NationStates Jolt Archive

This is insane! The founder of a conservative, evangilical camp for teens is out of his mind. This guy is threatening everything America stands for. They openly advocate making America a theocracy. If these evangelicals get into the government, America as we know it, will be over.

"I want some of these young people to be the senators and congressmen and governors and state legislators, and maybe even president of the United States someday," said Mike Farris.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Beliefs/story?id=1040207

If these people want a theocracy so bad, I say get out of America and form your own country.

So, you're saying that people shouldn't be able to run for office because of religion. And you think that is an American ideal?

So..how does having a mock political "debate" with people who hold the exact same views as you prepare you for the real world...?

I don't care there're Christians (or any other religious person) in the government, but when they view them selves as "soldiers" in some sort of holy crusade to "bring America back to God", that worries me... A lot.

I must admit, I don't really do anything differently. I'm sure my MUN directors want all of us to be world leaders one day. They're just campaigning for their opinion. (Makes me wonder if they have any people pretend to disagree with them so they can see what that's like...)

So their giving political know-how to teens who share thier uber-conservative beliefs in the hope that the leaders of the next generation will be conservatives?

Kinda wrong, but kinda unstoppable, you know?

That scared the fuck out of me.

This is insane! The founder of a conservative, evangilical camp for teens is out of his mind. This guy is threatening everything America stands for. They openly advocate making America a theocracy. If these evangelicals get into the government, America as we know it, will be over.



http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Beliefs/story?id=1040207

If these people want a theocracy so bad, I say get out of America and form your own country.
Waitaminute.
Now, I dislike authoritarianism as much as the next guy, and theocracy even more so. But where did they openly endorse theocracy? Is it in that article?

Waitaminute.
Now, I dislike authoritarianism as much as the next guy, and theocracy even more so. But where did they openly endorse theocracy? Is it in that article?

They didn't, but I suppose it can be implied, seeing how, to quote the article, they want to "bring America back to God", which could be interpreted as them wanting a more "Christian" nation..meaning a nation run by their religious ideals.

Jeez, if it weren't for the fact that it's conservative and at 21 I'm probably to old, I'd love to go there. The "soldiers on a mission to retak America for God" is basically there opinion and the only thing that makes it sound like they want a theocracy. I wouldn't consider this that dangerous.

They didn't, but I suppose it can be implied, seeing how, to quote the article, they want to "bring America back to God", which could be interprated as them wanting a more "Christian" nation..meaning a nation run by their religious ideals.Yeah, but that wasn't a direct quote from them, was it? It was something the journalist said and he might just be cynical about it.

Yeah, but that wasn't a direct quote from them, was it? It was something the journalist said and he might just be cynical about it.

No, it was a direct quote from them, by one of the camp-goers.

Shit, sounds like it's getting a bit dodgy over there, I heard the other day that Bush bloke telling people he wants to teach Adam and Eve's story of creation in science classes instead of that obviously crazy evolution theory......

Tell you all what, it starts getting a bit too overly religeous for you, come and live here in Britain!
Just tell everyone you're Canadian, people like that....

No, it was a direct quote from them, by one of the camp-goers.I stand corrected, but so do you. It's not a quote at all, he's just paraphrasing:
The three candidates say that, in many ways, they're normal teenagers. They like "Star Wars" and they like to joke around. But unlike most teens, they believe they're Christian soldiers with a mission to take back America for God.But in the end, that's only their opinion. I seriously wonder if they get any proper debate practice. There's not much to discuss if all three of them agree on the sancticity of human life, is there? :rolleyes:

Yeah...christians are weird.

Oh I have to point this out -

"The three candidates say that, in many ways, they're normal teenagers. They like "Star Wars" and they like to joke around. But unlike most teens, they believe they're Christian soldiers with a mission to take back America for God."

Emphasis mine.

Perhaps these people haven't heard the good news. Christians in America worship freely. They even use thier religion in political debates on capital hill. A ludicrious majority of legislators, local state and national, are practicing christians. There have been 43 Christian Presidents... consecutively. America is one of the few developed nations where there remains a large threat to abortion and evolution.

America is one of the most conservative nations on the PLANET. When you say left wing in America, the rest of the world sees a centre left or centrist. John Kerry, supposedly the far left bank of American politics(Bush's words, not mine), is 1/3 of the way into the 1st quandrent on the political compass.

I'd say that "Generation Joshua" can stand down, although they never fail to amuse me with thier persecution complex.

(Part of me wants to get some two by fours, gladiators and lions, and give them some real persecution for a change. You know, go Diocletian on their monkeyed asses. :D )

Yeah...christians are weird.

Just as weird as those non-Christians.

You know what'd make the evangelicals' day? Really givin' 'em something to get all fuck*d up about. Like splicing footage of well-known pompous gits and busybodies into select out-takes from Spartacus and Gladiator, and conning 'em into thinking they've been secretly "thrown to the lions" over the weekend by a hitherto-unknown uber-leftist anti-Christian pro-sodomite (and really, supply your own list of colorful adjectives here) doomsday cult. Or something. :p
Really. I think it'd put 'em stitches. Or me, anyway, if they caught up with me after it all turned out to be b*llshit.

meh they're not as bad as the ones who blame the vatican for 9/11.

This is insane! The founder of a conservative, evangilical camp for teens is out of his mind. This guy is threatening everything America stands for. They openly advocate making America a theocracy. If these evangelicals get into the government, America as we know it, will be over.



http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Beliefs/story?id=1040207

If these people want a theocracy so bad, I say get out of America and form your own country.
unfortunately, you cannot bar someone from running due to their religious beliefs.

now what in the article has you all rilled up. there is nothing in there that even remotely sounds evangilical, they debate which means there is a FOR and an AGAINST for the issues.

or are you saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you cannot run for Politics?

Oh I have to point this out -

"The three candidates say that, in many ways, they're normal teenagers. They like "Star Wars" and they like to joke around. But unlike most teens, they believe they're Christian soldiers with a mission to take back America for God."

Emphasis mine.

{snip}to be fair tho, you do hear alot of talk about wrestling the government away from religion (in general) as if Christianity has a hold on government, so I just call that a figure of speech.

but you know what? There is one safeguard, the voting public. they need to win the elections in order to get the position. and if they do win, then maybe it's not just the evangilicals, or the fundies that want this.

who knows.

I'd say there's nothing to worry about. I mean, how many people are going to see a "home-schooled solider of God" as a qualified leader? Needless to say, preaching to the choir at these religious camps (pardon the pun) isn't going to prepare you for real world politics.

If they want to play politician, go ahead. But too many people have had enough of their Big Government anti-freedom ideology, and they won't have a chance in hell of being elected if they keep pushing the agenda that people are sick of.

We cannot bar someone running because of their religion. They can however not violate seperation of of church and state. They won't win because they won't ever get enough votes. Their tyrannical ideas can never win in this country because there are enough people who are against their authoritarian ideals. There is a group like this on my campus and they get more ugly looks then any positive attention.

Okay so I have to say I don't really see the problem. I mean America is a free country so why shouldn't they have the right to go to religious camp and asprire to one day be in public office. Okay so maybe they offend you but think about it really America is soo secular these days I really doubt any of them would really make it into office, that is unless everyone who has an alternate opinion didn't vote or they were in the minority when they did. But isn't our whole government based on majority rules anyway. I know I am in the Christain minority just about everywhere I go. I would say something about the fact that the reason America is soo screwed up today is because of the lack of Christain leaders in the country but I am not sure if I really believe that the problem is that simple and even if I did say that I am sure it wouldn't be well regarded here. so in conclusion can someone please explain to me in plain english what the problem with the camp is and why they are so mad about it? I would like to hear it so I can form an intelligent opinion on the issue.

Okay so maybe they offend you but think about it really America is soo secular these days I really doubt any of them would really make it into office, that is unless everyone who has an alternate opinion didn't vote or they were in the minority when they did.

It is better that it stays secular, because if it goes theocratic or religious then these people could put me in jail for being gay. Free country? Not for everyone.

But isn't our whole government based on majority rules anyway. I know I am in the Christain minority just about everywhere I go. I would say something about the fact that the reason America is soo screwed up today is because of the lack of Christain leaders in the country but I am not sure if I really believe that the problem is that simple and even if I did say that I am sure it wouldn't be well regarded here.

More Christian leaders would not respect everyone rights in this country. Our government is based on checks and balances, that prevents tyranny by the majority from occurring. Tell me what policies would these Christian leaders you want so much push in this country?

so in conclusion can someone please explain to me in plain english what the problem with the camp is and why they are so mad about it? I would like to hear it so I can form an intelligent opinion on the issue.

I have rights too, and this group wants to see my rights flushed down the toilet.

It is better that it stays secular, because if it goes theocratic or religious then these people could put me in jail for being gay. Free country? Not for everyone.you honestly believe that if these youngsters make it to office they will turn the government into a theocracy?

paranoia... that's what it is.

More Christian leaders would not respect everyone rights in this country. Our government is based on checks and balances, that prevents tyranny by the majority from occurring. Tell me what policies would these Christian leaders you want so much push in this country?hmmm... how about parental Accountability for the raising of their children. no more suing the entertainment industry because they didn't teach their kids the diffference between fantasy (video games, movies, songs) and reality. How about instilling a greater sense of responsibility in the same entertainment industry to be more honest in what they put in their products. (no more hidden sex games). getting the Drug pushers off of the streets and help for the addicts. perhaps more programs to get the poor and homeless into homes and jobs. more jobs so that eveyone can have provide proper food, shelter and education for their children.

I have rights too, and this group wants to see my rights flushed down the toilet.please quote where they say that in the artical about specifically your rights please?

and please don't lump all Christians with the fundies.

Ok, so whats the problem? they're aloud to have their opinions and i didnt see where they mentioned theocracy, besides its not like someone so openly fundemental would be able to make it to the white house, err well hopefully not anyway.

I'd say there's nothing to worry about. I mean, how many people are going to see a "home-schooled solider of God" as a qualified leader? Needless to say, preaching to the choir at these religious camps (pardon the pun) isn't going to prepare you for real world politics.

If they want to play politician, go ahead. But too many people have had enough of their Big Government anti-freedom ideology, and they won't have a chance in hell of being elected if they keep pushing the agenda that people are sick of.

Hardly, last time I checked many agreed that the 2004 election was shifted in favor of President bush by the "moral majority" so to speak. They were brought out of the woodwork by the issues facing us today-Gay marriage, abortion, and the WOT. I, for example, am a "moral minded" voter. My family is morally-minded, and we likewise choice our candidate with a moral filter. John Kerry supported everything we did not, even though he tried to play the moderate card.

Granted, these people won't win any elections far from the state level, but they are a powerful voice in the America voting public. Granted also, I don't agree with some of their choices, such as (I'm guessing but I bet they support it) immediate execution of gays (They can have "unions", but NOT marriage), complete and total ban on abortion (I say ONLY if the mother's life is in danger), and they'd probably end up trashing the constitution.


You do have to admit, these guys have a lot of correct thinking as far as the decline of morality linked to crime, single parenthood, etc.

So..how does having a mock political "debate" with people who hold the exact same views as you prepare you for the real world...?

I don't care there're Christians (or any other religious person) in the government, but when they view them selves as "soldiers" in some sort of holy crusade to "bring America back to God", that worries me... A lot.

I agree.

THIS JUST IN!
Nutjobs have 'plans' for 'The Good of America'!

Let the wierdos talk, the days of having zealots and psychos in office died when we got this thing called Democracy, considering that a majority of Americans would not even consider voting for somebody who plans to institute such wonderful things as an imposed state religion.

Seems appropriate to bring out the Leland quote. ;)

John Leland, a Baptist Minister, spoke in 1802 on the same subject:

"Be always jealous of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and estimate men according to the measures they pursue. Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick dispatch, characterize the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined."

you honestly believe that if these youngsters make it to office they will turn the government into a theocracy?

paranoia... that's what it is.

From what they are saying...

hmmm... how about parental Accountability for the raising of their children. no more suing the entertainment industry because they didn't teach their kids the diffference between fantasy (video games, movies, songs) and reality. How about instilling a greater sense of responsibility in the same entertainment industry to be more honest in what they put in their products. (no more hidden sex games). getting the Drug pushers off of the streets and help for the addicts. perhaps more programs to get the poor and homeless into homes and jobs. more jobs so that eveyone can have provide proper food, shelter and education for their children.

Parental accountability for the raising of their children? This comes with common sense, not christianity. I even push that people stop sueing game companies for no reason. That's why I want limitations on law suits. Again christinaity doesesn't do this. And furthermore, hidden sex? In what? I play Grand Theft Auto myself. I'm not out there stealing cars and picking up prostitutes. So please. These christians would only limit freedoms. You tried going after Larry Flynt (see Larry Flynt versus Jerry Falwell).

"Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper." - Larry Flynt

please quote where they say that in the artical about specifically your rights please?

They talk about being against gay couples getting married. If I ever consider it, these people would want me barred from doing so.

and please don't lump all Christians with the fundies.

Of course.

Those people in the article are fundies.

THIS JUST IN!
Nutjobs have 'plans' for 'The Good of America'!

Let the wierdos talk, the days of having zealots and psychos in office died when we got this thing called Democracy, considering that a majority of Americans would not even consider voting for somebody who plans to institute such wonderful things as an imposed state religion.

I'm pretty sure you'd consider President Bush a 'weirdo'. I don't see any "state imposed religion" except atheism which is runnning amuck in schools.

THIS JUST IN!
Nutjobs have 'plans' for 'The Good of America'!

Let the wierdos talk, the days of having zealots and psychos in office died when we got this thing called Democracy, considering that a majority of Americans would not even consider voting for somebody who plans to institute such wonderful things as an imposed state religion.

Sadly, that really isn't impossible. Just highly improbable.

I'm pretty sure you'd consider President Bush a 'weirdo'. I don't see any "state imposed religion" except atheism which is runnning amuck in schools.

Atheism is not a religion. And it isn't imposed in schools. :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure you'd consider President Bush a 'weirdo'. I don't see any "state imposed religion" except atheism which is runnning amuck in schools.

Wrong.

Public schools aren't anti-religion, they just don't teach one religion in particular, which is a good thing. How would YOU like it if Islam was imposed in public schools?

We have no real idea whether these people really are fundies though, because the only bit of evidence we have is that they consider themselves Christian soldiers on a mission from God. Even perfectly friendly Christians can view themselves as this (spreading the Gospel being their mission). One of the guys talks about the sancticity of life. That probably means he's against abortion or against tampering with stem cells.
But we don't know. The article is too short to tell what these three kids want, what this camp is truly and deeply about. I'm too tired to go search for anything on them, I'm going to bed now, but if you really don't want this debate to detiorate in a "They're Fundies"-"No they're not" fight, I suggest some of you run their name through google and take a look at whether they are or aren't what you thought they were.
Good night. ;)

As long as this is still America, I'd say they are entitled to their opinion. Folks who disagree with their morals have the option of taking thier kids elsewhere. Which is more than the choice that most Christians in America face in not having liberalism forced down their throats in the public school system. Get over it.

I'm pretty sure you'd consider President Bush a 'weirdo'. I don't see any "state imposed religion" except atheism which is runnning amuck in schools.
Bush is a politician, there are certain acceptable levels of wierdiosity, Bush is on the high end of that scale, but I consider him within the 'acceptable' level.
I would voice some opinions on Atheism as well, if I didnt think it would turn this thread into an off topic flamewar.


Rambozo:
Impeachment is a wonderful thing, and if that doesnt work, Im sure your friendly neighborhood gun-nut will rally some people for the rebellion once they try to take his firearms away.

From what they are saying...



Parental accountability for the raising of their children? This comes with common sense, not christianity. I even push that people stop sueing game companies for no reason. That's why I want limitations on law suits. Again christinaity doesesn't do this. And furthermore, hidden sex? In what? I play Grand Theft Auto myself. I'm not out there stealing cars and picking up prostitutes. So please. These christians would only limit freedoms. You tried going after Larry Flynt (see Larry Flynt versus Jerry Falwell).So you're saying that Christians don't want those things either?

as for the Hidden sex... you also never heard of GTA:San Andreas and the codes that unlock the sex games? wow... that was on the board for weeks.

They talk about being against gay couples getting married. If I ever consider it, these people would want me barred from doing so.and you have more Christian Churches supporting it. so your point. seems split even on the religious front.




Those people in the article are fundies.Sorry, missed the hate filled reteric that almost all fundies spew... can you quote it?

Bringing the country back to God can also mean instilling a "Love your fellow man" mentallity. A "help those who needs help and heal those who need healing." did you think of that?

Did you read the part about having debates on the issues? Do you know what a Debate needs? It needs two sides. a For and an Against. and if they were truly training for politics, then someone has to not only debate the for, but has to do it well. which means they are forcing these people to look at both sides of the issue as well. and you don't see that as being good?

oh and your comments I quoted never distinguished Fundies or Christians. Just to let you know. I am assuming it was a mistake, but one that make one seem like the people they're fighting.

As long as this is still America, I'd say they are entitled to their opinion. Folks who disagree with their morals have the option of taking thier kids elsewhere. Which is more than the choice that most Christians in America face in not having liberalism forced down their throats in the public school system. Get over it.

Liberalism is being forced down their throats in the public school system? Really? Can you substantiate that claim?

Which is more than the choice that most Christians in America face in not having liberalism forced down their throats in the public school system. Get over it.

:rolleyes:

Damn liberals how dare they prevent you from teaching my kid religion!

Rambozo:
Impeachment is a wonderful thing, and if that doesnt work, Im sure your friendly neighborhood gun-nut will rally some people for the rebellion once they try to take his firearms away.

I'm a little confused :confused:

So you're saying that Christians don't want those things either?

as for the Hidden sex... you also never heard of GTA:San Andreas and the codes that unlock the sex games? wow... that was on the board for weeks.

and you have more Christian Churches supporting it. so your point. seems split even on the religious front.

I don't care if christians want it or not. It isn't up to them. Freedom of expression. It doesn't matter if there is hidden sex or not (I think the game should of kept its "Mature rating" instead of being rated "Adults Only"). I have GTA: San Andreas on my computer.

I know these christians are not supporting gay marriage. These are the fundamentalist ones.


oh and your comments I quoted never distinguished Fundies or Christians. Just to let you know. I am assuming it was a mistake, but one that make one seem like the people they're fighting.

Well let me make the correction right now: I believe these people are definitely fundamentalists.

Bringing the country back to God can also mean instilling a "Love your fellow man" mentallity. A "help those who needs help and heal those who need healing." did you think of that?

I don't want to be brought "back to god" and I don't want my rights destroyed by people "bringing this country back to god". That's not right. IF you think an atheist cannot love their fellow citizen then you have issues. If you think an atheist cannot help other people then you have issues. Atheists I encountered do a lot for other people.

Bush is a politician, there are certain acceptable levels of wierdiosity, Bush is on the high end of that scale, but I consider him within the 'acceptable' level.
I would voice some opinions on Atheism as well, if I didnt think it would turn this thread into an off topic flamewar.


Rambozo:
Impeachment is a wonderful thing, and if that doesnt work, Im sure your friendly neighborhood gun-nut will rally some people for the rebellion once they try to take his firearms away.

Impeachment for what might I ask?

I consider myself a gunnut (Owner of an M1, SKS, and 3 AK-47 style rifles) and if it comes time to start fighting, it's probably too late. Granted, 80 million gun owners will put up a helluva fight. That is why my money goes to the NRA and the GCA.

I'm pretty sure I have enough to equip a few people.

People don't get freaked out by this.

If Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (God I hate saying those names) couldn't force a theocracy, what makes you think this dimplehead can?

Even with todays "Christian" forces have their limits. Many think a little more Religion would help morals but a theocratic goverment? Not going to happen.

For all our "moral" talk, many people still have the vices ;)

Impeachment for what might I ask?

I consider myself a gunnut (Owner of an M1, SKS, and 3 AK-47 style rifles) and if it comes time to start fighting, it's probably too late. Granted, 80 million gun owners will put up a helluva fight. That is why my money goes to the NRA and the GCA.

I'm pretty sure I have enough to equip a few people.

Yes, because all out violence is the answer to everything. :rolleyes:

I've posted something that further elucidates this but i don't have it on one of my disks, i'll have to post tomorrow .....

As is, punch up "Rolling Stone" and "Dominionists" - excellent article.

Names & faces ....

Someone also ref'd me to the "american taliban" ... maybe i'll give some quotes with that post. Or look it up ye'self ....

But i'll back it up.
And beware :

James Kennedy
Kenneth Tomlinson
Richard Land
of course, James Dobson

...i'm saddened by the short-sightedness, overt idiocy and syphilitic zealotry some of these people express of late, since some good has come from a few of them before ....

*BUMP*

I don't care if christians want it or not. It isn't up to them. Freedom of expression. It doesn't matter if there is hidden sex or not (I think the game should of kept its "Mature rating" instead of being rated "Adults Only"). I have GTA: San Andreas on my computer. unfortunatly the government doesn't agree with you for that GTA ruling.
and what, Christians have no right to add their voices in the government? and you blame them for squashing your rights.

I know these christians are not supporting gay marriage. These are the fundamentalist ones. again show where in the article their agenda against this. you are only assuming that they are Fundamentalists but I would rather wait for the real Political Debates when they do try to run for office.

Well let me make the correction right now: I believe these people are definitely fundamentalists.Thanks. :)

I don't want to be brought "back to god" and I don't want my rights destroyed by people "bringing this country back to god". What rights are destroyed. remember, there are Christians who also believe you are entitled to YOUR rights as well. how can you tell them apart from one short and sparse article.

That's not right. IF you think an atheist cannot love their fellow citizen then you have issues. If you think an atheist cannot help other people then you have issues. Atheists I encountered do a lot for other people.I never said an Athiest can't but it seems you can see that from an article that has no real information as to what they are doing. you are assuming much and alienating others when you should calm your fears and watch. be patient and when their stances are revealed, then move.

unfortunatly the government doesn't agree with you for that GTA ruling.
and what, Christians have no right to add their voices in the government? and you blame them for squashing your rights.

Again I can disagree with the government.

And I never said christians had nod right to voice their opinions. I just said they cannot infringe on other people because that violates rights.

again show where in the article their agenda against this. you are only assuming that they are Fundamentalists but I would rather wait for the real Political Debates when they do try to run for office.

The article stated that.

What rights are destroyed. remember, there are Christians who also believe you are entitled to YOUR rights as well. how can you tell them apart from one short and sparse article.

There are many christians who do not believe that. And I'm not christian, therefore I don't want religion in government. That violates my rights.

you are assuming much and alienating others when you should calm your fears and watch. be patient and when their stances are revealed, then move.

You are the one alienating atheists and non-christian people.

Did you read the Larry Flynt quote I put up?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Beliefs/story?id=1040207

"Parker spoke out against gay marriage: "For the family to be as healthy as possible, there needs to be a mother and father in the home." "

Yes, because all out violence is the answer to everything. :rolleyes:

I was actually thinking last resort. If they're willing to take away your right to keep and bear arms, what about the rest of the BOR? Right to privacy? Free speech? Right to no unreasonably searches?

I've posted something that further elucidates this but i don't have it on one of my disks, i'll have to post tomorrow .....

As is, punch up "Rolling Stone" and "Dominionists" - excellent article.

Names & faces ....

Someone also ref'd me to the "american taliban" ... maybe i'll give some quotes with that post. Or look it up ye'self ....

But i'll back it up.
And beware :

James Kennedy
Kenneth Tomlinson
Richard Land
of course, James Dobson

...i'm saddened by the short-sightedness, overt idiocy and syphilitic zealotry some of these people express of late, since some good has come from a few of them before ....

*BUMP*

I haven't heard of the other guys, but James Dobson is actually really cool. Focus on the family is a good organization dedicated to helping Families raise children, keep them strong in the faith, and bring them up RIGHT. No socialist crap there.

This is insane! The founder of a conservative, evangilical camp for teens is out of his mind. This guy is threatening everything America stands for. They openly advocate making America a theocracy. If these evangelicals get into the government, America as we know it, will be over.



http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Beliefs/story?id=1040207

If these people want a theocracy so bad, I say get out of America and form your own country.


...and that's a bad thing? Frankly, I sincerely hope they succeed in getting decent Christians into office.

I haven't heard of the other guys, but James Dobson is actually really cool. Focus on the family is a good organization dedicated to helping Families raise children, keep them strong in the faith, and bring them up RIGHT. No socialist crap there.

Focus on the Family is a deluded, sick organization that seeks to bash gay and lesbian people. I won't give them any respect. James Dobson makes my stomach turn.

...and that's a bad thing? Frankly, I sincerely hope they succeed in getting decent Christians into office.

It'll wipe out our rights (those who are not christian). It is a very bad thing.

Again I can disagree with the government.

And I never said christians had nod right to voice their opinions. I just said they cannot infringe on other people because that violates rights.true, and I will defend your right to disagree (in a non-violent manner) with the government. but by automatically saying you want to deny them their chance at politics is infringing against their rights also.

The article stated that. qote please

There are many christians who do not believe that. And I'm not christian, therefore I don't want religion in government. That violates my rights.many |= all. and as long as the constitution is upheld, it won't. however, untill then, you cannot activly deny their rights for that makes you guilty of the crime you are assuming they will commit.

You are the one alienating atheists and non-christian people.I'm not the one automatically assuming that all christians (before you corrected yourself) want to stop equal rights. I'm the one telling you that there are Christians out there that also support Equal Rights.

Did you read the Larry Flynt quote I put up?Yep but not relivant, because this country is still a Democracy. There are tools in place to prevent or at least delay oppression, but it's still Majority rules. the majority elect the representatives to do what they think the will of their constituants want. if they are right, they get re-elected, if they are wrong, they don't.

It'll wipe out our rights (those who are not christian). It is a very bad thing.
There you go again.

Neo R said "Decent Christians" not fundies. again who's alienating whom.

true, and I will defend your right to disagree (in a non-violent manner) with the government. but by automatically saying you want to deny them their chance at politics is infringing against their rights also.

I'm not saying they should be denied their chances at politics. So please stop misstating what I said. All I said is they cannot push their morality on me by legalisation.

qote please

Re-read my post. I put the quote up there.

however, untill then, you cannot activly deny their rights for that makes you guilty of the crime you are assuming they will commit.

I'm not denying them their rights. YOu need to stop misstating what I said and misstating the facts. Actually what I said was this: They can run for office, but if they win and try to push their morality on me that'll violate my rights.


Yep but not relivant, because this country is still a Democracy. There are tools in place to prevent or at least delay oppression, but it's still Majority rules. the majority elect the representatives to do what they think the will of their constituants want. if they are right, they get re-elected, if they are wrong, they don't.

No. It is very relevant.. especially to this issue. There are tools in place to prevent tyranny of the majority. So please, don't make these assumptions.

There you go again.

Neo R said "Decent Christians" not fundies. again who's alienating whom.

For neo.. decent christians are fundiamentalist christians.

The bible is all true right?


*( ill keep it short and sweet )*
Who here beleaves incest is bad genetically and moraly?
Adam and Eve had 2 boys and 3 girls right?
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT... not only is it a sin i guess but it would make the children retarded... why arent we drooling out of our asses?

another
Noahs Arc

ok this guy had to build a ship and put 2 of every animal? WOW first off THATS A REALLY HUGE BOAT!!! i dont know if we could do that today with our tech.
but ok lets give him that one...
Lets say the boat was built in either Europe or the Middle East... ok
what about the animals in North and South America... how did they travel that far? + did they swim...?

this just F***s up the bible thumpers who say the Bible is all factual.

It'll wipe out our rights (those who are not christian). It is a very bad thing.



No, that would be unconstitutional. The worst-case scenario for you is the re-illegalization of sodomy, which, in my opinion (which can be regarded as fact in this case :p ), needs to be done anyway. SCOTUS just can't make up their minds about sodomy laws, can they? :D

No, that would be unconstitutional. The worst-case scenario for you is the re-illegalization of sodomy, which, in my opinion (which can be regarded as fact in this case :p ), needs to be done anyway. SCOTUS just can't make up their minds about sodomy laws, can they? :D

It won't happen and will stay legal. It will be kept legal because the government has no right to know what I do in my bedroom. And it would be illegal. And even if it was made illegal how the hell would they enforce it?

Sodomy laws were wiped off the books by the way.

So..how does having a mock political "debate" with people who hold the exact same views as you prepare you for the real world...?

I don't care there're Christians (or any other religious person) in the government, but when they view them selves as "soldiers" in some sort of holy crusade to "bring America back to God", that worries me... A lot.

:sniper:
"We are God's representatives, Earthly agents o' divine punishment. Oor mission is tae destroy doon tae the last wee bit thae fools wha' would oppose oor God. Amen." -Father "Paladin" Anderson ;)

O_O

dude...

Our fore fathers designed our nation to exclude religion becuase of how badly messed up Europe was becuase of christianity.

these bible thumpers are AS BAD as Radical Islam.

For neo.. decent christians are fundiamentalist christians.
...

no arguments there. :p

The bible is all true right?


*( ill keep it short and sweet )*
Who here beleaves incest is bad genetically and moraly?
Adam and Eve had 2 boys and 3 girls right?
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT... not only is it a sin i guess but it would make the children retarded... why arent we drooling out of our asses?

another
Noahs Arc

ok this guy had to build a ship and put 2 of every animal? WOW first off THATS A REALLY HUGE BOAT!!! i dont know if we could do that today with our tech.
but ok lets give him that one...
Lets say the boat was built in either Europe or the Middle East... ok
what about the animals in North and South America... how did they travel that far? + did they swim...?

this just F***s up the bible thumpers who say the Bible is all factual.




1. Incest was necessary to propagate the species, and was not declared sinful until the Levitical laws were implemented. Also, you can assume we were a pretty pure species at our inception, as it states we were created in God's own image (which implies a virtually perfect form).

2. It was a huge boat, take the measurements, and also realize that it wouldn't be that hard to fit two of every species (note: not breed, but species) plus the few extras needed for sacrifice.

3. He had over a hundred years to gather them, and some theories are that the plate tectonics originated with the Flood, therefore the animals might not have been seperated like you believe.

Our fore fathers designed our nation to exclude religion becuase of how badly messed up Europe was becuase of christianity.

these bible thumpers are AS BAD as Radical Islam.



They never designed our nation to exclude religion, they designed it so that no official state religion could be established, but that's for an entirely different thread ;)

Hey neo.. you never answered my question about sodomy.

It won't happen and will stay legal. It will be kept legal because the government has no right to know what I do in my bedroom. And it would be illegal. And even if it was made illegal how the hell would they enforce it?

Sodomy laws were wiped off the books by the way.



The right to privacy does not necessarily include all sex acts, lest paedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, and Lord knows what else became legal. Which is why sodomy laws existed in the first place, and will exist once again when the liberal justices die out and get replaced by conservative ones

The right to privacy does not necessarily include all sex acts, lest paedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, and Lord knows what else became legal. Which is why sodomy laws existed in the first place, and will exist once again when the liberal justices die out and get replaced by conservative ones

I'm doing this with a partner that can consent and is over the age of 18. Sodomy laws were illogical and dangerous to rights and they couldn't be enforced properly anyways. As far as I see it this country is becoming more open to gay rights. Again what I do with my partner has nothing to do with pedophilia, necrophilia or beastiality.

For neo.. decent christians are fundiamentalist christians.



Not really, I regard many Christians as decent. As long as they follow what they believe the Bible says and do not try to distort its words to fit their own agendas, I respect them, as long as they strive to follow the will of God, Christ, and Christ's ordained, I respect them.

I'm doing this with a partner that can consent and is over the age of 18. Sodomy laws were illogical and dangerous to rights and they couldn't be enforced properly anyways. As far as I see it this country is becoming more open to gay rights. Again what I do with my partner has nothing to do with pedophilia, necrophilia or beastiality.



Technically, homosexual sex could be outlawed as a health hazard. After all, sodomy is not a healthy act, as the anus was not designed to take that kind of penetration.

Technically, homosexual sex could be outlawed as a health hazard. After all, sodomy is not a healthy act, as the anus was not designed to take that kind of penetration.

This is wrong in all counts. Homosexual sex is not a health hazard (most STDs are spread by heterosexuals). Again, does that mean we outlaw heterosexual sex? I'm perfectly healthy and I have plenty of sex with my boyfriend.

No, that would be unconstitutional. The worst-case scenario for you is the re-illegalization of sodomy, which, in my opinion (which can be regarded as fact in this case :p ), needs to be done anyway. SCOTUS just can't make up their minds about sodomy laws, can they? :D


They can -- in that they can strike down any law that is unconstitutional. Additionally, any law that would elevate ::Christianity:: as the law of the land would be unconstitutional as per Amendment I:

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In other words -- you may practice Christianity and be welcome to it. You may choose not to practice any religion at all. You may choose to practice a non-Christian religion freely. What the government cannot do is say, "Protestantism/Catholicism/Judaism/Islam/BettyBoopism is now the state religion, and our laws will now be based on the precepts of that religion."

You know what? I AM a Christian, and I think that's a damned good thing.

There is a misconception that one cannot speak about religion in public schools because of this Amendment. This is a misinterpretation. A teacher would be abusing his or her authority to place any one religion about any other as superior. However, one can allow for fair and balanced discussion about and study of various world religions, and indeed, some of the most productive and fascinating classes were some in which my students brought their own moral/religious perspectives -- as vastly different as you can imagine -- to discussions of characters and their motivation, and how cultural differences affected their perception of the literature.

I'm not saying they should be denied their chances at politics. So please stop misstating what I said. All I said is they cannot push their morality on me by legalisation.and I am saying to be careful that you don't turn into what you are fighting against. Pushing your Morality on them.

Re-read my post. I put the quote up there.
the one about bringing the country back to God. again if you assume that it's fundies who are speaking, then it does sound like oppression. but if you bear in mind a rational and equality loving christian saying that. then it brings to mind a different meaning. and because you state you are not a christian, I can see where you might be automatically assuming the Fundies methods and goals.

As you say, even Athiests are kind hearted and giving. but look at the news, children being killed by children. Drug use on the rise, immorality by all standards going up. I can remember a time when Metal detectors in Schools were flights of fantasy. now they are becoming more frequent. gangs of kids roaming the streets attacking strangers and emailing videos of it to their friends. Is this right in your eyes?

I hope not.

I'm not denying them their rights. YOu need to stop misstating what I said and misstating the facts. Actually what I said was this: They can run for office, but if they win and try to push their morality on me that'll violate my rights. but you are assuming that they are fundies, and therefore out to squash your rights.



No. It is very relevant.. especially to this issue. There are tools in place to prevent tyranny of the majority. So please, don't make these assumptions.you are the one assuming that they get into office your rights are squashed. not me.

and I am saying to be careful that you don't turn into what you are fighting against. Pushing your Morality on them.

You don't know what I believe apparently. I'm not pushing my morality on anyone. I'm simply saying they cannot push legalisation that limits my rights.

but if you bear in mind a rational and equality loving christian saying that. then it brings to mind a different meaning. and because you state you are not a christian, I can see where you might be automatically assuming the Fundies methods and goals.

These are fundamentalist goals. They can preach about god all they want, but they cannot pass legalisation that makes this country theocratic like Iran.

but look at the news, children being killed by children. Drug use on the rise, immorality by all standards going up. I can remember a time when Metal detectors in Schools were flights of fantasy. now they are becoming more frequent. gangs of kids roaming the streets attacking strangers and emailing videos of it to their friends. Is this right in your eyes?

I posted an article showing that drug use in schools is actually declining. The murder rate and violent crime rate in this country is down. Crime as a whole is down. Gangs have been around for a long time. So what? This country was more dangerous during the 1980s, then it is now.

Christianity doesn't solve anything.

Law and Order does (like that of what Rudy Giulani did in New York City)

Our country was founded as a "christian nation". That doesn't mean that its purpose was to force everyone into the christain faith or to discrimminate other religions or even to have a church run goverment. Anybody that doesn't realize that is a blind idoit who only wants to see things a certain way. Just look at the evidence. Ever heard of, "In God we trust" or how about, "One nation under God" , just to state the blunt obvious! The more you dig into our history you see the extend to which we set out to be a country with Godly morals and a way of life. I'd bet hardly anyone reading this would know that a high percentage of the contential convention were ordaned ministers. Or that an american missionary society was founded by Ben Franklin.
Its time that someone cares enough about out country to wanna take it back for what it was. Its a very noble thing in my opinion! Its time that we stop trying to shove God outta of our goverment and schools. I'd bet that few of you know that when prayer was taken out of schools in the 60's that SAT scores fell by 60%! and they are still dropping. Kinnda of odd quensidence if ya ask me!
Im all for the "christain camps". I pray that some good people like them make it to DC soon!

Our country was founded as a "christian nation". That doesn't mean that its purpose was to force everyone into the christain faith or to discrimminate other religions or even to have a church run goverment. Anybody that doesn't realize that is a blind idoit who only wants to see things a certain way. Just look at the evidence. Ever heard of, "In God we trust" or how about, "One nation under God" , just to state the blunt obvious! The more you dig into our history you see the extend to which we set out to be a country with Godly morals and a way of life. I'd bet hardly anyone reading this would know that a high percentage of the contential convention were ordaned ministers. Or that an american missionary society was founded by Ben Franklin.

Actually according to Chapter 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli ratified in 1797, this nation is not in anyway a christian country. Those mottos on currency for example are unconstitutional and I've been advocating for their removal for a long time. This country is not a godly country. There are people in this country who are atheists, and should have their views respected. Atheists can have morals too you know.


I'd bet that few of you know that when prayer was taken out of schools in the 60's that SAT scores fell by 60%! and they are still dropping. Kinnda of odd quensidence if ya ask me!

Proof?

You talk about SAT scores.. it seems you have a bit of a problem with spelling..

Our country was founded as a "christian nation". That doesn't mean that its purpose was to force everyone into the christain faith or to discrimminate other religions or even to have a church run goverment. Anybody that doesn't realize that is a blind idoit who only wants to see things a certain way. Just look at the evidence. Ever heard of, "In God we trust" or how about, "One nation under God" , just to state the blunt obvious! The more you dig into our history you see the extend to which we set out to be a country with Godly morals and a way of life. I'd bet hardly anyone reading this would know that a high percentage of the contential convention were ordaned ministers. Or that an american missionary society was founded by Ben Franklin.
Its time that someone cares enough about out country to wanna take it back for what it was. Its a very noble thing in my opinion! Its time that we stop trying to shove God outta of our goverment and schools. I'd bet that few of you know that when prayer was taken out of schools in the 60's that SAT scores fell by 60%! and they are still dropping. Kinnda of odd quensidence if ya ask me!
Im all for the "christain camps". I pray that some good people like them make it to DC soon!

I'm curious: is yours a solely Christian education?

You don't know what I believe apparently. I'm not pushing my morality on anyone. I'm simply saying they cannot push legalisation that limits my rights.and they can't Not untill they get a Constitutional Amendment passed and i really don't see that happening while you're alive.

These are fundamentalist goals. They can preach about god all they want, but they cannot pass legalisation that makes this country theocratic like Iran.and I agree

I posted an article showing that drug use in schools is actually declining. The murder rate and violent crime rate in this country is down. Crime as a whole is down. Gangs have been around for a long time. So what? This country was more dangerous during the 1980s, then it is now.actually yes, look at their activites,

Christianity doesn't solve anything.if you give it a chance, It will surprise you.

Law and Order does (like that of what Rudy Giulani did in New York City) you mean this Rudy Giulani?

Exerpt from Times man of the year story. http://www.time.com/time/poy2001/poyprofile.html

Bolding mine.

Yet Giuliani still wrestles mightily with his faith, with the question of whether events happen randomly or according to a divine plan. "I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I really admire the widows who have this perfect, simple religious faith. I go back and forth about it. Sometimes I resolve it as destiny--it just happens, you have no control over it, there's no reason to get too afraid of it because you have to go ahead and do what you have to do. And then sometimes I have this feeling that it is part of God's plan, allowing us to work out who we are as human beings. He gives people the room to make choices like the ones the heroes made, the people that saved other people, or the evil choices that were also made."
Law and Order... and Faith.

and he allows people their choice.

I say, don't jump to conclusions, but watch.

you mean this Rudy Giulani?

Exerpt from Times man of the year story. http://www.time.com/time/poy2001/poyprofile.html

Bolding mine.


Law and Order... and Faith.

and he allows people their choice.

I say, don't jump to conclusions, but watch.

You are jumping to conclusions on Giulani.

I propose methods of law and order. That doesn't mean faith gets involved (I'm atheist don't need any). He is pro-gay rights (and pro-gay marriage I believe).

You are jumping to conclusions on Giulani.

I propose methods of law and order. That doesn't mean faith gets involved (I'm atheist don't need any). He is pro-gay rights (and pro-gay marriage I believe).
I'm jumping to conclusions on Giuliani? that is from Times, did you click on the link?
And being pro-gay nullifies his Christian beliefs? Since when?
And the man you brought forth still has his heart for God. Yet you didn't know that. Did you assume that since he was pro gay he wasn't a Christian? His love and faith is as strong as anyone else's, his ethics morals and faith helped him through some of the worst times anyone can go though, if you read the entire article, miracles do and did happen.
He is an example of (to borrow Neo R's words) a Decent Christian in politics.
He used Law and Order to turn his city around, and he was a Christian also.

jesus christ in heaven!!

i'm a devout catholic, seriously. i'm a registered democrat as well. i think this is sheer loonacy. government is a public institution and as long as this is true government should be secular.

i'm against abortion and somewhat aginst gay marrage(in the sense that the Church shouldnt ever have to conduct such abominations). although these are my beliefs, i believe that not everyone shares my beliefs.

i believe that God endowed humanity with free will so that humans could conduct reason based on the free will and mind of each individual.

having said that i believe that it is my duty as a Catholic to enlighten and guide those who have erroneous views so that they may someday realize what God wants.

it pains me to see these un-ecumenical fools ruining christianity. this is one of the reasons why christianity will never truly dominate the world. (the protestants are too stupid.)

*prays* oh lord, smite the mormons and silence the evangelicals that with such noble and mighty action thou mayest liberate your Church from raving morons. *prays*

I gotta go, Mesatecala, it was fun talking with you.

Aloha.

I'm jumping to conclusions on Giuliani? that is from Times, did you click on the link?
And being pro-gay (and gay himself I believe) nullifies his Christian beliefs? Since when?
And the man you brought forth still has his heart for God. Yet you didn't know that. Did you assume that since he was gay he wasn't a Christian? His love and faith is as strong as anyone else's his ethics morals and faith helped him through some of the worst times anyone can go though, if you read the entire article, miracles do and did happen.
He is an example of (to borrow Neo R's words) a Decent Christian in politics.
He used Law and Order to turn his city around, and he was a Christian also.

Giulani is gay? I don't think so. And he's a good guy because he doesn't let his personal religious views get into public policy moves. I'm just saying one can be atheist, and be pro-law and order... you're full of it.

jesus christ in heaven!!

i'm a devout catholic, seriously. i'm a registered democrat as well. i think this is sheer loonacy. government is a public institution and as long as this is true government should be secular.

i'm against abortion and somewhat aginst gay marrage(in the sense that the Church shouldnt ever have to conduct such abominations). although these are my beliefs, i believe that not everyone shares my beliefs.

i believe that God endowed humanity with free will so that humans could conduct reason based on the free will and mind of each individual.

having said that i believe that it is my duty as a Catholic to enlighten and guide those who have erroneous views so that they may someday realize what God wants.

it pains me to see these un-ecumenical fools ruining christianity. this is one of the reasons why christianity will never truly dominate the world. (the protestants are too stupid.)

*prays* oh lord, smite the mormons and silence the evangelicals that with such noble and mighty action thou mayest liberate your Church from raving morons. *prays*



On a side note, Catholicism was the first true heresy :p

Giulani is gay? I don't think so. And he's a good guy because he doesn't let his personal religious views get into public policy moves. I'm just saying one can be atheist, and be pro-law and order... you're full of it.my mistake, mis-read one paragraph. He isn't. Easily edited tho.

and I never said you had to be christian, just trying to show you that you really cannot know untill the time comes.

On a side note, Catholicism was the first true heresy

specify.

my mistake, mis-read one paragraph. He isn't. Easily edited tho.

and I never said you had to be christian, just trying to show you that you really cannot know untill the time comes.

I just don't think you're logical.

I just don't think you're logical.
that is your viewpoint. unfortunatly, my viewpoint of your arguments are the same.

shall we then break off peacefully on this subject?

So, you're saying that people shouldn't be able to run for office because of religion. And you think that is an American ideal?

YES. It's called "separation of church and state". VEry American ideal..

So, you're saying that people shouldn't be able to run for office because of religion. And you think that is an American ideal?

no i dont but if you think that america can be safely run by a single religion your stoned or drunk because in every relegion they believe there god is right
well that dosent leave much room for the rights of any other religion

On a side note, Catholicism was the first true heresy :p


Catholicism was the first Christian sect to be founded (by St. Peter in 42 AD), so how can it be a heresy? You need to learn to stop stating opinion as if it were fact, little girl. :rolleyes:

On a side note, Catholicism was the first true heresy :p
That makes all the other Christian religions, barring orthodox, even further heresy?

I have rights too, and this group wants to see my rights flushed down the toilet.


I can see where you would be upset. The beauty of America is that while I am a fundamental christain and don't necessarily agree with everyone's lifestyle and sometimes think the whole nation is headed to hell in a handbasket they have the right to live how they please. I realize that. Christains also have the right to have opinions and lifestyles that you don't like either. Most of the Christains that I know do realize that it is a bad idea to try to legislate a belief system. America is built on the premise that we should have freedom of religion (or lack of for that matter)
I could seriously argue that there are groups in the majority now that are trying to see my rights as a christian taken away too.
but you wouldn't want to hear that would you?

I can see where you would be upset. The beauty of America is that while I am a fundamental christain and don't necessarily agree with everyone's lifestyle and sometimes think the whole nation is headed to hell in a handbasket they have the right to live how they please. I realize that. Christains also have the right to have opinions and lifestyles that you don't like either. Most of the Christains that I know do realize that it is a bad idea to try to legislate a belief system. America is built on the premise that we should have freedom of religion (or lack of for that matter)
I could seriously argue that there are groups in the majority now that are trying to see my rights as a christian taken away too.
but you wouldn't want to hear that would you?

Oh yes. Please live the way you want. Just don't push your way of life on me.

Oh yes. Please live the way you want. Just don't push your way of life on me.
ditto. I think that it would be very wrong for the government to legislate religion it is a very personal thing. Government has no place in it. I am not sure that I agree that religion has no place in government but it is a very fine line and a very slippery slope. so yeah in the interest of protecting rights the government should remain secular. I guess my whole thing was that Christains shouldn't be excluded from public service just because they are christains. We are not all as crazy and prohibitive as some might have you believe.

I could seriously argue that there are groups in the majority now that are trying to see my rights as a christian taken away too.
but you wouldn't want to hear that would you?

I agree, expect for this part. Please argue why you think this.

I guess my whole thing was that Christains shouldn't be excluded from public service just because they are christains. We are not all as crazy and prohibitive as some might have you believe.

Um, if I'm part of that particular public service, I don't think the christian religion should be included and imposed on me. Again I say keep all government places secular.

And as far as that second sentence goes with the crazy and prohibitive part.. well.. I make up my own mind about fundamentalists.

I agree, expect for this part. Please argue why you think this.
I suppose I am paranoid. There have been times in my life where I have felt unduely persecuted, especially since I do live in America. For example in high school I was not allowed to wear Christain shirts to school or bring my bible because it might offend an athiest student. I didn't want to offend anyone I assure you nor was I trying to convert anyone either, I just wanted the freedom to wear what I wanted. I called the ACLU but they were unwilling to help me, and from what I have seen them doing lately I have come to the conclusion that it is because I am a Christian.
I feel that a lot of society looks down on fundamentalist christains as crazys and nutjobs.
but like I said could just be paraniod delusions.

Um, if I'm part of that particular public service, I don't think the christian religion should be included and imposed on me. Again I say keep all government places secular.

And as far as that second sentence goes with the crazy and prohibitive part.. well.. I make up my own mind about fundamentalists.

Again I am not talking about any religion being part of the government or imposing anything on you. I am talking about my fear of people being discriminated against because of thier religion.
I do not know how to state this any clearer.

There you go again.

Neo R said "Decent Christians" not fundies. again who's alienating whom.

What Neo calls "Decent Christians;" everybody else calls fundis.

I'm curious: is yours a solely Christian education?

I was just going to ask the same thing. So chucks hill what's the answer?

While we are at it, did you use to be Grays Hill?

I believe the movement is manipulated by neo-cons and big business which only futher deteriorates "values". In short, its idiots being led by corruption.

specify.

Don't mind her. She thinks Leviticus is still valid.....

Technically, homosexual sex could be outlawed as a health hazard. After all, sodomy is not a healthy act, as the anus was not designed to take that kind of penetration.
Yeah, massive reduction in prostate cancer rates is obviously a health hazard. Anal sex only results in injury if you do it wrong.

Thought I'd make my first post before I start work, viewing the topic from across the pond in Wales (Wales UK not Wales, England!).

I'm unsurprised yet saddened at how vitriolic some of the posts are.
Unsurprised because what is viewed as Christianity in both USA and UK is a pretty poor advertisement. Christianity can never be something that you keep to yourself. It's a liberating experience and you want others to have the opportunity to experience it. It is basically a choice. The problem in USA - and is coming into the UK is that evangelical Christians are being pushed into radical action. Society (USA and UK) has for so long disregarded Christians that they see no alternative but to - in the best meaning of the word - fight back.

One suggestion that the Christians should go off and form their own country wouldn't work because we Christians would disagree over how it should be run. When it all boils down to it we have a country of our own - it's called Heaven but we won't be moving there until our time on earth is accomplished. America never was a democracy. Neither is the UK. Would I like a theocracy? No - better a free society in which all views can be expressed but in which consideration is shown for those who object to a particular view.

Yeah, massive reduction in prostate cancer rates is obviously a health hazard. Anal sex only results in injury if you do it wrong.

Yep. And if you do it right with a condom it feels really good... does it really help reduce prostate cancer rates?

evangelical Christians are being pushed into radical action. Society (USA and UK) has for so long disregarded Christians that they see no alternative but to - in the best meaning of the word - fight back.


I never understood that.

E. Christian: Have you found Jesus?
Me: I didn't know he was lost?
E. Christian: Don't you want to save yourself from eternal damnation?
Me: Sorry, I don't believe in organized religion anymore.
E. Christian: But you will.....
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

No thank you means no thank you. Move on to the next person who will want to listen. Hard selling just make me tell you to get TFO.

Ahh well......

When one religion calls all the shots in a nation, what do you get? Zealotry and corruption.

You'd think the Protestant Fundies would have remembered that lesson from the Catholic Church and the Reformation.

What's the big freaking deal? One of America's core ideals is that anyone with a felony-free record can run for public office. Another one is that people have the freedom to express their beliefs. People in the federal government use it all the time. You do too. Don't you think that not wanting Evangelical Christians to run for office is slightly wrong? That's just as bad as saying that blacks shouldn't hold public office becaust they look funny or that Japanese, since they all wear coke-bottle glasses and have buck teeth, cannot be trusted with a seat in the cabinet.

Notice how extremely prejudiced that sounded? That's what it sounds like when you say things about Christians.

Remember, just because the Evangelical Christians may be somewhat annoying to you doesn't mean that you have to say all the kinds of crap you guys are saying about them. I, personally, can't make sense of atheism, but I don't say a lot of bad things about them. It's their choice to be atheists, and I have no say in what they do, as they don't have any say in my choice of religion (which just so happens to be pretty devout Christian).

This is insane! The founder of a conservative, evangilical camp for teens is out of his mind. This guy is threatening everything America stands for. They openly advocate making America a theocracy. If these evangelicals get into the government, America as we know it, will be over.



http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Beliefs/story?id=1040207

If these people want a theocracy so bad, I say get out of America and form your own country.

You like America as you know it? Or do you like the kind of life you live? Because they are slightly different concepts.....

Yep. And if you do it right with a condom it feels really good... does it really help reduce prostate cancer rates?I heard that's the case for any male ejaculations.

I just wonder whether all you psychos who are freaked out about this also get freaked out about the happenings of College Replublicans and College Democrats? Or how about the rallies of the Green Party or the sort? They're all the same thing. People teaching young adults the views which their lifestyle would accept. So in this case it's idiotic religous based views instead of the idiocy of a political parties. OOOhhhh, I'm real scared that these kids are ALL gonna be running our government. Sorry to say this but here in Cincinnati, we vote, and we keep fanatics out like that.

1. Incest was necessary to propagate the species, and was not declared sinful until the Levitical laws were implemented. Also, you can assume we were a pretty pure species at our inception, as it states we were created in God's own image (which implies a virtually perfect form).
So basically, if we had something in us that made us imperfect, then we wouldn't be in God's own image? Like having something completely worthless in our bodies that endangers us from time to time? Like an appendix, maybe? Evolution has an explanation for it, that we are perfect does not explain it.
I'm sorry if I come across as a Bible-basher, but some parts of it just weren't meant for literal interpretation.
(And incest does not create the genetic diversity needed for a healthy species, Neo R... If you really want to, you can deny the Irish potatoe famine)

2. It was a huge boat, take the measurements, and also realize that it wouldn't be that hard to fit two of every species (note: not breed, but species) plus the few extras needed for sacrifice.Neo, wood isn't a good substance for building the ark as big as it was. Read about it here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html). This is not an offensive site. There's no viable reason not to.

3. He had over a hundred years to gather them, and some theories are that the plate tectonics originated with the Flood, therefore the animals might not have been seperated like you believe.No he didn't. Noah didn't grow much older than what would have been expected at the time. The reason he's so much older is because people at the time used far different calendars than we use today. Years passed much faster because they weren't reckoned the same way.
And please read the link above. Theories remain theories because they haven't been proven wrong, and a literal interpretation of the flood has been. Plate tectonics do not occur simply because a lot of water suddenly rained down. Saying something like that is an insult to any respectable geologist.

Very true Laerod. Most Christian denominations don't believe in literally interpretting the Bible. Only the weird ones do. Hell, even the Catholic Church has taking such beliefs as evolution directed from God which obviously contradicts literal interpretation of the Bible.

Very true Laerod. Most Christian denominations don't believe in literally interpretting the Bible. Only the weird ones do. Hell, even the Catholic Church has taking such beliefs as evolution directed from God which obviously contradicts literal interpretation of the Bible.

Tsk. If everybody stopped taking the Bible literally then God's word would become redundant as everybody can choose to interpret it to what they think God is thinking. While I agree that some of the Bible are written in metaphor, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is credible.

Tsk. If everybody stopped taking the Bible literally then God's word would become redundant as everybody can choose to interpret it to what they think God is thinking. While I agree that some of the Bible are written in metaphor, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is credible.That was one of the issues with Luther separating from the catholic church... :D
My opinion is that people wrote the bible and people were not around to see creation (at least not the ones that wrote the bible). If they were capable of giving any true account of creation, it would require some divine being "showing" it to them. This wouldn't take 6 billion years. 7 days is a rather good time to relate the entire story of creation. And I wouldn't expect whoever wrote it down to use scientific language. If there was nothingness and suddenly the Big Bang occurred, "Let there be light" is probably one of the most impressive statements someone could have made at the time.

Tsk. If everybody stopped taking the Bible literally then God's word would become redundant as everybody can choose to interpret it to what they think God is thinking. While I agree that some of the Bible are written in metaphor, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is credible.

See, I never mean to disregard the BIble, I probably more of a believer than anyone else on NS, but I also do it wisely. It's just that people are often to blind to see the forest instead only of the tree in front of them. To believe everything in the Bible, individually, holds some deep meaning is incorrect. God had a reason for the combination of books to be there, no one of them can act independently. People CANNOT look at one small passage and claim to know what God meant, they can only use it as inspiration.

See, I never mean to disregard the BIble, I probably more of a believer than anyone else on NS, but I also do it wisely. It's just that people are often to blind to see the forest instead only of the tree in front of them. To believe everything in the Bible, individually, holds some deep meaning is incorrect. God had a reason for the combination of books to be there, no one of them can act independently. People CANNOT look at one small passage and claim to know what God meant, they can only use it as inspiration.

That's why the Bible is a major subject for study and that churches are there to help.

That's why the Bible is a major subject for study and that churches are there to help.

I should also let you know that I'm Catholic, and that often I feel that churches are there for guidance not help.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Beliefs/story?id=1040207
.

It's pathetic as it just shows how ignorant and closed minded they are, mouthing sound bite slogans with little if any understanding of world around them, nothing challenging them to abstract...

It's Poom Poom's playground, nothing more.... :(

1. Incest was necessary to propagate the species, and was not declared sinful until the Levitical laws were implemented. Also, you can assume we were a pretty pure species at our inception, as it states we were created in God's own image (which implies a virtually perfect form).

2. It was a huge boat, take the measurements, and also realize that it wouldn't be that hard to fit two of every species (note: not breed, but species) plus the few extras needed for sacrifice.

3. He had over a hundred years to gather them, and some theories are that the plate tectonics originated with the Flood, therefore the animals might not have been seperated like you believe.

And the Earth is Flat!

Amestria']It's pathetic as it just shows how ignorant and closed minded they are, mouthing sound bite slogans with little if any understanding of world around them, nothing challenging them to abstract...

It's Poom Poom's playground, nothing more.... :(

I agree, it's stupid ideology for politics, but should they be criticized for preparing their young adults?

I should also let you know that I'm Catholic, and that often I feel that churches are there for guidance not help.
Guidance is a kind of help.

I had zero (and I mean zero as in none), but I felt no inclination to lend support or attack the literal interpretation of the biblical stories, not until this post (quoted below) anyway. It was meant to debunk it but instead, actually just espoused a bunch of non-proofs as reasons and arguments disguised as scientific rationale in opposition of the literal interpretations...

So basically, if we had something in us that made us imperfect, then we wouldn't be in God's own image? Like having something completely worthless in our bodies that endangers us from time to time? Like an appendix, maybe? Evolution has an explanation for it, that we are perfect does not explain it.

That’s not an argument. That’s not proof of anything. You seem to assume, and thus suggest, that we agree with the proposition that the appendix once had a purpose that it no longer serves…Here’s a link to a exercise in the theory around the appendix and appendicitis … http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/senescence/appendix_zimmer_2005.html

Now I’m not suggesting that the appendix does anything that anyone would consider ‘required,’ obviously it does not, but just like removing a gall bladder (something we do know what it does and we remove it regularly when it causes problems) removing something that requires no special restriction to the person afterwards does not prove that it doesn’t or didn’t serve a purpose. And if it ever did serve a purpose, then one cannot argue thereafter that this is proof of how it came to serve that purpose (design or random evolutionary dead end). So in the end, this doesn’t give us evidence for or against the origin theories.

I'm sorry if I come across as a Bible-basher, but some parts of it just weren't meant for literal interpretation.
(And incest does not create the genetic diversity needed for a healthy species, Neo R... If you really want to, you can deny the Irish potato famine)

What in the world does the potato famine have to do with genetic diversity? Perhaps you just meant it as an example of something that exists can be denied to be real but it can’t be made to not exist in actuality and affect. But the main point was genetic diversity, and what you suggested was in error. First cousins (in the case of the Noah example, where the Father and Sons and their spouses were involved) there are more than enough genetically diverse samples to sustain a species. Provided that each male only inseminates with only one female, to avoid the problems they have with dogs and stock animal breeding when one male is used to inseminate ALL of the females of the breeding stock so that the offspring are not cousins, but half siblings. (As to the animals, it is done all the time, in the wild and in the lab, saying you shouldn't do it is not the same as saying it can't be done).

As to the Adam and Eve and the Genesis problem, Cain is said to have gone off and propagated with ‘giants’ (perhaps the ‘Jinn’ of the Bedouin oral history), and there would be the soon to occur ‘fallen angels of heaven that came down and has sex with the daughters of Man’ stuff going on, and yet I do not pretend to know the answer to whom procreated with whom. However, the technicality is, the point is, that we do not have to freely assume that the Bible/Torah/Genesis story requires the children to marry each other. It does not say that the children of Adam and Eve copulated with each other, we assume it (even rationally assume it, but we assume it all the same), and this is not proof. In the story, other possibilities exist.

Neo, wood isn't a good substance for building the ark as big as it was. Read about it here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html). This is not an offensive site. There's no viable reason not to.

Actually, that entire talkorigins organization is predisposed to assume evolution and non religious answers to every question (nothing wrong with that per-se) and their primary purpose IS to try and debunk religious answers to origin speculation (making it a basic attack site) against those of religious disposition, how could it not be offensive to those it attacks? Why would a scientific query even address those issues except to attack the religious doctrines of others?

However, back to the point, your wood ships can’t be that size argument is in error. There is no fundamental problem with building a one time use ship of that size out of wood. Ancient Norwegian and Chinese ship building methods showed that the size of a wooden ship was only restricted by the manpower require to move it and control it and the harbor requirements needed to dock it (neither of which would have been of concern to Noah in the story we are talking about). It is not an argument against to story simply by trying to suggest that the ship wouldn’t have worked because it could have.

No he didn't. Noah didn't grow much older than what would have been expected at the time. The reason he's so much older is because people at the time used far different calendars than we use today. Years passed much faster because they weren't reckoned the same way.

I used to ponder that idea as well, knowing that the ancient and stone age methodologies for measuring the annual cycles did vary (different number of months, and weeks etc.,), however, the annual cycle is determined my the solstices and any culture that tried to plant crops or regulate and sustain itself on a non solar event would quickly get itself into trouble. There is the possibility that a lunar calendar could be used in addition to a solar calendar, to mark the events of a religious nature, and perhaps personal holidays, but if so, in this case, why would we assume that the biblical scriptures used an actual solar year system for telling us how long a person worked or was king or any other secular event, but then when age was used it used a different system? The hypothesis is incomplete.

~~~~~

As to the topic of this thread, what exactly is it that is the problem here? How is it a bad thing that a group of people should encourage their young people to be ambition and aim high?

Boy Scouts, church sponsored summer camps and other youth groups like the YMCA/YWCA are good things, why would anyone suggest otherwise?

Ph33rdom thank you. I had originally decided not to comment on the current discussion because I am not very articulate. You however are and while I don't agree with everything you said, I do think that on the whole it was an intelligent statement.
anyway thank you for saying what I wasn't able to but really wanted to.

I must admit, I don't really do anything differently. I'm sure my MUN directors want all of us to be world leaders one day. They're just campaigning for their opinion. (Makes me wonder if they have any people pretend to disagree with them so they can see what that's like...)

To you, and previously: it is common in debate to assign topics based upon the most you disagree with them: and then get rated on how well you defended the position assigned to you. So yes, it is likely that they had people on "opposing" views.

My own church deals with introducing people to modern political topics via "debates"; and generally will assign those presenting the differeing views based upon their personal views being opposite of the point they defend.

The logic behind this tactic is, if you can defend an opinion you disagree with; then you will be more than capable of defending those opinions you hold most to.

Actually, that entire talkorigins organization is predisposed to assume evolution and non religious answers to every question (nothing wrong with that per-se) and their primary purpose IS to try and debunk religious answers to origin speculation (making it a basic attack site) against those of religious disposition, how could it not be offensive to those it attacks? Why would a scientific query even address those issues except to attack the religious doctrines of others?

Sorry talkorigins is for the discussion of physical and biological origins.

Attack site? :D :D :D :D :rolleyes:

The fact they "debunk" creationism is due to the fact, Christians have been trying to force themselves into the science classroom for years. Not everybody understands science so people need answers when they hear the creationist claims of "facts." The usenet group was founded for the purpose and it was shown people were trying to force creationism all over the place. It is still one of the most heavily used groups today.

If Christians don't want to feel "attacked" then they should'nt be trying to preech Religious Philosophy in the Science Classroom.

Actually according to Chapter 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli ratified in 1797, this nation is not in anyway a christian country. Those mottos on currency for example are unconstitutional and I've been advocating for their removal for a long time. This country is not a godly country. There are people in this country who are atheists, and should have their views respected. Atheists can have morals too you know.



Proof?

You talk about SAT scores.. it seems you have a bit of a problem with spelling..
Looks like i'm offering a *cookie* to Mesatecala. Good post.
It's nice to see i can agree with you on something.
*bows*

Our country was founded as a "christian nation".
No it wasn't. Get over it.
Not everyone deserves a twisted and self-contradicting altered *vicarious* reprint being their main source of feeling good about themselves and their gross misconceptions about how things beyond the mortal world work.

I heard that's the case for any male ejaculations.
Ejaculation reduces testicular cancer rates. Massaging the prostate (which happens during anal sex) reduces prostate cancer rates. Can't find my source, but it was posted on another thread some time back.

I haven't heard of the other guys, but James Dobson is actually really cool. Focus on the family is a good organization dedicated to helping Families raise children, keep them strong in the faith, and bring them up RIGHT. No socialist crap there.
Well, i actually was specifically meaning him when i said that a few of them had done good things in the past and it was a shame to see them turn into blubbering idiots over this kind of putrid zealotry.
I used to look forward to his short radio bits. Now i sigh.


-
Note the bottom line. Sagacious.
*ahem*

BACK CONSERVATIVE AGENDA OR LOSE COURT, EVANGELICAL LEADERS HINT
Peter Wallsten, L.A. Times (Week of April 23, 2005)

WASHINGTON – Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.
An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation’s most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.
The discussion took place during a Washington conference last month that included addresses by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who discussed efforts to bring a more conservative cast to the courts.
…
“There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and there’s more than one way to take a black robe off the bench,” said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, according to an audiotape of a March 17 session. The tapes was provided to the L.A. Times by the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
“We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse,” DeLay said at an April 13 question-and-answer session with reporters.
The leaders present at the March conference, including Perkins and James Dobson, founder of the influential group Focus on the Family, have been working with Frist to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations, a legislative tool that has allowed Senate Democrats to stall 10 of President Bush’s nominations.
Frist is scheduled to appear, via a taped statement, during a satellite broadcast to churches nationwide Sunday the Family Research Council has organized to build support for the Bush nominees.
…
“What they’re thinking of is not only the fact of just making these courts go away and re-creating them the next day but also defunding them,” Perkins said.
He said that instead of undertaking the long process of trying to impeach judges, Congress could use its appropriations authority to “just take away the bench, all of his staff, and he’s just sitting out there with nothing to do.”
These curbs on courts are “on the radar screen, especially of conservatives here in Congress,” he said.
Dobson, who emerged last year as one of the evangelical movement’s most important political leaders, named one potential target: the California-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court,” Dobson said. “They don’t have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn’t exist anymore, and it’s gone.”
…
A spokesman for DeLay declined to comment.
…
Claiming a role by the movement in the GOP gains, Dobson concluded: “We’ve got a right to hold them accountable for what happens here.”
…
Dobson chided Frist, a likely 2008 presidential contender, for not acting sooner on the filibuster issue, urging “conservatives all over the country” to tell Frist “that he needs to get on with it.”
Dobson also said Republicans risk inflicting long-term damage on their party if they fail to seize the moment - a time when Bush still has the momentum of his re-election victory – to transform the courts. He said they had just 18 months to act before Bush becomes a “lame-duck president.”
…
As part of the discussion, Perkins and Dobson referred to remarks by Dobson earlier this year at a congressional dinner in which he singled out the use by one group of the cartoon character SpongeBob Squarepants in a video that Dobson said promoted a homosexual agenda.
Dobson was ridiculed for his comments, which some critics interpreted to mean the evangelist had determined the cartoon character was gay.
Dobson said the beating he took in the media, coming after his appearance on the cover of newsmagazines hailing his prominence in Bush’s reelection, proved that press will only seek to tear him down.
“This will not be the last thing that you read about that makes me look ridiculous,” he said.

*ahem again*

The Crusaders - p.41-42 Rolling Stone April 21, 2005
...
Meet the Dominionists - biblical literalists who believe God has called them to take over the U.S. government. As the far-right wing of the evangelical movement, Dominionists are pressing an agenda that makes Newt Gingrich's Contract With America look like the Communist Manifesto. They want to rewrite schoolbooks to reflect a Christian version of American history, pack the nation's courts with judges who follow Old Testament law, post the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and make it a felony for gay men to have sex and women to have abortions. In Florida, when courts ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed, it was the Dominionists who organized round-the-clock protests and issued a fiery call for Gov. Jeb Bush to defy the law and take Schiavo into state custody. Their ultimate goal is to plant the seeds of a "faith-based" government that will endure far longer than Bush's presidency - all the way until Jesus comes back.
"most people hear them talk about a 'Christian nation' and think, 'Well, that sounds like a good, moral thing,' says the Rev. Mel White, who ghostwrote Jerry Falwell's autobiography before breaking with the evangelical movement. "What they don't know - what even most conservative Christians who voted for Bush don't know - is that 'Christian nation' means something else entirely to these Dominionist leaders. This movement is no more about following the example of Christ than Bush's Clean Water Act is about clean water."
The godfather of the Dominionists is D. James Kennedy, the most influential evangelical you've never heard of. A former Arthur Murray dance instructor, he launched his Florida ministry in 1959, when most evangelicals still followed Billy Graham's gospel of nonpartisan soul-saving. Kennedy built Coral Ridge Ministries into a #37 million-a-year empire, with a TV-and-radio audience of 3 million, by preaching that it was time to save America - not soul by soul but election by election. After helping found the Moral Majority in 1979, Kennedy became a five-star general in the Christian army. Bush sought his blessing before running for president - and continues to consult top Dominionists on matters of federal policy.
"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," Kennedy says. "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors - in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.
...
"We're going to turn you into an army of one," Gary Cass, executive director of Reclaiming America, promises activists at one workshop held in Evangalism Explosion Hall. The Dominionists also attend speeches by supporters like Rep. Katherine Harris of Florida, who urges them to "win back America for God."
...
"The First Amendment does not say there should be a separation of church and state," declares Alan Sears, president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a team of 750 attorneys, trained by the Dominionists to fight abortion and gay marriage.
..."We have a right, indeed an obligation, to govern," says David Limbaugh, brother of Rush and author of "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity."
..."Activist judges have systematically deconstructed the Constitution," roars Rick Scarborough, author of "Mixing Church and State." "A God-free society is their goal!"
Activist judges, of course, are precisely what the Dominionists want. Their model is Roy Moore, the former Alabama chief justice who installed a 5,300-pound granite memorial to the Ten Commandments, complete with an open Bible carved in its top, in the state judicial building.
...Activists at the conference pose for photographs beside the rock and have circulated a petition urging President Bush to appoint Moore - who once penned an opinion calling for the state to execute "practicing homosexuals" - to the U.S. Supreme Court.
...
It helps that Dominionists have a direct line to the White House: The Rev. Richard Land, top lobbyist for the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, enjoys a weekly conference call with top Bush advisors including Karl Rove. ... He takes particular aim at the threat posed by John Lennon, denouncing "Imagine" as a "secular anthem" that envisions a future of "clone plantations, child sacrifice, legalized polygamy and hard-core porn."
...
In the conference's opening ceremony, the Dominionists recite an oath they dream of hearing in every classroom: "I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe."
Cass urges conference-goers to stack school boards with Dominionists. "The most humble Christian is more qualified for office than the best-educated pagan," says Cass, an anti-abortion activist who ledd a takeover of his school district's board in San Diego.
...
Amway founder Rich DeVos, a Kennedy ally who's the leading Republican contender for governor of Michigan, has tossed more than $5 million into the collection plate. Jean Case, wife of former AOL chief Steve Case – whose fortune was made largely on sex-chat rooms – has donated $8 million. And Tom Monaghan, founder of Domino’s Pizza, is a major source of cash for Focus on the Family, a megaministry working with Kennedy to eliminate all public schools.
...
Kennedy has also created the Center for Christian Statesmanship, which trains elected officials to “more effectively share their faith in the public arena.” Speaking to the group, House Majority Leader Whip Tom DeLay – winner of Kennedy’s Distinguished Christian Statesman Award - called Bush’s faith-based initiatives “a great opportunity to bring God back into the public institutions of our country.”
…
The most vivid proof of the Christianizing of Capitol Hill comes at the final session of Reclaiming America. Rep. Walter Jones, a lanky congressman from North Carolina, gives a fire-and-brimstone speech that would have gotten him laughed out of Washington thirty years ago. In today’s climate, however, he’s got a chance of passing his pet project, the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, which would permit ministers to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, effectively converting their tax-exempt churches into Republican campaign headquarters.

Ejaculation reduces testicular cancer rates. Massaging the prostate (which happens during anal sex) reduces prostate cancer rates. Can't find my source, but it was posted on another thread some time back.

Please find it. I'm really curious. If so, that's really cool. :D Not to put any images in anyones mind...

Straughn, we may agree on more then either of us would think...

Well guys, my postings will be severely hindered this week as I'm helping with new student orientation (and possibly next week). LGBTA Club needs representation..

Amestria']And the Earth is Flat!
I'm sorry sir, but if that is the best defense you can come up with, I pity the Liberal Movement. There is a difference between illustrating the absurd through absurdity and saying "Your mom!"
At least refute the theories with sound reason.

Oh yes, that article reminded me about Dobson and his spongebob comments.. he's such a fool. I mean I like spongebob and do most of my gay friends, but that doesn't mean he's gay.

Straughn: Good two articles there. Thanks for posting them/.

These lunatics will do this to my country over my dead body. :mad:

What in the world does the potato famine have to do with genetic diversity? Perhaps you just meant it as an example of something that exists can be denied to be real but it can’t be made to not exist in actuality and affect. But the main point was genetic diversity, and what you suggested was in error. First cousins (in the case of the Noah example, where the Father and Sons and their spouses were involved) there are more than enough genetically diverse samples to sustain a species. Provided that each male only inseminates with only one female, to avoid the problems they have with dogs and stock animal breeding when one male is used to inseminate ALL of the females of the breeding stock so that the offspring are not cousins, but half siblings. (As to the animals, it is done all the time, in the wild and in the lab, saying you shouldn't do it is not the same as saying it can't be done).

The Irish Potato Famine is an object lesson in the dangers of genetic homogeneity. The entire country relied on a single strain of potato for agriculture which made the entire crop vulnerable to a blight that preys on that strain, which of course happened and resulted in the Famine. Oddly enough, today's potato crops are just as cookie-cutter which is asking for another blight to kick the world's economy in the testicles.

History lesson aside, inbreeding or any other situation where a vast number of organic life share relatively identical biology is in a precarious position where a single malignant organism could result in a vast epidemic that in some instances lead to extinction.

In addition (I learned this from a NOVA documentary on dogs oddly enough) every DNA strand has recessive strands which may carry undesirable traits from mild defects all the way to life-threatening diseases. And the more similar DNA strands are paired off by inbreeding, the larger the odds that those undesirable traits will manifest in the offspring. Hence the urban tale of Flipper Babies.

I agree, it's stupid ideology for politics, but should they be criticized for preparing their young adults?

Yes, as it is a stupid ideology, which we will soon criticize them (the children) for advocating when they are adults... Why not attack them for indoctrinating their kids to attack us?

The Irish Potato Famine is an object lesson in the dangers of genetic homogeneity. The entire country relied on a single strain of potato for agriculture which made the entire crop vulnerable to a blight that preys on that strain, which of course happened and resulted in the Famine. Oddly enough, today's potato crops are just as cookie-cutter which is asking for another blight to kick the world's economy in the testicles.

History lesson aside, inbreeding or any other situation where a vast number of organic life share relatively identical biology is in a precarious position where a single malignant organism could result in a vast epidemic that in some instances lead to extinction.

In addition (I learned this from a NOVA documentary on dogs oddly enough) every DNA strand has recessive strands which may carry undesirable traits from mild defects all the way to life-threatening diseases. And the more similar DNA strands are paired off by inbreeding, the larger the odds that those undesirable traits will manifest in the offspring. Hence the urban tale of Flipper Babies.

Potato Famine:
http://www.american.edu/TED/potato.htm

It is true that a blight on the potato caused immediate problems, and the fact that the only food available for a majority of the people was the potato, that this is why the famine was called the potato famine. However, the causes of the famine were not the potato itself but political oppression. The blight was on the potato, but not a specific gene per-se, not like a genetic defect at all.

As to the dogs, yes, that's why I mentioned that the genetic stock would be big enough provided not any single person had a determining factor on all of the offspring (one man one woman coupling would be required) and unlike the breeding of dogs or animal husbandry, where one male (for example) could inseminate ALL of the species females, creating an entire generation of half siblings instead of cousins... I stand by my post. Nice reply though. :)


EDIT: Just read the misinterpretation posts about Anal and Colon cancer (not the same cancer)...I'll clarify that for us here because the post seem to advocate and promote anal sex as a way of diminishing the odds of developing the condition, but that is entirely backwards.

Disease risk is also increased in smokers, and HIV-negative men who have sex with men. HIV-positive men who have sex with men are at an especially high risk of developing anal cancer because of their weakened immune systems, as are people with other long-term immunocompromising conditions.
http://cancer.stanfordhospital.com/cancerTypes/gastroIntestinalColoRectal/anal/default

Anal sex increases the risks of anal and colon cancer, it does not reduce the risk by massaging the area, as suggested earlier.

Evangelical Christians went to far...thats why there called Evangelical.