Posted on Oct 27, 2014
Do you understand why mixing religion and politics may be the only thing that can save our country?
84.5K
813
602
22
15
7
Many people feel that the First Amendment calls for the separation of Church and State. No where in the Amendment do these words appear, but many people feel that is what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote our Constitution. One of our Founding Fathers stated "Christians should vote for Christian Leaders" (paraphrased) and you can look it up to prove its validity. When I speak of mixing religion and politics I am speaking of the ethics and integrity of people who know they must answer to a Higher Power (I call Him God). We need people who know that the greatest among us must be the servant of all. The First Amendment prevents government from setting up a mandatory national religion and prevents the government from messing with each citizen's individual right to worship as he or she sees fit. Look it up and read it before you argue with me. I just want to know how you all would feel about having elected officials that were honest, had integrity, and lead our country with those qualities. I am also enclosing a copy of an article I found in our newspaper (which surprised me as they tend to be pretty liberal!)! I am eager to hear your responses. Let's pick up this topic and run with it! it would not let me post the Newspaper article, but it basically says we need to stand up for people who truly stand up for God.
Politics
Religion
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 97
31
30
1
SP5 Michael Rathbun
I was actually referring to the "Atheist Agenda". Given the enormously wide variety of opinions amongst atheists, it would be remarkable to discover that there is an actual, official, approved "agenda".
(0)
(0)
CPO William Hughes
MAJ, You should be ashamed for still living in the last century! Your communist goals are from 1963?? That worked well for them, did it? What do you think that communists would do with atheists, once they achieved world domination? Were you friends with Joe McCarthy? You would be well served by reading "Caesar's Messiah" by Joeseph Atwill. It's a conspiracy book which would seem to be right up your alley......but somehow I don't think you would enjoy the direction of the findings by the author.
(0)
(0)
25
25
0
Ethical behavior isn't dependent on religion. In fact, in many cases religion is a direct cause of unethical behavior. The Bible, like almost every other holy book, is filled with abhorrent behavior that would be unacceptable in today's society. Incest, slavery, rape, and murder were committed by many of the "good" guys in the Bible. The only way the Bible can be looked at as a good moral guide is if you ignore 90% of it and only read the gospels and a few other sections.
How many wars have been started over religion? How many minds have been closed to science because it doesn't conform to the mythology they were taught as children? I have no issue with people who are religious and want to practice their religion, but religion and politics have no place together.
On a side note, you should check out the Jefferson Bible if you think all of our founding fathers supported Christianity. Jefferson edited the New Testament to remove all passages depicting Jesus's divinity or miracles while still leaving his moral and ethical lessons.
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson to John Adams 11 April 1823.
How many wars have been started over religion? How many minds have been closed to science because it doesn't conform to the mythology they were taught as children? I have no issue with people who are religious and want to practice their religion, but religion and politics have no place together.
On a side note, you should check out the Jefferson Bible if you think all of our founding fathers supported Christianity. Jefferson edited the New Testament to remove all passages depicting Jesus's divinity or miracles while still leaving his moral and ethical lessons.
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson to John Adams 11 April 1823.
(25)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
While it might be interesting to see you tap dance around what I consider to be some fairly straight forward language… that’s really not really a good reason to waste your time. Know that I disagree with your views, and that I support the right of every individual to believe (or not believe) as their conscience dictates, free from persecution from those who would abuse government authority to push their religious views onto their subordinates or create an environment where those who believe differently lose confidence in the impartiality or fairness of those entrusted with positions of authority above them. Best of luck to you.
(3)
(0)
PO3 Christopher Saucedo
Everyone knows the Bible and believe that it was written by God himself. Sadly this is not entirely true. The Old Testament is actually what those of the Jewish faith read and believe. Yes it is simply for the most part the Torah. Now I know this fact will get some people's knickers in a wad, but do your research and you will find it true. Secondly, the Bible as we know it today was compiled by the the Council of Nicaea. The council decided which books were to be considered scripture and which were not and subsequently burned. There were many sects of early Christianity and a lot of the sects had different books and manuscripts which they considered sacred. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have been able to gather some of the books that never made it into the Bible such as the Gospel of Thomas.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Christopher Saucedo
The Torah was also divinely inspired by God as well as the Qua'ran. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all believe in the same God except called by a different name.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
We made it all up. It was we humans who wrote all of the bibles, sutras, testaments, scripture and the rest of it.
The only difference between Eve growing from Adam's rib and Ra pulling the sun across the sky with his golden chariot is a few thousand years. Both are absolutely fictional accounts of science with no basis in reality whatsoever.
The only difference between Eve growing from Adam's rib and Ra pulling the sun across the sky with his golden chariot is a few thousand years. Both are absolutely fictional accounts of science with no basis in reality whatsoever.
(0)
(0)
25
23
2
ISIS is a mixture of religion and politics. Go have fun with that. If you want a theocracy, there are plenty of countries that have them, so go there and leave the rest of us alone.
(25)
(2)
SSG (Join to see)
SPC David Wolcott, I know and understand since I have read all of the comments but that singular sentence of your above was unnecessary.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SPC David W, I believe your questioning SP5 Michael Rathburn is an attack, your accusing people of trolling and/or "flat out childishness" is an attack. My interpreting what Maj Carl Ballinger was saying as meaning that he possibly believed it was acceptable to use his position to proselytize to subordinates and then asking him to clarify is not. I haven't asked him to prove or disprove anything, I just wanted to know if my understanding of his statements was correct... he has declined to answer so that's the end of that.
(0)
(0)
16
16
0
You are correct in that the 1st Amendment was intended to prevent the creation of an official state run religion. Our Founding Fathers were living in the world shaped by the religious strife (and subsequent wars) found in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in the mid 1600s. They saw the devestation that contention of religion could cause, and I fully support the wisdom of their decision.
I see no problem with a politician being frank about how his religous beliefs affect his character and his decisions. However, that policitian needs to be careful in that his beliefs may not fully represent his constiuency, and that his job is not to represent or push his belief system, but to represent the people who voted him into office. And sometimes that may mean keeping his religious leanings closer to the vest. But also don't confuse being religious with being ethical. Those two are not mutually inclusive. Someone can be ethical and have integrity without being religious. Not all ethical systems are rooted in Deontological principles.
I see no problem with a politician being frank about how his religous beliefs affect his character and his decisions. However, that policitian needs to be careful in that his beliefs may not fully represent his constiuency, and that his job is not to represent or push his belief system, but to represent the people who voted him into office. And sometimes that may mean keeping his religious leanings closer to the vest. But also don't confuse being religious with being ethical. Those two are not mutually inclusive. Someone can be ethical and have integrity without being religious. Not all ethical systems are rooted in Deontological principles.
(16)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
I am not trying to force it on anyone, just trying to open our minds to thoughts that our country was better when we followed our Constitution and that our Constitution was designed by men who had faith in Jesus Christ and called themselves Christians. Our nation was founded on Christian principles and we can prove that in the annals of Congress and in our own American History with the Bibliography of our Founding Fathers. All people have done is voted me down with no explanation or argument of the facts I have stated. It is like the very premise of us having a Godly heritage is anathema to them.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Israel Zinns
“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams
“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 prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802
“Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such oppression.”
~Founding Father Oliver Wolcott, Connecticut Ratifying Convention, 9 January 1788
“Congress has no power to make any religious establishments.”
~Founding Father Roger Sherman, Congress, August 19, 1789
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814
“We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.”
~Founding FatherJohn Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785
Nothing in these Founding Father quotes makes me think this is country was founded on just Christian beliefs. While many of them were Christians they felt it important to maintain that the freedom to choose your religion or belief system was a big part of what made America better than England. This very notion is present in the Constitution itself in Article VI.
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams
“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 prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802
“Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such oppression.”
~Founding Father Oliver Wolcott, Connecticut Ratifying Convention, 9 January 1788
“Congress has no power to make any religious establishments.”
~Founding Father Roger Sherman, Congress, August 19, 1789
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814
“We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.”
~Founding FatherJohn Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785
Nothing in these Founding Father quotes makes me think this is country was founded on just Christian beliefs. While many of them were Christians they felt it important to maintain that the freedom to choose your religion or belief system was a big part of what made America better than England. This very notion is present in the Constitution itself in Article VI.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas, as a nation, we would be in very deep trouble if people such as you were unable to share their deeply held convictions. You should be able to freely discuss your beliefs and share them with anyone willing to listen. Where we may disagree however is in the use of positions of authority to preach to a captive audience. I can’t tell you how many times I saw leaders use their position to push their beliefs onto their subordinates or how often I wondered what impact, not sharing certain beliefs with my superiors was having on my career. I believe that both religion and state benefit from the separation of church and state, and that mixing the two together eventually leads to violence and bloodshed.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas, Thanks, I'll assume "I do believe that leaders should abuse their position to force their beliefs on others" was a typo since you later stated "I didn't share mine with those who were subordinate unless they asked questions because they knew or heard of my beliefs." I believe that should be the goal, where everyone can speak freely about their beliefs but no one feels that they are disadvantaged because they do not share the same beliefs as those in charge.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I think we need to stand up for people who truly stand up for humanity regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
SFC (Join to see)
Yes, people are often too winded up about ridiculing other religions and forget that MOST (if not all) religions are about humanity.
(0)
(0)
12
12
0
Even ignoring the first amendment, the constitution clearly states the following:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
What the founding fathers "had in mind" and statements they made regarding Christianity are irrelevant; what ultimately matters are the principles they endorsed by signing them into law. As much as I respect, and am grateful for our founding fathers, their words are not infallible. Bear in mind, these are the men who agreed to allow slavery, and for voting purposes, counted African-Americans as 3/5 of a human being. Not to mention, they assumed control over lands where Native Americans had been living for generations, pushing them further west, and either forced them onto reservations, or fought them outright in a series of wars in the 19th century. I struggle to see how integrity, honesty and ethics, guided these actions. Nevertheless, I am proud of the nation they created, making it possible for us to evolve as a society, grow with the times, all while avoiding religious issues and conflicts that have plagued other nations throughout history. This was possible by absolutely not mixing religion and politics, and today is no more a time for it than was 200 or more years ago.
With that said, if you choose to vote for a candidate who runs on a Christian platform, that is your right as an American. It is my right to vote for whomever I choose as well. But to imply that only Christians are capable of being led by the virtues of ethics and integrity is ridiculous at best, and dangerous at worst. It is no more valid than the idea that a soldier always lives up to each and every Army value (or any other branch-specific creed) simply because he or she is a soldier. We all know it's not true, and humans are imperfect, regardless of religion, service, race, gender, or any other label we choose to apply to ourselves.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
What the founding fathers "had in mind" and statements they made regarding Christianity are irrelevant; what ultimately matters are the principles they endorsed by signing them into law. As much as I respect, and am grateful for our founding fathers, their words are not infallible. Bear in mind, these are the men who agreed to allow slavery, and for voting purposes, counted African-Americans as 3/5 of a human being. Not to mention, they assumed control over lands where Native Americans had been living for generations, pushing them further west, and either forced them onto reservations, or fought them outright in a series of wars in the 19th century. I struggle to see how integrity, honesty and ethics, guided these actions. Nevertheless, I am proud of the nation they created, making it possible for us to evolve as a society, grow with the times, all while avoiding religious issues and conflicts that have plagued other nations throughout history. This was possible by absolutely not mixing religion and politics, and today is no more a time for it than was 200 or more years ago.
With that said, if you choose to vote for a candidate who runs on a Christian platform, that is your right as an American. It is my right to vote for whomever I choose as well. But to imply that only Christians are capable of being led by the virtues of ethics and integrity is ridiculous at best, and dangerous at worst. It is no more valid than the idea that a soldier always lives up to each and every Army value (or any other branch-specific creed) simply because he or she is a soldier. We all know it's not true, and humans are imperfect, regardless of religion, service, race, gender, or any other label we choose to apply to ourselves.
(12)
(0)
SPC Andrew Smith
It must be difficult for you to live your entire life floating about in midair. After all, the theory of gravity is just a theory.
Mind you, I grew up in a Christian household, but I find it extremely difficult to "jump on the scientific bandwagon" when it applies to the technology that makes my life easier than that of every previous generation in human history - my cell phone, which allows me to communicate with virtually anyone in the entire world instantly - my car, which allows me to travel faster than any individual can alone - and then jump right off the bandwagon when the same scientific principles that provide for all modern convenience challenges religious doctrine.
By your logic, paternity tests are inaccurate and should not be used in courts of law, as they are in the United States, due to the fact that the same principles for determining paternity are also used to trace human lineage throughout millenia - which forms the backbone of evolutionary theory.
Even disregarding all that, I would like you to describe exactly how the stars, moon, and sun are "perfectly aligned", as you say. I am sure there are plenty of astrophysicists over at NASA that would like to have a word with you; not to mention the fact that Earth's orbit varies around 3 million miles from the sun at various points. The only naivety I see here is willfully choosing which tenets of science to ignore when it's convenient to do so.
Mind you, I grew up in a Christian household, but I find it extremely difficult to "jump on the scientific bandwagon" when it applies to the technology that makes my life easier than that of every previous generation in human history - my cell phone, which allows me to communicate with virtually anyone in the entire world instantly - my car, which allows me to travel faster than any individual can alone - and then jump right off the bandwagon when the same scientific principles that provide for all modern convenience challenges religious doctrine.
By your logic, paternity tests are inaccurate and should not be used in courts of law, as they are in the United States, due to the fact that the same principles for determining paternity are also used to trace human lineage throughout millenia - which forms the backbone of evolutionary theory.
Even disregarding all that, I would like you to describe exactly how the stars, moon, and sun are "perfectly aligned", as you say. I am sure there are plenty of astrophysicists over at NASA that would like to have a word with you; not to mention the fact that Earth's orbit varies around 3 million miles from the sun at various points. The only naivety I see here is willfully choosing which tenets of science to ignore when it's convenient to do so.
(6)
(0)
SPC Andrew Smith
As a general response:
I, for one, do not believe that evolution and Christianity are incompatible, but debate between the two seems to be what this conversation is evolving (no pun intended) into, and it has little to do with the original topic of this thread. If someone would like to start another one, designed to discuss religion, science, evolution, and everything in between, I would be more than happy to participate when time permits. Until then, I'm going to limit my replies here to that which involves the original topic, out of respect for the poster of such.
I, for one, do not believe that evolution and Christianity are incompatible, but debate between the two seems to be what this conversation is evolving (no pun intended) into, and it has little to do with the original topic of this thread. If someone would like to start another one, designed to discuss religion, science, evolution, and everything in between, I would be more than happy to participate when time permits. Until then, I'm going to limit my replies here to that which involves the original topic, out of respect for the poster of such.
(1)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas: thank you for your measured remarks. I offer some observations from my own perspective now that I'm nearing the age of seventy.
I prefer that science be taught in science classrooms because it is not a system of beliefs and doctrines, but a tool for gaining understanding of the workings of the world, past, present and future. It looks to verifiable evidence. When applied in the art and practice of engineering, it works.
Religion, on the other hand, also explains the workings of the world, past, present and future. However it looks to the pronouncements of Authority, as interpreted at any given moment by those who take it upon themselves to propound their interpretations.
Evidence for the above is simple: science converges, religion diverges.
For instance, centuries ago, there was a prevailing theory of the nature of combustion that we denote as the "Phlogiston" theory. It worked rather well, but didn't explain all the facts. Eventually it was supplanted by what we now know as oxidation. This change did not occur because the Oxidationists got the ear of the King and had all the Phlogistonists arrested, deported or executed, nor was there any kind of war. It happened because the earlier theory was shown not to be robust enough to cover all of the observed facts, whereas the later theory was. The same can be said for the several theories about the structure of what we now refer to as the solar system.
In the case of religion, however, things do not converge on a verifiable body of knowledge. Instead they diverge into a multiplicity of conflicting bodies of opinion. When my ancestor Edward Wightman was burned alive in England in 1612 for his religious opinions, he was accused of being a Baptist. Today, hardly any Baptists would say that his beliefs accord with their own. (Of course, there being several thousand Baptist groups today, few of them would recognize the others as being Genuine (Accept No Substitutes!) Baptists.)
When we lived in Independence, MO, there were no fewer than FIVE divergent LDS sects, right there within a stone's throw of the Temple Lot.
This explains my view on teaching science in science classes, and as needed teaching religion in classes that compare various competing religions.
Thank you for your service, and for your attention.
I prefer that science be taught in science classrooms because it is not a system of beliefs and doctrines, but a tool for gaining understanding of the workings of the world, past, present and future. It looks to verifiable evidence. When applied in the art and practice of engineering, it works.
Religion, on the other hand, also explains the workings of the world, past, present and future. However it looks to the pronouncements of Authority, as interpreted at any given moment by those who take it upon themselves to propound their interpretations.
Evidence for the above is simple: science converges, religion diverges.
For instance, centuries ago, there was a prevailing theory of the nature of combustion that we denote as the "Phlogiston" theory. It worked rather well, but didn't explain all the facts. Eventually it was supplanted by what we now know as oxidation. This change did not occur because the Oxidationists got the ear of the King and had all the Phlogistonists arrested, deported or executed, nor was there any kind of war. It happened because the earlier theory was shown not to be robust enough to cover all of the observed facts, whereas the later theory was. The same can be said for the several theories about the structure of what we now refer to as the solar system.
In the case of religion, however, things do not converge on a verifiable body of knowledge. Instead they diverge into a multiplicity of conflicting bodies of opinion. When my ancestor Edward Wightman was burned alive in England in 1612 for his religious opinions, he was accused of being a Baptist. Today, hardly any Baptists would say that his beliefs accord with their own. (Of course, there being several thousand Baptist groups today, few of them would recognize the others as being Genuine (Accept No Substitutes!) Baptists.)
When we lived in Independence, MO, there were no fewer than FIVE divergent LDS sects, right there within a stone's throw of the Temple Lot.
This explains my view on teaching science in science classes, and as needed teaching religion in classes that compare various competing religions.
Thank you for your service, and for your attention.
(6)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas - It is a shame that some people here use the down vote to express disagreement.A down vote should be for disrespect, rudeness, foul language or other forms of abuse. Disagreement warrants a reply, which is far more civilized, not to mention a better way to communicate WHY one disagrees.
(1)
(0)
12
12
0
PO1 Steven Kuhn I'm gonna have to say I am against ANYTHING resembling what we see ISIS trying to create - even if it's wrapped in Christian ideology - for a government. History shows us that time and again that wrapping oneself in a religious ideology for a government ends badly (can any spell jihad/crusades?). I'm all about someone who has scruples, honesty, integrity and true leadership. I am NOT willing to say the only way someone can have those principles is through a mandated religion. NOT GONNA BUY IT.
I personally know some of the most disgusting, perverted, sick, demented s.o.b's on earth - each of them is a christian pastor, preacher, or some sort of christian religious leader. Everything they do in public is all about their version of "god" and how if we don't follow their tenet's we are all doomed to their version of hell.
There are lots of folks that are honest, hard-working people that have no religion or religious affiliation. It's not religion our leadership needs - it's adherence to honesty, integrity and true leadership. I don't need someone in Congress, the white house or any other position telling me that because their religion doesn't agree with a certain issue they are going to automatically vote no. Our national leadership decides for ALL of us in America - atheist, christian, muslims, hindi, etc. Deciding national issues based solely on a personally held religious tenet implies that other religions / non-religions are wrong or don't count. One of the very reasons our founding fathers did NOT want a mandated religion in our country was because they experienced the vagaries of those in leadership positions and their decisions based solely on their religious belief. Our founding fathers did NOT want that repeated in their new country because they'd BTDT and found it DID NOT WORK.
So, now, over 200 years later...we want to undo what our founding fathers decided was WRONG?
I personally know some of the most disgusting, perverted, sick, demented s.o.b's on earth - each of them is a christian pastor, preacher, or some sort of christian religious leader. Everything they do in public is all about their version of "god" and how if we don't follow their tenet's we are all doomed to their version of hell.
There are lots of folks that are honest, hard-working people that have no religion or religious affiliation. It's not religion our leadership needs - it's adherence to honesty, integrity and true leadership. I don't need someone in Congress, the white house or any other position telling me that because their religion doesn't agree with a certain issue they are going to automatically vote no. Our national leadership decides for ALL of us in America - atheist, christian, muslims, hindi, etc. Deciding national issues based solely on a personally held religious tenet implies that other religions / non-religions are wrong or don't count. One of the very reasons our founding fathers did NOT want a mandated religion in our country was because they experienced the vagaries of those in leadership positions and their decisions based solely on their religious belief. Our founding fathers did NOT want that repeated in their new country because they'd BTDT and found it DID NOT WORK.
So, now, over 200 years later...we want to undo what our founding fathers decided was WRONG?
(12)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
SPC (Join to see) they were not biblical violations but Biblical truths or examples. From the Bible we get our three branches of Government Isaiah 33:22, separation of powers Jeremiah 17:9, tax exemption for Churches Ezra 7:24. John Adams (one of the Founding Fathers who was there and knew what the other Founders intended) stated "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were .... the general principles of Christianity".
(0)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Seriously? REALLY you two are going to tell me that unless I'm a white man that believes in YOUR religion that I can't be honest and have integrity? OMFG! You two are seriously on some really good drugs - just give me the list...cuz I want them!
Let's get real...yep the founding fathers, for the most part were religious - though there are questions about ol' Ben Franklin...but I guess you two say ol' Ben was not one of our founding fathers.......
So...no one in the entire world, unless they are white men that attest to YOUR GOD and YOUR version of the bilble .... no one else in the entire world can be an honest man and no one else can deal with anyone else with integrity.... SERIOUSLY???
What pomposity What delusions of grandeur!
HORSESHIT!
Let's get real...yep the founding fathers, for the most part were religious - though there are questions about ol' Ben Franklin...but I guess you two say ol' Ben was not one of our founding fathers.......
So...no one in the entire world, unless they are white men that attest to YOUR GOD and YOUR version of the bilble .... no one else in the entire world can be an honest man and no one else can deal with anyone else with integrity.... SERIOUSLY???
What pomposity What delusions of grandeur!
HORSESHIT!
(6)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
PO1 Joel Ploegstra While your argument seems rational - which God are you speaking of? As for Christianity being a relationship - no, it's a religion, period. YOU may have a relationship with your god - but Christianity, by definition is a religion. Standards? I've seen people that worship rocks that have higher standards and are more honest in their dealings with other people than the great majority of those claiming to be christians I have met in my life. I have met shinto priests, buddist monks, etc..... all are more honest and devout than most reverends and christian priests that I've met in my lifetime.
As for the White Guy comment - the original comment was directed towards the "founding fathers" of our nation.....but I guess you didn't read that part....
As for the White Guy comment - the original comment was directed towards the "founding fathers" of our nation.....but I guess you didn't read that part....
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
I think you are mixing together two different (albeit related, for some people) concepts. On the one hand, I agree completely with your call to have "...having elected officials were honest, had integrity, and lead our country with those qualities." Personally, I would state in more actively "We need elected leaders who are honest, have integrity, and are guided those qualities in their leadership decisions." Regardless, honesty and integrity do not solely originate from a religious basis - that's where you mix the concepts.
Some people do get their ethical system from religion, and I have voted for some who do. Nonetheless, as I remarked above and as others have also remarked (e.g. - PO1 Ernie Foster , SFC (Join to see) , and LTC Paul Labrador ) you do not need a religious system (or a belief in/knowledge of a deity) to have a firm ethical foundation.
Some people do get their ethical system from religion, and I have voted for some who do. Nonetheless, as I remarked above and as others have also remarked (e.g. - PO1 Ernie Foster , SFC (Join to see) , and LTC Paul Labrador ) you do not need a religious system (or a belief in/knowledge of a deity) to have a firm ethical foundation.
(9)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
MAJ Carl Ballinger - You believe what you say. I respect that. I do wonder how one reconciles "Nothing is separate from God" with "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and render unto God the things that are God's." It seems to me that if nothing is separate from God, than all things are God's.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
SCPO (Join to see) you are beginning to get the idea, but the reference you are using is that what is material is not what it is all about. Greed is one of the things tearing this country apart. In Heaven, gold (something people covet here on earth) will be used as paving material......the most important thing is a love for God and our fellow man/woman.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
And our motivation is not that we want you to believe as we do. I know that Jesus is the Way, the Light and the Truth and no one can come unto the Father except through a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. My belief is that if you do not know Jesus you will suffer through eternity in hell. The Bible says it, I believe it, and it is out of love for you and a commandment from our Savior that I try and share this with you. Unlike other religions, I am not trying to force you to believe as I do, I am just sharing what I have come to know as truth in the hopes that you will choose an eternity with God in heaven. It is what we are called to do. You have the right to refuse, and unlike some religions your current life does not depend on it, but your eternity does......praying....
(1)
(0)
CPO William Hughes
PO1 Ploegstra: That is absurd and offensive to those of us who do not believe. Humans DO posess integrity and ethics. Those are human constructs developed over millenia by social interactions among those humans. They are not, were not some divinely inspired present from Zeus...,or whichever god you're talking about.
(0)
(0)
8
7
1
SFC Jeff L.
PO1 Steven Kuhn That's funny. Further to that is the presence of statues of Moses and Muhammad and the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court chambers. One good (short) book is "Rediscovering God in America" by Newt Gingrich. Love him or hate him politically the man has a PhD in History and has taught the subject in colleges. Sort of like a subject matter expert.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
SFC Jeff L. did you take the time to even check out any of the resources I listed? If you do not check out my sources then how can you argue my position that America was founded by men of strong Christian faith on Christian values? Newt might be old, but he can not qualify as a founding father. I am simply asking you to check the sources before you try and counter attack me without ammo.
r/
Steve
r/
Steve
(0)
(0)
SFC Jeff L.
PO1 Steven Kuhn Uhh.....Do what? You do realize I'm supporting your position by noting that in addition to the capitol building being used in the early days as a church meeting house, that there are religious articles in the Supreme Court chambers. I went on to mention Newt's book because it further supports your point that our founding fathers were religious men. I'm not sure where you got that I was calling Newt a founding father or that I was arguing with you. Particularly since you've ostensibly read my other posts (I'm assuming you did since you voted them up). Lighten up, Francis.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
And be careful what you wish for. Official government religions reliably go one of two ways: Europe, where religion is a joke, and the Middle East, where religion is a terror. Which do you prefer? Only in these United States, where we have neutrality toward religion by the government do we get this thriving morass of competing and powerful religious beliefs.
And you can bet that your "Higher Power" won't be the one your government official believes in. It's fantastically naïve to think that whatever your beliefs are, presumably some version of Christianity, have any relation whatsoever to the crazy version of Pentecostal, Baptist, Mormon, Shi'i, Sunni, Baha'i or whatever religion might prevail in the civil war that would result from enforced religious laws.
So be honest. Be very specific about the beliefs you hold and the laws you personally choose to enforce. Because just like everything else in religion, your new theocracy will be a personal expression of the dictator that happens to be in charge at the time. "God" or Jesus or Allah or whatever will have nothing to do with it.
And you can bet that your "Higher Power" won't be the one your government official believes in. It's fantastically naïve to think that whatever your beliefs are, presumably some version of Christianity, have any relation whatsoever to the crazy version of Pentecostal, Baptist, Mormon, Shi'i, Sunni, Baha'i or whatever religion might prevail in the civil war that would result from enforced religious laws.
So be honest. Be very specific about the beliefs you hold and the laws you personally choose to enforce. Because just like everything else in religion, your new theocracy will be a personal expression of the dictator that happens to be in charge at the time. "God" or Jesus or Allah or whatever will have nothing to do with it.
(7)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
My standard answer to "Why are Americans so religion-crazy while we aren't?" when asked by Europeans is: "Simple. You exported your craziest religionists to North America over the last few hundred years."
(2)
(0)
CPO William Hughes
MAJ: Did you clear that comment with the various Native American tribes or the Descendents of American Slaves?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google