Posted on 03/02/2014 2:54:18 AM PST by markomalley
In an interview with Salon, the president of American Atheists reviewed the decision of the American Conservative Union (ACU) to rescind his organization’s invitation to CPAC. David Silverman charges that the ACU is both “pretending” that “atheists aren’t relevant” and that “Christianity still holds water in American society.”
When asked about his reported “pledge” to “attack the very idea that Christianity is an important element of conservatism,” Silverman responded that while “I did say that I was going to attack the idea that Christianity and conservatism were inseparable,” he was not waging “an attack on people of faith.”
“I wanted to raise the awareness that there were atheists in the ranks, and I wanted to raise the awareness that those atheists – at least some of them – think that Christianity can easily and should easily be divorced from conservatism,” Silverman told Josh Eidelson of Slate.
Practically in the same breath that Silverman said Christianity no longer “holds water in America,” he also stated, “There is nothing in my tone that sounded aggressive toward a person, or trashed Christianity in any way.”
Eidelson reminded Silverman that American Atheists’ public relations director recently wrote:
Setting aside the fact that religions are dangerous and false, separation of religion and government is absolutely necessary because if any religion co-opts legislature, it means that no other religion is free to practice as that legislature pertains to their beliefs. The range of applications is nearly unlimited: Marriage equality, right-to-die, abortion, birth control, sex ed, science education, science funding, religious school funding, liquor sales, business hours, employment discrimination, the list goes on and on and on.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Yes he did say that. And followed it with ‘render unto God what is Gods’.
The idea that coined money belongs to the govt, not to the person who earned it, is a Liberal idea. ( Just like a Dem talking point).
So. You deny that the onus, given by Jesus, to help the poor, was directed at you? Personally?
So, apparently, in your Gospel, the Savior came to reform and save govt, not sinners.
Perhaps you could explain to me what you mean by the phrase individual sovereignty, and why it means that the government is forbidden to use tax money to help the poor, and how Jesus makes this clear. If you could just find one quote... ONE QUOTE that makes it clear that Jesus disapproved of the government helping the poor, I'd be ever so grateful. I keep asking and asking for this, but no one seems able to supply it.
That’s right, render unto God what is God’s. So your soul belongs to God but your money, according to Jesus, belongs to the face on it. It’s what he said.
Jesus effectively said “pay your taxes”.
He did Not go before a govt and say “Help the poor”.
He did tell you to do that though. You personally, with Your resources.
Do you vote Dem? You seem to view other peoples money as your own.
And while we are chatting this subject.... YOU show me where FedGov has the Constitutional power to redistribute monies.
Again, YOU may distribute your resources as YOU see fit (do you tithe? Render unto God.......). But you are not free to do so with other peoples.
But the fact remains, that if Jesus had been opposed to the government helping the poor, he'd have said so. Jesus had a tendency to be very clear about things he disapproved of (I can think of a few moneylenders with some stories to tell.) But oddly, he never said a word against helping the poor, be it by private funds or public.
As far as the right of the Fed to redistribute money, they have no right. I'm actually on your side. What I am saying is, Jesus really wasn't on your side. He wasn't an American conservative. That's why there are so many Christians out there who are liberals. Jesus pre-dates American politics.
You DO understand Jesus wasn't American, right?
Fallacious Argument from silence
Cordially,
There’s nothing fallacious about it. If Jesus disapproved of something, he said so. That Jesus would disapprove of the government taking from the rich and giving to the poor is laughable.
Jesus was not sanctioning tyrannical government. He was first of all turning the trap meant for him back on the Jews, exposing their hypocrisy. And he was making the distinction between tyrannical government—as inherent to the fallen nature of the world—and the supreme authority of God.
Caesar (the world, and all evil) vs God (the Spirit, and all good).
The sovereignty of the individual means the individual has an intrinsic value which cannot be displaced or outweighed by that of any other individual. This comes from the heart of Jesus’ message that each individual is cherished by him and invited to enjoy the glory of the Father through him.
Luke 12:7 “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.”
Luke 15:10 “Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
That each individual has value in God’s eyes is extremely powerful. Powerful as an idea, but even more so because it’s true. It breathed life into the philosophy underlying democratic principles, and planted the seed in the minds of common people that they had no less value than the ruling class. Culminating in the principles of liberty in our U.S. Constitution. There is no liberty without God.
Jesus teaches us to make the moral choice to take care of the poor. Taxation by the government eliminates free choice in the matter, stealing the opportunity for the individual to make a moral decision to help the poor. Seen in this light, taxation is the opposite of what Jesus wants.
Matthew 19:21, “Jesus said to him, ‘If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’”
Also Mark 10:21, and Luke 18:22.
I’m not saying taxes are completely wrong. I think they’re necessary for basic functioning of society, and beyond that it’s God’s will that we generally obey the laws of our government.
But I do believe the poor would do a lot better if their care were left to private sources of charity rather than government.
That’s complete BS.
“A libertarian is a liberal who hates paying taxes.”
Its not true all the time but its true most of the time. Write out the liberal positions and libertarian positions and you will see there is great similarity.
Some libertarians are very far from being liberal but many are very close to it
“It was under Silverman’s direction that the American Atheists group sought to block the preservation of a cross-beam section of the World Trade Center skeleton that resembled a cross. Silverman opined: “The World Trade Center cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their God, who couldn’t be bothered to stop the terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross.”[7]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Silverman_(activist)
Well, David, if it is only “rubble”, why did you try so hard to get rid of it?
Is it wrong to pray for the utter destruction of your enemies?
Why are some atheists not content to enjoy their atheism in private? Why do they insist on proselytizing, which they always accuse Christians of doing? Why does an atheist care what others believe? I am beginning to really not like atheists.
Would you vote for an atheist?
I know a lot of atheists.
Most don't care and are happy to leave well enough alone, provided they aren't preached at. I've even known a couple of have said that they actually wish they could be believers because they see the comfort that believers receive; but they just can't take that "leap of faith."
However, some are militant, as you say. They are not really atheists, per se, they are anti-theists. They struggle to fight against God...as if they, through their efforts, can destroy Him. Their religion of "anti-theism" is highly evangelical in nature, has a set of dogma, and they have no problem with conducting their own Inquisition for those who dare challenge their dogma.
The former, while I pray for the Holy Spirit to enlighten their hearts, I have no problem with. The latter are just as intolerant as the most fundamentalist Muslim and I think should, for the good of society, receive the same reward.
You cannot show me a single thing recorded that Jesus spoke TO or about a government, beyond that when He comes it will rest upon Him.
Jesus would not have had to go to Rome, seems to me He had a chat with Pilate. No words there about this at all.
I guess the widows mites should have gone to Pilate so he could take his cut and disperse the rest.
To quote you, the fact remains that Jesus came as savior, not social worker. He came for us as individuals.
He never said anything against helping the poor? You are so correct. In fact he did say to help. He said that to YOU. Do you? Or is your conscience salved by the idea that govt does enough?
If you do not read the about Jesus as YOUR savior, and all He said directed to YOU, then, IMHO, you’ve missed the boat.
Your line of reasoning (he didn’t say that) is faulty and often used to allow unbiblical things.
Such as: Argument - Jesus never said homosexuality is bad.
Nope, can’t find the words that He did. Yet, Jesus is the Word, so it can be said that the Bible, being the Word, IS Jesus. And that Word tells me homosexuality is a sin.
So, context, context, context.
And finally, you say that Jesus wasn’t on my side. Apparently, His focus was not for YOU?
Lets take your reasoning a bit further. You are OK with allowing Govt to coopt or force YOUR function of giving (We are told to give). We are also told, individually, to live by the commandments. Should we then say, that Govt should coopt or force you to keep that Sabbath Holy? Should you be forced to have no God but the Lord?
Bottom line, living as the Lord would have you to, is a choice. An individual choice. Not a governmental/group choice.
And to answer your last (Funny how you have ‘chosen’ not to answer any of my questions) of course I realize Jesus wasn’t American. You do realize this country started by people coming here to be able to freely worship Him? And government was started, acknowledging Him? That being the case, WHERE in those governments was the Dept of Free Money?
The ‘burden’ of helping falls to Church, family, friends, charity. Government is a necessary evil to conduct a nation. It is not a charitable company.
A Christian who is Liberal (Progressive) needs to ‘examine his ways’. They have bought a lie. It sounds as though you have too. Liberalism destroys. It dehumanizes. It murders and steals. None of which are Godly characteristics.
Me, I’ll take the Jesus in the Bible that came for ME. That spoke to ME. That had commandments for ME. Who loved ME. It is amazing to me that He loved me enough to endure what He did, so that I would have a way back to the Father.
Yes, if he had the right values. However, I think it's extremely improbable that an atheist would have the right values.
Soros can’t pony up any bribe like Satan can.
I would never knowingly vote for an atheist because they would not have the right values. My values come from God.
The facts on the ground in the US now are that the conservative faction will still acknowledge a biblical God while the liberal side won’t. Other political arenas and other times may vary.
But yes, conservatives CAN drop the God ball (I’ve seen it here, and the result looks like gratuitous cruelty) in which case we are faced with the question of which side of the ship to hell arrives first, the port or starboard side.
Oh, I agree 100%. I'm just saying there's no reason to believe Jesus would have agreed. Separation of church and state was not a burning idea in the Middle East 2000 years ago. It's still not.
Jesus was not sanctioning tyrannical government. He was first of all turning the trap meant for him back on the Jews, exposing their hypocrisy. And he was making the distinction between tyrannical government—as inherent to the fallen nature of the world—and the supreme authority of God.
If he was calling Caesar tyrannical it was because Caesar was Roman and the Jews wanted self-rule, not because Caesar was using tax money to help the poor (because I doubt he was.)
The sovereignty of the individual means the individual has an intrinsic value which cannot be displaced or outweighed by that of any other individual. This comes from the heart of Jesus’ message that each individual is cherished by him and invited to enjoy the glory of the Father through him.
That's great. What's it got to do with using tax money to help the poor?
That each individual has value in God’s eyes is extremely powerful. Powerful as an idea, but even more so because it’s true. It breathed life into the philosophy underlying democratic principles, and planted the seed in the minds of common people that they had no less value than the ruling class. Culminating in the principles of liberty in our U.S. Constitution. There is no liberty without God.
Touching. What's that got to do with using tax money to help the poor?
Jesus teaches us to make the moral choice to take care of the poor. Taxation by the government eliminates free choice in the matter, stealing the opportunity for the individual to make a moral decision to help the poor. Seen in this light, taxation is the opposite of what Jesus wants.
No it doesn't. It adds to it. You still have plenty left over to help in the way you chose. Indeed, this way you can give twice. You help support government organizations that (at least theoretically) help on a grand scale, and you can pinpoint more locally the ones you want to help personally. Because please, please tell me you are honest enough to admit that Jesus had no interest at all in making sure the rich stay rich. He told one young man to give all he had to the poor and follow him. Presumably he meant "all you have left after taxes."
Matthew 19:21, “Jesus said to him, ‘If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’”
Ah, thank you, there it is. Does this sound like a man concerned that the governments using some of your money will preclude you from handing yet more of it over freely?
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.