Posted on Oct 27, 2014
Do you understand why mixing religion and politics may be the only thing that can save our country?
84.4K
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
2
2
0
The First Amendment clearly states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What this literally means is that it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court drew on Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute. Commonly, and unfortunately I might add, this is thought by the masses to mean that the Separation between Church and State is written into the Constitution. Plainly and clearly it is not. I am not a man of God, rather a man of science and reason. That being said, people need to actually read the documents they are referencing, just like MM1 Kuhn is suggesting.
What this literally means is that it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court drew on Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute. Commonly, and unfortunately I might add, this is thought by the masses to mean that the Separation between Church and State is written into the Constitution. Plainly and clearly it is not. I am not a man of God, rather a man of science and reason. That being said, people need to actually read the documents they are referencing, just like MM1 Kuhn is suggesting.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
Sgt Charles A Vroman Jr thank you for bringing up the very point I have been trying to make without voting me down 30 times without even a response. I just want people to realize that America was founded on Christian principles by men of Christian faith and if they just take the time to read some of the information I have mentioned they will know that I am speaking from fact and not merely my opinion. I love our country and want her to survive for our descendants or all of our sacrifices will have been in vain.....
(0)
(0)
CPO William Hughes
PO1 Kuhn, I would like to thank you for bringing some light to a topic that can generate such emotion. I feel that discussion is necessary if we are ever to rid ourselves of superstition and unconditional belief in myths. That said, let me remind you that most of our founding fathers were not Christian but Diests. They beieved in a benevolent god, a god that made the earth and heavens for them, then left them and went on to other things. Granted, there were a portion of the founding fathers that were Christian, but they did not let their beliefs carry through to the documents they produced. There is no mention of god in the Constitution. None. They intentionally omitted such mention. And the principles you speak of are not exclusively Christian, they are common moral principles deveoped over centuries. Our country will survive but the changes taking place are not easy to absorb. But this country always has been a place of controversy, discussion, opposing views but in the end, as Stephan Decatur so eloquently put it; "My country, may she always be right; but my country, right or wrong."
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Faith as defined: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Religion as defined: a particular system of faith and worship.
Faith is a wonderful thing, it is personal and it is individual. I feel that everyone should have faith.
Religion is a man made and mostly ugly thing that drives people to commit heinous acts as we have seen throughout history. Religion can be a good thing as it allowed like minded individuals to come together to preach and practice their faith together, but as a whole I feel its a destructive and disgusting thing that is in place for a few to climb to power.
I left the church sixteen years ago and I have been back a few times throughout the years, but I continue to have a strengthening faith in the absence of religion as that is only between me and God, the Supreme Architect of the Universe, the Creator, etc.
Religion as defined: a particular system of faith and worship.
Faith is a wonderful thing, it is personal and it is individual. I feel that everyone should have faith.
Religion is a man made and mostly ugly thing that drives people to commit heinous acts as we have seen throughout history. Religion can be a good thing as it allowed like minded individuals to come together to preach and practice their faith together, but as a whole I feel its a destructive and disgusting thing that is in place for a few to climb to power.
I left the church sixteen years ago and I have been back a few times throughout the years, but I continue to have a strengthening faith in the absence of religion as that is only between me and God, the Supreme Architect of the Universe, the Creator, etc.
(2)
(0)
CPO William Hughes
CPT, I couldn't agree more on your view of religion. Just look what it's doing right now in Syria and Iraq. Humans killing other humans all in the name of religion. Barbaric! Now, on the matter of faith. That intangible human "feeling" that gives us comfort. I feel that the term has been co-opted by the religious and made non-usable by the rest of us. I have "faith" in my ability to complete a task, but it has nothing to do with religion, it's just a word. You know what Mark Twain said about faith; "Faith is believing what you know, ain't so".
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Both are personal views and you can not separate the two from the individual.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
No, I really don't understand, but I'm willing to keep an open mind. Saying that this "may be the only thing that can save our country" is a big statement to back up. Can someone explain to me how this would work in a pluralistic society? Which religion wins? What is this immutable religious morality people keep talking about? How does it (do they) have anything to do with copyright laws, foreign affairs, traffic laws, anti-discrimination, fair employment, etc.?
(2)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
SPC David W.,
Evolution teaches that in a given environment, natural variations in the reproductive success of individuals with advantageous genetic traits will tend to cause the proportion of individuals with such traits to increase. You might need only a 0.1% reproductive advantage to become predominant after a number of generations.
"Survival of the fittest" is an inaccuracy that Darwin himself disliked. It is often attacked by friends and foes of modern Biology as being a tautology: "The survival of those that can survive." Acquiring riches at the expense of others is indeed something we have observed since humans began living in settled communities. Sometimes it is not entirely conducive to survival (cf late 18th Century France).
And I am indeed arguing for a Christian ideal. It is very unfortunate that it is so seldom exhibited by Christians. There is, in fact, a major Christian industry, the propagation of the "Prosperity Gospel" that leads people in the opposite direction.
Evolution teaches that in a given environment, natural variations in the reproductive success of individuals with advantageous genetic traits will tend to cause the proportion of individuals with such traits to increase. You might need only a 0.1% reproductive advantage to become predominant after a number of generations.
"Survival of the fittest" is an inaccuracy that Darwin himself disliked. It is often attacked by friends and foes of modern Biology as being a tautology: "The survival of those that can survive." Acquiring riches at the expense of others is indeed something we have observed since humans began living in settled communities. Sometimes it is not entirely conducive to survival (cf late 18th Century France).
And I am indeed arguing for a Christian ideal. It is very unfortunate that it is so seldom exhibited by Christians. There is, in fact, a major Christian industry, the propagation of the "Prosperity Gospel" that leads people in the opposite direction.
(1)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
SPC David W.: I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that Creflo Dollar is a homosexual evolutionist and that I support him?
This has gotten so far off-topic and so ridiculously ad hominem that I am abandoning the affray.
This has gotten so far off-topic and so ridiculously ad hominem that I am abandoning the affray.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
You know what's funny - many of you saying that you require a God or something else to live a moral life. Here ya go - and you tell me if I need an invisible man beyond this to live properly:
Many people know what the words Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage mean. But how often do you see someone actually live up to them? Soldiers learn these values in detail during Basic Combat Training (BCT), from then on they live them every day in everything they do — whether they’re on the job or off. In short, the Seven Core Army Values listed below are what being a Soldier is all about.
Loyalty
Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit and other Soldiers. Bearing true faith and allegiance is a matter of believing in and devoting yourself to something or someone. A loyal Soldier is one who supports the leadership and stands up for fellow Soldiers. By wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army you are expressing your loyalty. And by doing your share, you show your loyalty to your unit.
Duty
Fulfill your obligations. Doing your duty means more than carrying out your assigned tasks. Duty means being able to accomplish tasks as part of a team. The work of the U.S. Army is a complex combination of missions, tasks and responsibilities — all in constant motion. Our work entails building one assignment onto another. You fulfill your obligations as a part of your unit every time you resist the temptation to take “shortcuts” that might undermine the integrity of the final product.
Respect
Treat people as they should be treated. In the Soldier’s Code, we pledge to “treat others with dignity and respect while expecting others to do the same.” Respect is what allows us to appreciate the best in other people. Respect is trusting that all people have done their jobs and fulfilled their duty. And self-respect is a vital ingredient with the Army value of respect, which results from knowing you have put forth your best effort. The Army is one team and each of us has something to contribute.
Selfless Service
Put the welfare of the nation, the Army and your subordinates before your own. Selfless service is larger than just one person. In serving your country, you are doing your duty loyally without thought of recognition or gain. The basic building block of selfless service is the commitment of each team member to go a little further, endure a little longer, and look a little closer to see how he or she can add to the effort.
Honor
Live up to Army values. The nation’s highest military award is The Medal of Honor. This award goes to Soldiers who make honor a matter of daily living — Soldiers who develop the habit of being honorable, and solidify that habit with every value choice they make. Honor is a matter of carrying out, acting, and living the values of respect, duty, loyalty, selfless service, integrity and personal courage in everything you do.
Integrity
Do what’s right, legally and morally. Integrity is a quality you develop by adhering to moral principles. It requires that you do and say nothing that deceives others. As your integrity grows, so does the trust others place in you. The more choices you make based on integrity, the more this highly prized value will affect your relationships with family and friends, and, finally, the fundamental acceptance of yourself.
Personal Courage
Face fear, danger or adversity (physical or moral). Personal courage has long been associated with our Army. With physical courage, it is a matter of enduring physical duress and at times risking personal safety. Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others. You can build your personal courage by daily standing up for and acting upon the things that you know are honorable.
Many people know what the words Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage mean. But how often do you see someone actually live up to them? Soldiers learn these values in detail during Basic Combat Training (BCT), from then on they live them every day in everything they do — whether they’re on the job or off. In short, the Seven Core Army Values listed below are what being a Soldier is all about.
Loyalty
Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit and other Soldiers. Bearing true faith and allegiance is a matter of believing in and devoting yourself to something or someone. A loyal Soldier is one who supports the leadership and stands up for fellow Soldiers. By wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army you are expressing your loyalty. And by doing your share, you show your loyalty to your unit.
Duty
Fulfill your obligations. Doing your duty means more than carrying out your assigned tasks. Duty means being able to accomplish tasks as part of a team. The work of the U.S. Army is a complex combination of missions, tasks and responsibilities — all in constant motion. Our work entails building one assignment onto another. You fulfill your obligations as a part of your unit every time you resist the temptation to take “shortcuts” that might undermine the integrity of the final product.
Respect
Treat people as they should be treated. In the Soldier’s Code, we pledge to “treat others with dignity and respect while expecting others to do the same.” Respect is what allows us to appreciate the best in other people. Respect is trusting that all people have done their jobs and fulfilled their duty. And self-respect is a vital ingredient with the Army value of respect, which results from knowing you have put forth your best effort. The Army is one team and each of us has something to contribute.
Selfless Service
Put the welfare of the nation, the Army and your subordinates before your own. Selfless service is larger than just one person. In serving your country, you are doing your duty loyally without thought of recognition or gain. The basic building block of selfless service is the commitment of each team member to go a little further, endure a little longer, and look a little closer to see how he or she can add to the effort.
Honor
Live up to Army values. The nation’s highest military award is The Medal of Honor. This award goes to Soldiers who make honor a matter of daily living — Soldiers who develop the habit of being honorable, and solidify that habit with every value choice they make. Honor is a matter of carrying out, acting, and living the values of respect, duty, loyalty, selfless service, integrity and personal courage in everything you do.
Integrity
Do what’s right, legally and morally. Integrity is a quality you develop by adhering to moral principles. It requires that you do and say nothing that deceives others. As your integrity grows, so does the trust others place in you. The more choices you make based on integrity, the more this highly prized value will affect your relationships with family and friends, and, finally, the fundamental acceptance of yourself.
Personal Courage
Face fear, danger or adversity (physical or moral). Personal courage has long been associated with our Army. With physical courage, it is a matter of enduring physical duress and at times risking personal safety. Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others. You can build your personal courage by daily standing up for and acting upon the things that you know are honorable.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
When I swore my Oath, it was before God! Ever wonder why that is? Why are there references to God in the Declaration of Independence and preamble to the Constitution?
(2)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
...and then there were the ones who refused to swear (rather than affirm) because oaths were forbidden under the teachings of their particular Christian sect.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
PO1 Steven Kuhn I said "God" when I swore in. Given that I don't necessarily believe, it's just another word to me. I take my commitment to the constitution much more seriously.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
My opinion is this: the only thing that can save this country is ethical leadership. The problem as I see it is that ethical leadership cannot exist in a country that allows lobbying by big corporations in the halls of power. Religion can be used as a guidepost, but should never be used as a means of leadership for a nation.
That being said, my problem with mixing religion and politics is that there are far too many religions in existence to ever get a consensus. In order for a religion to come into power that one religion would have to have enough power to eradicate every other religion in existence. Obviously that cannot and most likely will never happen, it failed with the Hebrew/Jewish and Catholic religions. Not even the Islamic nations can say they have complete control of their governments. Shia and Sunni Muslims are killing each other for no good reason. Government and religion will never and should never mix.
That being said, my problem with mixing religion and politics is that there are far too many religions in existence to ever get a consensus. In order for a religion to come into power that one religion would have to have enough power to eradicate every other religion in existence. Obviously that cannot and most likely will never happen, it failed with the Hebrew/Jewish and Catholic religions. Not even the Islamic nations can say they have complete control of their governments. Shia and Sunni Muslims are killing each other for no good reason. Government and religion will never and should never mix.
(2)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
Yeah, I like the 4-legged insects and PI = 3.0 and the multiple contradictory accounts of the same events as evidence of "never been discredited".
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SGT Luke Fouquier, He claims that no non-Christian can understand the Bible and then turns around as a non-Muslim and attacks Islamic texts. The bible, like the Koran has some good stuff... however it too is "riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies" not quite as many IMO, however plenty none the less. History provides clear evidence (to me at least) that both religions can serve as tools for good or tools for evil. Those who deal in absolutes as you say are especially worrisome, be they Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia or Christian Reconstructionists aka Dominionists here in the US. I am curious to discover how far down that path our good Major has actually gone. Major, you seem to like the idea of mixing government with your brand of fundamentalist Christianity… to what extend do you believe the Bible should be the law of the land (if at all)?
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
None of the contradiction or inconsistencies are of import if you accept that the humans writing it made some mistakes. However if you believe that the Bible as it is written today is the perfect word of God, then there are problems like this: “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth [Matt. 12:40].” Jesus died at approximately 3 p.m. on Good Friday and was greeted by Mary Magdalene (possibly accompanied by “the other Mary,” Joanna, and/or Mary the mother or wife of James) just after dawn on Sunday — approximately 40 hours, rather than 72. Another example might be the differences between the two creation stories in Genesis, not a problem if were using metaphor... however some definite contradictions if were going to take everything literally.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
MAJ Carl Ballinger, That is a good and rational explanation... the problem is that proves the point that literal interpretations are inadequate, you have to understand the context and it's very helpful to understand the original languages... we don't have 10's of thousands of Christian denominations because everyone agrees on the meaning of each passage.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
RELIGION & POLITICS IS WHAT FOUNDED OUR COUNTRY...A DEEP ABIDING RESPECT FOR GOD'S HAND IN THE LIFE'S OF LEADERS WHO CAME OVER ON THE MAYFLOWER WITHOUT SLAVES, WHO TREATED THE TRIBES OF MASS. AS EQUALS UNDER THE LAW...WHO WROTE UP THE GUIDELINES OF THEIR COMMUNITY, "BEFORE" STEPPING FOOT ON LAND...
SO YES A NATION WITHOUT GOD...WHAT HAPPENS...LOOK ACROSS THE BIG POND...NOT "YELLING" BUT MAKING IT CLEAR... NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT FAITH IN SOMETHING OTHER THAN OURSELVES...
CONGRESS PRINTED & DISTRIBUTED BIBLES FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS...
JEFFERSON HELD PRAYER IN NATIONAL MONUMENTS...
MANY (29) OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE ORDAINED MINISTERS...
SO WITHOUT DIVINE GUIDANCE...HOW DID WE GET SUCH A BEAUTIFUL & TIMELESS DOCUMENT...THAT THE GOD-LESS KEEP TRYING TO WIPE THEIR BACKSIDES WITH...AND TRAMPLE ON IT LIKE A DOORMAT...UGH~
SO YES A NATION WITHOUT GOD...WHAT HAPPENS...LOOK ACROSS THE BIG POND...NOT "YELLING" BUT MAKING IT CLEAR... NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT FAITH IN SOMETHING OTHER THAN OURSELVES...
CONGRESS PRINTED & DISTRIBUTED BIBLES FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS...
JEFFERSON HELD PRAYER IN NATIONAL MONUMENTS...
MANY (29) OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE ORDAINED MINISTERS...
SO WITHOUT DIVINE GUIDANCE...HOW DID WE GET SUCH A BEAUTIFUL & TIMELESS DOCUMENT...THAT THE GOD-LESS KEEP TRYING TO WIPE THEIR BACKSIDES WITH...AND TRAMPLE ON IT LIKE A DOORMAT...UGH~
(2)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
Jefferson had a time machine? And he changed his mind about public prayer at government expense? Is Neptune a local call from your planet?
(0)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
@SP5 Michael Rathbun I do not ridicule you for your lack of faith, nor do I vote you down CAPT Joe Coccia 3 times because I disagree with your posts as we all still have freedom of speech. If I was going to vote you down it would only be for disrespect or vulgar language, and I would have the testicular fortitude to explain to you why I was voting you down!
(2)
(0)
4
2
2
No separation of church and state in the Constitution. Neither is the Air Force or the Internet. Does that mean they don't exist? You've been watching too much Fox News. If you have any understanding of law, you'll find it in the first clause of the first amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That's from memory so hopefully I got the words right. That means you can have all the religion you want but you can't enforce your religion with laws or use your government position to enforce your religious practices, beliefs, or laws. It's really very simple, unless you want to take over the governmetn for your personal beliefs.
(4)
(2)
PO3 Camille Romero
SGT Michael-Joseph F:
I joined RallyPoint to listen to other people's views, to comment here and there, and to meet other people from the military. I did not plan to get into very deep, lengthy debates; you have presented me with six questions which will take days for me to answer in entirety, and what will seem like a dissertation! This is not quite what I had in mind, and I don't feel like I wish to invest all the time it will take for me to properly answer all of your questions (please - no offense!). Nonetheless, I will briefly give my thoughts on a few issues below.
In response to your first question:
For one, partial birth abortion is a crime in many conservative's eyes, but seems to be more acceptable on many liberals agendas. How is it if a pregnant woman is murdered, it is considered a double homicide, but it is alright for that same woman to walk into a clinic and have that same baby removed from her body in the most horrific way you can think of? Do you know the procedures of a partial birth abortion, sir?! I am a woman, and I say the woman who aborts her baby in this way, and the doctor who does it, should be held accountable; it is murder and it is a crime to pull an unborn baby who is alive and well out of a womb, and kill it while it is alive. This is what is going on here in America, and I cannot believe the God I serve (He's the One in the Bible; I read the NIV, but am not opposed to some others) is too happy that the people in this Land He has blessed have turned a blind eye to this slaughter of innocents. My personal opinion.....don't forget – you asked! :) OH! And how is it that our president can have the power to break the law and release 5 known terrorists, but if a body leaves the country to join IS they are arrested??? How is this even conscionable...sensible?!
Question #3:
I absolutely am opposed to legalizing marijuana, unless of course we want mass chaos in this country. If you think MADD has issues with drunk drivers, think about the repercussions of people being stoned on the road, as well! There will be people who abuse the privilege of medical marijuana, you can bank on it, and watch the insurance rates shoot up to the roof!
Question #4:
I believe that a person who holds the office of the President and His cabinet, and those wishing to serve our U. S. military, should be U. S. citizens; those wishing to join the U. S. military should be very carefully screened. I do not think this is unreasonable, when you consider the traitors who have crept in and endangered or murdered our soldiers, and destroyed military bases. I don't feel the need for people in office to agree with me on everything. The whole reason I joined in this conversation was to say that I, personally, believe those who are more godly minded are more than likely to have higher standards for moral behavior and integrity than those who do not have godly beliefs. These sort of people I would certainly like to see fill the seats in government office.
I know this does not answer all of your questions, but it should say something about the kind of person I am. I have watched people in the government claim O/T to attend a picnic - eat kielbasa and drink beer - in the park, and I was supposed to "lie" as the timekeeper!! If the taxpaying citizens would have got wind of that they would have egged the security gate where we worked! And how do you think it made me feel as a Christian, and at the same time taking a mandatory Fiscal Law course which warned me I could be held pecuniarily liable for misappropriating federal funds; all the while the Chief of the office ignored two separate emails sent down from District Office forbidding O/T to be used, and instructed me to input it accordingly?!!! This is just one of many instances I am referring to when I say I would prefer someone of true godly character in office (I already know...HARD TO FIND!) as opposed to someone who will act neglectfully, sloppily, and/or lie, cheat, thieve, conspire, and trample on others and our country to promote themselves and their own agenda for their own selfish purposes. This sort of person is wicked, and they are not looking out for America's best interest. For me, this topic may seem like it has to be complex, but it really is quite simple: People with good moral standing in office will bring better results, even if they occasionally error, than a person who is lacking in morals.
I joined RallyPoint to listen to other people's views, to comment here and there, and to meet other people from the military. I did not plan to get into very deep, lengthy debates; you have presented me with six questions which will take days for me to answer in entirety, and what will seem like a dissertation! This is not quite what I had in mind, and I don't feel like I wish to invest all the time it will take for me to properly answer all of your questions (please - no offense!). Nonetheless, I will briefly give my thoughts on a few issues below.
In response to your first question:
For one, partial birth abortion is a crime in many conservative's eyes, but seems to be more acceptable on many liberals agendas. How is it if a pregnant woman is murdered, it is considered a double homicide, but it is alright for that same woman to walk into a clinic and have that same baby removed from her body in the most horrific way you can think of? Do you know the procedures of a partial birth abortion, sir?! I am a woman, and I say the woman who aborts her baby in this way, and the doctor who does it, should be held accountable; it is murder and it is a crime to pull an unborn baby who is alive and well out of a womb, and kill it while it is alive. This is what is going on here in America, and I cannot believe the God I serve (He's the One in the Bible; I read the NIV, but am not opposed to some others) is too happy that the people in this Land He has blessed have turned a blind eye to this slaughter of innocents. My personal opinion.....don't forget – you asked! :) OH! And how is it that our president can have the power to break the law and release 5 known terrorists, but if a body leaves the country to join IS they are arrested??? How is this even conscionable...sensible?!
Question #3:
I absolutely am opposed to legalizing marijuana, unless of course we want mass chaos in this country. If you think MADD has issues with drunk drivers, think about the repercussions of people being stoned on the road, as well! There will be people who abuse the privilege of medical marijuana, you can bank on it, and watch the insurance rates shoot up to the roof!
Question #4:
I believe that a person who holds the office of the President and His cabinet, and those wishing to serve our U. S. military, should be U. S. citizens; those wishing to join the U. S. military should be very carefully screened. I do not think this is unreasonable, when you consider the traitors who have crept in and endangered or murdered our soldiers, and destroyed military bases. I don't feel the need for people in office to agree with me on everything. The whole reason I joined in this conversation was to say that I, personally, believe those who are more godly minded are more than likely to have higher standards for moral behavior and integrity than those who do not have godly beliefs. These sort of people I would certainly like to see fill the seats in government office.
I know this does not answer all of your questions, but it should say something about the kind of person I am. I have watched people in the government claim O/T to attend a picnic - eat kielbasa and drink beer - in the park, and I was supposed to "lie" as the timekeeper!! If the taxpaying citizens would have got wind of that they would have egged the security gate where we worked! And how do you think it made me feel as a Christian, and at the same time taking a mandatory Fiscal Law course which warned me I could be held pecuniarily liable for misappropriating federal funds; all the while the Chief of the office ignored two separate emails sent down from District Office forbidding O/T to be used, and instructed me to input it accordingly?!!! This is just one of many instances I am referring to when I say I would prefer someone of true godly character in office (I already know...HARD TO FIND!) as opposed to someone who will act neglectfully, sloppily, and/or lie, cheat, thieve, conspire, and trample on others and our country to promote themselves and their own agenda for their own selfish purposes. This sort of person is wicked, and they are not looking out for America's best interest. For me, this topic may seem like it has to be complex, but it really is quite simple: People with good moral standing in office will bring better results, even if they occasionally error, than a person who is lacking in morals.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jason Torpy
SSG (Join to see) you say my 'intolerance and hatred of those of faith is unbecoming'. First of all, this is a social networking site, so I do exercise a bit more candor than a workplace discussion. 'unbecoming' is not exactly applicable. What you're expecting is that I stand by while Christian Nation propaganda and legislation makes me a second-class citizen. Believe what you like, even talk about and be inspired by your faith, even in official positions. But when that happens to the exclusion of people who believe differently and turns into Christian sharia law, then that's a problem. Anti-gay legislation, opposition to sex education and contraception, and imposition of prayer and scripture into patriotic expressions are all evidence of Christians (not Muslims or Jews or atheists) imposing their beliefs on others through the government. That's when there's a problem. Don't pretend that I'm objecting to Sunday church or private prayer or even open faith. It's only legislated faith and prejudice against atheists that creates a problem.
(1)
(1)
SSG (Join to see)
Twisting my words to suit your agenda. Read my comment again as it is very clear. I DON'T care if you are an atheist. I DON'T care if others are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, etc. It is YOUR choice. Why is that difficult to understand?
(0)
(0)
CPT Jason Torpy
SSG (Join to see) I hear 'you don't care'... that is unless I have some objection to religious people. But that's not the part of your comment I objected to. I objected to your characterization that my words were 'unbecoming'. And then I explained that you are confused about the main point of my comment. I don't care if people are religious either. I care that many religious people want to use their religion to justify taking rights and handing out privileges.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
My view on this issue is colored largely by my heritage. I am descended from Edward Wightman, believed to be the last man in England to be burned alive for his religious opinions (April, 1612).
My family settled in RI in about 1654. In that general era, in the neighboring Massachusetts colonies, revealing that you held heterodox opinions could net you exile (my ancestor Roger Williams, a founder of Rhode Island and the first Baptist church in North America), jail time (Shakers, my ancestor Valentine Wightman Rathbun) or hanging (Quakers). My family supplied a large number of Baptist pastors in New England during the colonial era; my 6th Great Grandfather, in addition to being a pastor, was a delegate to the MA Constitutional convention. All of them had a deeply personal interest in keeping religious opinion out of the doings of governments at every level.
It is ironic how many of the religious groups today decrying the supposedly Liberal/Atheist-inspired notion of the separation of church and state are the heirs of some of the religious groups who fought the hardest to create and maintain such a separation.
But a lot gets forgotten over a century or two.
My family settled in RI in about 1654. In that general era, in the neighboring Massachusetts colonies, revealing that you held heterodox opinions could net you exile (my ancestor Roger Williams, a founder of Rhode Island and the first Baptist church in North America), jail time (Shakers, my ancestor Valentine Wightman Rathbun) or hanging (Quakers). My family supplied a large number of Baptist pastors in New England during the colonial era; my 6th Great Grandfather, in addition to being a pastor, was a delegate to the MA Constitutional convention. All of them had a deeply personal interest in keeping religious opinion out of the doings of governments at every level.
It is ironic how many of the religious groups today decrying the supposedly Liberal/Atheist-inspired notion of the separation of church and state are the heirs of some of the religious groups who fought the hardest to create and maintain such a separation.
But a lot gets forgotten over a century or two.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
Please read President Wahington's farewell address and let me know what you think. You have rich, deep religious roots! Thank you for your family's contributions and for sharing.
R/
Steve
R/
Steve
(1)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
Oh, I have, many times. And many other of his writings as well. Also Jefferson and Franklin amongst others.
Whereas some support for the notion that religion instructs morals may be found in that speech, I would much rather have people pay close attention to the bits about the dangers of sectionalism and political parties and entangling foreign alliances, for good measure. The bits about political factions obstructing the execution of the laws of the land seems exceedingly apposite, considering the deplorable events of the past six years.
So in summary: as an argument for the supposed "restoration" of religion in American government, No Sale. As a document with a lot of more urgent import for this era: right on.
Whereas some support for the notion that religion instructs morals may be found in that speech, I would much rather have people pay close attention to the bits about the dangers of sectionalism and political parties and entangling foreign alliances, for good measure. The bits about political factions obstructing the execution of the laws of the land seems exceedingly apposite, considering the deplorable events of the past six years.
So in summary: as an argument for the supposed "restoration" of religion in American government, No Sale. As a document with a lot of more urgent import for this era: right on.
(0)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
Major Carl: I'm having trouble interpreting your statement above. Whose understanding of American history is incomplete, and what is utter nonsense?
I will point out that I do have extensive documentation to support my original post above. You could take a look at the archives at
.
I will point out that I do have extensive documentation to support my original post above. You could take a look at the archives at
.
Rathbun / Rathbone / Rathburn Resources
A resource site for Rathbun/Rathbone/Rathburn family history.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I agree too. We need more leaders who truly come FROM the people and serve the people instead of themselves. There are way too many elitists in government which is why we are drowning.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
PO1 Ernie Foster, please read my comment again. I did NOT say that YOU said it is "provide". What I did say is that what you were describing in your comment is NOT promoting the general welfare but it's providing for the general welfare. You are correct that another way to say promote is "not hinder". That is exactly what I want. I want a government that stays back and does NOT hinder the actions of the people. I want the government to promote the people into being involved within each community through either their time or money. I do NOT want the government to provide, which the ONLY way they can do that is to take from one person to give to another. That is exactly what government is doing right now and it is NOT promoting. Why is the government so loathe to let faith-based organizations to do what they know how to do? I don't care if it's a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Sikh, etc organization. Why hinder and stifle them? To be frank, I believe the elites want to keep as many people dumb and dependent on government in order to retain as much power as possible. Is this a fair and accurate assessment?
As far as your question on cutting "entitlements", yes, I do want a lot of them cut or eliminated because, as I stated above, it is NOT in the government's mandate to PROVIDE but to PROMOTE.
As far as your question on cutting "entitlements", yes, I do want a lot of them cut or eliminated because, as I stated above, it is NOT in the government's mandate to PROVIDE but to PROMOTE.
(0)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
That's just ridiculous. My Dad (the one with the WWII Silver Star that I mentioned in a different thread) was a pipefitter and in his daily work had to exercise skills in carpentry and metalworking.
The next time you waltz into a McDonald's, take with you a stop watch and a clipboard, focus on one particular employee, and record all that she does over a period of 30 minutes. Then tell me some more used food about "without skills".
The next time you waltz into a McDonald's, take with you a stop watch and a clipboard, focus on one particular employee, and record all that she does over a period of 30 minutes. Then tell me some more used food about "without skills".
(0)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
Try the exercise I outlined and decide whether there is skill involved for yourself.
Better yet, see if you could do it without a great deal of training and experience.
(Hint: I've worked in food service.)
If your average 18-year-old can become an infantryman, then that job must be a complete breeze as well.
Better yet, see if you could do it without a great deal of training and experience.
(Hint: I've worked in food service.)
If your average 18-year-old can become an infantryman, then that job must be a complete breeze as well.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
I would like to respond to all of you with this: I commend those of you for working together regardless of our beliefs. I cannot give you faith, you just have to walk out on that water by yourself. But if something imminent were to occur in any of our lives (believer or unbeliever) there would be prayer going on. If any of you have faced death and were able to stumble away from it I am willing to say that there were prayers going out and being heard. As for me not citing sources, I have given a list of sources that support the facts I have presented. I did not give you the page number and use any certain college writing tools to cite the page, author , edition, title, publication date, etc., but if you looked for the references I did list instead of argue about my lack of college writing experience you will find the facts I listed. You can drown me out in petty arguments all you want, but the fact that our country was founded upon Christian principles by men of Christian faith is undeniable fact. What should make you angry is why these facts are no longer taught in our schools. If they were taught in our schools you would be more educated on your heritage as Americans and you would be "We The People" instead of we the sheeple. If you take the time to honestly study it for yourself in the bibliography of our founding fathers (go to the library and check it out if you want the truth), and the other resources I listed (you can even check out the annals of Congress and the earlier Supreme Court decisions) then you will learn what Americans used to be taught at an early age. And, if and when any of you take the time to actually look up the references I have mentioned repeatedly and find that what I am telling you has its place in American History,,,then you need to ask yourself why it has been removed from our educational system. I already know why, but you will have to discover that truth for yourselves. So, instead of trying to throw dirt on the facts I have presented (politely and with respect), why don't you try to check the validity of them? It is easy to cast stones at someone else's beliefs when they do not align with yours. It is much tougher to reach out to the source and check these statements first hand and see if what you have been throwing back has any real weight to it. Have a blessed day. And Ernie, our salute came from back when men wore suits of armor and lifted their visors to identify themselves to one another, not from Nazi Germany (if that is what you were trying to imply with your spelling trick....)
r/
Steve
r/
Steve
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google