NationStates Jolt Archive

This seems very sinister to me. Christian groups are running camps to brainwash their kids in order to radically change the character of the US from a more or less secular nation into a Christian theocracy.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Becky Fischer, who runs an evangelical summer camp where children as young as six are encouraged to "take back America for Christ," says indoctrinating children is not only right but essential. http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=12069695&pageNumber=0

A recent interview I heard on the radio illustrated the Evangelical Christian subculture's aims to establish dominion over the USA for Jesus.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5398604

So all you Americans who believe in separation of church and state, it's time to get organized and wage political war against these people. They've already fired the first shots in this war against us.

I have to agree, it seems for every person who insists the US is not a theocracy and never will be, there is another who declares the culture war to have begun (victory naturally being inevitable because they are only fulfilling God's plan). So, whom does one believe?

There is always going to be groups that want to have it there way. Good thing is that no one group will never get enough power to implement a plan to change the US one way or another. Would be virtually impossible for it to happen. To many counter balances in the US for it to work.

There is always going to be groups that want to have it there way. Good thing is that no one group will never get enough power to implement a plan to change the US one way or another. Would be virtually impossible for it to happen. To many counter balances in the US for it to work.
There will always be groups, like the Southern Baptists, Baptists, whatever the hell all the Phelps type people are, Texas,..

whatever the hell all the Phelps type people are..

One big family. Literally.

DCD--you might want to check out the cover story at Salon today--it's an excerpt from Michelle Goldberg's new book on the Dominionist movement among US evangelicals. The early focus is on Judge Roy Moore, but his influence extends far beyond Alabama. Interesting stuff--you'll have to sit through an ad if you're not a member, but it's worth it.

DCD--you might want to check out the cover story at Salon today--it's an excerpt from Michelle Goldberg's new book on the Dominionist movement among US evangelicals. The early focus is on Judge Roy Moore, but his influence extends far beyond Alabama. Interesting stuff--you'll have to sit through an ad if you're not a member, but it's worth it.
Thanks. I'll check it out now.

This is just another facet of the evangelical agenda to make Christianity suck.

A full blown theocracy will never happen.

Now some form of a pseudo-theocracy? Well that is sorta happening.

Tax funds are going to going to Religion now.

You have Presidential contenders giving "chats" at religious institutions.

The "faithful" will get delayed once the Repubs loose control in November.

A full blown theocracy will never happen.
Change happens. A cultural theocracy now, possibly a full theocratic government in a hundred years. You never know what lies that far ahead.

DCD--you might want to check out the cover story at Salon today--it's an excerpt from Michelle Goldberg's new book on the Dominionist movement among US evangelicals. The early focus is on Judge Roy Moore, but his influence extends far beyond Alabama. Interesting stuff--you'll have to sit through an ad if you're not a member, but it's worth it.
Actually, his influence only extends beyond Alabama. Everyone in Alabama realizes he is an opportunistic douchebag, well more "everyone" than any other state, because we got all the news about him not just "Supreme Court made Moore remove 10 Commandments from courthouse."

This is just another facet of the evangelical agenda to make Christianity suck.

You paint with too big a brush there, buddy. Christianity is not all of a mind on the issue of making the USA into a theocracy. My father, a retired Protestant minister, is VERY much opposed to that idea. In fact, he believes that unless churches start paying taxes, they should not even be allowed to have any political leanings/influence. His feeling is that if they are not paying their way in supporting the Government, they have not got the right to speak on how it is run. And he is a strong proponent of not allowing any one religious viewpoint to hold sway in legal issues, either. He is pro-choice, in favor of gay marriage, against the death penalty...

A full blown theocracy will never happen.

Now some form of a pseudo-theocracy? Well that is sorta happening.

Tax funds are going to going to Religion now.

You have Presidential contenders giving "chats" at religious institutions.

The "faithful" will get delayed once the Repubs loose control in November.
I've been paranoid about this for a while now--visions of Nehemiah Scudder--because the big thing that the Dominionists count on is voter apathy. We're in a fairly non-apathetic place--for us, anyway--right now, but there's no reason to think that will continue.

Actually, his influence only extends beyond Alabama. Everyone in Alabama realizes he is an opportunistic douchebag, well more "everyone" than any other state, because we got all the news about him not just "Supreme Court made Moore remove 10 Commandments from courthouse."I was surprised by the article--he has ties to evangelicals all over the US, largely because of his connection with Coral Ridge Ministries (an abomination I give the finger to whenever I'm driving down Federal Highway), and the head of that church, a douchebag named Kennedy. It's very under-the-table influence, but he definitely has it.

There's a girl at school who goes to athiest camp where she's encouraged to "destroy the lies of Christianity" and "break the back of Evangelicals." So what's your point?

And the secularists fired first - remeber the Scopes Trial? The secularists took America from Christianity: whether for better or for worse is debatable. So why complain about the Christians doing the same thing? Are not most secularists trying to destroy every mention of any religion in America? Why should they be allowed to push their religious beliefs on the rest of America?

And yes, secularism is a religious doctrine: it's the belief that Man is able to decide what things are good or moral without considering God. That is a belief about Man's relationship with God and is therefore a religious belief.

Change happens. A cultural theocracy now, possibly a full theocratic government in a hundred years. You never know what lies that far ahead.

The future? Yea there is no way to predict that.

There's a girl at school who goes to athiest camp where she's encouraged to "destroy the lies of Christianity" and "break the back of Evangelicals." So what's your point?

And the secularists fired first - remeber the Scopes Trial? The secularists took America from Christianity: whether for better or for worse is debatable. So why complain about the Christians doing the same thing? Are not most secularists trying to destroy every mention of any religion in America? Why should they be allowed to push their religious beliefs on the rest of America?

And yes, secularism is a religious doctrine: it's the belief that Man is able to decide what things are good or moral without considering God. That is a belief about God and is therefore a religious belief.
No, secularism is a lack of religious belief, therefore not a religious belief.

I have neither seen or heard of a secularist agenda to 'destroy any mention of any religion in America.' It's not an issue of 'whose religion is right', it's an issue of equal rights. When a single religion is endorsed by the state, people of different faiths become second-class citizens. So far, I've seen forced public prayer taken out of public schools, and the tested and thus far unfalsified scientific theory of evolution taught in public classrooms. I have yet to see legislation that forbids private worship of ANY god.

There's a girl at school who goes to athiest camp where she's encouraged to "destroy the lies of Christianity" and "break the back of Evangelicals."

...atheist camp? I find that hard to believe.


And the secularists fired first - remeber the Scopes Trial? The secularists took America from Christianity: whether for better or for worse is debatable. So why complain about the Christians doing the same thing? Are not most secularists trying to destroy every mention of any religion in America? Why should they be allowed to push their religious beliefs on the rest of America?


Most "secularists" want to separate Church and State. That's not a religion, calling it a "religious belief" is a misnomer at best.

Your statement about most secularists trying to destroy every mention of religion shows a bigoted, paranoid viewpoint I'm coming to expect from religious fundamentalists.


And yes, secularism is a religious doctrine: it's the belief that Man is able to decide what things are good or moral without considering God. That is a belief about God and is therefore a religious belief.

No, it's a belief about politics: politics and religion don't mix. (See: 9/11) People can very well (and do) consider God when making decisions, but should not when such people hold office and such decisions are political in nature.

It's not a religious belief and it's certainly not a "doctrine."

There's a girl at school who goes to athiest camp where she's encouraged to "destroy the lies of Christianity" and "break the back of Evangelicals." So what's your point?
My point is that Christians have been turning their kids into a political army for a long time and to combat it we need many more kids going to camps like the girl in your school. You raise an army we raise an army in response.


And the secularists fired first - remeber the Scopes Trial? The secularists took America from Christianity: whether for better or for worse is debatable. So why complain about the Christians doing the same thing? Are not most secularists trying to destroy every mention of any religion in America? Why should they be allowed to push their religious beliefs on the rest of America? The founding fathers never intended a Christian nation or even a Judeo-Christian nation. If they did the first ammendment wouldn't prohibit establishment of religion. It would read "I am the lord thy God, thou shall have no other gods before me". Secularists are only trying to maintain the boundaries between church and state that great men like Thomas Jefferson established. Secularists don't push a religious belief, just equal respect of all religious beliefs.

Oh, and the scopes trial just got false information and religious indoctrination out of science classes where it never belonged in the first place.

And yes, secularism is a religious doctrine: it's the belief that Man is able to decide what things are good or moral without considering God. That is a belief about God and is therefore a religious belief.
No, you clearly don't even know the definition of religion. Moral judgements do not a religion make. By your reasoning the recipie for Coca Cola is a religion because it implies that God doesn't transmute water into Cola.

Oh, and the scopes trial just got false information and religious indoctrination out of science classes where it never belonged in the first place.

Actually, the law was upheld in the Scopes Trial decision. Mr. Scopes lost, and was fined for teaching evolution in the classroom. The law in question was changed at a later date.

There is always going to be groups that want to have it there way. Good thing is that no one group will never get enough power to implement a plan to change the US one way or another. Would be virtually impossible for it to happen. To many counter balances in the US for it to work.Yes. Luckily, the wacko mormons and baptists consider eachother heathens.

Yes. Luckily, the wacko mormons and baptists consider eachother heathens.
Divide and conquer, baby. Long live the Evil Atheist Conspiracy ... :D

Actually, the law was upheld in the Scopes Trial decision. Mr. Scopes lost, and was fined for teaching evolution in the classroom. The law in question was changed at a later date.
Ah, thanks for that. I haven't watched Inherit the Wind in a long time.

There's a girl at school who goes to athiest camp where she's encouraged to "destroy the lies of Christianity" and "break the back of Evangelicals." So what's your point?Cool! Can you provide a link?

And the secularists fired first - remeber the Scopes Trial? The secularists took America from Christianity: whether for better or for worse is debatable. So why complain about the Christians doing the same thing? Are not most secularists trying to destroy every mention of any religion in America? Why should they be allowed to push their religious beliefs on the rest of America?Ah, so when exactly was America in the hands of Christianity?

And yes, secularism is a religious doctrine: it's the belief that Man is able to decide what things are good or moral without considering God. That is a belief about Man's relationship with God and is therefore a religious belief.I remember when I first heard of the word secular. "Secularizing" was a euphemism the Protestants in Sweden used to refer to confiscating Church property.

Most of you are totally overreacting. This is a small minority of evangelicals. Most evangelical youth don't even believe that intelligent design should be taught in schools. Most have no intention of making a theocracy. Relax.

Most of you are totally overreacting. This is a small minority of evangelicals. Most evangelical youth don't even believe that intelligent design should be taught in schools. Most have no intention of making a theocracy. Relax.
A small minority that are very politically active. In the radio interview I heard yesterday a very interesting point was raised. The Christian homeschooling movement encourages indocrtinated kids to attend Patrick Henry college, which has political connections that puts them into a tremendously dispropotionate number of internships with Republican politicians and grooms them to become politicians and lobbyists themselves.

http://www.phc.edu/

This small minority are capable of galvanizing a much larger number of less politically active evangelicals and getting their chosen candidates elected too. They do this by raising "values" issues that rile up large numbers of Christians. Why do you think gay marriage was such an issue in the last presidential election?

So christians are evil theocratic dictators because the want to have morality in america? This thread is the biggest pile of shit i have seen since visiting the elephants at the zoo.

So christians are evil theocratic dictators because the want to have morality in america? This thread is the biggest pile of shit i have seen since visiting the elephants at the zoo.

What would you say if you knew American kids were being sent to Muslim schools to be indoctrinated to "take back America for Islam?"

What would you say if you knew American kids were being sent to Muslim schools to be indoctrinated to "take back America for Islam?"


I wouldn't care, as long as they weren't commiting illegal acts. every religion should have a chance to have missions.

So christians are evil theocratic dictators because the want to have morality in america? This thread is the biggest pile of shit i have seen since visiting the elephants at the zoo.
When that "morality" includes punishing people for being gay, or even just discriminating against them or when that morality means removing science from science classes in order to replace it with religious dogma, when morality means banning speach and art that's found to be "blasphemous" yeah, those are the actions of evil theocratic dictators.

So, whom does one believe?
You always make following-up to one of your posts so damnably difficult, TG.

I've tried a half-dozen ways of framing a response, and I keep coming up empty. Maybe I'll have another go in a few hours, after I've put some food in my belly.

America doesn't need religion.

I wouldn't care, as long as they weren't commiting illegal acts. every religion should have a chance to have missions.
Well, I'd say trying to violate rights guaranteed by the constitution could be seen as illegal. Politically active evangelicals have tried to establish a government religion, ban some types of speech, and discriminate against groups of people in the US in violation of equal protection under the law.

When that "morality" includes punishing people for being gay, or even just discriminating against them or when that morality means removing science from science classes in order to replace it with religious dogma, when morality means banning speach and art that's found to be "blasphemous" yeah, those are the actions of evil theocratic dictators.


I think you are worrying too much. Do you think that these small groups are going to all of a sudden just start an inquisition and kill all the heretics? No, they are doing christian outreach programs, where you go out door to door, or at auditoriums or at school on the playground or wherever, to defend and preach the Gospel. They are not going around locking up all the sinners and throwing away the keys. Quit watching so many movies

This seems very sinister to me. Christian groups are running camps to brainwash their kids in order to radically change the character of the US from a more or less secular nation into a Christian theocracy.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=12069695&pageNumber=0

I find myself very disturbed. She basically admits that she wants to brainwash children into support the causes she believes in. Even by her own standards, she is condemning those children to hell, as they will never have faith...

There's a girl at school who goes to athiest camp where she's encouraged to "destroy the lies of Christianity" and "break the back of Evangelicals." So what's your point?

Really? Well, if ture, that's just as much of a problem.

And the secularists fired first - remeber the Scopes Trial?

You mean the guy who was fired for teaching science in a science class? Yeah, I've heard all about it. What does it have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Are not most secularists trying to destroy every mention of any religion in America?

Um.....no, they aren't.

Why should they be allowed to push their religious beliefs on the rest of America?

No one should be allowed to push any religious beliefs upon anyone else - that's the whole point.

And yes, secularism is a religious doctrine: it's the belief that Man is able to decide what things are good or moral without considering God. That is a belief about Man's relationship with God and is therefore a religious belief.

That isn't the definition of secularism, my dear. Try again. A person can be religious - can think that all morality flows from God - and can still be a secularist.


Oh, and the scopes trial just got false information and religious indoctrination out of science classes where it never belonged in the first place.

Actually, it didn't. Scopes was found to be guilty of teaching Evolutionary Theory in the classroom and was fired. (I think he was also fined).

But it did make the issue a matter of public discussion, and eventual court cases held that, not only could religious viewpoints not be taught as fact in public schools, but religious viewpoints could not keep science from being taught either.

I think you are worrying too much. Do you think that these small groups are going to all of a sudden just start an inquisition and kill all the heretics? No, they are doing christian outreach programs, where you go out door to door, or at auditoriums or at school on the playground or wherever, to defend and preach the Gospel. They are not going around locking up all the sinners and throwing away the keys. Quit watching so many movies
Their goal is to control US law. Check the links earlier in this thread. They've advocated making homosexuality and blasphemy a criminal offense. In their own words they DO want to lock up all the sinners.

Well, I'd say trying to violate rights guaranteed by the constitution could be seen as illegal. Politically active evangelicals have tried to establish a government religion, ban some types of speech, and discriminate against groups of people in the US in violation of equal protection under the law.


Right because school kids going around on the play ground are violating so many civil rights.:rolleyes: You are looking in the past. these groups know they will never be able to have those powers, and if somehow they got elected, their policies would be ousted by the courts

Their goal is to control US law. Check the links earlier in this thread. They've advocated making homosexuality and blasphemy a criminal offense. In their own words they DO want to lock up all the sinners.


Well, like i said don't worry so much. It won't ever happen here in america.

Right because school kids going around on the play ground are violating so many civil rights.:rolleyes: You are looking in the past. these groups know they will never be able to have those powers, and if somehow they got elected, their policies would be ousted by the courts
The leaders of these groups know that they can have this power. They get their politicians elected and they can then hand pick the judges. Once again, use the links early on in the thread and see exactly who we're dealing with.

Oh, I found this response to the Salon.com article interesting.

These people are dangerous -- as I know personally
I am an ex-fundamentalist, formerly an avid follower of Francis Schaeffer's philosophy; a former supporter of Falwell's ministries and their subsequent spinoffs, like the Christian Coalition; and formerly one of those pre-tribulation Left Behinders whose heart literally sang whenever it looked like we might be in for a nuclear confrontation. Bring on the Second Coming, woo!

When Falwell was starting the "Moral Majority," I got mailings as one of his supporters. In those mailings, the founders of that group laid out in detail all the steps they planned, to take over the American government, and then hopefully the world.

For 20 years now, I have watched them do it, step by step, like they planned from the beginning. Taking over city councils and school boards, influencing the business world, even taking over sports teams! They pulled their kids from "secular" schools and started their own colleges, to raise up young lawyers and teachers and politicians who would stop at nothing to take over the government and create an America-wide Salem, complete with witch hunts.

Two things these people do NOT believe in are democracy and law. If anyone's choice, or their country's own laws, contradict what they think God wants -- to hell with the democratic vote and to hell with the law.

Well-meaning people just don't get this. They think all you have to do is make laws about equality for everyone, and these God-fearing people will obey the laws. Not a chance. As Roy Moore and Tom DeLay demonstrate, they will use the law just so long as it furthers their purpose. If it contradicts their beliefs, they will throw it out in a heartbeat.

Goldberg didn't even get to Christian Reconstructionists like Gary DeMar, who literally looks forward to thousands of executions in America every single year -- adulterers, non-virginal women, gays, even sassy children -- all stoned to death while DeMar drools over them.

They pretend to believe in democracy and freedom, and they are very good at using those words to deceive people but THEY ARE LYING. They will use nice words just long enough to get the power once and for all and then, BLAMMO. They will turn and rend to shreds everyone -- even former allies -- whose world view differs from theirs.

The U.S. may not be a fascist state. Yet. But just wait.

The leaders of these groups know that they can have this power. They get their politicians elected and they can then hand pick the judges. Once again, use the links early on in the thread and see exactly who we're dealing with.

Oh, I found this response to the Salon.com article interesting.


that article is one guy's views, from a limited experience. I can tell you that the majority of christians in america are not out to kill all the infidels...We are not the Saudis for God's sake. And besides there is a safety mechanism in the constitution, if we don't find our elected leaders to be effective and if they oppress us, we have the right to throw them out.

Haha. The second theocracy comes to town, that's the second I get the hell out of Dodge. There is no way I'm living in a Christian theocracy, and this is coming from a Christian (who should probably be a Deist, but I haven't gotten to that point yet).

But yeah, the thing that annoys me is that when I get older, I'm going to be fighting the products of these theocracy camps. Yick. I'm hoping the system of checks and balances can save us from that having to happen. This is really similar to something at Liberty University that's been going on. So there's this type of high school/collegiate debate known as policy debate. Something like 80% of those who do policy eventually become lawyers. Liberty has the number one team in the country, even though they're relatively new. This is because Falwell threw money into it in his attempt to flood the courts with far-right wing lawyers. So this seems to be a common element among Christian extremists in today's day and age.

My manner of stopping it would be furthering the system of checks and balances as to protect the church. Note how so many preachers around the country have been pulling the whole, "Hey, if you vote Democrat, you're going to hell." card. In a recent example in North Carolina, a preacher who did this had his church's tax-exempt status revoked, and he lost his job. I'd say we do some big inquiry into churches making political contributions and the like and remove their tax-exempt status. I'd go even further than that as to be doing this for the good of a church. In the event a church loses it's tax-exempt status, it is forced to become a profiteering organization. This inherently devalues the principles of a faith, as it now has a reliance on private and/or state funding. In the event you rely on that funding, you change your doctrine to appeal to the state/big donors. As a result, you turn your back on your faith in the name of money. Theocracy has terrible implications for both the church and the state.

If you guys want to get a little more involved in preventing that, check out the organization, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. I've been signing petitions and the like with them for a little less than a year now, and they support a lot of good causes. Check them out sometime.

Bible thumpers like to point out that 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. What they like to ignore is that the vast majority of those self-identifying Christians are jack Christians meaning they tell you they're Christian in between beers at the strip bar. America will never be a theocracy.

if america wants to b a theocracy let it, we all know that countries that keep a real religion fail and so america will fail leading a gap for another country like the uk and her allies and hopefully the rest of the commonwealth to enter and ttake the world by storm! long live the theocracy of Am:D erica!

Like I just said on another forum. Americans need to rise up and destroy our government and creat a new. The tree of Liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrannts.
:sniper:

Haha. The second theocracy comes to town, that's the second I get the hell out of Dodge. There is no way I'm living in a Christian theocracy, and this is coming from a Christian (who should probably be a Deist, but I haven't gotten to that point yet).


Not me, dude. This is my country and my God they're trying to take away from me, and as James Coburn put it in The Magnificent Seven, nobody throws me my gun and tells me to run. Nobody. I'll admit that it's an extremely remote possibility, but if that possibility comes to fruition, sign me up as a resistance cell leader.

Bible thumpers like to point out that 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. What they like to ignore is that the vast majority of those self-identifying Christians are jack Christians meaning they tell you they're Christian in between beers at the strip bar. America will never be a theocracy.


Very good point :)

Can't be without: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Ah, so when exactly was America in the hands of Christianity?

Pre 1776 baby!

This seems very sinister to me. Christian groups are running camps to brainwash their kids in order to radically change the character of the US from a more or less secular nation into a Christian theocracy.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=12069695&pageNumber=0

A recent interview I heard on the radio illustrated the Evangelical Christian subculture's aims to establish dominion over the USA for Jesus.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5398604

So all you Americans who believe in separation of church and state, it's time to get organized and wage political war against these people. They've already fired the first shots in this war against us.
You know what, it's time for the Muslims to take back America for Mohammed! JIHAD!

Serously, these people are disgraces. I am a Christian, and today, I am ashamed. These people disgust me. "Take back America for Christ," they say. If they can prove to me Christ is God, fine. Until then, I like being a liberal Christian who believes in freedom of religion.

So, what's the big deal?
First off, the specific examples cited in this article are prayer that the USA be united under God (which is not exactly threatening...basically they're praying for a return to the fifties, which you may not like, but is hardly considered a bad point in our history), that God will act through people to keep them from having abortions and make it illegal (which you may disagree with, but is not exactly evidence of a violent extremist viewpoint). In this article, "indoctrinating" means "teaching one's children your own beliefs," which is an essential part of effective parenting.
You may disagree with their methods, but the threatening tone of the article (and the "debate" thus far) is hardly indicative of most of Christianity. Indeed, despite what you read in the news, many Christians (especially the younger ones) tend to be politically liberal.

And saying that you need to make an army of atheists to combat the Christians is, well, pretty ridiculous. There are ridiculous people on both sides of the aisle, but if you think the Christians are winning (or have any chance of doing so) you need to think again.

If they really want a Theocracy, I suggest they get the hell out of my country, and go live in Iran. They've had one for 27 years, now.

I entirely agree. We need to keep this from happening.I am a Pagan, and there are a lot of threats, mainly from the Christians who think that everyone else is wrong!

I entirely agree. We need to keep this from happening.I am a Pagan, and there are a lot of threats, mainly from the Christians who think that everyone else is wrong!
As opposed to all the threats from pagans who think everyone else is wrong?

I mean, be fair. When discussing a moral issue (abortion [I'm anti-], marriage [I'm for anybody who wants to], whether a consenting community should be allowed to display nativities [I'm for displays], etc.)the Christians say "we believe this is how the country should work" and the pagans (I'm just using your own diction here, so no insult intended;)) say "religion has no place in politics!" and then proceed to make suggestions based on their moral code. Essentially it's disenfranchising a part of the population because their moral code is (partially, because believe it or not not all Christians believe the same things) codified.
There is obviously a line at which Christianity is allowed to be in the government and at which a particular action is actually Christian (the Supremes actually have a ruling on that, though I forget what it's called [ceremonial deism, perhaps?]), and that line has been stepped over in government (in both directions) many times. Unfortunately, each time it's crossed by so much as an inch a very strong reaction is produced which propels it too far in the other direction.

*yawn* This is nothing new. Nor is it anything to be taken seriously. When the 1992 Republican National Convention featured speeches by the likes of Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan openly declaring a culture war in America, large numbers of moderate Conservatives voted for Clinton delivering the White House to the Democrats. When theocrats openly muse about theocracy, they do themselves no favour.

What, you think every Christian Follows the people who did this or ( For the Examples of Gay marriage or Abortions) the Catholic Church? Honestly, we are not mindless drones, the preachers simply say that we can't believe in abortion or gay rights or we go to hell. So what? I don't care, I go to Catholic Church, but it isn't like I can't have my own beliefs about political things. And so what about this guy promoting the destruction of Atheism? I don't like you guys who constantly try to denounce Christianity because some far off nutjob is making us look bad, but I totally agree with your right to free religion.It's not like it will work, I haven't seen Christians at my school get angry with this guy who constantly says that God is less likely than Natural Selection ( BTW, that only disproves the beginning of Genesis,also, I don't exactly think the Ark happened, because I don't think they had paper/papyrus back then). But that guy thinks he's Jewish becase he goes to Temple. And as to the religous camps, if we set up camps, then remember in our religion they are throwing the first punch and will go to hell for being a whacko. But as to the Atheist camp, haven't you guys heard of when somebody throws a punch turn the other cheek? ( OK it's a Jesus quote, yeah, but it has wisdom) Now, if we start another Halocaust that gets serious, I would hope you actually use your brains there and fight back. In that situation, I would lose faith in whatever church started it and a small bit in Christianity itself. And we don't force our religion on people, at least not to my knowledge in America. We just ask if they would come to a church, if not, then oh well, not Hold them at gunpoint and tell them to convert, which WOULD be a forcing of your religion on people. But anyway, to get to the point, why can't we all just stop with this stuff? This stuff discourages me, makes me think gaming will make me an Atheist.:eek: We're gamers, not Theoligians.

the pagans (I'm just using your own diction here, so no insult intended;)) say "religion has no place in politics!"
What are you talking about? Pagans are just another religious group. Secularists are a political group that says "religion has no place in politics!". Believe it or not, some secularists are Christians and some are pagans, and some are atheists.

A recent interview I heard on the radio illustrated the Evangelical Christian subculture's aims to establish dominion over the USA for Jesus.


rofl, if that ever happened, I'd have to shoot myself.

What are you talking about? Pagans are just another religious group. Secularists are a political group that says "religion has no place in politics!". Believe it or not, some secularists are Christians and some are pagans, and some are atheists.
If you Google define:pagan, the first and third results are "heathen." Based on the debate taking place in the thread, I drew some conclusions. If they were wrong, I apologize to Domboria.

In any case, in this context I mean "pagan" to mean "people who are somewhat militantly against Christianity having any voice in politics." Which strikes me as silly, because as long as they aren't a governmentally-sponsored or endorsed (beyond the level other religions are endorsed) religion, then in terms of convincing their members to vote one way or the other they're just another special-interest group like MoveOn or the NRA.
Not that this should be taken to mean I favor a theocracy or anything that goes much further than the current laws dictate.

One big family. Literally.
Before I was adopted, my last name was Phelps. Does that mean anything? just curious.

Most secularists don't want any religion as a part of government, not just Christianity. Secularism doesn't mean you don't believe in a religion, it doesn't mean you don't believe in God, it simply means you don't believe it should have anything to do with government. There are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist secularists, and secularists of all religions.

If you Google define:pagan, the first and third results are "heathen." Based on the debate taking place in the thread, I drew some conclusions. If they were wrong, I apologize to Domboria.

In any case, in this context I mean "pagan" to mean "people who are somewhat militantly against Christianity having any voice in politics." Which strikes me as silly, because as long as they aren't a governmentally-sponsored or endorsed (beyond the level other religions are endorsed) religion, then in terms of convincing their members to vote one way or the other they're just another special-interest group like MoveOn or the NRA.
Not that this should be taken to mean I favor a theocracy or anything that goes much further than the current laws dictate.
While you're at it, you can apologize to me too. I'm a pagan. And I'm a secularist. And I'm an American who believes in separation of church and state. And I'm a native English speaker who will thank you not to corrupt the words of my language. You know perfectly well all the definitions of "pagan" and you also know perfectly well that people who call themselves pagans are practitioners of pagan religions. And you further know perfectly well that the only people who call secularists pagans are propagandists for Christian fundamentalism who like to redefine words to suit their own purposes just like you just did.

Just like we all know that the only people in this thread so far who really think "it'll never happen" are the very fundamentalists who would love to see it happen.

I blame Margaret Atwood for giving these theocratic fruitcakes their Inspirational Guidelines and Master Plan :D

I blame Margaret Atwood for giving these theocratic fruitcakes their Inspirational Guidelines and Master Plan :D
Yeah, and it's frigging typical, too. Heaven forbid they should read a good book. ;)

While you're at it, you can apologize to me too. I'm a pagan. And I'm a secularist. And I'm an American who believes in separation of church and state. And I'm a native English speaker who will thank you not to corrupt the words of my language. You know perfectly well all the definitions of "pagan" and you also know perfectly well that people who call themselves pagans are practitioners of pagan religions. And you further know perfectly well that the only people who call secularists pagans are propagandists for Christian fundamentalism who like to redefine words to suit their own purposes just like you just did.
Gee, thanks for being omnipotent and telling me what I know! I already apologized and explained the usage I was invoking; no need to get so pissy.
Just like we all know that the only people in this thread so far who really think "it'll never happen" are the very fundamentalists who would love to see it happen.
I'm just going to assume you really aren't referring to me here. Because a Christian Theocracy (given the people currently "in charge of" Christianity) would probably be the third worst thing that could happen to this country.

Anybody that is comfortable in their naivete' about the fanatical religious being benign, how about you be the next artist to draw and publish cartoons of Mohammed.

I'm just going to assume you really aren't referring to me here. Because a Christian Theocracy (given the people currently "in charge of" Christianity) would probably be the third worst thing that could happen to this country.


What are the top two?

What are the top two?
Let's just say I had to give my religion *some* space. So, err, some other religious theocracy possibilities. :p

Gee, thanks for being omnipotent and telling me what I know! I already apologized and explained the usage I was invoking; no need to get so pissy.
Yeah, it was your explanation of your usage that pissed me off. But I did over-react. Sorry, you were just the lucky 100th customer today who misused a common word for political purposes, and I went off a bit. Big pet peeve. Really hate it. I'll try to tone down the piss, though.

(Oh, and the omnipotence is gratis. Just part of the service. :))

I'm just going to assume you really aren't referring to me here. Because a Christian Theocracy (given the people currently "in charge of" Christianity) would probably be the third worst thing that could happen to this country.
What would the first two be? EDIT: NERTS -- Maineiacs beat me to it.

A full blown theocracy will never happen.

Now some form of a pseudo-theocracy? Well that is sorta happening.

Tax funds are going to going to Religion now.

You have Presidential contenders giving "chats" at religious institutions.

The "faithful" will get delayed once the Repubs loose control in November.
And then that goddamned catch-all "martyr" mentality will steel their false resolve. :mad:
:mad:

more proof that CHRISTIANITY IS EVIL

You always make following-up to one of your posts so damnably difficult, TG.

I've tried a half-dozen ways of framing a response, and I keep coming up empty. Maybe I'll have another go in a few hours, after I've put some food in my belly.
Good Lord! How much do you eat? :p

Bible thumpers like to point out that 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. What they like to ignore is that the vast majority of those self-identifying Christians are jack Christians meaning they tell you they're Christian in between beers at the strip bar. America will never be a theocracy.
But they often vote for people who are far more conservative than they are. How else do we wind up with Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, and Tom Coburn as Senators?

But they often vote for people who are far more conservative than they are. How else do we wind up with Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, and Tom Coburn as Senators?


It's easier to have someone tell you what to believe than to figure it out yourself. To quote Homer Simpson: "That's why we have leaders. So we don't have to think."

And the secularists fired first - remeber the Scopes Trial? The secularists took America from Christianity: whether for better or for worse is debatable. So why complain about the Christians doing the same thing? Are not most secularists trying to destroy every mention of any religion in America? Why should they be allowed to push their religious beliefs on the rest of America?

The Scopes ("Monkey") Trial was initiated-- the 'shot' was fired-- by the court that charged Scopes for teaching Darwinism in violation of a law meant to promote a specific religious belief. A science teacher was charged with trying to teach science. He wasn't teaching that Christians should lose their jobs or be charged with corrupting young people or anything like that-- he was a science teacher trying to teach *science.* Creationism is not science. It doesn't follow the scientific method of "theorise, test for corroboration, and evaluate" that qualifies an idea as science. Creationism tries to circumvent science by saying "it doesn't have to make sense or stand up to scrutiny or be substantiated by proof, because God said so." That isn't science, and in a world goverened by observable scientific principles, where science works the same-- comes up with the same answers-- for everyone who practices it, that's what children should be taught. Rubbing two sticks together produces fire because of friction, not because you beg God for fire. That's why science doesn't try to teach dependence on some metaphysical being: because science works the same for everybody whether you're praying to a higher power or not, and since it works without any godly intervention it doesn't try to make scientifically minded people believe in a god. Which unfortunately tends not to sit well with people who think "because God said so" answers every question. Because if the god they believe in doesn't in fact exist, then their answers-- and by extension, they fear, their lives-- are meaningless.

Anybody that is comfortable in their naivete' about the fanatical religious being benign, how about you be the next artist to draw and publish cartoons of Mohammed.
How about Jesus and Mohammed as the brokeback cowboys? That should cause some controversy.

How about Jesus and Mohammed as the brokeback cowboys? That should cause some controversy.

Oscar winner, right there.

How about Jesus and Mohammed as the brokeback cowboys? That should cause some controversy.
The headline: Fundamentalist Heads Explode Worldwide Today. Scientists fear release of so much hot air will affect environment.

So christians are evil theocratic dictators because the want to have morality in america? This thread is the biggest pile of shit i have seen since visiting the elephants at the zoo.

Since when is christianity a prerequisite of morality? Christianity, the religion that brought your the crusades, the inquisition, the salem witch trials. I wouldn't trust a christian theocracy with my human rights for a new york minute.

Since when is christianity a prerequisite of morality? Christianity, the religion that brought your the crusades, the inquisition, the salem witch trials. I wouldn't trust a christian theocracy with my human rights for a new york minute.
As well you shouldn't. Voltaire said it wonderfully--"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

I blame Margaret Atwood for giving these theocratic fruitcakes their Inspirational Guidelines and Master Plan :D

Margaret Atwood???? WTF? Explain. I have read some of her books and I don't get the connection. Did I miss something?

But they often vote for people who are far more conservative than they are. How else do we wind up with Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, and Tom Coburn as Senators?
These guys almost never get anything more than the barest of majorities. And they're just three senators, out of 100.

These guys almost never get anything more than the barest of majorities. And they're just three senators, out of 100.
When you poll Americans on practically any social program, they come out practically socialist, and yet right-wing conservatives are in power. That doesn't happen without people voting for politicians more conservative than they are personally.

And by the way, Brownback won re-election in 2006 by 69-27, and Coburn won his seat 53-41. Santorum is up this year and is in deep shit, but I would harldy call those other two victories "bare majorities."

When you poll Americans on practically any social program, they come out practically socialist, and yet right-wing conservatives are in power. That doesn't happen without people voting for politicians more conservative than they are personally.

Pollsters have noticed this since the 50s. Ask about health care, education, the environment, or affordable housing and Americans - including those who self identify as conservative - invariable say that the government should spend more. When asked about taxes to support such programmes, Americans invariably say they are not willing to pay more.

The economist published an article about conservatism in the USA and the UK in their December 19th 2002 edition. Which found...

http://economist.com/images/20021221/CXM092.gif

When you poll Americans on practically any social program, they come out practically socialist, and yet right-wing conservatives are in power. That doesn't happen without people voting for politicians more conservative than they are personally.
That's true. I can only conclude that the lefties are not voting enough. Maybe working keeps them from voting or maybe they don't bother?

more proof that CHRISTIANITY IS EVIL
Not really. Politicised Christianity is often evil, but not the religion in general.

That's true. I can only conclude that the lefties are not voting enough. Maybe working keeps them from voting or maybe they don't bother?
That's undoubtedly part of it, but also, the evangelicals have gotten a lot of mileage out of "godly qualities" and "family values" over the last 30 years or so. It used to be the case that evangelical churches felt they would be tainted by getting involved in politics--Billy Graham was a good example of that--but since the 80s, evangelicals have been increasingly involved, to the point where they wield significant power in the US, and they're looking for more.

Thus, this thread.

Margaret Atwood???? WTF? Explain. I have read some of her books and I don't get the connection. Did I miss something?
Her novel The Handmaid's Tale reads like a blueprint for the Moral Majority as worst case scenario.

That's undoubtedly part of it, but also, the evangelicals have gotten a lot of mileage out of "godly qualities" and "family values" over the last 30 years or so. It used to be the case that evangelical churches felt they would be tainted by getting involved in politics--Billy Graham was a good example of that--but since the 80s, evangelicals have been increasingly involved, to the point where they wield significant power in the US, and they're looking for more.
I also think another part of the problem is the fact that too many Americans delude themselves into thinking that big business politicians like Clinton and Bush are on their side and not that of big business.

If a Christian theocracy tries to take over, they will run into a few problems - namely, that no ONE Christian sect has 50+ % of the American population. Even if all the evangelicals unite, they will have to take on two powerful foes: The Catholics and the Jews.

The Catholics include a significant percentage of the US population. The Jews have plenty of political influence and lawyers.

And I am not even considering the power of the masses of American soldiers who would rebel against a theocracy. First, they'd shoot their chaplains. Then the Air Force and Navy would launch airstrikes on DC, followed by the Marines and Army moving in from the land.

If a Christian theocracy tries to take over, they will run into a few problems - namely, that no ONE Christian sect has 50+ % of the American population. Even if all the evangelicals unite, they will have to take on two powerful foes: The Catholics and the Jews.

The Catholics include a significant percentage of the US population. The Jews have plenty of political influence and lawyers.

And I am not even considering the power of the masses of American soldiers who would rebel against a theocracy. First, they'd shoot their chaplains. Then the Air Force and Navy would launch airstrikes on DC, followed by the Marines and Army moving in from the land.
You ought to read up on the intrusion of the evangelical movement into the Air Force, especially at the Academy. Harpers did a great article on it a few months back.

If a Christian theocracy tries to take over, they will run into a few problems - namely, that no ONE Christian sect has 50+ % of the American population. Even if all the evangelicals unite, they will have to take on two powerful foes: The Catholics and the Jews.

The Catholics include a significant percentage of the US population. The Jews have plenty of political influence and lawyers.

And I am not even considering the power of the masses of American soldiers who would rebel against a theocracy. First, they'd shoot their chaplains. Then the Air Force and Navy would launch airstrikes on DC, followed by the Marines and Army moving in from the land.
And in addition to the US Air Force, didn't you hear about several Catholic diocese denying communion and threatening hell to any Catholic who voted against Bush? And there's not much tension between them and the Protestants over things like abortion and gay rights.

As for the Jews, what do you think all that Christian support for Israel is for? It's to persuade American Jews that these people don't think they're a bunch of godless Christ killers anymore. In all frankness, I have to wonder if the American Jews who support rightwing politics because they think it's good for Israel are not the most deluded people in the country.

This seems very sinister to me. Christian groups are running camps to brainwash their kids in order to radically change the character of the US from a more or less secular nation into a Christian theocracy.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=12069695&pageNumber=0

A recent interview I heard on the radio illustrated the Evangelical Christian subculture's aims to establish dominion over the USA for Jesus.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5398604

So all you Americans who believe in separation of church and state, it's time to get organized and wage political war against these people. They've already fired the first shots in this war against us.
This is, unfortunately, nothing new. :(

How about Jesus and Mohammed as the brokeback cowboys? That should cause some controversy.
Isn't there already a stickfiguretheater version of that?

And, is it Jesus just can't quit Mohammed, or Mohammed just can't quit Jesus?
Which one spreads the ashes?

Isn't there already a stickfiguretheater version of that?

And, is it Jesus just can't quit Mohammed, or Mohammed just can't quit Jesus?
Which one spreads the ashes?

And it just sounds like the makings of a politically incorrect superhero action series with Jesus and Muhammed as a crime-fighting Duo.

"Forget the Blues Brothers. We're on a Mission from God."

And it just sounds like the makings of a politically incorrect superhero action series with Jesus and Muhammed as a crime-fighting Duo.

"Forget the Blues Brothers. We're on a Mission from God."
And SNL will take off with that as the cousins to The Ambiguously Gay Duo.
Verdigroth said something about his college newscomic already having a sequence with them on the topic of golden showers.
Yeesh, libruhls and colleges :rolleyes:

I'm not trying to be abrasive here, but I have two major points to make, in the plethora of topics in this thread.

Early American government was based in Christianity. Not Evangelicalism and not Catholicism singly, but Christianity in general. The correspondence of all but one or two of the signers of the Declaration of Independence show an obvious Christian faith, and an overall belief in God. Any cursory study of the topic would reveal this.

Also, this whole "separation of church and state" thing really cooks my goose. The founders included freedom of religion in our laws in order to protect different religious factions. The British government endorsed the Anglican denomination, and other types of Christianity were oppressed. Not wanting a repeat in America, all religions were protected. This did NOT mean that no religion should be included in politics. It means no religion should be EXCLUDED from politics. This is obvious with a little background study of the causes of the founding of the colonies, as well as the Revolution.

I'm not necessarily saying a secular government is bad, I'm saying that the country was not founded on secular principles, as most people posting here seem to think.

I'm not trying to be abrasive here, but I have two major points to make, in the plethora of topics in this thread.

Early American government was based in Christianity. Not Evangelicalism and not Catholicism singly, but Christianity in general. The correspondence of all but one or two of the signers of the Declaration of Independence show an obvious Christian faith, and an overall belief in God. Any cursory study of the topic would reveal this.

Also, this whole "separation of church and state" thing really cooks my goose. The founders included freedom of religion in our laws in order to protect different religious factions. The British government endorsed the Anglican denomination, and other types of Christianity were oppressed. Not wanting a repeat in America, all religions were protected. This did NOT mean that no religion should be included in politics. It means no religion should be EXCLUDED from politics. This is obvious with a little background study of the causes of the founding of the colonies, as well as the Revolution.

I'm not necessarily saying a secular government is bad, I'm saying that the country was not founded on secular principles, as most people posting here seem to think.

Let's start with....

A) The Declaration of Independance was written by one Thomas Jefferson, who history remembers as a "deist" with highly atheistic tendancies.

B) The Declaration of Independance is not a document of American gov't.

C) One of the first acts of the first American government was to give Atheists the right to own land.

D) Amongst more famous non-Christian founding fathers were: Ben Franklin, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, all major figures in the writing of American law.

I'm not trying to be abrasive here, but I have two major points to make, in the plethora of topics in this thread.

Early American government was based in Christianity. Not Evangelicalism and not Catholicism singly, but Christianity in general. The correspondence of all but one or two of the signers of the Declaration of Independence show an obvious Christian faith, and an overall belief in God. Any cursory study of the topic would reveal this.

Umm... no, the correspondence of most of them shows that they were largely Deists. Any cursory study of history not put out as Fundamentalist propganda shows this.


Also, this whole "separation of church and state" thing really cooks my goose. The founders included freedom of religion in our laws in order to protect different religious factions. The British government endorsed the Anglican denomination, and other types of Christianity were oppressed. Not wanting a repeat in America, all religions were protected. This did NOT mean that no religion should be included in politics. It means no religion should be EXCLUDED from politics. This is obvious with a little background study of the causes of the founding of the colonies, as well as the Revolution.

Two points: first, yes it does show that religion was meant to be kept out of politics. I suggest you reread some of those correspondences of the Founding Fathers you claim to be so familiar with. Second, The Evangelicals do want to exclude every religion but their own from the political process.What do you think they mean when they say "taking this country back for Christ"? They'll exclude and persecute Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Liberal Protestants, Muslims, etc.

I'm not necessarily saying a secular government is bad, I'm saying that the country was not founded on secular principles, as most people posting here seem to think.

Yes it was. And you're right. A secular government might not be bad -- but a Fundamentalist Christian theocracy would be. As I said earlier in this thread, if you want a theocracy so badly, GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY AND GO LIVE IN IRAN!

Let's start with....

A) The Declaration of Independance was written by one Thomas Jefferson, who history remembers as a "deist" with highly atheistic tendancies.

B) The Declaration of Independance is not a document of American gov't.

C) One of the first acts of the first American government was to give Atheists the right to own land.

D) Amongst more famous non-Christian founding fathers were: Ben Franklin, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, all major figures in the writing of American law.
Thank you for posting this, and not allowing any distracting posts in between. *bows*

Further ...
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
...here's a good start for people who cook their own gooses about a little opinion going a long way.
Further still ...
http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

First off, thanks everyone for the rational arguments.

Second off, Maine, I am NOT advocating a theocracy of ANY religion. Representative democracy works just fine for me. (In other words, attack my arguments, not me, especially when you don't know me.)

Now, to the rebuttal. Yes, Jefferson and a few others were blatantly not Christian. Not sure about atheism, but deism was definitely around at the time, and Jefferson subscribed.

Not really sure of your point about the Declaration. I never said it was a government document, but most of those who signed it were very involved in either national or state politics, so the attitude of the Declaration can be used to represent the attitude of the political leaders of the time.

And perhaps I was unclear. I wasn't intending to say that all non-Christians were stripped of any power. Atheists could own land---hadn't heard that, but it doesn't counter my argument. Freedom was given to all people, regardless of religion. EXCEPT that in most states, including Connecticut, the state constitutions required that state officials must subscribe to the Christian faith.

Also, I'm not talking about the current ideas or plans of anyone. I'm talking about the 1700s and the political atmosphere.

As far as reading correspondence, how much have YOU read, Maine? I can say I have read a bit of a few (John Jay, George Washington, a few others), and the evidence points to Christianity in those.

To quote Jefferson, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Contrary to your arguments, this was intended to keep the STATE from regulating the CHURCH, not the other way around. Again, look at the history of British religion. Their problem wasn't the church invading the state, but the state invading the church by forcing Anglicanism on the people.

To quote Jefferson, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Contrary to your arguments, this was intended to keep the STATE from regulating the CHURCH, not the other way around. Again, look at the history of British religion. Their problem wasn't the church invading the state, but the state invading the church by forcing Anglicanism on the people.Point is, religion is now trying to use the state to force itself on the citizens - which you just explained your founding fathers were trying to prevent.

True, but I never argued against that. All I'm talking about the political atmosphere in America during the late 1700s.

True, but I never argued against that. All I'm talking about the political atmosphere in America during the late 1700s.Granted, I haven't read the entire thread, but were anyone arguing otherwise?

Also, have anyone been arguing that people should be disqualified from participating in the political process, if they're religious?

http://anikari.zioncreation.com/omgconspiracy.jpg
[/ridiculousness]
Props to Fark (http://fark.com/) for the image, ironically enough.

Also, have anyone been arguing that people should be disqualified from participating in the political process, if they're religious?
!
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/ap_alaska/story/7707243p-7618331c.html
The church says its status as a nonprofit religious organization should exempt it from having to pay property taxes on the homes. The city says the church should pay taxes because the people who live there aren't clergy members.

...coupled with...
http://www.adn.com/front/story/7713805p-7624904c.html
"It was a clarification of the law," said Glenn Clary, a pastor at the Anchorage Baptist Temple.
...
Clary said the church felt that it was being unfairly targeted, as the city had allowed the tax exemption for years. The change also would shield other churches and charities from facing similar situations, he said.

Clary, who also is treasurer of the Alaska Republican Party, has lobbied hard to garner support for the legislation. During a break in the debate on the bill Tuesday, several lawmakers approached Clary, who was sitting in the chamber's gallery.
...
On Monday the head of the church, the Rev. Jerry Prevo, sent out an "urgent" e-mail asking people to tell their legislators to "stop the city of Anchorage from discriminating against religious organizations."

...last part coupled with...
http://www.insurgent49.com/stubbs_prevoland.html
---
As Corneliu "Lightning Rod" is so fond of saying,
Nothing to see here.
:(

So.. If you're teaching Sunday school at most popular local church, you don't have to pay property tax? - In fact, you bypass everything normally associated with living in a community, because your employer simply provides you with everything for free?

... Fuck that.

The government is a non-profit organisation as well. Does that mean we have to provide free housing & tax exemptions for all public servants?

I think I'll move to Alaska & join the police. Imagine that. Above the law, no taxes & a license to beat the shit out of whomever you feel like.

Alaska here I come!


Anyway, this seems more like a case of corrupt politicians & a corrupt church. I don't see how this is inherently to do with religious people being active in politics. Tony, for example, is a fairly religious sort, yet I don't see him bending the rules to provide special favours for his church.

So.. If you're teaching Sunday school at most popular local church, you don't have to pay property tax? - In fact, you bypass everything normally associated with living in a community, because your employer simply provides you with everything for free?

... Fuck that.

The government is a non-profit organisation as well. Does that mean we have to provide free housing & tax exemptions for all public servants?

I think I'll move to Alaska & join the police. Imagine that. Above the law, no taxes & a license to beat the shit out of whomever you feel like.

Alaska here I come!You know how light the law is here with conceal/carry permits?
PLUS the "stand your ground" law?
You don't even need to be a cop here!



Anyway, this seems more like a case of corrupt politicians & a corrupt church. I don't see how this is inherently to do with religious people being active in politics. Tony, for example, is a fairly religious sort, yet I don't see him bending the rules to provide special favours for his church.Religious people here being Clary, the treasurer for the AK Repub party, for which it's probably a good comparison with a guy named Gregg Renkes, another guy named Randy Ruederich, and another guy named Norm Rokeberg, another named Jay Ramras (lotsa R&R's) and also some of the issue of Ben Stevens (Ted "Hulk" Stevens' son).

It's an issue of pervasion, up here at least. Taint, as Shadegg put it ... and quite predictable.

You know how light the law is here with conceal/carry permits?
PLUS the "stand your ground" law?
You don't even need to be a cop here!In that case, I'll move up there & found the religion of Sim - similized world religion. I can't imagine who that wouldn't appeal to (other than people like myself, possibly). Just give me a couple of years & I'll have both the voter base & the local republican party - and a religious terror squad, ready to apply peer pressure to heathens & employers alike.

You shall all follow me.. Or get kicked out of Alaska! Muahahaha!!Religious people here being Clary, the treasurer for the AK Repub party, for which it's probably a good comparison with a guy named Gregg Renkes, another guy named Randy Ruederich, and another guy named Norm Rokeberg, another named Jay Ramras (lotsa R&R's) and also some of the issue of Ben Stevens (Ted "Hulk" Stevens' son).

It's an issue of pervasion, up here at least. Taint, as Shadegg put it ... and quite predictable.So I'm basically right about it not being a religious problem per se, but rather a problem with corrupt megalomanic cult leaders.

I thought the ATF was supposed to shoot and/or burn people like that?

Incidentially, it's amazing how nothing brings out my inner racist faster than Americans. I read the little editorial of that indy news site you linked to, and I have to agree. I know plenty of perfectly sane Americans, yet my overall perception of you guys is steadily worsening (and please note that I'm genuinely surprised that's even possible).

Forgive me, but what's a "thocracy?" :D

Forgive me, but what's a "thocracy?" :D

Have you seen V for vendetta?

This seems very sinister to me. Christian groups are running camps to brainwash their kids in order to radically change the character of the US from a more or less secular nation into a Christian theocracy.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=12069695&pageNumber=0

A recent interview I heard on the radio illustrated the Evangelical Christian subculture's aims to establish dominion over the USA for Jesus.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5398604

So all you Americans who believe in separation of church and state, it's time to get organized and wage political war against these people. They've already fired the first shots in this war against us.
Yeah, so? I can say that college professors are mostly to all liberals, who want to turn America into Soviet Union 2.0. You know, most liberals (communists, socialists and Labor people(not sure it that is right.)) will just ignore that every nation that has tried these things have failed miserably.

Yeah, so? I can say that college professors are mostly to all liberals, who want to turn America into Soviet Union 2.0. You know, most liberals (communists, socialists and Labor people(not sure it that is right.)) will just ignore that every nation that has tried these things have failed miserably.

Liberalism /=/ Communism. Not that the Soviet Union was even communist, strictly speaking, but your point indicates that you think it was. Secondly, where do you get the opinion that they're mostly liberals? And who are "Labor people"?

Yeah seriously, lets see here:

Telling consenting adults what they can and cant do with their bodies...check
Kicking gays out of schools...check
Refusing to fill perscriptions (aka DO THEIR JOB) for birth control and antibiotics (for people who recently had an abortion)...check
Ruth Malhotra is a bitch...check
Cracking down on evolution...check

And they say THEY are being persecuted? A word of advice...do unto others...

Next thing you know the idea of geocentricity is being taught in schools.

Yeah, so? I can say that college professors are mostly to all liberals, who want to turn America into Soviet Union 2.0. You know, most liberals (communists, socialists and Labor people(not sure it that is right.)) will just ignore that every nation that has tried these things have failed miserably.

What the fuck are you talking about? If anyone is trying to turn this country into Soviet Union 2.0 its the religious nutbags. Because, you know, forcing a religion/belief system upon the people isnt very American.

And who are "Labor people"?He's talking about the superduper secret British Labour agents, currently working on infesting your festering political system

What the fuck are you talking about? If anyone is trying to turn this country into Soviet Union 2.0 its the religious nutbags. Because, you know, forcing a religion/belief system upon the people isnt very American.


This isn't about 'forcing' people to be Christians. Only a few fanatics would think that was okay. It's about persuading, rationally.

You know what? I give up. I was trying to think of ways to argue against a lot of the stuff on this thread, when I suddenly realized it's all based on exaggerations of the quotes anyway. So have fun attacking people by putting a new spin on their words. I'm not gonna sit here and watch it.

This isn't about 'forcing' people to be Christians. Only a few fanatics would think that was okay. It's about persuading, rationally.I think that's going to be a tough challenge, seeing as a religion isn't a rational belief.

You know what? I give up. I was trying to think of ways to argue against a lot of the stuff on this thread, when I suddenly realized it's all based on exaggerations of the quotes anyway. So have fun attacking people by putting a new spin on their words. I'm not gonna sit here and watch it.So ignore the exaggerations & stick to addressing the valid points. Or are you really content with being "the sole voice of reason" & muting yourself?

Incidentially, what exactly was your point?

This isn't about 'forcing' people to be Christians. Only a few fanatics would think that was okay. It's about persuading, rationally.
Why does the government need to persuade people to be Christian? Can't the churches and the media do that?

First off, thanks everyone for the rational arguments.

Second off, Maine, I am NOT advocating a theocracy of ANY religion. Representative democracy works just fine for me. (In other words, attack my arguments, not me, especially when you don't know me.)

Now, to the rebuttal. Yes, Jefferson and a few others were blatantly not Christian. Not sure about atheism, but deism was definitely around at the time, and Jefferson subscribed.

Not really sure of your point about the Declaration. I never said it was a government document, but most of those who signed it were very involved in either national or state politics, so the attitude of the Declaration can be used to represent the attitude of the political leaders of the time.

And perhaps I was unclear. I wasn't intending to say that all non-Christians were stripped of any power. Atheists could own land---hadn't heard that, but it doesn't counter my argument. Freedom was given to all people, regardless of religion. EXCEPT that in most states, including Connecticut, the state constitutions required that state officials must subscribe to the Christian faith.

Also, I'm not talking about the current ideas or plans of anyone. I'm talking about the 1700s and the political atmosphere.

As far as reading correspondence, how much have YOU read, Maine? I can say I have read a bit of a few (John Jay, George Washington, a few others), and the evidence points to Christianity in those.

To quote Jefferson, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Contrary to your arguments, this was intended to keep the STATE from regulating the CHURCH, not the other way around. Again, look at the history of British religion. Their problem wasn't the church invading the state, but the state invading the church by forcing Anglicanism on the people.


Fine, since you finally took the time to actually make arguements, I'll respond. Start with these links:

http://members.tripod.com/candst/toc.htm#study
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

Then go read some books. Then try using this thing called google. Try looking up Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Hamilton, Hancock, etc. and see their own words. I've read them. I've read the Constitution. I've read lots of things, have you? I'm not doing any more of your work for you.

And the part I've bolded of your post? It's exactly what I'm talking about. The state forcing a church on the people. Contrary to your assertion, this is the result of a church interfering with the state. Thanks for making my point for me. No one is saying you shouldn't practice your religion without interference, but why should I have to follow your beliefs? I am very much offended by people who seem to believe that they should have religious freedom, but those who have different beliefs shouldn't. Who are you (I mean evangelicals, not you specifically) to claim to speak for God? Prove that your interpretation of Scripture is the correct one. I seriously doubt that anyone who says they want to "take America back for Jesus" is doing it for any reason than their own thirst for power.

In that case, I'll move up there & found the religion of Sim - similized world religion. I can't imagine who that wouldn't appeal to (other than people like myself, possibly). Just give me a couple of years & I'll have both the voter base & the local republican party - and a religious terror squad, ready to apply peer pressure to heathens & employers alike.

You shall all follow me.. Or get kicked out of Alaska! Muahahaha!!So I'm basically right about it not being a religious problem per se, but rather a problem with corrupt megalomanic cult leaders. Well it's really hard to swing the difference between a cult and a religion - basically a numbers issue.

I thought the ATF was supposed to shoot and/or burn people like that?I don't know if that's still in the charter or not. The repubs etched that into Clinton's backside with a hot iron - perhaps the rule's still there.

Incidentially, it's amazing how nothing brings out my inner racist faster than Americans. I read the little editorial of that indy news site you linked to, and I have to agree. I know plenty of perfectly sane Americans, yet my overall perception of you guys is steadily worsening (and please note that I'm genuinely surprised that's even possible).Well, sounds like my work here is done.

Why does the government need to persuade people to be Christian? Can't the churches and the media do that?
It'll make the next war more palatable to the people who don't let those kinds of delusional death-cult concerns run their daily lives.
With the U.S. as "christian", it'll seem okay to kill the "muslim" "terrorists" over where they just happen to be occupying a resource we want.
This ain't the first time and it won't be the last.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
That sure seems familiar ... ;)


Who are you (I mean evangelicals, not you specifically) to claim to speak for God?
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." —to a group of Amish in Lancaster, PA, July 9, 2004
Prove that your interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.Hmmm ...


And verily did the LORD sayeth unto his flock, "Every word you say i say is true is true." And the LORD did find it behooveth him greatly not to make his speeches in a canyon, for great sorrow and suffering came to pass, since the message was turned on its ear. Then the LORD devised a new idea, to speak directly into the minds and souls of his flock, for which again the LORD was grieved, for indeed the same echo persisteth in their heads. And more blood flowed. Then the LORD god took a cue from Pontius Pilate, and washed his hands of the whole tawdry affair. And it was so.


I seriously doubt that anyone who says they want to "take America back for Jesus" is doing it for any reason than their own thirst for power.Case in point being the thread i started about Kenneth Starr and his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" crusade.

It'll make the next war more palatable to the people who don't let those kinds of delusional death-cult concerns run their daily lives.
With the U.S. as "christian", it'll seem okay to kill the "muslim" "terrorists" over where they just happen to be occupying a resource we want.
This ain't the first time and it won't be the last.I'm afraid that's very true. After all, most of the world seems dead set on not changing the energy policy, and well.. There just isn't enough to go around for more than a couple of years. Conventional oil production is peaking right now.

So it seems perfectly reasonable to expect the muscle nations to take by force what they can't afford to buy.
China is now getting (if I recall) some 30% of their energy resources (Oil, coal etc) from Africa, because unlike the EU & US, they don't have any fancy political demands added to their investment deals. They simply build the infrastructure needed & thus help both the continent & themselves.

It's an absurd situation when some 70% of our forign aid never actually leaves our own countries, and the remainder gets spend on comparatively meaningless stuff like womens rights (don't get me wrong, but comparatively, it's pointless). Meanwhile, we're too stuck up to invest in African infrastructure, so they're resigned to a situation where it's cheaper to import corn from half way across the globe, than it is to transport it 100 miles locally.
Not only does our miserably disabled help programs not help expand the markets, which we'll need to keep up our own growth, it also keeps them trapped in our welfare programs, becauuse it's cheaper to rely on us, and the more they rely on us, the less they'll ever be able to free themselves from their debt.

So yea.. Failing expansion of markets, an energy policy without a future.. I think more wars are pretty much a certainty at this point. I'm grateful the EU seems to genuinely want to become self sufficient over the next 50 years, because as far as I can see, it's either that, or a bidding/imperialism race with the US & China.

I do hope I'm wrong though.

I'm afraid that's very true. After all, most of the world seems dead set on not changing the energy policy, and well.. There just isn't enough to go around for more than a couple of years. Conventional oil production is peaking right now.

So it seems perfectly reasonable to expect the muscle nations to take by force what they can't afford to buy.
China is now getting (if I recall) some 30% of their energy resources (Oil, coal etc) from Africa, because unlike the EU & US, they don't have any fancy political demands added to their investment deals. They simply build the infrastructure needed & thus help both the continent & themselves.
EXACTLY. *nods*

It's an absurd situation when some 70% of our forign aid never actually leaves our own countries, and the remainder gets spend on comparatively meaningless stuff like womens rights (don't get me wrong, but comparatively, it's pointless). Meanwhile, we're too stuck up to invest in African infrastructure, so they're resigned to a situation where it's cheaper to import corn from half way across the globe, than it is to transport it 100 miles locally.
Not only does our miserably disabled help programs not help expand the markets, which we'll need to keep up our own growth, it also keeps them trapped in our welfare programs, becauuse it's cheaper to rely on us, and the more they rely on us, the less they'll ever be able to free themselves from their debt.An earnest review of IMF and World Bank policies and intervention helps quite a bit along this line as well.

So yea.. Failing expansion of markets, an energy policy without a future.. I think more wars are pretty much a certainty at this point. I'm grateful the EU seems to genuinely want to become self sufficient over the next 50 years, because as far as I can see, it's either that, or a bidding/imperialism race with the US & China.Strangely enough, i had a strong premonition about it back in '86. Can't really explain why, since i really wasn't savvy enough to know why i felt it.

I do hope I'm wrong though.Well, let's hope there's some sensible alternatives that are attractive enough that we don't have to kill each other off when we can see this far ahead enough in time. :(

This seems very sinister to me. Christian groups are running camps to brainwash their kids in order to radically change the character of the US from a more or less secular nation into a Christian theocracy.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=12069695&pageNumber=0

A recent interview I heard on the radio illustrated the Evangelical Christian subculture's aims to establish dominion over the USA for Jesus.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5398604

So all you Americans who believe in separation of church and state, it's time to get organized and wage political war against these people. They've already fired the first shots in this war against us.

There's no such thing as seperation of Church and state, DCD. YOu out of all people should know that. Geez, I step away from the forums for a few months and you turn lefty?

No, secularism is a lack of religious belief, therefore not a religious belief.

I have neither seen or heard of a secularist agenda to 'destroy any mention of any religion in America.' It's not an issue of 'whose religion is right', it's an issue of equal rights. When a single religion is endorsed by the state, people of different faiths become second-class citizens. So far, I've seen forced public prayer taken out of public schools, and the tested and thus far unfalsified scientific theory of evolution taught in public classrooms. I have yet to see legislation that forbids private worship of ANY god.

I have seen all voluntary prayer forbidden in schools, including prayer by players about to play a sports game. I have seen schools forbid students from bringing Bibles to read on their own personal time. I have seen the youngest students, told that they can write on any topic, choosing to write about Jesus or God, and told that that is the one topic they may not write about...

If we continue along these lines, there may one day be laws that forbid Church meetings (some cities have already tried this) or private worship.

That is why some Christians feel as though they are under siege, and are mounting up resistance.

That is why some Christians feel as though they are under siege, and are mounting up resistance.

Resistance against who, exactly?

I have seen all voluntary prayer forbidden in schools, including prayer by players about to play a sports game. I have seen schools forbid students from bringing Bibles to read on their own personal time. I have seen the youngest students, told that they can write on any topic, choosing to write about Jesus or God, and told that that is the one topic they may not write about...

If we continue along these lines, there may one day be laws that forbid Church meetings (some cities have already tried this) or private worship.

That is why some Christians feel as though they are under siege, and are mounting up resistance.
Are these urban legends? Those stories are definitely assaults on freedom.

Are these urban legends? Those stories are definitely assaults on freedom.

Not urban legends, these things have been happening for years now. I have seen them in the news, but I don't keep old archived links.

I can probably gather some info from someone like the ACLJ, American Center for Law & Justice, which defends Christians in these cases for free, or other institutions that defend the religious against these sorts of things.

Some of the cases have gone to the SCOTUS, where they are normally decided in favor of religious freedom. But most school districts and cities in the US simply ignore SCOTUS rulings not in their favor, and continue to enforce unconstitutional rules and laws.

Most people probably don't pay attention to this stuff, since most don't seem to pay attention to anything beyond tonight's dinner menu.

And non-Christians would have no reason to keep track of this either, since it doesn't affect them...

Not urban legends, <Snip>I'm gonna post something you may feel is in extremely bad taste, so I just want to make it perfectly clear that your last two posts here didn't prompt me to do it. Though I'm neither religious nor American, I sympathise. Religion, as far as I'm concerned, is a personal matter & public service and/or institutions should not interfere with religion, just like religion shouldn't interfere with them.

Though I'm in a country with an offician state religion, people here - including school children - are free to practice their beliefs, as long as they don't interfere with others. I would have imagined you lot had this same right guaranteed in your constitution. Most schools here can & do provide empty classrooms for the religious wee ones during lunchbreak.

Anyway, here's the bad taste! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3HU7SwjptY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fchurchofsatan%2Etv%2Fsbn12%2Ehtml)

There's no such thing as seperation of Church and state, DCD. YOu out of all people should know that. Geez, I step away from the forums for a few months and you turn lefty?
How the fuck could anyone with any grain of sense claim that there is no separation of church and state?

How the fuck could anyone with any grain of sense claim that there is no separation of church and state?
It's all in the play, right?

It's all in the play, right?
The play's the thing to catch the conscience of a king.












Sorry, I just went all Shakespeare on you. It's the wine. :D

I have seen all voluntary prayer forbidden in schools, including prayer by players about to play a sports game. I have seen schools forbid students from bringing Bibles to read on their own personal time. I have seen the youngest students, told that they can write on any topic, choosing to write about Jesus or God, and told that that is the one topic they may not write about...

School's shouldn't be setting aside time for any religious service or prayer. Public schools represent the government, and the government should be NEUTRAL, having nothing to do with the religious beliefs of anyone. If you're being forbidden to wear a cross, or say a prayer to yourself before an exam, you need to get off your ass and sue. The courts will side with you.

Likewise, kids who like to see everyone get up and pray like them every morning need to get used to the idea that other people believe different things. If you can't have five minutes to hold up a class every morning to announce your religious affliation TOUGH SHIT. Do it at home, or before class.

If we continue along these lines, there may one day be laws that forbid Church meetings (some cities have already tried this) or private worship.

I call bullshit. Sources please.

I've been paranoid about this for a while now--visions of Nehemiah Scudder--because the big thing that the Dominionists count on is voter apathy. We're in a fairly non-apathetic place--for us, anyway--right now, but there's no reason to think that will continue.

Nice reference! :)

As much as the Christian Right scares me, the people throughout this country (and in this thread) who claim there is nothing to worry about scare me even more.

The only way for the fundamentalists to gain the power they truly seek is for them to convince enough people that they don't actually want that power.

The day that enough people are convinced that a theocracy can "never happen" in America...is the day that Theocracy will firmly take control of American politics.

Nice reference! :)

As much as the Christian Right scares me, the people throughout this country (and in this thread) who claim there is nothing to worry about scare me even more.

The only way for the fundamentalists to gain the power they truly seek is for them to convince enough people that they don't actually want that power.

The day that enough people are convinced that a theocracy can "never happen" in America...is the day that Theocracy will firmly take control of American politics.
I'm glad you caught it, but I'm a bit sad that no one else did. What, a liberal can't appreciate Heinlein? :D

This seems very sinister to me. Christian groups are running camps to brainwash their kids in order to radically change the character of the US from a more or less secular nation into a Christian theocracy.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=12069695&pageNumber=0

A recent interview I heard on the radio illustrated the Evangelical Christian subculture's aims to establish dominion over the USA for Jesus.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5398604

So all you Americans who believe in separation of church and state, it's time to get organized and wage political war against these people. They've already fired the first shots in this war against us.



they can lick my....

The play's the thing to catch the conscience of a king.












Sorry, I just went all Shakespeare on you. It's the wine. :D


First Heinlein, now Shakespeare? My, aren't we getting literary? :D

The play's the thing to catch the conscience of a king.












Sorry, I just went all Shakespeare on you. It's the wine. :D
No apologies! It's much, much better than refing me with Snoop Dogg (Calvin Broadus). :)

Have you seen V for vendetta?
He was poking fun at the mispelling of "theocracy" in the thread title.

I'm glad you caught it, but I'm a bit sad that no one else did. What, a liberal can't appreciate Heinlein? :D

This liberal sure does... :)

There's no such thing as seperation of Church and state, DCD. YOu out of all people should know that. Geez, I step away from the forums for a few months and you turn lefty?
There used to be, when leftist radicals like Jefferson were in charge. Oh, I was always a lefty.

There used to be, when leftist radicals like Jefferson were in charge. Oh, I was always a lefty.

I don't think you could ever have called Jefferson a lefty, in fact he would probably be a conservative today and you would probably be denouncing him saying he was just short of George W. Bush.

In fact Jefferson actually said " I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thats no leftist radical comment, that is a conservative comment.

I don't think you could ever have called Jefferson a lefty, in fact he would probably be a conservative today and you would probably be denouncing him saying he was just short of George W. Bush.

In fact Jefferson actually said " I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thats no leftist radical comment, that is a conservative comment.
The Jeezus folks would consider him a liberal for not wanting to bring christianity into government.

Oh, hostility against tyranny? That's neither a liberal nor a conservative statement. It's a statement that any decent person should be willing to endorse.

The Jeezus folks would consider him a liberal for not wanting to bring christianity into government.

Oh, hostility against tyranny? That's neither a liberal nor a conservative statement. It's a statement that any decent person should be willing to endorse.

No the mention of God in that statement was what I was refering to.

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283
Hmmm thats not a quote from a man that doesn't want to involve christianity in the government.

Also that amendment was written to protect religion from government not the other way around read what Jefferson said on that."I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429

The other founding fathers were just as religious as Jefferson if not more so.

Following his brief inaugural address to the Congress, President George Washington and his party walked over to St. Paul's Church for divine services. His prayer that afternoon was: 'Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large.'

So you see seperation of religion from state was never meant by the first amendment which gaurantees freedom OF Religion... I guess thats why they titled it that..

ANd evangelicals are not the people I would be worried about trying to create a theocracy in this country, since it was the Christian values of choice, freedom, and equality which produced the free western world we know today.

This seems very sinister to me. Christian groups are running camps to brainwash their kids in order to radically change the character of the US from a more or less secular nation into a Christian theocracy.

A recent interview I heard on the radio illustrated the Evangelical Christian subculture's aims to establish dominion over the USA for Jesus.

So all you Americans who believe in separation of church and state, it's time to get organized and wage political war against these people. They've already fired the first shots in this war against us.

I agree with doing everything within one's reach, against people using Christianity with an aim to establish dominion over the state.

I also agree with doing everything in one's reach to differentiate true Christians, from power-hungry and subversive so-called Christians.

No the mention of God in that statement was what I was refering to.

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283
Hmmm thats not a quote from a man that doesn't want to involve christianity in the government.
Nor does it sound like a quote from a man who DOES want christianity involved in government.
Also that amendment was written to protect religion from government not the other way around read what Jefferson said on that."I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428 Allowing religion to interfere with government will invariably allow popular religious groups to use government to interfere with less popular ones. Therefore the separation has to prevent any interferance from either side.


"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429

The other founding fathers were just as religious as Jefferson if not more so.
Well unless they were agnostic or atheist they certainly couldn't be less, but being religious doesn't mean that you want to eliminate the separation between church and state.
Following his brief inaugural address to the Congress, President George Washington and his party walked over to St. Paul's Church for divine services. His prayer that afternoon was: 'Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large.'

So you see seperation of religion from state was never meant by the first amendment which gaurantees freedom OF Religion... I guess thats why they titled it that..

ANd evangelicals are not the people I would be worried about trying to create a theocracy in this country, since it was the Christian values of choice, freedom, and equality which produced the free western world we know today.Choice, Freedom and Equality aren't Christian values. Christians are certainly not pro-choice. They've discouraged people from choosing abortion, communism, and blasphemous art or speech in the past. They've tried to curtail people's freedom through "blue" laws regulating work and shopping hours as well as "obscenity" laws. Equality, well, one could argue that treating people as sinners because they haven't accepted Jesus doesn't sound too egalitarian to me.

There used to be, when leftist radicals like Jefferson were in charge. Oh, I was always a lefty.

That was taken out of context. Read the entire qoute....

School's shouldn't be setting aside time for any religious service or prayer. Public schools represent the government, and the government should be NEUTRAL, having nothing to do with the religious beliefs of anyone. If you're being forbidden to wear a cross, or say a prayer to yourself before an exam, you need to get off your ass and sue. The courts will side with you.

Likewise, kids who like to see everyone get up and pray like them every morning need to get used to the idea that other people believe different things. If you can't have five minutes to hold up a class every morning to announce your religious affliation TOUGH SHIT. Do it at home, or before class.



I call bullshit. Sources please.

Like I said, I read the stuff in daily papers or heard it on the radio over the past decade at least. I will have to do research to find all the many instances, or I will have to link to the legal organizations that do the defending.

This is not about schools setting aside time. This is about schools, governments and corporations forbidding people from being religious on their own time, aka breaks, lunch, recess, etc., and forbidding people from holding religious meetings in their own homes, and giving free access to public facilities to groups as long as they are not religious, then forbidding the religious groups access or charging them when they don't charge others...

Most people are ignorant of anything that does not affect them or their own group. In this world of internet, with probably billions of websites, blogs, news sources, etc., no one can keep up with it all. I certainly don't, nor do I wish to.

However, I do keep up with things affecting my group, which would be religious Christians, so I am aware of these things. And having a daughter who went through government schools not too long ago, I keep up on all the zero-tolerance stuff as well. Who could believe that students would be suspended for pointing their fingers at someone and saying "bang?" But it has happened, and will continue to happen, as long as the public remains largely ignorant.

People worry about Bush creating a fascist police state. I hate to say, it has already been here for years. It just doesn't affect everyone equally, or all the time.

Never mind, go back to sleep.

Like I said, I read the stuff in daily papers or heard it on the radio over the past decade at least. I will have to do research to find all the many instances, or I will have to link to the legal organizations that do the defending.
Please do, I'm interested to hear them.

This is not about schools setting aside time. This is about schools, governments and corporations forbidding people from being religious on their own time, aka breaks, lunch, recess, etc., and forbidding people from holding religious meetings in their own homes, and giving free access to public facilities to groups as long as they are not religious, then forbidding the religious groups access or charging them when they don't charge others...
Ditto above. That sounds unbelievably unconstitutional to me and I would like to see a legal precedent for those.

Like I said, I read the stuff in daily papers or heard it on the radio over the past decade at least. I will have to do research to find all the many instances, or I will have to link to the legal organizations that do the defending.

This is not about schools setting aside time. This is about schools, governments and corporations forbidding people from being religious on their own time, aka breaks, lunch, recess, etc., and forbidding people from holding religious meetings in their own homes, and giving free access to public facilities to groups as long as they are not religious, then forbidding the religious groups access or charging them when they don't charge others...

Most people are ignorant of anything that does not affect them or their own group. In this world of internet, with probably billions of websites, blogs, news sources, etc., no one can keep up with it all. I certainly don't, nor do I wish to.

However, I do keep up with things affecting my group, which would be religious Christians, so I am aware of these things. And having a daughter who went through government schools not too long ago, I keep up on all the zero-tolerance stuff as well. Who could believe that students would be suspended for pointing their fingers at someone and saying "bang?" But it has happened, and will continue to happen, as long as the public remains largely ignorant.

People worry about Bush creating a fascist police state. I hate to say, it has already been here for years. It just doesn't affect everyone equally, or all the time.

Never mind, go back to sleep.


Please I would love to see the instances of people not being allowed to practice their chosen religion in their own homes or on their own time.

Please I would love to see the instances of people not being allowed to practice their chosen religion in their own homes or on their own time.
I think it's happened in a couple of isolated instances when the school administrators or teachers weren't clear on the rules regarding student-led and teacher-led prayers and the difference between the two.

I think it's happened in a couple of isolated instances when the school administrators or teachers weren't clear on the rules regarding student-led and teacher-led prayers and the difference between the two.
Hmmm well hopefully it got sorted , I am no big fan of religion but I dont like to see people's rights restricted erronesly

Nor does it sound like a quote from a man who DOES want christianity involved in government. Allowing religion to interfere with government will invariably allow popular religious groups to use government to interfere with less popular ones. Therefore the separation has to prevent any interferance from either side.Well unless they were agnostic or atheist they certainly couldn't be less, but being religious doesn't mean that you want to eliminate the separation between church and state.Choice, Freedom and Equality aren't Christian values. Christians are certainly not pro-choice. They've discouraged people from choosing abortion, communism, and blasphemous art or speech in the past. They've tried to curtail people's freedom through "blue" laws regulating work and shopping hours as well as "obscenity" laws. Equality, well, one could argue that treating people as sinners because they haven't accepted Jesus doesn't sound too egalitarian to me.

I guess thats why democracy first bloomed in dominantly Christian parts of the globe, and those that weren't Christian have been playing catch up for the past century. Discouraging is quite different from forcing, especially when they have been discouraging murder,totalitarianism, and degrading and insulting pieces of "art". And they accept the fact that everyone in the world is a sinner including themselves.

I guess thats why democracy first bloomed in dominantly Christian parts of the globe, and those that weren't Christian have been playing catch up for the past century. Discouraging is quite different from forcing, especially when they have been discouraging murder,totalitarianism, and degrading and insulting pieces of "art". And they accept the fact that everyone in the world is a sinner including themselves.
Lol what is the adjusted R^2 on that predictor lol

I guess thats why democracy first bloomed in dominantly Christian parts of the globe, and those that weren't Christian have been playing catch up for the past century. Discouraging is quite different from forcing, especially when they have been discouraging murder,totalitarianism, and degrading and insulting pieces of "art". And they accept the fact that everyone in the world is a sinner including themselves.
Ancient pagan Greece, where democracy was first thought up, wasn't Christian. Democracy became a major part of Western Civilization when Christianity began to decline in importance and influence on the state.

In fact Jefferson actually said " I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thats no leftist radical comment, that is a conservative comment.
It's not conservative. Historically, conservatives worldwide have mostly tried to conserve various forms of tyranny. Leftists, especially radicals, have tried to overthrow them (sometimes, sadly creating new tyrannies as well).

Also that amendment was written to protect religion from government not the other way around
So maybe those churches which want to wed same-sex couples should be permitted to do so. The government should not interfere with those churches.

I long for the days when the rational, largely deistical "founding fathers" that actually existed replace the fake version that the ignorant purveyors of the Right Wing counter reality believe in.

Enjoy your 40 year old text books bought off eBay in your illustrious Home Schools...

The World Really Is Ending

cue Larkin, "get out as early as you can, and don't have any kids yourself"


http://www.royalsreview.com

You know what? I give up. I was trying to think of ways to argue against a lot of the stuff on this thread, when I suddenly realized it's all based on exaggerations of the quotes anyway.

You mean like the lady who basically said, "Brainwashing is good. We should do more of it." ?

Yeah, so? I can say that college professors are mostly to all liberals, who want to turn America into Soviet Union 2.0.

You could, but it would probably be about the most idiotic thing you've ever typed (I'm hoping, since it doesn't get much more idiotic than that).

Interestingly enough, the only profs I've ever had actually express their political ideas were conservatives - telling us how they were voting Republican....

Early American government was based in Christianity.

Oh really? Is that why the early US Government explictly stated that they were, in no way based in Christianity? Is that why the proposal to mention Jesus Christ in the Constitution was near-unanimously voted down?

Seriously, read just a little bit of history.

The correspondence of all but one or two of the signers of the Declaration of Independence show an obvious Christian faith, and an overall belief in God. Any cursory study of the topic would reveal this.

Most of them, when they do reference Christianity, do not actually state that they agree with it. The most famous of the Founding Fathers were largely Deists, many of whom revered the teachings of Christ, but refrained (at least in any correspondance we have) from stating the belief that Christ was God.

Also, this whole "separation of church and state" thing really cooks my goose. The founders included freedom of religion in our laws in order to protect different religious factions. The British government endorsed the Anglican denomination, and other types of Christianity were oppressed. Not wanting a repeat in America, all religions were protected. This did NOT mean that no religion should be included in politics. It means no religion should be EXCLUDED from politics. This is obvious with a little background study of the causes of the founding of the colonies, as well as the Revolution.

If you include one religion in politics, you have excluded all religions that disagree. If you pass laws based on one religion, you have trampled the religious freedoms of all those who disagree. There is no way to include religion in government that does not end up oppressing some religions.

You could, but it would probably be about the most idiotic thing you've ever typed (I'm hoping, since it doesn't get much more idiotic than that).

Interestingly enough, the only profs I've ever had actually express their political ideas were conservatives - telling us how they were voting Republican....
It's funny, isn't it, that many on the right try to paint universities as these bastions of liberal indoctrination, while they never think about what that means if they were accurate. That would mean that practically every person who got a higher education would be liberal (assuming the indoctrination is as effective as they make it out to be). The exceptions would be those with the sufficient will to overcome the training in advanced anti-Americanism that's put into every class. And then of course, that would mean that the vast majority of their voting populace would have to be non-college goers, the uneducated. When you look at the demographics of both parties, however, you see pretty significant chunks of college goers and high school dropouts in both parties. You see people with advanced degrees and people with GEDs in both parties. And not just small minorities, either--if I recall correctly, the largest split in any educational group was 65-35 or something like that.

It's funny, isn't it, that many on the right try to paint universities as these bastions of liberal indoctrination, while they never think about what that means if they were accurate. That would mean that practically every person who got a higher education would be liberal (assuming the indoctrination is as effective as they make it out to be). The exceptions would be those with the sufficient will to overcome the training in advanced anti-Americanism that's put into every class. And then of course, that would mean that the vast majority of their voting populace would have to be non-college goers, the uneducated. When you look at the demographics of both parties, however, you see pretty significant chunks of college goers and high school dropouts in both parties. You see people with advanced degrees and people with GEDs in both parties. And not just small minorities, either--if I recall correctly, the largest split in any educational group was 65-35 or something like that.

I think its more, when people are in college they get indocrinated with liberal beleifs, but once they have to go out in the real world, get a job, support a family, get older, they become more conservative because they realize thats the way the world (or atleast America) works. Thats what my parents said and thats what my government teacher told me.

I think its more, when people are in college they get indocrinated with liberal beleifs, but once they have to go out in the real world, get a job, support a family, get older, they become more conservative because they realize thats the way the world (or at least America) works. Thats what my parents said and thats what my government teacher told me.
When you've lived it, then you'll have a real opinion on it.

I think its more, when people are in college they get indocrinated with liberal beleifs,

And your evidence for this would be??

but once they have to go out in the real world, get a job, support a family, get older, they become more conservative because they realize thats the way the world (or atleast America) works.

People in general tend to get more conservative as they get older (at least after the 20's or so). This is true with or without college. I would guess that it has more to do with getting "set in your ways", as it were. Most likley, the 'liberal" viewpoints of today will be seen as fairly normal in 20 years, but the new "liberal" viewpoints will be, well, "liberal." Thus, those who used to be liberals will suddenly seem conservative - because the ideas we consider "liberal" will have changed.

Thats what my parents said and thats what my government teacher told me.

And the liberals are supposedly the ones who are indoctrinated? Get out there, experience for yourself, and come to your own opinions.

I wouldn't care, as long as they weren't commiting illegal acts. every religion should have a chance to have missions.
Eric Robert Rudolph and the "Army of God." ;)