Time To Engage God's (America's) Enemies

Ths Holy Spirit of God | October 16, Year of Our Lord 2003 | Gargantua

[NutCrackerBoy]

That refers back to the same Jefferson letter referenced in Everson 1947, yes? I didn't know there was an earlier SC reference to it, but it does not change my view that the "wall of separation" of current interpretation is a specious invention of our activist judiciary.

[Blzbba]

well done!

[exmarine]

I did respond to it. I would have to research it more to see what the real deal is, and then decide. I am not one to jump to conclusions about people like you or others on this thread. However, I do apologize for the "moron" comment.

[exmarine]

Of course they wouldn't. They're not allowed to. Read the Constitution.

You read it. You are the one who has the bogus liberal education.

[Blzbba]

"Clinton was no Christian - his rotten fruit proved that. "


I think only Lewinsky knows the condition of Clinton's fruit.


"Jay was - his good fruit proved that".

Actually, based on what I've read, Jay was a religious bigot, making his fruit rotten too.

[CodeMonkey]

The question still remains, if the information presented by the other poster in this case are correct then would you not call John Jay a religious bigot?

[exmarine]

Why do you even bother to call modern leftist thought "liberalism?" There is nothing liberal about it. It is even less liberal than most modern "conservatives" who are in reality more fascistic than they are modern ideological descendants of Locke and our founders. One of the best articles IMO on FR in a long time was one lamenting how conservatism today is more about views on morality and religion than economics, individual rights, a commitment to a traditional, non-interventionist foreign policy and all that jazz.

Most people I know assocaite the word "liberal" with a leftie. Don't blame me that the meanings of words have changed over 200 years.

If you don't think morality is important, then I feel sorry for you. John Adams said the Constitution was "written for a moral and religious people and it is inadequate for the government of any other." Apparently, our Constitution is inadequate for you and others like you who scoff at right and wrong.

[Blzbba]

""My question to you is...what version of Christianity gets to be the 'public' one?""

"Your diversionary, baiting phlegm is not asked, needed, or appreciated. "

See - zero tolerance for views other than yours.
ANSWER THE FOOKIN' QUESTION!

[Gargantua]

"I wasn't disagreeing with your perspective - just trying to relate the task begins from within."

We agree. Good point. God's Word in the Bible insists that all Christians become lamps of Christ's love to the rest of the world, that we shine the Light of His Love into the dark corners of this world and the dark corners of men's hearts... through witnessing evangelism, and through the examples we set in our own lives.

The recent "Any Mention Of God Is Hate Speech" trend, where Christ in the manger is no longer allowed at Christmas Nativity displays, and all other attempts of Satan and his putrefacted minions to stifle the spreading of the Good News of Jesus Christ, must not be put up with by Christians any longer.

We are told to be on the front lines of this war, not waiting in the shadows for somebody else to carry our water.

[tpaine]

You do not understand that there is a battle waging in this country between secular humanism and Christianity. The two worldviews are antithesis to one another.
-ex-

---

You do not understand that there is a battle waging in this country between our secular constitution, dedicated to protecting human rights; --- and absolutists who profess 'christianity', but are in fact anti-constituionalists.

The two political views are antithesis to one another.

[Gargantua]

"For unto these shall be given the right to be called the children of God."

[Melas]

I'm not sure I see where you're going with this. Let's see if we can't actually establish a dialogue here. Short of pretending to believe in something that I do not, what would you have me, an atheist, do?

[exmarine]

The question still remains, if the information presented by the other poster in this case are correct then would you not call John Jay a religious bigot?

Honestly, it's hard to say. It is radical to offer office only to Christians and to allow only Christians as U.S. citizens, but the context of the times must be considered. The U.S. at that time was 99% Christian. There were hardly any other religions to speak of in America at that time (smattering of catholics and jewish citizens). It was a Christian nation - that's a simple historical fact. John Jay's motives may have been good - I can't read his motives, and I can't put myself in 1790.

In any case, no man is perfect and he may be wrong for refusing citizenship to catholics regardless of the consensus.

Regardless, he was a contributor to the Federalist papers and the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, and he was a true believer in my opinion. So God will be his judge. I can't see a man's motive - only God can. And I believe the answer lies in his motive.

[azhenfud]

You know, early schools that taught the children who became America's engineers, doctors, inventors, and patriots of WWI and WWII were founded and funded mostly by church-goers and were assembled in churches. Their percentages of illiteracy were nothing comparatively close to the government funded schools of today.

[exmarine]

You have already shown that you have no handle on history, so you should just quit while you are ahead. Your knowledge of history has been found wanting so many times, it's pathetic. Don't you ever get embarrassed?

[backtothestreets]

I agree with you. The effort to politicize God was wrong, is wrong, and has produced an unchristian society. I remember the time before these efforts and we were a better nation then.

[Gargantua]

"...and the KKK -- all groups with "Christian" origins."

Thank you for illustrating for all your opinion of what "Christian" means. What are you doing posting on a Christian thread? Are you here just to disrupt?

[Blzbba]

"If you don't cease with your bogus strawmen, the exchange will end. I'm sick of that crap. You either argue against the black and white points I made, or take a hike."


There's nothing bogus or straw-like about anything I've said. Speaking of "strawman", using that religious bigot John Jay as one of your Christian heroes is the ultimate Strawman. And your failure to read that I have, indeed, argued your points constitutes avoidance of the debate and you should be the one taking said hike.



"These people are free to worship as they wish, however, they are not free to restrict my freedom, and I woujld never trust muslims (egad!) or hindus to govern according to truth.


Noone is restricting your freedom - yet Another Strawman! It must be Halloween, because you're dressed like the scarecrow. Again, tell me where anything has occurred that prevents you from going to church or worshipping as you desire in your own home.


"Some jewish people are the exception (the truly conservative ones who take the bible seriously - medved, Schlesinger, Prager, etc.).""

Well, some Christians are exceptions to your rule that all Christians have this wonderful morality and desire peace and God's love for all. Every Klan member thinks he's doing God's work...every dollar stolen from good people by "Christian" televangelists is a black mark against your pious arguments.

But then you mention Dr. Hypocrite PornographyQueen Schlessinger as a moral compass and, with this ludicrous example, I ask you to take leave of this debate.

[CodeMonkey]

If you don't think morality is important, then I feel sorry for you.

I think individual freedom is more important. I am of the opinion that without individual freedom to choose to do evil, a man cannot be called good. I do not believe you can pass moral judgement against an evil act in an oppressive society because I consider freedom the basis of morality, not the other way around.

Apparently, our Constitution is inadequate for you and others like you who scoff at right and wrong.

If the only thing beyond the scope of the Constitution that the US government did was to run the US Air Force then I'd be perfectly happy with our Constitution. In fact I am as it is, my gripes are with those inbred idiots that cannot understand that the 2nd amendment's preposition phrase has no meaning, not to mention their inability to read the rest of the constitution for comprehension. It's like the WoD, what part of the US Government not having intrastate commerce regulatory powers do so many allegedly strict constructionist conservatives not understand?

[Blzbba]

""...and the KKK -- all groups with "Christian" origins.""

I repeat - ALL the groups I mention consider themselves to be "Christian". Whether you think they are or not is completely irrelevant - THEY think they are.

I do not want their versions of Christianity being supported with my tax money or in the public square. But unfortunately, they have that right (to exist).