may not do so, though it should be the last resort, "once all peace efforts have failed." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 4]

As with all moral acts the use of force to obtain justice must comply with three conditions to be morally good. First, the act must be good in itself. The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself. Second, it must be done with a good intention, which as noted earlier must be to correct vice, to restore justice or to restrain evil, and not to inflict evil for its own sake. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. An act which may otherwise be good and well motivated can be sinful by reason of imprudent judgment and execution.

In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:

"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309].

The responsibility for determining whether these conditions are met belongs to "the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." The Church's role consists in enunciating clearly the principles, in forming the consciences of men and in insisting on the moral exercise of just war.

The Church greatly respects those who have dedicated their lives to the defense of their nation. "If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. [Cf. Gaudium et spes 79, 5]" However, she cautions combatants that not everything is licit in war. Actions which are forbidden, and which constitute morally unlawful orders that may not be followed, include:

- attacks against, and mistreatment of, non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners;

- genocide, whether of a people, nation or ethnic minorities;

- indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.

Given the modern means of warfare, especially nuclear, biological and chemical, these crimes against humanity must be especially guarded against.

In the end it is not enough to wage war to achieve justice without treating the underlying causes. "Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war" [CCC 2317]. The Church has no illusions that true justice and peace can be attained before the Coming of the Lord. It is the duty of men of good will to work towards it, nonetheless. In the words of the spiritual dictum, we should work as if everything depended upon our efforts, and pray as if everything depended upon God.

***I know: Bush isn't following the doctrine! But there's much room to debate that. The point is, that sometimes the church is okay with war.***

Personally, I find it disgusting that so many people are focusing more on the candidates themselves than on the issues. I don't particularly care if President Bush did or didn't have a bad service record during Vietnam, I want to know that America is protected from external threats. I don't have anything against senator Kerry, but why does he insist on ragging on President Bush, instead of standing on his own two feet?

And what is with all this Anti-Christian sentiment? Is it just me or is this a relatively recent occurance? Where the heck are all the people who believe that all the major religions can coexist and restore morality and order to this world?

As a Christian, I'll throw in my two cents here, and then leave well enough alone.

Faith is an integral part of a person's makeup. Whether one has faith in Christianity's tenets, Judaism, Ba'Hai, Jainism, Buddhism, or Islam it all amounts to the same thing- the filter through which you view and explain the world. And within any of those filters are the myriad sub-filters that make up sects, denominations, etc etc.

Faith should be (in my opinion) practised personally, patterned publically, and professed when asked for. Because though there is a mandate in my religion to encourage others to join the ideals of Christ, and to live in harmony with the morals taught by him there is NO mandate for me to force Bob Smith down the street to do the same.

That means one thing- if I have a problem with Bob, I should talk to Bob, and explaim myself carefully and with consideration that I don't think his life choices are a good idea. And if bob tells me to screw off, I do so. Or, if he tells me to respect his choices and not to mind his business, I do so. (Provided of course that his choices harm nobody else that isn't a- adult and b- concentual.

Which bring us to the seperation of the Church and the State. It's easily enough understood.

1 to take away the volition of a human being in regard to making thier choice of life is a crime against society.

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

2 the choice of faith, and its forms of practise, its tenets and its codes is to be made bythe individual. Not to be forced upon the individual for any reason by the government that individual resides under. Because if this is done, the fundamental volition of the human being is violated.

Which leads, therefore, to 3: the neccessity of the first amendment. It protects the right of someone to NOT practise or support the tenets, mores, or ideals of any religion.

The long and the short of it SHOULD be this: A Statesman should feel free, and be free to be a practising member of any religious organisation that does not harm its members (i.e. not a self-destructive cult). BUT said statesman should refrain from forcing the mores of his religion upon the constituents he represents, as not all of them would be members of said religious group.

In other words- live your faith personally, privately and publically. But DON'T try to force that faith, or the trappings of it, or the moral outgrowths of it on any other person.

Whew. wow, I get long winded on personal philosophy.

As a Christian, I'll throw in my two cents here, and then leave well enough alone.

Faith is an integral part of a person's makeup. Whether one has faith in Christianity's tenets, Judaism, Ba'Hai, Jainism, Buddhism, or Islam it all amounts to the same thing- the filter through which you view and explain the world. And within any of those filters are the myriad sub-filters that make up sects, denominations, etc etc.

Faith should be (in my opinion) practised personally, patterned publically, and professed when asked for. Because though there is a mandate in my religion to encourage others to join the ideals of Christ, and to live in harmony with the morals taught by him there is NO mandate for me to force Bob Smith down the street to do the same.

That means one thing- if I have a problem with Bob, I should talk to Bob, and explaim myself carefully and with consideration that I don't think his life choices are a good idea. And if bob tells me to screw off, I do so. Or, if he tells me to respect his choices and not to mind his business, I do so. (Provided of course that his choices harm nobody else that isn't a- adult and b- concentual.

Which bring us to the seperation of the Church and the State. It's easily enough understood.

1 to take away the volition of a human being in regard to making thier choice of life is a crime against society.

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

2 the choice of faith, and its forms of practise, its tenets and its codes is to be made bythe individual. Not to be forced upon the individual for any reason by the government that individual resides under. Because if this is done, the fundamental volition of the human being is violated.

Which leads, therefore, to 3: the neccessity of the first amendment. It protects the right of someone to NOT practise or support the tenets, mores, or ideals of any religion.

The long and the short of it SHOULD be this: A Statesman should feel free, and be free to be a practising member of any religious organisation that does not harm its members (i.e. not a self-destructive cult). BUT said statesman should refrain from forcing the mores of his religion upon the constituents he represents, as not all of them would be members of said religious group.

In other words- live your faith personally, privately and publically. But DON'T try to force that faith, or the trappings of it, or the moral outgrowths of it on any other person.

Whew. wow, I get long winded on personal philosophy.

Yeah, that was quite longwinded.... however, considering my last post I'll let you off the hook. This time.

Thanks. ;)

By the way, Augustine of Hippo's thesis on the existence of a Just War (from a Non-demoninational Protestant perspective, anyway) is a bunch of spin doctoring. Nowhere in the New Testament (which is supposed to be the guideline of the Chrisitan life) is there any mention of a justifiable war. Several incidences of violence yes, but never war. There is no distinction between the Christian life as a person (Eg-turning the other cheek) and the Christian life as a community. Both are to be in harmony.

In other words, Bush most likely isn't listening to God as he has claimed.

Thanks. ;)

By the way, Augustine of Hippo's thesis on the existence of a Just War (from a Non-demoninational Protestant perspective, anyway) is a bunch of spin doctoring. Nowhere in the New Testament (which is supposed to be the guideline of the Chrisitan life) is there any mention of a justifiable war. Several incidences of violence yes, but never war. There is no distinction between the Christian life as a person (Eg-turning the other cheek) and the Christian life as a community. Both are to be in harmony.

In other words, Bush most likely isn't listening to God as he has claimed.

Spin doctoring? Sure is. However, I'm doubtful about how accurate the New Testament is to begin with. The thing is that the Catholic faith is very much based on tradition, and not solely scripture. Augustine and Aquinas set a certain precedent in Christian thought, and one can hardly expect a layman like Bush to have a better understanding of what God Himself wants than a couple of Saints did. (And I'm not even using the term "Saints" in an ironic manner!!) So as far as theology goes, it's not a concrete fact that war goes against the religion, when some pretty respected religious thinkers disagreed on the issue.

As an atheist and liberal, I'd actually have to side with Republicans and Christians on this one.

1. You can't compare Bush (or even Ashcroft) to Hitler
2. Bush isn't a fair representative of Republicans or Christians
3. The flash was completely disorganized, and therefor appeared more like some of the spiteful tantrums I throw every now and then (at everyone and noone in particular) than an actual arguement against Bush
4. True, there are many Republicans who are Conservative Christian wackos, and though they are more numerous and frightening than PC imposing liberals, they don't define their party
5. True, Bush does support the policies listed, and true, most, if not all, are disturbing and disgusting, but the use of images of injured children from a contraversial war which forgoes party and religious bounds, and furthermore has become so blurred by half-truths that it can no longer fully be understood by anyone, is a lousy way to get a point across.
6. True, Bush likes to put people in power who share the same twisted and perverse views of "religion is the basis of morality" as he does, and that Supreme Court judge scares me to no end, but once again, that means nothing about ordinary Christians.
7. I doubt that the average intelligent (ergo slightly more secular and logical) Christian / Republican supports ALL of those policies, or even half of them.

That said, I hate Bush for numerous reasons, one of which is for having caused me to mentally associate stupidity and evil with all Christians and Republicans.

To be fair, there are no straight out lies in this, as far as I can tell. On the other hand, quoting Bush saying God is on his side and then quoting Hitler saying more or less the same thing attempts to make a connection that doesn't necessarily exist. Joan of Arc said God was on her side, but I wouldn't compare her with Hitler. Jesus (funny guy who got crucified one time) also said God was on his side. Gandhi probably thought God was on his side... need I go on?


Just a brief comment: To my knowledge, Hitler wasn't at all in favour of religion. He considered the religious organisations and institutions in Germany too much of a threat to his power. But he realized that an outright abolition of all religion from the very beginning would make it very difficult to win over the Catholic majority. The Catholic church was represented by really massive youth organisations, all of which were, of course, rivals to the Nazi youth organisation, the HitlerJugend. Once a sufficient number had been lured into the ranks of HitlerJugend, and the 'power' of the Catholic youth organisations had been severely weakened, Hitler was quick to outlaw all youth organisations but the HitlerJugend.

So, I believe that any religious statements by Hitler should be viewed as a part of his attempt to slowly win over members of the Catholic youth organisations.
Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.

yeah...comparing Joan of Arc to Hitler. Joan of Arc wasn't a terrorist. Hitler was, and Bush is. Now to justify my statement that Bush is a terrorist:

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

(dictionary.com)

Doesn't this describe the War on Iraq? The UN was against it, as was the majority of the world. Because this war was offensive and had no ties to the claims with which it was declared, it was unlawful. The organized group, the United States, wanted to oust Saddam. That's where the coercing comes in.

It's like this definition was written to describe the War on Iraq!

So let me ask you, or any anti-war individual, how many times should we let the radical muslims who have taken vows to destroy the United States and every citizen of the United States, hit us? We are up to 4+ now. How many more times will we have to be hit for you to understand that it is time to go after the terrorists and kill them.

Do you actually think that a group that will shoot children in the back, that will cut the head of a live human being who is screaming and struggling, a group that will fly planes into large buildings and kill thousands of people, will sit down at a negotiating table?

How many more civilians have to die, before are allowed to defend ourselves despite what other countries have to say about it?

I'm finding it difficult not to say anything personally disparaging but good god man, sometimes you must fight in order to survive. Evidently there are some folk in this world who are still naive enough not to understand that.

http://ericblumrich.com/faith.html

Watch that, and whatever you do, DON'T CLOSE IT!!! Watch it all.

I live in Texas, and I live in a community full of these people. 4 more years until I get myself the hell out of here.
(you'll understand after you watch the flash vid)

Hopefully, I'm not the only one scared and appalled by this.

I love these sorts of presentations because they're factual, they reveal the Christian right for what it really is, and they leave its supporters speechless.

C-Bass

P.S. I find it less than comforting learn that quotes from my President closely resemble those of Adolf Hitler.
I just love this video.

God, why are Christians so scary? :(
'Cos you never know what they're going to do next. At least with Liberals you can have a reasonable guess what they're likely to say.
Of course, groups like the Society of Friends and others are completely exepted from this - they're (in my opinion) "proper" Christians.