Fundamentalist Republic of America

[mental-escher]

The Fundamentalist Republic of America, by kos, Tue Aug 23rd, 2005

Okay, so how is the Christian Right in this country different than
Iran and the forthcoming Islamic Republic of Iraq?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-statesman23aug...

Nearly every Monday for six months, as many as a dozen congressional
aides -- many of them aspiring politicians -- have gathered over
takeout dinners to mine the Bible for ancient wisdom on modern policy
debates about tax rates, foreign aid, education, cloning and the
Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Through seminars taught by conservative college professors and devout
members of Congress, the students learn that serving country means
first and always serving Christ.

They learn to view every vote as a religious duty, and to consider
compromise a sin [...]

The philosophy animating Cameron's lecture -- that federal law should
be based on biblical precepts -- troubles the Rev. Barry W. Lynn,
executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and
State.

"This nation was founded specifically to avoid the government making
religious and theological decisions," Lynn said.

"We are not to turn the Holy Scriptures of any group into public
policy."

Kennedy counters that evangelicals have every right to put up
candidates who vote what they believe to be God's will -- and let
voters judge them.

To which Lynn responds, with exasperation:

"He says that because he knows in a majority Christian country, the
Christian view is going to be expressed by more voters. They have no
problem imposing their biblical worldview on every American."

Evangelical conservatives acknowledge that's their goal.

And they now have a systematic plan for achieving it.

Is there any doubt that the American Taliban has more in common with
our Islamic fundamentalist enemies?

They're cut from the same cloth -- the belief that a system of secular
rules and laws must be replaced with "God's laws".

And while the religions may be different, the core of them is not --
opposition to rival faiths,

hostility to science,

interference in people's private lives,

control over women's bodies,

an irrational belief in the supremacy of the male over female,

militancy, anti-intellectualism and a rejection of logic,

an unassailable belief in their own righrousness,

and the deifying of certain unelectable, unaccountable individuals as
"spokesmen for god", be it Pat Robertson or the Ayatollahs.

The American Taliban wants for the U.S. no less than what Iran has,
and Iraq will soon have.

----------------------------------
The mouse asked: "So why do you post this type of stuff?" and I reply: "because to do nothing is to be complicit"

[vox_monitor]

**** straight.

[podx]

world war lll will be muslim vs. christian...probably in 10 years. There was hope before reagan got elected in the late 70's but ever since then its been headed in this direction. Bush will just speed it up a bit. Those two want to war for the apocolypse or whatever :roll: lol!

[mental-escher]

world war lll will be muslim vs. christian...probably in 10 years.

You mean WW IV?
We are already fighting WWIII.
Will we be known as the least greatest generation?

[dcolanduno]

The American Taliban wants for the U.S. no less than what Iran has,
and Iraq will soon have.

Hmm, I think that they aren't *currently* thinking that is what they want.

But, if you let them keep gaining more and more power and more and more 'faith' based initiatives. Then, as in all things, people always want the NEXT thing that benefits their cause, or belief.

We've seen this happen in the past, the slow build up of Political Correctness is one good example.

I've even started to now hear the rumblings of more taxes and possible bans of certain types of food because of fat content. That logic stems from some of the *bad* logic that was used by the folks that fought for smoking bans. Even if some of their initial ideas might have been valid, some very bad precedent was set in some of the language used to write the bans.

You have to push back on things like this. Because, even though it might be somewhat of a 'soft ball' to a lot of people right now, that is now where it will go over time.

I don't think that MOST of the people pushing the legal faith-based fight right now are not thinking about anything as bad as what the Taliban do or have done. But, if you keep giving someone that believes that people should act a certain way based on a religious concept. That mindset will keep asking for more, and more, once you feed them the first time.

[Zecryphon]

Through seminars taught by conservative college professors and devout members of Congress, the students learn that serving country means first and always serving Christ.

They learn to view every vote as a religious duty, and to consider
compromise a sin [...]

How is this any different from the liberal ideology I was taught in high school and college? I was taught that if you were rich, you were evil. If you had more than the less fortunate you had to feel guilty. You want to pay more in taxes than the rest of the country because you need to take care of those who don't have as much. Criminals need a hug and therapy, not severe punishment or the death penalty. Funny thing is, I don't remember hugging Japan, Hitler, the British, or the Taliban into submission. I remember this country kicking their asses on the battlefield!!!

The philosophy animating Cameron's lecture -- that federal law should
be based on biblical precepts -- troubles the Rev. Barry W. Lynn,
executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and
State.

"This nation was founded specifically to avoid the government making
religious and theological decisions," Lynn said.

"We are not to turn the Holy Scriptures of any group into public
policy."

Look at the founding documents, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc. You will see God and his laws all throughout them. This nation was founded by people who shared a common faith, which just happened to be Christianity. Does this mean that pastors have a right to get in the pulpit and tell you who to vote for? Does it mean that if you vote for a candidate other than the one they tell you to vote for they can throw you out of church? (That's happened in WV) No! Absolutely not! Telling your congregation to vote for one candidate over another, unless you wanna suffer some serious consequences is an absolute abuse of power. Do pastors still do it? Absolutely. Why? Because alot of the Christian churches in this country, regardless of denomination are ego driven consumer based objects. The idea is that the pastor is the head of the church, as opposed to Jesus being the head. What the pastor says goes, and if you disagree or ask a question God help your sorry ***. This is not true Christianity. Church is not about the worshipper, it's about worshipping God, and praising and thanking Christ for His sacrifice on the cross.

Kennedy counters that evangelicals have every right to put up
candidates who vote what they believe to be God's will -- and let
voters judge them. Yeah we do. Just like secular society will put up candidates who hold their particular views. I'm not gonna vote for someone I don't agree with. Where's the sense in that?

To which Lynn responds, with exasperation:

"He says that because he knows in a majority Christian country, the
Christian view is going to be expressed by more voters. They have no
problem imposing their biblical worldview on every American."

Chrisianity does not represent the majority of this country, Catholicism does. We get lumped together because we both worship Christ, but the doctrines of the two churches are vastly different.

The belief that a system of secular
rules and laws must be replaced with "God's laws".

And while the religions may be different, the core of them is not --
opposition to rival faiths,

hostility to science,

A belief in God does not equal hostility towards science. I believe the two can work together.

interference in people's private lives,

I'm gonna take this to mean opposition to gay marriage. Well, it's only when you change the definition of marriage that two people of the same sex can even get married. The Massachussettes Supreme court changed the definition of marriage. It now means two consenting adults, instead of the definition that is accepted in this country and all around the world "A union of a man and a woman". But even before Christians opposed same sex marriage we had laws regulating marriage. Why can't people have multiple wives or husbands?

control over women's bodies, This one always baffles me. Why should an innocent child die, because you were irresponsible with regards to birth control? It's a sad day, when a child is regarded as an inconvenience, that can be remedied with a procedure. Where does it end? Can we do this with senior citizens, or people who have a lesser quality of life, like the handicapped?

an irrational belief in the supremacy of the male over female, This biblical example is to demonstrate how we as Christians are to submit ourselves to God.

militancy, anti-intellectualism and a rejection of logic,
I have yet to see any proof of this, outside of your personal opinions. But the one I love to ask the science community is, If the universe had a beginning, isn't it logical to conclude it must have had a beginner?

an unassailable belief in their own righrousness,
I am not righteous by any means. If you judge me by the law of God (when you understand what the laws mean) aka the 10 commandments, I am guilty of breaking them all.

and the deifying of certain unelectable, unaccountable individuals as
"spokesmen for god", be it Pat Robertson or the Ayatollahs.
Pat Robertson does not speak for me, and he doesn't speak for the majority of the country either. He is a Pentacostal. The membership numbers for that denomination as of 2004 are 1.1 million. That is hardly the majority of the country. In fact I'd say it's a extremely small minority. The numbers for the Evangelical church are even less. So how is it that we have all this power and authority? Secular people far outnumber religious people. I know more people, who live for themselves, than live for God.

The American Taliban wants for the U.S. no less than what Iran has,
and Iraq will soon have.

Ah Iran. Yeah, let's take a look at what Iran has. Seven nuclear reactors, manned with scientists with the knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons. Let's all stand and applaud Russia for their help in this one! Thanks guys! Now that Iran is gonna have nuclear weapons by the end of 2006 or early 2007, where do you think those weapons are gonna end up? Well, missiles will be fired most likely at Iraq, Europe, and Israel. Not to mention the fact that they'll probably send some Iranians with a bomb in a breifcase to our shores. Since George Bush is evil for fighting terrorists and terrorism around the world, let's turn to the U.N. to solve this one. Oh wait, can't do that, they're too busy taking pay-offs and looking the other way.

Your brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[Craig]

A belief in God does not equal hostility towards science. I believe the two can work together.
There was a front-page article on that very topic in the New York Times yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html

Craig

[kickasspodcast]

<sigh>

We turn a Secular Nation (Iraq) into an Islamic Republic governed by Sharia Law. A complete waste of time and resources all for the sake of creating an Iranian style religious state. Great...:roll: just what we need.

The bigger issue to me is 9/11 and figuring out why he(Bush) gave bin Laden everything he wanted.

1: To close the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. (what we won in the 1st gulf war- Closed After 9/11)

2: To come after him in Afganistan. (and lost- the Pres didn't wanna do it in the 1st place)

3: To turn Iraq from a Secular Nation into Islamic Republic. (getting the West out of the Middle East)

The Bush Crime Family only cares about Money. They manipulate anyone who is dumb enough to support them directly or indirectly.

Osama bin Laden only cares about Religion. He seeks to spread his religious views and establish Sharia Law throughout the world. (particularly the Middle East)

That is why there is no direct conflict between the two groups. Why would anyone think Bush would ever do anything about 9/11 i'll never know. The whole thing probably could have been avoided (even though there is no way to prove this).

What would we do if say... Russia thought Bush was a bastard and decided to "spread freedom" to the United States. How quickly would we all become insurgents and blast some Ruskie asses. I hate to say it- but we all know this is true.

*no offense to any Russian peoples- it is just an example.

All of this is my opinion- alot of it is backed up by facts that I have found to be true-I am a big fan of the Kos btw-nice post thread starta!


Jack B.

[Hittman]

I've even started to now hear the rumblings of more taxes and possible bans of certain types of food because of fat content. That logic stems from some of the *bad* logic that was used by the folks that fought for smoking bans. Even if some of their initial ideas might have been valid, some very bad precedent was set in some of the language used to write the bans.

You have to push back on things like this. Because, even though it might be somewhat of a 'soft ball' to a lot of people right now, that is now where it will go over time.

The current jihad on smokers started in the sixties with the perfectly reasonable request of having smoking and non-smoking sections in airplanes. If, back then, you said it would lead to not even being able to have a smoke in a bar, people being fired for smoking, people losing the custody of their kids and being kicked out of their apartments, you would have been considered a loony. Yet that’s exactly what happened.

The worst part of the nanny movement is that any compromise, no matter how reasonable it seems, must be rejected. In a more honest, adult society, compromises could be reached that were acceptable to everyone. You don’t like smoking? No problem, we’ll have smoking and non-smoking sections, we’ll both deal with it, and that will be the end of it. But in today’s nanny culture, every compromise is just one small step toward the nannies end goal. The smoking/non-smoking thing is step one. After we’re used to that for a few years we mandate that the smoking section be smaller. Then we eliminate it completely. Then we pass laws saying you can’t stand too close to the door. Hell, in New York, it’s illegal to provide any kind of awning or umbrella for a smoker – they must, by law, be completely exposed to the elements.

That’s where compromise gets you.

How is this any different from the liberal ideology I was taught in high school and college?

Why are you trying to justify bad behavior by comparing it to someone else’s bad behavior?

Look at the founding documents, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc. You will see God and his laws all throughout them. This nation was founded by people who shared a common faith, which just happened to be Christianity.

I’m so sick of hearing and defending against this bullshit bullshit. Most of the founding fathers were deists, not Christians. God is only briefly and vaguely referred to in a few of the founding documents. When will you and your ilk learn some American history? Sell all you own and buy a effing clue.

No! Absolutely not! Telling your congregation to vote for one candidate over another, unless you wanna suffer some serious consequences is an absolute abuse of power.

More bullshit. The Christian Coalition keeps a scorecard on every congress weasel. And those of us who haven’t bought into the fundy bullshit are more than a little nervous when we see 80% of the senate republicans have a score of 100%, then find most of the rest of them are in the 90th percentile. Excuse us for finding it just a little scary that the ignorance of fundamentalism is becoming law.

The rest of your post proves the point perfectly – fundies want their religion to be the law of the land. And that scares the **** out of any thinking, rational person.

I like to leave you to worship and live however you please – but you **** well better offer me the same courtesy, and back off on your attempt to turn this country into a Christian version of the talibhan. And don’t even think about denying that is the goal of many, if not most, fundamentalist Christians. I’ve been there, done that, and know better.

[Zecryphon]

No! Absolutely not! Telling your congregation to vote for one candidate over another, unless you wanna suffer some serious consequences is an absolute abuse of power.

More bullshit. The Christian Coalition keeps a scorecard on every congress weasel. And those of us who haven’t bought into the fundy bullshit are more than a little nervous when we see 80% of the senate republicans have a score of 100%, then find most of the rest of them are in the 90th percentile. Excuse us for finding it just a little scary that the ignorance of fundamentalism is becoming law.

Read my post again, I never mentioned the Christian Coalition! I said that a pastor, NOT a congressman or senator, who gets in the pulpit and tells his congregation who to vote for is abusing his position and his power. I'm yelling at "the church" here! You should like that! LOL

The rest of your post proves the point perfectly – fundies want their religion to be the law of the land. And that scares the **** out of any thinking, rational person.

Your definition of a thinking and rational person seems to be anyone who is against Jesus, God and their followers. So, by this definition of yours, Anti-Christ is a sane, thinking and rational person. Tell me Hittman, if you were given the choice of your hand or your forehead where would you take the mark?

I like to leave you to worship and live however you please – but you **** well better offer me the same courtesy, and back off on your attempt to turn this country into a Christian version of the talibhan.

It's funny how you think Christianity is comparable to the Taliban. We don't execute anyone who disagrees with us. We don't force people to live a certain way. We have a Christian as president right now, who bases his decisions on what he believes to be right and wrong. Jimmy Carter did the same thing, but no one flipped out on him, saying he was gonna turn this country into a Christain nation. Christianity offers freedom, go back and read the words of Jesus. Can you really find anything that resembles a Taliban-like existence in His words and teachings. Forget that crap you were taught as a kid in your fundamentalist cult. They were wrong, that is not what true Christianity is about.

And don’t even think about denying that is the goal of many, if not most, fundamentalist Christians. I’ve been there, done that, and know better.

I would never dream of denying that alot of people of faith, use their positions of power to feed their own greedy ends. But that's true of anyone in a position of power. Take a look at any secular senator, congressman, governor, etc. I know you've been through hell as a former fundy, but stop whining about it. Yeah, the screwed you over big time. The lies they sold you as truth were just that, lies. But you can't get over it. Alot of the anger you express towards other Christians, is driven by hatred of people who were bad to you. We're not the Taliban, and we're not gonna turn America into a one religion nation. Besides the denomination with the biggest following in this country is not Evangelicals, it's the Roman Catholics. We all get lumped together as Christians, but the two are really very different in what they believe.

Your brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[Hittman]

Your definition of a thinking and rational person seems to be anyone who is against Jesus, God and their followers. So, by this definition of yours, Anti-Christ is a sane, thinking and rational person. Tell me Hittman, if you were given the choice of your hand or your forehead where would you take the mark?

It’s usually liberals who make a practice of putting words in people’s mouths. Thanks for illustrating there’s no reason extremists on the other side can’t do the same thing.

First off, non-believers can’t be against God or Jesus, because there are no such creatures. As for their followers, we shrug most of them off and leave them to their own beliefs and lifestyles. It’s only when the extremists want to force us, though the power of law (the point of a gun) to make their lifestyles our own, that we get just a little angry and push back. It’s self-defense.

It's funny how you think Christianity is comparable to the Taliban.

I never said or implied that. You must be really desperate.

What I did say was the fundamentalist Christians who are trying to turn the US into a theocracy will turn us into a Christian Taliban, given the chance.

Can you really find anything that resembles a Taliban-like existence in His words and teachings.

No. But I can see quite a bit that resembles a Taliban like existence in fundy Christian households.

I would never dream of denying that alot of people of faith, use their positions of power to feed their own greedy ends. But that's true of anyone in a position of power. Take a look at any secular senator, congressman, governor, etc.

There you go again, using bad behavior to justify other bad behavior. Why do you keep doing that?

I know you've been through hell as a former fundy, but stop whining about it. Yeah, the screwed you over big time. The lies they sold you as truth were just that, lies. But you can't get over it. Alot of the anger you express towards other Christians, is driven by hatred of people who were bad to you.

You really need to learn to read better. I have no anger against Christians. Most of my friends are theists of one stripe or another. I really don’t care what other people believe, unless it affects me directly. And the fundy movement to take over this country does. It is evil, as pure an evil as whabbism, an evil that needs to be fought at every turn.

We're not the Taliban, and we're not gonna turn America into a one religion nation.

You will, given the chance. We don’t want to give it to you.

Have you abandoned your “founded as a Christian Nation� nonsense? Did you actually go out and get a clue?

[vox_monitor]

There you go again, using bad behavior to justify other bad behavior. Why do you keep doing that?

I think his position on this is that he's not attempting to justify any bad behavior, merely to point out the singling out of his group as particularly dangerous or notable, is unreasonable, given that the behavior is no different than that of secularists.

The problem with this argument, of course, is that the strength of the fundies is their unity. They demand it, impose it and wield it to pursue a uniform goal.

We can usually rely on secularists to be motivated by simple self-interest. Which doesn't necessarily involve them exercising control over my behavior. Sure, it entails them stealing some of my money, but that's implicit to government. It's the MORAL agenda that's scary. Because that translates into them telling ME what to do in situations where my behavior is not directly impacting others.

And to control other freemen thusly is pure, unforgivable evil.

[mental-escher]

We can usually rely on secularists to be motivated by simple self-interest. Which doesn't necessarily involve them exercising control over my behavior. Sure, it entails them stealing some of my money, but that's implicit to government. It's the MORAL agenda that's scary. Because that translates into them telling ME what to do in situations where my behavior is not directly impacting others.

And to control other freemen thusly is pure, unforgivable evil.

Bingo!

Eric Strikes to the heart of the matter once again!

Moral Extremism is Evil. Whether from Left Right or Center translates into THEM telling ME what to do in situations where my behavior is not directly impacting others.

[Zecryphon]

First off, non-believers can’t be against God or Jesus, because there are no such creatures.

I don't know how you can say with any certainty that God and Jesus don't exist. You've never been able to prove that statement. There is physical proof that Jesus did walk this earth. Now was He the son of God as He claimed He was? I believe so. You don't. No biggie. Since you were a former fundy, I'm going to guess that you probably accepted His gift of salvation at some point in your life. Now, I believe that once you are saved, you are always saved, and you can't lose that salvation. So, it looks like you're going to Heaven. No doubt, you'll be kicking and screaming the whole way.

It’s only when the extremists want to force us, though the power of law (the point of a gun) to make their lifestyles our own, that we get just a little angry and push back.

Exactly what laws are we trying to push through, that are such a threat to you? The Marriage amendment, who's sole purpose is to keep marriage the way God intended it to be? A union between a man and a woman. Also, 70% of the people in states like CA and others where this issue has come up, have said that marriage is between a man and a woman. Does CA have a 70% fundamentalist majority. No way! It's one of the most liberal states in the country, but some things are just basic common sense.

I'm sure the founding fathers would be shaking their heads at the fact that we even have to propose a marriage amendment. Being as they were deists and not Christians, even they held that a marriage is between a man and a woman. It's just one of those known facts of life.

What I did say was the fundamentalist Christians who are trying to turn the US into a theocracy will turn us into a Christian Taliban, given the chance.

A Christian is not going to force anyone to live a certain way. It's sad taht we have been forced to protect our way of life, by resorting to legal measures. And who do you think forced us there? I don't know maybe the majority of secular society, that you are so proud to be a part of?

We also are not going to kill you, if you disagree with us. You and I disagree on almost everything, and I haven't put a price on your head. Face it, Hittman, you're a fear-monger. You want everyone to believe that there is this HUGE conspiracy against the United Staets. That Christians are meeting in secret locations plotting the demise of relgious tolerance and freedom. If that were true, don't you think we'd have rounded up every Jew, practitioner of Islam, Buddhist, Hindu etc. in this country and either sent them packing or executed them? That's utter nonsense. Christians don't act that way. This is an example, not actual words you've said.

If you don't like the way the government is being run or the people running it. Start sending some e-mails to your congressman, your senatrors, your governors, telling them how you feel, and you fear we're being turned into a theocracy of Christians. Get involved, and when elections come up, go out and vote against these evil people who are set on destroying this country in your opinion. But truly if things are gonna get so bad here, you can always leave. No one is forcing you to stay here. This isn't Russia or Cuba.

Can you really find anything that resembles a Taliban-like existence in His words and teachings.

t I can see quite a bit that resembles a Taliban like existence in fundy Christian households.

What goes on in a person's household as far as their religious practices is none of your concern or mine for that matter. Are you suggesting that anyone whose religious or political views are different than yours, is a threat?

I would never dream of denying that alot of people of faith, use their positions of power to feed their own greedy ends. But that's true of anyone in a position of power. Take a look at any secular senator, congressman, governor, etc.

ou go again, using bad behavior to justify other bad behavior. Why do you keep doing that?

Because I'm pointing out that there is bad behavior on all sides. I do it to let people know that the bad behavior is not just on the Christian side. The point is we have to stop bad behavior wherever it is happening. We have to join together, not split apart into factions. You just wanna point your finger at the Christians and say "See! They're doing it again! They wanna turn us into a theocracy, with a Taliban-like existence! They must be stopped!" This is a paraphrase, you never actually said these words, don't flip out that I'm putting words in your mouth.

I know you've been through hell as a former fundy, but stop whining about it. Yeah, the screwed you over big time. The lies they sold you as truth were just that, lies. But you can't get over it. Alot of the anger you express towards other Christians, is driven by hatred of people who were bad to you.

I really don’t care what other people believe, unless it affects me directly.

So what is it that the Christians believe that is so affecting you?

We're not the Taliban, and we're not gonna turn America into a one religion nation.

You will, given the chance. We don’t want to give it to you.

You truly have no clue who we are. We have views that are in opposition to yours, what a shocker. We have a pro-family view. What does that mean? Well we oppose abortion, and especially partial-birth abortions. We are against same-sex unions. We're probably against homosexuals adopting children, since two mommies or two daddies is not a traditional family structure. We live our lives according to God's standards to the best of our abilities. We're not out to stop you from having a good time, having all the sex you want, drinking, gambling, whatever it is that floats your boat. Go ahead! Do whatever you want, you don't answer to us. But you will answer to the one we all answer to. God.


Have you abandoned your “founded as a Christian Nation� nonsense? Did you actually go out and get a clue?

Yeah, I looked it up online. You were right, they were deists. Do you feel better now? Do you need to be told you were right alot?

We have freedom of religion in this country. What you seem to want is freedom from religion. Did you check out www.stupidchurchpeople.com yet? I think they're right up your alley.

Your brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[cpjolicoeur]

de·ism n.

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

Is "deist" the word you were looking for?

Also, while some of the founding fathers did not believe in God, the majority of those who signed this nations founding documents did, in fact, believe in God.

[Hittman]

First off, non-believers can’t be against God or Jesus, because there are no such creatures.

I don't know how you can say with any certainty that God and Jesus don't exist. You've never been able to prove that statement.

I don’t have to. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim.

I claim that the world is full of invisible pink unicorns, who control everything. Prove they don’t.

You can’t. Nor should you even try. The burden of proof, if I were serious, falls on me.

Since you were a former fundy, I'm going to guess that you probably accepted His gift of salvation at some point in your life. Now, I believe that once you are saved, you are always saved, and you can't lose that salvation. So, it looks like you're going to Heaven. No doubt, you'll be kicking and screaming the whole way.

****, most of my friends will be in the other place. Will I at least be allowed to visit them?

It’s only when the extremists want to force us, though the power of law (the point of a gun) to make their lifestyles our own, that we get just a little angry and push back.

Exactly what laws are we trying to push through, that are such a threat to you? The Marriage amendment, who's sole purpose is to keep marriage the way God intended it to be?

That’s one of them, although I don’t have a dog in that particular fight. The key phrase is your statement is “the way god intended it to be.� You’re trying to make your religion into law.

What I did say was the fundamentalist Christians who are trying to turn the US into a theocracy will turn us into a Christian Taliban, given the chance.

A Christian is not going to force anyone to live a certain way.

Wrong. You want to force gays to live a certain way. You want to take choice away from women, forcing them to live a certain way.

We also are not going to kill you, if you disagree with us. You and I disagree on almost everything, and I haven't put a price on your head. Face it, Hittman, you're a fear-monger. You want everyone to believe that there is this HUGE conspiracy against the United Staets. That Christians are meeting in secret locations plotting the demise of relgious tolerance and freedom.

There’s nothing secret about it. You’re doing it right out in the open. It’s just that too few people are paying attention.

But truly if things are gonna get so bad here, you can always leave. No one is forcing you to stay here. This isn't Russia or Cuba.

Ah yes, the old love it or leave it line. How about a different option, one where I can live in freedom instead of having law, based on “the will of God,� making those decisions for me?

Can you really find anything that resembles a Taliban-like existence in His words and teachings.

t I can see quite a bit that resembles a Taliban like existence in fundy Christian households.

What goes on in a person's household as far as their religious practices is none of your concern or mine for that matter. Are you suggesting that anyone whose religious or political views are different than yours, is a threat?

Only when they’re politically active, trying to turn their lifestyle into law. If people want to live with wifey being a good little subeverant woman, barefoot and pregnant, what do I care? But when that lifestyle becomes mandated, I get just a bit concerned

I would never dream of denying that alot of people of faith, use their positions of power to feed their own greedy ends. But that's true of anyone in a position of power. Take a look at any secular senator, congressman, governor, etc.

ou go again, using bad behavior to justify other bad behavior. Why do you keep doing that?

Because I'm pointing out that there is bad behavior on all sides. I do it to let people know that the bad behavior is not just on the Christian side.

I think we kinda sorta know that. It’s a nice backpedal, though.

The point is we have to stop bad behavior wherever it is happening. We have to join together, not split apart into factions.

Join together? You are the bad behavior I’m talking about. You’ve stated, several times in this thread, what religious beliefs you want made into law.

I know you've been through hell as a former fundy, but stop whining about it. Yeah, the screwed you over big time. The lies they sold you as truth were just that, lies. But you can't get over it. Alot of the anger you express towards other Christians, is driven by hatred of people who were bad to you.

I really don’t care what other people believe, unless it affects me directly.

So what is it that the Christians believe that is so affecting you?

They believe that my gay friends should remain pariahs. They believe they should control what I hear on the radio. They believe that if one of my kids has an unwanted pregnancy, her only choice should be between bringing an unwanted child into the world or having a dangerous, potentially deadly back-alley abortion.

Now, if that were just you personal beliefs, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. We could just agree to disagree. But you want to make theses beliefs laws. And that is what makes your kind dangerous.

We're not the Taliban, and we're not gonna turn America into a one religion nation.

You will, given the chance. We don’t want to give it to you.

You truly have no clue who we are. We have views that are in opposition to yours, what a shocker. We have a pro-family view. What does that mean? Well we oppose abortion, and especially partial-birth abortions. We are against same-sex unions. We're probably against homosexuals adopting children, since two mommies or two daddies is not a traditional family structure. We live our lives according to God's standards to the best of our abilities.

You left out the most important part. You want to make this law. And that is where the problem is.

"What Christians have got to do is take back this country, one precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time, and one state at a time. I honestly believe that in my lifetime we will see a country once again governed by Christians...and good Christian values."
Ralph Reed (Director, Christian Coalition)

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
Randall Terry (Founder, Operation Rescue)

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore"
Pat Robertson (TV preacher, leader of Christian Coalition)

"I hope I live to see the day when we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"
Jerry Falwell (TV preacher, leader of the Moral Majority)

We're not out to stop you from having a good time, having all the sex you want, drinking, gambling, whatever it is that floats your boat.

This is a very common misconception among True Believers – that atheists become atheists so they can go out and do all kinds of immoral things. It’s bullshit. If anything, I’m more responsible for my behavior, because I can’t blame it on the devil.

Although there isn’t a prefect coloration between morals and incarceration, it’s not a bad general indicator. Atheists are 8-10% of the population. If their morals were the same as everyone else’s, we’d except their numbers to be the same – they’d be 8-10% of the prison population. If they were more evil than average, we could expect to see a higher percentage of their ilk in jail.

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Well well, look at that. .029%. What conclusions can we gather from this interesting piece of information?

Have you abandoned your “founded as a Christian Nation� nonsense? Did you actually go out and get a clue?

Yeah, I looked it up online. You were right, they were deists. Do you feel better now? Do you need to be told you were right alot?

Nope. I already knew I was right on this one.

Now you’ll have to give up the “we were founded as a Christian Nation� argument. Because obviously, we weren’t.

We have freedom of religion in this country. What you seem to want is freedom from religion.

Exactamudo! Just leave me alone, and I’ll do the same for you.

And we can all live happily ever after and even exchange Christmas presents. (How’s that for a monkey wrench in the conversation? I celebrate Christmas. I put a big tree in living room, lights outside the house, and exchange presents with friends and family.)

Did you check out www.stupidchurchpeople.com yet? I think they're right up your alley.

Just checked them out. They’re OK, but not too impressive. I prefer the Landover Baptist Church. http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

Also, while some of the founding fathers did not believe in God, the majority of those who signed this nations founding documents did, in fact, believe in God.

That was never in question. The issue was the claim that we were founded as a Christian Nation.

[Zecryphon]

****, most of my friends will be in the other place. Will I at least be allowed to visit them?

I believe you will. I believe Hell will be a part of Heaven. Like in that movie, What Dreams May Come. Jesus will be the overseer of Hell, not the devil. Remember, Satan is being punished too. Wouldn't seem fair, if Satan got to reign over all those he has hated since the War in Heaven.

Exactly what laws are we trying to push through, that are such a threat to you? The Marriage amendment, who's sole purpose is to keep marriage the way God intended it to be?

That’s one of them, although I don’t have a dog in that particular fight. The key phrase is your statement is “the way god intended it to be.� You’re trying to make your religion into law.

Non-Christians also accept that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Like I said, some things are just basic common sense. It's sad that we need a law to define what marriage is. We're not forcing anyone to live a certain way. Homosexuals are not prevented from living together or practicing their lifestyle to the fullest extent possible. It's just that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Even, tribes of natives in the most remote regions of the world recognize this. But how can this be, since they have never heard the word of God or gospel of Jesus Christ. Also, don't try and pretend that the homosexuals aren't trying to use marriage as a way to legitimize their lifestyle. They think if they're married they're somehow going to be taken more seriously.

But homsexuals along with most of the country, don't know what marriage is truly all about. When you get married you're entering into a contract with two other parties, the person you're marrying and God. It's a contract, and as with all contracts there are only two ways out of it, death is one, adultery is the other. Marriage has become tradtion. It's just something you do, when you reach a certain point in your life. If it isn't a contract with God, why do people insist on getting married by a minister in a church? Go to town hall and get married.

A Christian is not going to force anyone to live a certain way.

Wrong. You want to force gays to live a certain way. You want to take choice away from women, forcing them to live a certain way.

Homosexuals can live however they want. We're not saying that two men or two men can't be together. After a certain number of years, isn't it considered a common law marriage anyway? What I have a problem with is when they want to take a holy union andturn it into something that is considered unholy by God. God finds homosexuality detestable. As for telling women what to do with their bodies, they can do whatever they want. It's when they want to harm another body, that happens to be residing in theirs, that I have a problem. Getting an abortion is forcing your view on another person. Something you claim to be wholly against. I'm sure if you could ask the baby if he or she would like to be born or killed, they're gonna say born. It's funny how all the people who are pro-abortion people have already been born. (a little humor from Ronald Reagan for you.)

Ah yes, the old love it or leave it line. How about a different option, one where I can live in freedom instead of having law, based on “the will of God,� making those decisions for me?

What do you think a law is? It's one person telling another person how to live their life. It's a restriction on personal freedom. Look at the anti-gun crowd. They wanna tell me what guns I can have, and what guns I can't have, based on what they think I need. If one day I wake up and decide I wanna go out and buy a fully automatic AK-47, I should be allowed to do so. The second amendment gives me that freedom. However, someone else has decided for me, that I don't need that much firepower. They're imposing their views on me and forcing me to live a certain way. A way that serves their own interests. Now, I'm very fortunate to live in AZ, where I can go out and buy an AK-47, fully automatic, but only when I have received the proper training. I can also buy a silencer, but again only after I have received the proper training, certification and have registered with certain law enforcement agencies, who will be keeping an eye on me, because I have this particular piece of equipment.

What goes on in a person's household as far as their religious practices is none of your concern or mine for that matter. Are you suggesting that anyone whose religious or political views are different than yours, is a threat?

Only when they’re politically active, trying to turn their lifestyle into law. If people want to live with wifey being a good little subeverant woman, barefoot and pregnant, what do I care? But when that lifestyle becomes mandated, I get just a bit concerned.

You're only concerned when someone who's views are different than yours try to get laws passed. Sounds to me like you want to live in a country where only your views are the ones that matter, and everyone else had just better learn to deal with it. Heil Hitler!



Where's the backpedal? You asked me why I keep doing something, and when I give you an answer, you tell me I'm backpedaling. Make up your mind will you? Do you wanna know why I do something or not?

[quote]The point is we have to stop bad behavior wherever it is happening. We have to join together, not split apart into factions.

Join together? You are the bad behavior I’m talking about. You’ve stated, several times in this thread, what religious beliefs you want made into law.

No I stated several times in this thread what I believe in. I never said which beliefs I want turned into law. You wouldn't happen to be putting words in my mouth would you? I know how you hate that LOL

So what is it that the Christians believe that is so affecting you?

They believe that my gay friends should remain pariahs. They believe they should control what I hear on the radio. They believe that if one of my kids has an unwanted pregnancy, her only choice should be between bringing an unwanted child into the world or having a dangerous, potentially deadly back-alley abortion.

I don't think homosexuals in this country have been reduced to pariahs. They have the same freedoms we do. They're even more protected than the spotted owl. You can't say anything bad about them, can't point out that they're different, or your guilty of being intolerant.

I believe that Christians are totally out of control on the censorship issue. How hard is it to turn off a radio or television or change the station or turn the channel. Our society is way too letigious. We sue over everything. I'm surprised weathermen aren't getting sued, because it rained, when they said it would be sunny. If something doesn't go our way we sue. The point is, Howard Stern should never have been find or targeted by the FCC. Opie and Anthony should never have been taken off the airwaves. But if Christians are so intent on "saving" the radio, let em have the AM and FM airwaves, it's a dying format anyway. Satellite radio is the future. Total freedom, no commercials, no censorship. It's all I listen to, the programming is just way better and there's way more channels. I love it. Satellite and podcasts are all I listen to.

As for your child having no other choice than bringing an unwanted pregnancy into the world, or a dangerous back alley abortion, those aren't her only choices. You forgot one, you know the one where she doesn't get pregnant in the first place. It's not like birth control is hard to find in this country. We all have the attitude of "well we can't stop you from doing it, so here use this condom if you're gonna do it." And do they? No! Because if they did, this wouldn't be the huge issue it is. No one wants to take any responsibility for their actions. Someone else will just have to pay. And don't think that the abortions that are performed in the clinics are totally safe.

An abortion is a dangerous and life threatening procedure, even when performed properly. But even if it were totally safe, why all the secrecy surrounding it? Why does the law tell kids that the parents don't have to be told. That they don't need parental consent to have this procedure.The laws say a parent or guardian has to be present when taking them to an R rated movie, but not when they wanna kill an unborn baby. Yeah that makes alot of sense. That's what I call progress.

Maybe kids don't tell their parents because way down deep in their hearts they know that forcing their view of pro-abortion on an unborn child is unfair. But it's not about the unborn baby is it? No, it's all about them and what's best for them. Why should they be bothered with thinking about someone other than themselves, that doesn't serve their own selfish interests. Tell me why, an innocent child has to die, because your little baby couldn't excercise self-control or was too embarassed to buy birth control. That's another reason I'm glad I live in AZ. We have baby drop off spots at our hospitals, police stations, fire stations, and churches. It's completely anonymous and no one gets hurt. Doesn't this seem like a more humane way to handle the probelm of an unwanted pregnancy.

Now, if that were just you personal beliefs, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. We could just agree to disagree. But you want to make theses beliefs laws. And that is what makes your kind dangerous.

What about your kind? What about secularists who want to force their views on others. What about the legalization of marijuana? Doesn't that force the drug culture's view on soceity? That marijuana isn't bad, it's even been proven to be helpful to some people. Therefore, it should be legal so we can all enjoy it's benefits. Sounds like people who like that stuff want to force it on everyone. They want their way of life protected by a law.

I loved that anti-smoking rant earlier in this thread. I'm an ex-smoker and I thought that the non-smokers were way out of control, until I realized something. Smoking, unlike marijuana (which is debatable) has never been proven to be beneficial for anyone. We know it's incredibly addictive, almost impossible to give up, and given enough time will give you all sorts of health related diseases and eventually kill you. Now why should people who are interested in healthy living, be subjected to your habit and just deal with it, when that habit is a known killer. Even second hand smoke is just as bad, and the stuff that comes off the lit end of the cigarette is just as toxic. I mean we even have cigarette companies now telling you not to buy their product. Now, granted they have to because that was all part of the settlement.

You truly have no clue who we are. We have views that are in opposition to yours, what a shocker. We have a pro-family view. What does that mean? Well we oppose abortion, and especially partial-birth abortions. We are against same-sex unions. We're probably against homosexuals adopting children, since two mommies or two daddies is not a traditional family structure. We live our lives according to God's standards to the best of our abilities.

You left out the most important part. You want to make this law. And that is where the problem is.

So it's only when someone who doesn't agree with you wants to make their way of life a law that you have a problem. I already told you that a law is a restriction on personal freedom. Anytime a law is passed it serves someones own interest, that is probably different from your own. But it's only when Christians pass a law that you freak out. Whenever a secular law is passed, like pro-abortion, you're just fine with that. Hey, have you ever noticed that all the people who are pro-abortion have already been born? (a little Ronald Reagan humor for you)

"What Christians have got to do is take back this country, one precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time, and one state at a time. I honestly believe that in my lifetime we will see a country once again governed by Christians...and good Christian values."
Ralph Reed (Director, Christian Coalition)

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
Randall Terry (Founder, Operation Rescue)

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore"
Pat Robertson (TV preacher, leader of Christian Coalition)

"I hope I live to see the day when we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"
Jerry Falwell (TV preacher, leader of the Moral Majority)

I have never been a supporter of Robertson or Falwell. In my opinion they represent everything that is wrong with the church today. These two in particular are drunk with power and driven by their own egos. They have long since abandoned the teachings of Jesus. The church needs to get back to its roots of serving the people. We have to get back to the bushiness of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ to all nations. Not turn this nation into a Christian totalitarian state. That's not how we were set up by the fathers. Anytime a person, whether they be Christain, Muslim, Buddhist whatever wants to force eveyone to his way of thinking it is wrong. And I will never be a supporter of that.

We're not out to stop you from having a good time, having all the sex you want, drinking, gambling, whatever it is that floats your boat.

This is a very common misconception among True Believers – that atheists become atheists so they can go out and do all kinds of immoral things. It’s bullshit. If anything, I’m more responsible for my behavior, because I can’t blame it on the devil.

I never said anyone became an atheist to engage in this type of behavior. In fact, I engaged in alot of this type of behavior earlier in life. When I became a born-again I didn't immediately stop, because I ddin't know enough about Jesus' message. I didn't know I was supposed to stop. I have since changed my ways, but the point is, I know plenty of people who profess to be Christians who engage in this type of behavior. It's not just atheists, Catholics do this too, probably more so than anyone else LOL

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm[/url]

Well well, look at that. .029%. What conclusions can we gather from this interesting piece of information?

I also never said atheists were prone to crimminal activity. I'd be interested in conducting a poll of prisoners to see what their religious views are. Alot of them are probably Catholic and Christian. Which means, they either don't udnerstand what Jesus' teaching were, or they just don't care.

Since you've admitted that you want freedom from relgion in this country, isn't that forcing your atheist veiws on everyone else?

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[Hittman]

Also, don't try and pretend that the homosexuals aren't trying to use marriage as a way to legitimize their lifestyle.

No pretending at all. That’s exactly what they’re trying to do.

I just don’t see anything wrong with it.

When you get married you're entering into a contract with two other parties, the person you're marrying and God.

What about two atheists getting married?

What I have a problem with is when they want to take a holy union andturn it into something that is considered unholy by God.

I don’t think of anything as Holy, not the way you mean it, and God isn’t part of my belief system, so that sentence doesn’t mean anything to me. It’s like saying gay unicorns are an abomination to the Easter Bunny.

You're only concerned when someone who's views are different than yours try to get laws passed. Sounds to me like you want to live in a country where only your views are the ones that matter, and everyone else had just better learn to deal with it. Heil Hitler!

Goodwins law – you just lost the debate. And are being an *****le as well.

I never said which beliefs I want turned into law.

Wrong again. You very clearly stated several things you want made into law, several times. Read your own words.

What about your kind? What about secularists who want to force their views on others. What about the legalization of marijuana? Doesn't that force the drug culture's view on soceity? That marijuana isn't bad, it's even been proven to be helpful to some people. Therefore, it should be legal so we can all enjoy it's benefits. Sounds like people who like that stuff want to force it on everyone. They want their way of life protected by a law.

This is why debate with you is a waste of time (one I’ll be quitting fairly soon.) No one is forcing anyone to smoke pot. No one ever seriously proposed that, that I’m aware of. Making it legal doesn’t force anything on anyone, it simply returns a freedom to the people which never should have been removed in the first place.

So it's only when someone who doesn't agree with you wants to make their way of life a law that you have a problem.

Half right. I’m opposed to any law that forces any lifestyle choices (or lack of choices) on people, even if it’s a lifestyle choice I happen to agree with.

I already told you that a law is a restriction on personal freedom.

Thank you Captian Obivous. But it’s more than that, it’s a restriction on personal freedom at the point of a gun.

Whenever a secular law is passed, like pro-abortion, you're just fine with that.

There you go again. There is no such thing as pro-abortion, it’s a phrase fundies spew. There is such a thing as pro-choice, an entirely different thing.

I have never been a supporter of Robertson or Falwell. In my opinion they represent everything that is wrong with the church today.

But they do represent most born again Christians, and provide a very good insight into the mindset. How about Reed and Terry, are you in tune with their thinking?

Since you've admitted that you want freedom from relgion in this country, isn't that forcing your atheist veiws on everyone else?

How? I’m just asking to be left alone. For your ilk to keep your religious based laws out of my life. Have I tried to convert you to atheism? Has anyone?

[boneheadz]

This thread is too huge to complete respond to but I will comment on a portion that really ticks me off. Living in Texas north, Redneck Alberta I am seeing this misunderstanding daily.

Non-Christians also accept that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Like I said, some things are just basic common sense. It's sad that we need a law to define what marriage is. We're not forcing anyone to live a certain way. Homosexuals are not prevented from living together or practicing their lifestyle to the fullest extent possible. It's just that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Even, tribes of natives in the most remote regions of the world recognize this. But how can this be, since they have never heard the word of God or gospel of Jesus Christ. Also, don't try and pretend that the homosexuals aren't trying to use marriage as a way to legitimize their lifestyle. They think if they're married they're somehow going to be taken more seriously.

A marriage license is a government document. It allows the parties involved to enter into an legal contract. This contract comes with responsibilities and benefits. (specifically in the area of income tax, property and company benefits.) This is no different than a business partnership. Because the government issues this it must be available to all citizens who are of legal age to enter into a contract.

If the church wants to ban gay marriage, fine. But the government can not make a law preventing people of the same sex from obtaining a marriage license any more than they can prevent people of different colors from getting a marriage license. (In the middle of the last century there probably a lot of "church folks who wanted to ban interracial marriages.)

Get with it people, the churches can make up rules that are for their members, but the government must respect everyone and can not discriminated against people based on their sexual preferences.

bone

[spartacusroosevelt]

if the churches aren't running things how come they aren't taxed?
Let them write off the charitable works they do, then give unto Caesar ******. I see no reason churches for churches not to pay property tax and income tax. I also see no reason you should be able to write off your tithes, unless they are earmarked for a specific charitable work, and I don't mean saving souls.

Why aren't these taxes levied? What politician has the balls to introduce these bills? None do. The church of Satan is eligible for all these tax breaks and refuses them. Are they better citizens than the Xtians? The gay thing, the bible still means that, but since there is no Caesar, Xtians should maintain their tax breaks, right?

I grew up fundy and know that so many of my associates then would love to outlaw so much they interpret as sinful. With W in the White House for 5 and a half years, they are all having these power hard-ons. They so much want to persecute some non-Christians before Left Behind happens.

[Hittman]

They so much want to persecute some non-Christians before Left Behind happens.

Best line of the thread. It perfectly captures the mindest.

[Zecryphon]

When you get married you're entering into a contract with two other parties, the person you're marrying and God.

What about two atheists getting married?

Why would two atheists want to get married? Marriage is something created by God. It is part of God's plan for His followers. Since you do not believe in God, or want anything to do with His plan for your life, marriage for you shouldn't even be an issue.

What I have a problem with is when they want to take a holy union and turn it into something that is considered unholy by God.

I don’t think of anything as Holy, not the way you mean it, and God isn’t part of my belief system, so that sentence doesn’t mean anything to me. It’s like saying gay unicorns are an abomination to the Easter Bunny.

What is it with you and unicorns?

You're only concerned when someone who's views are different than yours try to get laws passed. Sounds to me like you want to live in a country where only your views are the ones that matter, and everyone else had just better learn to deal with it. Heil Hitler!

Goodwins law – you just lost the debate. And are being an *****le as well.

Name calling now are we? How mature. I usually don't debate people who have to resort to foul language to get their point across. It just shows their lack of education. Intelligent debate is not possible at that point.

I believe the legalization of marijuana will needlessly endanger alot of people. Let's say someone goes to a clinic and smokes medicinal marijuana, then get in their car and drive home. How is that any different than someone getting loaded at a bar and driving drunk. The danger is the same to me. Innocent lives are endangered, and they don't need to be. If it is truly a medicinal plant, let it be administered at a hospital or a clinic and arrange for the patient or recipient to have a driver take them home. I'd be alot more comfortable with that scenario.

So it's only when someone who doesn't agree with you wants to make their way of life a law that you have a problem.

Half right. I’m opposed to any law that forces any lifestyle choices (or lack of choices) on people, even if it’s a lifestyle choice I happen to agree with.

Getting a marriage amendment passed into law, is not a restriction. The very definition of marriage is in itself restrictive. It's a union between a man and a woman. Ask your friends to define a marriage, all jokes aside. Would they tell you it's a union of two consenting adults or that it's a union between a man and a woman? I'm not talking about the government involvement in it, with licensing and all that tax nonsense. I'm talking about the joining of two people in holy matrimony. Believe me, Noah and his wife, didn't have a license or a blood test before they got married. That's the government getting involved to excercise some control over the process. But government involvement was not part of marriage when it was created by God.

Whenever a secular law is passed, like pro-abortion, you're just fine with that.

There you go again. There is no such thing as pro-abortion, it’s a phrase fundies spew. There is such a thing as pro-choice, an entirely different thing.

So you're telling me that Planned Parenthood and other agencies don't push the pro-abortion agenda. Please, who do you think you're kidding? Girls are lied to when they're told that abortion is a perfectly safe procedure. Are they told of the risks of the procedure? Not always. Are they told of other options? Again, not always.

It not only is guaranteed to end one life, it can end the patients as well. Alot of girls leave those clinics with botched abortions, and end up in the hospital. It's usually a hospital that works in conjunction with the clinic, not neccessarily a hospital that is most convenient for the patient. Also, why aren't these clinics subject to government inspection and regulation, like any other medical facility?

Also, you never addressed the baby drop off spots we have in Arizona. Are those not a good alternative to having a potentially life threatening procedure done?

I have never been a supporter of Robertson or Falwell. In my opinion they represent everything that is wrong with the church today.

But they do represent most born again Christians, and provide a very good insight into the mindset.

I disagree on both points. Robertson is a Pentacostal, the numbers of that denomination are just over 1 million. Falwell, has even less of a following, as far as denominational numbers go. Why are these two so well known? I would love to see Robert Schuller get this kind of exposure or even Billy Graham's son. But because these two are put on tv more than any other evangelist. People believe what they see on tv. These two have capitalized on that. But when you get back to what true Christianity is all about, it looks nothing like the garbage these two spew. That was proved the other day when Robertson said we should kill Hugo Chavez. Jesus never endorsed murder, or suggested it as a solution to a problem. What Robertson said and believes is in direct oppostion to the teachings of Jesus, and since a Christian follows the teachings of Jesus and not Pat Robertson, we know he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's no different than Benny Hinn. There is another reason these two are put on tv so much. It's because they're such extremists. That's the picture the media wants to paint of born again Christians. We're a bunch of whack jobs who want to tell people how to live their lives, and if they don't conform, there will be hell to pay. That's not what true Christianity is about, read the words of Jesus. Don't just take my word or anyone else's word for it.

How about Reed and Terry, are you in tune with their thinking?

I'm sorry but I don't know who they are.

Since you've admitted that you want freedom from relgion in this country, isn't that forcing your atheist veiws on everyone else?

How? I’m just asking to be left alone. For your ilk to keep your religious based laws out of my life. Have I tried to convert you to atheism? Has anyone?w[/quote]

You said you believed in freedom from religion, previously in this thread. To me that says that you want religion banned in this country. Then everyone can do what they want. But if religion is banned, how can a Christian practice Christianity, how can a Buddhist reach high levels of enlightenment, or a Muslim or a Jew worship how they want? They wouldn't be able to. It would be against the law to do so, because there is no religion left in the country, everyone would be an atheist.

Your brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[spartacusroosevelt]

<<Why would two atheists want to get married? Marriage is something created by God. It is part of God's plan for His followers. Since you do not believe in God, or want anything to do with His plan for your life, marriage for you shouldn't even be an issue.>>

Ummm, a public declaration of commitment, maybe? Tax benefits? Inheritance rights? They want the big party celebrating their love? They want one of their fundy parents off their back about shacking up?

Let's not pretend that gays are diluting the sanctity of marriage. Straights did that a long time before Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?

[Hittman]

When you get married you're entering into a contract with two other parties, the person you're marrying and God.

What about two atheists getting married?

Why would two atheists want to get married? Marriage is something created by God. It is part of God's plan for His followers. Since you do not believe in God, or want anything to do with His plan for your life, marriage for you shouldn't even be an issue.

You’ve said some dumb things in here, but that is the stupidest. Really, really, really stupid.

For someone with their head up God’s butt, yeah, it’s a gift from him. But for those of us who prefer reality, it is a promise, it is a tradition, it is a legal agreement that gives each party rights and privileges they wouldn’t have otherwise, it is an expression of love, it is a huge party, it is a rite of passage. To name just a few things.

I’m just amazed at the dumbness of your statement.

You're only concerned when someone who's views are different than yours try to get laws passed. Sounds to me like you want to live in a country where only your views are the ones that matter, and everyone else had just better learn to deal with it. Heil Hitler!

Goodwins law – you just lost the debate. And are being an *****le as well.

Name calling now are we? How mature. I usually don't debate people who have to resort to foul language to get their point across. It just shows their lack of education. Intelligent debate is not possible at that point.

You compare me to Hitler, and then have the balls to condemn me for using the only word in the English language that accurately describes your behavior? You’ve just proved the accuracy of that word.

And therefore, I’m done with you.

Let's not pretend that gays are diluting the sanctity of marriage. Straights did that a long time before Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?

<Brag>I just celebrated my 25th wedding anniversary.</brag> I have asked homophobes to explain to me, exactly, how gay marriage will destroy my family. So far, none of them have even tried to come up with specifics.

[cpjolicoeur]

Now you’ll have to give up the “we were founded as a Christian Nation� argument. Because obviously, we weren’t

Hittman, though very vocal on the subject, you are incorrect. While explorers, traders, and businessmen had a hand in founding America, historical revisionists cannot erase the fact that this nation was founded as a "Christian Nation"

I will list 10 points, all of which I can clearly and easily defend if you need me to with documentation.

* Christopher Columbus, who opened up the New World, was motivated by his Christian faith to make his difficult voyage.

* In 1620, the Pilgrims drafted our nation's first self-governing document, the Mayflower Compact. In that document, the Pilgrims clearly stated that they came to the New World to glorify God and to advance the Christian faith.

* The Puritans, who followed the Pilgrims to New England, created Bible-based commonwealths in order to practice a representative government that was modeled on their church covenants. Their more than one hundred governmental convenants and compacts essentially laid the foundation for America's Constitution, which was later drafted in 1787.

* Various settlements throughout the early colonies provided refuge for religious dissidents of all types, the most famous being those founded by Roger Williams in Rhode Island and William Penn in Pennsylvania.

* The education of the settlers and founders of America was uniquely Christian and Bible-based. Our Founding Fathers all received a thoroughly Christian education at all levels. All America's early universities - including Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, and Princeton - were Biblically Christian in their origins. Rare was the American of 1776 who did not know the Scriptures.

* The Great Awakening was a key factor in uniting the separate pre-Revolutionary War colonies and increasing communication among them. As evangelists like George Whitefield roamed up and down the eastern seaboard preaching the Gospel, a religious revival occurred that drew the thirteen colonies together spiritually. As clashes between Great Britian and America increased, these colonists sought peace with England, but not at the price of compromising their convictions.

* The colonial church pulpits, especially in New England, played a pivotal role in encouraging independence from Britain. The Minutemen were generally members of local churches, organized by their pastor or head deacon. The pastors' sermons, especially just before election day, informed the people about what was happening politically and what they, as faithful Christians, should do about it.

* Christianity played a very important role in bringing about American Independence, including shaping the thinking of President George Washington and other early American heroes such asa Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry.

* The Declaration of Independence was based on Christian ideas and view-points. The liberties it granted to citizens were understood to come directly from the God of the Bible

* The Biblical understanding of the sinfulness of man was the guiding principle behind the United States Constitution. The Bible was quoted more than any other source in the political writings of America's founding era. In the First Ammendment, the founders presented America with a framework for religious liberty, not a weapon to be used by secularists against any public expression of Christianity.

The United States of America was most certainly founded as a "Christian Nation."

[jimk]

It not only is guaranteed to end one life, it can end the patients as well. Alot of girls leave those clinics with botched abortions, and end up in the hospital. It's usually a hospital that works in conjunction with the clinic, not neccessarily a hospital that is most convenient for the patient

FUD.

Show me some REAL numbers. How many abortions performed each year result in the death of the mother? How many just wind up "in the hospital?"

Let's see some facts. And while we're at it, how about some kind of evidence to prove this collusion between hospitals and PP clinics?

[Zecryphon]

Why would two atheists want to get married? Marriage is something created by God. It is part of God's plan for His followers. Since you do not believe in God, or want anything to do with His plan for your life, marriage for you shouldn't even be an issue.

You’ve said some dumb things in here, but that is the stupidest. Really, really, really stupid.

For someone with their head up God’s butt, yeah, it’s a gift from him. But for those of us who prefer reality, it is a promise, it is a tradition, it is a legal agreement that gives each party rights and privileges they wouldn’t have otherwise, it is an expression of love, it is a huge party, it is a rite of passage. To name just a few things.

My post was about where marriage came from and what it was originally intended to be. It was not about where it has gone since then, and what it has become. In today's society it is everything you mentioned. People have taken it from it's God given beginnings and made it their own. They adopted it. That was my point and you proved it.

I’m just amazed at the dumbness of your statement.

You're just amazed because you didn't get it.

You compare me to Hitler, and then have the balls to condemn me for using the only word in the English language that accurately describes your behavior? You’ve just proved the accuracy of that word.

You're misreading again. I didn't compare you to Hitler, what I did was say the situation you described in your post resembled that of Nazi Germany. Also, there are other words in the English language that describe, they're known as adjectives. I'm sorry you don't know of any.

<Brag>I just celebrated my 25th wedding anniversary.</brag> I have asked homophobes to explain to me, exactly, how gay marriage will destroy my family. So far, none of them have even tried to come up with specifics.

Homophobe? There you go with the name calling again. Simply disagreeing with a lifestyle does not make a person a homophobe. Also I wasn't talking about your family in particular, I was talking about the structure of the traditional family. You know, a mother and a father, male and female. Having two fathers or two mothers will confuse a child to no end. Their life growing up will be filled with much more hardship and ridicule than the other kids. Is that right? No, it isn't and it isn't fair either. But let's face it kids can be the meanest people we ever meet in our lives. Alot of what gets said to us as children sticks with us into adulthood and forms the kind of people we become. I'm also expecting the replies to this post to say that I'm the meanest person you've ever met in your lives.

Your brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[Zecryphon]

Show me some REAL numbers. How many abortions performed each year result in the death of the mother? How many just wind up "in the hospital?"

Hmm, I thought either situation was a really bad outcome from a "perfectly safe procedure". Guess I was wrong.

Let's see some facts. And while we're at it, how about some kind of evidence to prove this collusion between hospitals and PP clinics?

Well, since the clinics aren't regulated by any government agency any information I can dig up can easily be called into question. Also, numbers can be juggled to fit whatever position or stance you need them to. But nonetheless I will try to find something to prove my point.

It will probably be a waste of time though. I'm viewed as an extremist on these boards. Granted, Hittman is the only one on here to say it, but I know the general consensus. Craig is the only other Christian I've found on here. The numbers are definitely stacked against me.

Does it bother me? Not really. I just share my opinion and reply to what I read. I'm not here to convert, save or convince anyone of anything. It's just my opinion. How much weight does that really carry?

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[jimk]

I believe I asked for evidence of your claims. Do you have any, or were you just using hyperbole and exaggeration?

[jimk]

Also I wasn't talking about your family in particular, I was talking about the structure of the traditional family. You know, a mother and a father, male and female.

Then why aren't you supporting a constitutional amendment to ban divorce?

[Zecryphon]

I believe I asked for evidence of your claims. Do you have any, or were you just using hyperbole and exaggeration?

All the evidence you need is at www.lifedynamics.com

I suggest you visit the Blackmun Wall. It is named after Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court justice who signed Roe v. Wade into law. On the wall, are the names of mother's who died as a result of an abortion. In my opinion, one is too many. But then again, that's just my opinion.

As for the link between Planned Parenthood and certain hospitals being in cahoots with them, that will be almost impossible to prove. So I will retract that statement.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[jimk]

OK, I thought maybe you had some real proof of your medical claims. I see you do not. Thank you for showing me once again that fanatics are not to be trusted to have rational discussions.

[Zecryphon]

OK, I thought maybe you had some real proof of your medical claims. I see you do not. Thank you for showing me once again that fanatics are not to be trusted to have rational discussions.

Rational discussion? Is that what you call it when you call someone names and expect them to do your homework for you?

I'm not your gofer. I'm not gonna go fetch numbers for you, because you say so. You wanted numbers, I gave you the address of a website that's filled with numbers and statistics. But when given the opportunity to do a little research and learn something, you all of a sudden don't want to. So take your ball and go home. There's plenty of people on here to have a rational discussion with.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[Hittman]

The Biblical understanding of the sinfulness of man was the guiding principle behind the United States Constitution.

Uh. . . .no. Not even close. The guiding principle of the US constitution was the belief in Natural Rights, which is not biblical at all.

But hey, Don’t argue with me.

Argue with Washington, who was a deist, and was seldom seen in church.

Argue with Jefferson, who compared the myth of Christ’s divinity with the myth of Zeus being born out of his mother’s head. He admired Christ as a man, and went so far as to rewrite the Gospels, cutting out all the references to Christ’s divinity and miracles. He said, “I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. “ He also said “Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.� (I just found that one, and it’s perfect. I’ve always felt that Christianity wouldn’t be a bad religion if it weren’t for Paul perverting it.)

Argue with Thomas Paine, who was so obnoxious in his atheism that he became a pariah later in life.

Argue with Franklin, who was a deist. His good friend, Dr. Priestly (how’s that for a name) lamented that Ben was “an unbeliever in Christianity."

Argue with John Adams, who said, “The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. “ He also said “"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. “

He was there. You going to argue with him?

Argue with James Madison, who said, “What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.�

Argue with the members of the senate who unanimously ratified The Treaty of Tripoli, which stated “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion. . .�


There is no Christianity anywhere in any of the founding documents. There are vague references to a Creator, (which fits perfectly with the FFs diesim) and one or two references god, but no references at all to Christ. Nowhere. No. Where.

Then why aren't you supporting a constitutional amendment to ban divorce?

All in good time, sir, all in good time.

[jimk]

OK, I thought maybe you had some real proof of your medical claims. I see you do not. Thank you for showing me once again that fanatics are not to be trusted to have rational discussions.

Rational discussion? Is that what you call it when you call someone names and expect them to do your homework for you?

I'm not your gofer. I'm not gonna go fetch numbers for you, because you say so. You wanted numbers, I gave you the address of a website that's filled with numbers and statistics. But when given the opportunity to do a little research and learn something, you all of a sudden don't want to. So take your ball and go home. There's plenty of people on here to have a rational discussion with.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

No, you made a wild claim then pointed me to a fundamentalist site that is maybe...just maybe, THE most biased piece of...work...I have *ever* seen online.

But thanks. You confirmed something for me. I do appreciate that.

[cpjolicoeur]

There is no Christianity anywhere in any of the founding documents. There are vague references to a Creator, (which fits perfectly with the FFs diesim) and one or two references god, but no references at all to Christ. Nowhere. No. Where.

Hittman, you are wrong on this statement. Just because you are the most bold and vocal does not make you correct. I urge you to read my post on page 2 of this thread and I can expound on any one of those points if you wish.

I assume by the complete lack of response to that post, that you know all of these things I listed prove the founding of America as a Christian Nation. Just because you can lead Zecryphon into a verbal shouting match to see who can get louder and more aggressive than the other, doesn't mean what you are saying is correct.

[Hittman]

There is no Christianity anywhere in any of the founding documents. There are vague references to a Creator, (which fits perfectly with the FFs diesim) and one or two references god, but no references at all to Christ. Nowhere. No. Where.

Hittman, you are wrong on this statement. Just because you are the most bold and vocal does not make you correct. I urge you to read my post on page 2 of this thread and I can expound on any one of those points if you wish.

OK, show me where Christ in mentioned in the constitution, any amendments, the DOI, or anything else considered a founding document. Just one reference will do.

I assume by the complete lack of response to that post, that you know all of these things I listed prove the founding of America as a Christian Nation. Just because you can lead Zecryphon into a verbal shouting match to see who can get louder and more aggressive than the other, doesn't mean what you are saying is correct.

Lack of response? I gave you two screens full of quotes from the most proninite of the founding fathers, many of them specifically denying that we were a Christian nation. How is that a lack of response?

OK, I’ll go back and look at your arguments, although as I recall they were mostly silly.

You start out with the extreamly silly premise that Colombus’ Christianity has any relaation to anything. First off, he wasn’t looking for America. Secondly, if he believed in Zues, then it would have been is faith in Zeus that inspired him. If he believed in the IPU… you get the idea.

The Mayflower Compact was not a founding document.

The puritans were a nasty bunch, but again, their self-governance was not part of the founding documents. In a brief search, I could find no evidence that they had much influence on the constution.

The fact that refugies were offered refuge is very nice. But it dosn't have anything to do with the myth of us being founded as a Chrsitain nation, does it?

I don’t know the details of the education of the majority of the founding fathers, but but if it was expressly Christian, then why did most of them abandon Christianity? It’s not suprising that the population was familiar with the bible – that was one of the few books that was widely available. Using the critera of familiar culture, one could judge that our culture is Seinfieldian, Simsonite, Office Spacian, Star Trekien, Starwarzian, etc, based on the population’s tendency to quote such icons.

The Great Awakening (Which one? There were several) wasn’t nearly as infleuntal as a little pahphlet called Common Sense. Written by someone who was vhemetily atheist.

The Declaration of Independence was based on Christian ideas and view-points.

The ideas in the DOI pre-date Christianity. There is NO mention of the bible or Christ or Christianity anywhere in it. It first mentions “The Laws of Nature,� (in other words the beliefs are based on Natural Law, not Biblical Law) and “Nature’s God.� Not Jehovah, not Yehawh, which, as you have pointed out, they were quite familiar with, but Nature’s God. It then goes on to mention “their creator� without any hint, not even the slightest one, of just who that creator was. In closing they mention “Devine Providence,� but again, not a single mention of Christianity, or reference to it.

The Biblical understanding of the sinfulness of man was the guiding principle behind the United States Constitution.

That’s just insane. There is absolutely no evidence to support that silly conclusion. Sin is not mentioned in the constitution. The FFs trusted The People, and had a deep distrust in government in general.

In the First Ammendment, the founders presented America with a framework for religious liberty, not a weapon to be used by secularists against any public expression of Christianity.

Yeah, you poor bastards have it so so bad these days. A mere 80% of the majority party has received scores of 100% from the Christian Coalition, with most of the rest of them in the 90th percentile. “Secularists,� as you like to label them, are about 10% of the popuation. You sure have it rough.

It seems to me like you’re so wrapped up in the myth of this being founded as a Christian Nation that the mountain of evidence I presented in the last post will be ignored and twisted the same way fundies ignore and twist evolution to pretend it’s something other than fact. Oh well. The facts are there, in black and white. You can accept the reality (hell, even Zecryphon grudgingly admitted it) or ignore the evidence and pretend that history was the way you’d like it to be, rather than the way it actually was.

It’s entirely up to you.

[cpjolicoeur]

I will back up all of my points one by one, each in its own separate post. I don't have time to list all of them here now, but I will. Don't think I am running from this discussion by not hitting them all right now.

You start out with the extreamly silly premise that Colombus’ Christianity has any relaation to anything. First off, he wasn’t looking for America. Secondly, if he believed in Zues, then it would have been is faith in Zeus that inspired him. If he believed in the IPU… you get the idea

In describing his discovery to King Ferdinand of Spain, Columbus portrayed himself as a devout and sincere Christian who rejoiced in the souls that would be saved in this "new land".

Therefore let the king and queen, the princes and their fortunate kingdoms, and all other countries of Christendom give thanks to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who has bestowed upon us so great a victory and gift. Let religious precessions be solemnized; let sacred festivals be given; let the churches be covered with festive garlands. Let Christ rejoice on earth, as he rejoices in heaven, when he foresees coming to salvation so many souls of people hitherto lost......quoted from Christopher Coiumbus, Journal, 1942, quoted in Federer, United States Folder, Library of Classics

Columbus also cam be quoted from his Book of Prophecies which he wrote in 1505...

It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me) to sail to the Indies. All who heard of my project reject it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures.

Columbus erected a cross on the landing site, symbolizing the claim of Christ on a land that had not been exposed to the Gospel before. He named the first island they landed on "San Salvador," which means "Holy Savior." He also later named "Trinidad" (meaning "Trinity"), "Vera Cruz" (meaning "True Cross"), and "Navidad" (similar to the word "Nativity," meaning Christmas).

So, not so much as an "extremely silly premise" that you would leave others to believe. I never stated that Columbus was looking for America, but this is where he did land. And he didn't believe in Zeus, the IPU, or Budha, he believed in Christ, which lends to my point.

I'll be back to bring up the next point about the Mayflower Compact, which you calim isn't a founding document. I don't know how you can make that claim when the Mayflower Compact was our Nation's first self-governing document and is the cornerstone of the present Constitution and our republic. It most certainly is a founding document. But, more on that later...

[mental-escher]

http://www.mental-escher.net/images/churchsign.jpg

...What would Buddha Think...

[Zecryphon]

http://www.mental-escher.net/images/churchsign.jpg

...What would Buddha Think...

Buddha can't think anymore. He is dead and in his grave.

And just what makes me a zealot?

Zec

[cid92]

OK, I thought maybe you had some real proof of your medical claims. I see you do not. Thank you for showing me once again that fanatics are not to be trusted to have rational discussions.

Rational discussion? Is that what you call it when you call someone names and expect them to do your homework for you?

I'm not your gofer. I'm not gonna go fetch numbers for you, because you say so. You wanted numbers, I gave you the address of a website that's filled with numbers and statistics. But when given the opportunity to do a little research and learn something, you all of a sudden don't want to. So take your ball and go home. There's plenty of people on here to have a rational discussion with.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

No, you made a wild claim then pointed me to a fundamentalist site that is maybe...just maybe, THE most biased piece of...work...I have *ever* seen online.

But thanks. You confirmed something for me. I do appreciate that.

A simple google search yielded this:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus94.pdf

Page 81 of the document, not page 81 in Adobe you will find table #17 - Legal abortions, abortion-related deaths, and abortion-related death rates, according to period of gestation: United States, 1973–75, 1976–78, 1979–81, 1982–84, and 1985–87. Note, this is for legal abortions only - makes sense because data on illegal abotions is well, non-existant. If there are numbers out there, they are best guess estimates.

The government stopped collecting legal data after 1987 since it was to hard to gather relevant data. But hey, at least it's something.

I also found these but do not have the time to track them down on the web yet:

Abortion Surveillance 1985, Center for Disease Control, Table #18.

Induced Abortion: World Review 1983, by Christopher Tietze, The Population Council, p 103

Again, it's all older data since there is nothing that the government collects currently. For those stats geeks out there you could take the table and work the numbers to the current year as an estimate.

[mental-escher]

As for the Abortion Issue:

It's always disturbing to listen to men argue that they should be controlling what women can do with their own bodies.

http://www.wao.org.my/graphics/no_hr_wo_wr.gif

[kickasspodcast]

As for the Abortion Issue:

It's always disturbing to listen to men argue that they should be controlling what women can do with their own bodies.

http://www.wao.org.my/graphics/no_hr_wo_wr.gif

EXACTLY.


jack b.

[cpjolicoeur]

no one is trying to stipulate what women can do with their own bodies, its the body of the unborn child that they are doing something to. its just as disturbing for anyone to be controlling over what they can do to someone else's body (i.e. the unborn child)

[Hittman]

the Mayflower Compact was our Nation's first self-governing document and is the cornerstone of the present Constitution and our republic.

Tell you what, save your breath, and don’t bother. As if previous staments weren’t enough, this proves, beyond any doubt, that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

The Mayflower Compact was a three paragraph declaration. It was a promise to be faithful and meet from time to time to come up with laws. There is no mention of a republic. There is no mention of the branches of government. There is no mention of what the government was empowered to do.

Sorry, but discussing constitutional history with someone who can’t tell the difference between Christopher Columbus and the Founding Fathers (and who can’t get the obvious point I was making about his faith), and who thinks the Mayflower Compact was a cornerstone of our constitution, is a waste of time. As I said before, the facts are obvious. If you insist on ignoring them, there’s nothing I, or anyone else, can do for you.

Oh, and one last thing – if you ever get smart enough to discern the difference between an embryo, a fetus, and a baby, then, and only then, will you be able to discuss abortion intelligently.

[cpjolicoeur]

the Mayflower Compact was our Nation's first self-governing document and is the cornerstone of the present Constitution and our republic.

Tell you what, save your breath, and don’t bother. As if previous staments weren’t enough, this proves, beyond any doubt, that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

The Mayflower Compact was a three paragraph declaration. It was a promise to be faithful and meet from time to time to come up with laws. There is no mention of a republic. There is no mention of the branches of government. There is no mention of what the government was empowered to do.

Sorry, but discussing constitutional history with someone who can’t tell the difference between Christopher Columbus and the Founding Fathers (and who can’t get the obvious point I was making about his faith), and who thinks the Mayflower Compact was a cornerstone of our constitution, is a waste of time. As I said before, the facts are obvious. If you insist on ignoring them, there’s nothing I, or anyone else, can do for you.

Oh, and one last thing – if you ever get smart enough to discern the difference between an embryo, a fetus, and a baby, then, and only then, will you be able to discuss abortion intelligently.

human life starts at conception.

and you have no discussion intelligently. you simply berate people and try to force feed your OPINION onto people as fact. you aren't even trying to intelligently DISCUSS anything.

[cpjolicoeur]

Sorry, but discussing constitutional history with someone who can’t tell the difference between Christopher Columbus and the Founding Fathers (and who can’t get the obvious point I was making about his faith), and who thinks the Mayflower Compact was a cornerstone of our constitution, is a waste of time. As I said before, the facts are obvious. If you insist on ignoring them, there’s nothing I, or anyone else, can do for you.

Christopher Columbus is the first of the founding fathers. He started the whole "founding" process. And I got your point about his faith, it just didn't apply to the discussion. The fact is he was Christain, therefore the search and beginning of a Christain nation. If he followed Zeus, then you would be right and we would have had a founding of a Zeusian nation. But he didn't, he followed Christ, hence the Christian nation. From the nations very initial beginning, the Christian nation. That is the whole point of the discussion. That was his religion, and makes the founding right from the very beginning, a Christian nation.

And the Mayflower Compact is a cornerstone, i didnt say it was the whole constitutional document. it is a cornerstone. The ideas formed there weighed heavily in the ideas that framed the constitutional documents.

[Hittman]

Whatever...

[notyourusualbollocks]

A belief in God does not equal hostility towards science. I believe the two can work together.

What a bunch of arse. Fight religious ignorance with humour. Join the church of the flying spaghetti monster.

http://www.venganza.org/

MK