Posted on 04/15/2005 5:09:20 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a press release Sept. 13, 2001, calling the September 11 attacks by Islamist terrorists "the ultimate faith-based initiative."
The release went on: "Religion is not the answer, it is probably the problem."
And: "Prayer had its chance on September 11 and it failed."
September 11 "should have clinched the idea this is a naturalistic universe," group leader Mr. Barker says. "To stand by and do nothing makes God an accomplice. If He exists, why are we worshipping this monster?"
The fight against God and for abortion rights appear intertwined for Mr. Barker's mother-in-law, Mrs. Gaylor. She was born in 1926 in Tomah, Wis. A biography posted at the group's Web site, www.ffrf.org, says her mother died when she was 2 and her father, a farmer, found religion "embarrassing." She graduated as an English major from University of Wisconsin in 1949 and was married the same year.
After raising four children, Mrs. Gaylor, in 1972, founded the Women's Medical Fund, which has helped 14,000 poor women obtain abortions. In 1975, she published a book "Abortion Is a Blessing."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
No, boiling it down, you think you know God's will better than I do. We're back to the original discussion: make your case, present it to the American people, and let them and their representatives decide. You claim to interpret God's will, I say you're misguided. I'm happy that you can't invoke those Bible texts with your convictions as the sole requirement for imposing them on our immigration policies.
If we were truly a Christian nation by law, you could really make a case for doing what I think makes no sense. As it stands, you have to prove that you'd be helping Americans by letting our borders be overrun, and I think you could try, but you'd come up short.
Can you give some specific definitions, and data, on exactly who that is? Also, some specific examples of laws being twisted by a coordinated group who would be the 'Christian right'.
You are confused.
The separation of Church and State, a political doctrine developed several centuries before our founding fathers, was premised upon the exisitence of God, Jesus Christ, and the instituion of nationalities.
It was recognized that all freedom is based upon recognition of authority. The freedom of men within a nation upon the authority of both God and of the nation, which was a divine institution. (The history of divine institutions came several millenia prior to the US and the rather late blooming European flavors of government, were far from representing God as a 'Christian nation' as properly identified.)
The Separation of Church and State recognized that responsible men respectful of legitimate authority of God (as in the Church during this persiod) and of the Nation (or State) would attempt to obey the laws of each. The laws of each were created to govern both believers and unbelievers, however, it was also recognized that whatever secular national law was created to govern unbelievers should not interfere with the believer attempting to respect the legitimate authority of both Church and State.
Accordingly, the policy of a separation between Church and State was established so as not to infringe upon the laudable effort of those attempting to remain obedient to both.
Those who confuse the separation of church and state with an exclusion of God's authority over unbelievers, frequently confuse religion with a relationship with God. It isn't.
Look out, ....you've pulled the pin on the arrogance grenade and it's merely a matter of time before your thinking fragments without control.
The struggle between Christ and Islam is not going to be won by weakening Christians, nor lost by eliminating faith based govt programs. You are missing the big picture.
I think where you go wrong is to assume that the founding fathers had consensus about religious faith. They did not. They all practiced different teachings, some more devout than others. You confuse the notion of personal conviction with anarchy. This is an easy mistake to make, but it is not one that our founding fathers were in any danger of making.
The founding fathers knew that absolute truth existed. They also knew that from the new discoveries in science and philosophy, that truth was difficult to know. So we were still guided by the fundamental principle that each man was an individual human being with his relationship to the creator, but how that relationship functioned was his and his alone to ascertain. However, no other men were free to violate that man's life, his freedom, or his property. These were the things that were beyond negotiation.
This did not put us in a position where Christian dogma could be justified by our founding documents. In fact, it put us quite a ways further from that state of affairs than we had ever been before.
What specific organized group of any significance proposes this? Examples please.
The Moral Majority was. Bauer/Reed/Falwell; Coral Ridge Ministries. The FRC often spouts off anti-Enlightenment propaganda. Anything that revises history to suggest that the separation of church and state was never the true intention of the constitution, or that individuals in particular states weren't protected from religious prejudices in government. Falwell and Robertson were quoted on 9/11 as saying we were being punished by God, which really got my goat. These guys regularly make bizarre claims about Israel and the end times, and what we have to do next as a nation because of prophecy and such. If I lived in Israel, I'd be worried about these guys recommending something rash because of some esoteric and possibly unrelated Bible text in Revelations.
Before you get your shorts in a knot, I'm against same sex unions of any kind, I'm for prayer in school, I'm for displays of the 10 commandments, and I have no problems with banning public displays of affection to protect children.
I think morals, marriage, family, fetuses, children, and invalids can all be protected without claiming that we're a Christian nation, and I think most of the time people doing this are taking an intellectual shortcut or actively seeking political power that doesn't belong to them. I also think that 99% of our problems with families and fetuses are caused by our own lack of convictions and our own Republican lack of consideration to the causes rather than just the symptoms of these problems.
There is a difference between God's will and God's commandments. When he commands something, there is no need to discern what God's will is.
No such thing as an official group, this is just a term that is convenient for the MSM to label Christians in a way to position the Secular Minority as 'for the people' and relevant.
Bauer/Reed/Falwell
These men have never made a statement against our current form of government or proposed a new government in any way, shape or form. In fact, Ralph Reed is the consumate political insider.
Anything that revises history to suggest that the separation of church and state was never the true intention of the constitution
Find it! Find it! Find it in The Constitution. Where does it say that (nowhere) or even imply it? Only that there will not be a state sponsored religion, of which by default, I and virtually all agree.
The rest of your answer had little or nothing to do with the various questions I posed to you.
It seems you are a victim of popular culture via the MSM, who has been on a crusade to demonize Christians, particularly Evangelicals, for the last 40 years. They have made these categories and statements without being challenged...thus, many people have assumed them to be correct. Well, now the MSM is being challenged everyday and their intentions and tactics are being exposed.
I suggest you look past the cliches, don't use Falwell/Robertson as your total measurement of Christians (another trick of the MSM, don't you realize that!) and don't be fearful of Christians trying to take over governments.
We're just trying to prepare hearts to be opened up to Jesus.
Sigh...I already demonstrated that this is flat out wrong and yet you continue to insist it is true. You even apologized for your mistake.
Isolation from participation in Gov't based on religion was the norm. The only argument was "WHICH" Christian denomination was the norm.
The various states certainly required adherence to specific Christian religions. Any argument that this was not true is either based on ignorance or arrogance.
YAWN....
Atheists have nothing better to do than peer behind every tree for the Christians taking cover there from the barrage of fire they take every day.
Prooftext much?
To be honest, there is a dominion movement in Christianity. But that is a minority. Most of us read and believe the Bible, and dominion theology ignores most of it to get to where they are in their beliefs.
they'll fail, so yes, you don't have to worry about them.
BWWWAAAAHAHAHA! You may think we're all stupid but we're not THAT stupid! Sheesh, Unbelieveable. There may be a few who in ignorance of Scripture think that will work, but really, to fling around the term "Christian right" like the MSM does lumps everyone who thinks marriage ought to be protected into that crowd.
Thus it is crystal clear; --- no specific denomination of religion was to be respected, by law, as the 'norm'..
The various states certainly required adherence to specific Christian religions. Any argument that this was not true is either based on ignorance or arrogance.
Your argument that various States ignored Article VI & the 1st Amendment is noted.
Why do you want States to do so?
Prooftext much?
Explain yourself much?
You mean you don't know what prooftexting is?
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.