Posted on 08/29/2004 10:42:44 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
lol, they should be healing soon.
True.
Someone needs to step in and do something.
The government, perhaps? Right- the government should have the final say as to how we all raise our kids....
A country that accepts the homosexual lifestyle,for example, is not "free".
A country that allows the government into the bedrooms of consenting adults is not free.
Quite the opposite, it makes us all slaves by forcing us to accept a deviant lifestyle which is not compatible with Christianity.
You are in no way required to accept homosexuality.
Call me an extremist, but I am not an anarchist and I truly feel there are some rights we simply should not have.
What rights do you believe we should not have?
The secularists want a "free society" where homosexuals and muslims can act as they please, yet Americans with honest Christian values are forced to live among these heathens
Too bad. So long as Muslims and "heathens" follow the law, they have every right to live in this country. you don't like it? Move to a socity that shares your anti-american views, such as Saudi Arabia.
Wait, are we talking about the same founding fathers? I don't think the ones I'm thinking of named the days of the week... I might be operating in a humor impaired state.
Ping to self to read later.
>>Read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.
When I read it I do not misinterpret it like the A.C.L.U. To help you interpret it correctly, I will repeat a portion of one of my previous posts, since you obviously did not read it:
"Did you know that two days after Jefferson sent that letter to Danbury he attended public worship services in the U. S. Capital building? Did you know that he authorized the use of the War Office and Treasury building for church services? That he provided, at the government's expense, Christian missionaries to the Indians? That he put chaplains on the government payroll? That he provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. That he sent Congress an Indian treaty that provided funding for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church for the missionaries to the Indians so the Indians might be won to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and, thereby, civilized?
In 1822, four years before his death, Jefferson wrote, "In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four sects, but without either church or meeting-house. The court-house is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others' preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony."
Also in 1822, he wrote, "In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other.""
Do those actions and statements by Jefferson in any way resemble the so-called "Separation of Church and State" myth perpetuated by the A.C.L.U.? Not a chance. The A.C.L.U. is a communist front group, which means they are faithless, which means they have absolutely no problem with lying to promote their agenda and to trick the people out of their rights.
I said:
Our laws (were) based on Judeo-Christian principles.
You just "reasoned" that our laws resonate with biblical teaching...so do you concede already. LOL. Probably not huh? No, you wish to frame the debate and define the terms. I am simply going to try and answer qam1 questions....with scripture. The same scripture that was read by our founders.
Another long rant that proves nothing. If the ACLU happens to be right once in a while, maybe not in its motivations, and usually not its conclusions, that doesn't mean that we should throw out these time-honored and well-reasoned principles that have held our republic together for so long. What gives the ACLU its ability to captive the attention of so many American intellectuals? It's the counter-force of the religionists who are always trying to revise history, much the way you are.
Christians in our government do not imply a Christian government. That applies to the founding fathers, as well.
The Christians among our founding fathers knew they had to prevent religionists like yourself from gaining a toehold in the government. Once you get your foot in the door, all hell breaks loose. The ACLU comes along and appeals to (reasonable) fears of such ambitions and then takes their agenda to a whole new level.
The ACLU is like an inverse image of the American theocrat. I see them as being very similar to you in their extreme positions. You rephrase the Constitution to mean X. They rephrase it to mean Y but you're both wrong, and neither of you is to be trusted with the reigns of government.
You just can't live without your religions of Secular Humanism and Moral Relativism being taught to other people's kids, or using their tax money to pay for it, can you, Long Cut?
You are both a hypocrit and an anti-Christian bigot. You can stop the self-righteous act. I'm not buying it.
False logic.
There are no such religions as those you mentioned.
I think what they mean is that evolution and humanism (the belief that man is on an upward path without God, and that he is the center of the universe) are both taught as religions used to be taught. The marxist/atheist teachers in their white smocks have now become the new "bearded ones" in our society. I recognize the analogy, but it only goes so far.
I disagree with this, Risk. A free republic depends first on those who comprise the republic having the ability to defend their rights, with arms if necessary. The 2nd Amendment guarantees us the ability to throw off any tyrannical trampling of the remaining amendments.
As a Christian, I shudder to think of the type of Christianity that our government, who can't effectively distribute free cheese, would mandate. That said, many of our nation's founders were Christians, and yet understood mankind's inherent free will, and left a citizen's spirituality up to his or her own choosing. I believe they did this on purpose.
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are IMO the greatest rights enumerated, but if they can't be defended and guaranteed by the RKBA, they're definitely marginalized to they tyrannist's speech and religion.
Well you're in good company. Jerry Falwell, who said that America deserved to be attacked on 9/11, agrees with you. So does Pat Robertson. I'll bet you could get a job at Coral Ridge ministries. They'd love to have someone on deck like you who's so quick to spit out a blob of propaganda for the cause.
I'll bet you could make a career out of it.
Ah, personal attacks. The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
I'm 100% in agreement with you. We need the second amendment to defend the others. And it was a soldier, not a journalist who bought our rights to be free. Thanks for pointing that out.
Read what the Apostle Peter said about submission to government in 1 Peter...specifically chapter 2:13-17. We are to have a submissive spirit. There can be no civilization without government. This goes for any type of government. We are to honor all men (red, black, Christian, pagen, etc...), because all men are intrinsically precious to God.
Even in our political life...see 1 Timothy 2:1-3.
We are to submit to Godless government, a bad boss(slavery), etc.
Peter was teaching that we should not be rebellious or seek revenge in this book. He said that we shouldn't render evil with evil, but we should change others by showing a change in ourselves. It would eventually bring an end to these things. Where's slavery? His plan is simple and brilliant.
I have a lot more to share, but I have to go give my wife some attention...back later.
I'm not passive about supporting your religious freedom. I think our republic would soon be a disaster without good men of faith.
Just because the secularists have no temples doesn't mean they aren't a religion. However, I suppose Michael Moore could be their pope.
But they used these names, just like they used "AD" and "BC" for example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.