Plans Under Way for Christianizing the Enemy

NewHouse News Service ^ | 3/26/03 | Mark O'Keefe

[Ahban]

C'mon, when asked for the last "Christian on Christian war" you produce a list of four that includes two regimes led by committed marxists (Grenada and Serbia) and one narco lord (Panama).

The Falklands is the one that might stick, but even they were ruled by a juanta. It is democratic republics that don't war with one another, and without a Judeo-Christian world view, self government is very difficult if not impossible to sustain.

[Incorrigible]

Send in the Jesuits!

[Corin Stormhands]

save FR for politics.

Without the Judeo-Christian worldview, which has a direct bearing on politics in this country, there would be no FR.

[Corin Stormhands]

Falklands? Our 'war' with Serbia? (we _are_ a christian nation after all, aren't we?) Grenada? Panama?

Which of those were fought because of religion?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

This ought to ruffle all the right feathers.

The most evident distinction between Franklin Graham and his illustrious father, is Frank's willingness to ruffle feathers.

At the risk of calling Franklin's allegedly hell-raising past a "good thing", I will simply observe that his illustrious father has not been willing to "ruffle feathers" for nigh on 35 years.

Given the influence of Bad Theology and (unavoidable) comparisons to his father, I admit the fear that Franklin's "apple" will not fall far from the "tree". Certainly the "moderate evangelicals" hope that this will be the case -- that Franklin will take up his father's "mantle", and continue Billy's ecumenical habit of turning American Baptistry into the ECT "Roman Baptist Auxiliary" of the Roman Catholic Church.

But, in view of recent events, I have some hope the Franklin's teen-age Rebellious streak will manifest itself in productive ways. The Pope kissed the Koran; and Billy has endorsed the Pope in practically every way short of genuflecting and kissing the Papal Ring. But Franky still calls Islam an "evil religion" (which, of course, it is).

Keep it up, Franky. You need not fill your Father's shoes.... big shoes they are indeed -- but a little fashion-conflicted in Baptist terms, if you get my drift.

You've got the all-important "Big Name"; and, in terms of "Compassionate Conservatism", no-one can doubt the Compassion of your Samaritan's Purse organization. So you've definitely got the "political capital" to strike a blow for theological Christian Conservatism, if you care to.

Keep ruffling those feathers, Franky.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Only Franklin Graham knows his true motivation.

But I was heartened when he prayed to "The Father, the Son the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit" at the 2000 Inaugeration, and when he witnessed the comfort of Christ to the parents at Columbine.

In this milktoast time of PC fence-sitters, someone who loudly proclaims the controversy of Christ is to be encouraged.

He has the stuff of a fine Weatherman.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

In this milktoast time of PC fence-sitters, someone who loudly proclaims the controversy of Christ is to be encouraged.

Per'Zackly.

I only hope he continues.

From a strictly-cynical perspective, Franky's political position is admirable -- his "Samaritan's Purse" organization (which ain't no "showmanship", it's Franky's love-child -- always has been) is unquestionably Compassionate -- the Protestant version of Mother Theresa, only moreso.

It is, in the finest Christian sense, a work of pure charity.

As such (lapsing into my taste for political calculations), Franky's "political capital" is unimpeachable. You wanna call him an "extremist"? Well, how many starving Children have you helped to feed, Mr. Liberal??

If Franky wants to strike a blow for Christian Orthodoxy... he's got the Name, he's got the Charitable resume, he's got the Political Capital.

It's his battle to Win, if he wants.

My considerations are admittedly cynical and calculating. That said, I'm reasonably confident that I am correct -- if Franky wants to run with it.

Best, OP

[George W. Bush]

Franklin has been astonishingly forthright in an era of political correctness. This is all the more surprising given the position Billy has staked out in favor of Koran-kissing and evangelizing for Rome and operating as a useful idiot and apologist for many totalitarian regimes.

Like the situation with W and Bush Senior, it's possible that Franklin will have more courage and character than his father. We can hope and watch.

[BibChr]

How is the Greek democracy doing today, in the world scene?

How about the Roman Republic?

What is it that you know that John Adams did not know, when he wrote that the Constitution was designed for a moral and religious (i.e. Judeo-Christian) people only, and would be wholly insufficient for any other?

Try rationalizing your ignorance with your soulmates at DU; FR tends to be the home of those WITH a clue (note the shout).

And I'll trust your judgment that you aren't up to the level of discussion at the Biblical Christianity Message Board. It isn't for everybody.

Ta.

Dan

[anka]

>Athens had direct democracy for a while, except in time of crisis, when they voted power to a strongman. It did not work above the city-state level, and not well there.

but it had a democracy. without a judeo-christian world-view. how long has our country been in existence again?

>The PATRICIAN class practiced "democracy". The slaves (lot's of slaves) and to some extent the peons (forgot the name for the common folk) did not participate.

hmmm, slaves. not participating in the democracy. for some reason i can't help but chuckle...

>Your Roman example boosts my case even more. It degenrated into Emperors who demanded worship like a god in a relatively short time after it expanded out of Rome itself.

degenerated into Emporors after how many years?
hopefully we learn from their mistakes and last longer.


>Your two poor examples from over a thousand years ago bolster my case rather than refute it. Without a Judeo-Christian world view, self government is very difficult if not impossible to sustain.

poor examples? hardly. keep repeating that false presumption of yours.

cheers.

anka

[anka]

>C'mon, when asked for the last "Christian on Christian war" you produce a list of four that includes two regimes led by committed marxists (Grenada and Serbia) and one narco lord (Panama).

i know that they weren't fought over religion. but to an uninformed individual from half-way across the world these wars might be looked on as those 'damn christians' fighting each other again...

>The Falklands is the one that might stick, but even they were ruled by a juanta. It is democratic republics that don't war with one another, and without a Judeo-Christian world view, self government is very difficult if not impossible to sustain.

there you go, repeating that line again...

now, where are those muslim religios wars you were talking about?

cheers.

anka

[anka]

>Without the Judeo-Christian worldview, which has a direct bearing on politics in this country, there would be no FR.

and without my strong belief in the almighty cthulu this discussion wouldn't be taking place.
FR would be reduced to different sects of christianity arguing over which sect is 'right'.

cheers.

anka

[anka]

>Which of those were fought because of religion?

why, none of them.
and we know this because we are informed.
now, which muslim on muslim war was fought _because_ of religion?

cheers.

anka

[anka]

>How is the Greek democracy doing today, in the world scene?

>How about the Roman Republic?

why, they don't exist.
their shelflife is enviable however. hopefully our children's children can have this argument in our United States...



>What is it that you know that John Adams did not know, when he wrote that the Constitution was designed for a moral and religious (i.e. Judeo-Christian) people only, and would be wholly insufficient for any other?

Oh, I didn't know that John Adams was the sole author of the Constitution. I guess we should disregard the fact that a diverse group of individuals with different beliefs helped author that document and form our nation.


>Try rationalizing your ignorance with your soulmates at DU; FR tends to be the home of those WITH a clue (note the shout).

FR also tends to be the home of clueless bible thumpers.
try rationalizing your ignorance with your soulmates on that message board you linked. (note the lack of shouts)

>And I'll trust your judgment that you aren't up to the level of discussion at the Biblical Christianity Message Board. It isn't for everybody.

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

I have Faith. you do not. as witnessed by your continued attempt to rationalize and 'prove' the irational and un-provable.

cheers.

anka

[Ahban]

from www.historyguide.com

"So, what began as Greek democracy under Cleisthenes around 500 B.C., became an aristocracy under Pericles by 430 B.C."

Greek Democracy ended with the Spartan wars a few years later. So the ancient Greeks had 130 years of democracy. Of course, their democracy did not include FEMALES, LANDLESS MALES, or IMMIGRANTS. Citizenship began late (age 30 in Sparta).

Rome had a little better luck. Their Senate was composed strictly of the Patrician class (and thus was an oligarchy, not a real democracy). It was not until 366 B.C. that the FIRST plebian was allowed to serve in the Senate. Note that WOMEN, SLAVES, and conquored peoples who were not Roman citizens but constitutied the vast majority of the population were still not able to participate.

By the early part of the first century B.C., Sulla had undermined the senate and the Empire was birthed. They had 300 years of a nominal "Republican" form of government that was somewhere between oligarchy and republic.

Without a Judeo-Christian world view, self government is very difficult if not impossible to sustain. You keep repeating that this is a false presumption, but the facts do not support your assertions. Rather, five thousand years of human history support my position, and your endlessly repeating that it is a false presumption does not change that one bit.

[anka]

>Greek Democracy ended with the Spartan wars a few years later. So the ancient Greeks had 130 years of democracy. Of course, their democracy did not include FEMALES, LANDLESS MALES, or IMMIGRANTS. Citizenship began late (age 30 in Sparta).

>Without a Judeo-Christian world view, self government is very difficult if not impossible to sustain.

130 years looks like a good run to me. taking into account that a bunch of non judeo-christian heathens thought up the idea of democracy in the first place.


>Rome had a little better luck. Their Senate was composed strictly of the Patrician class (and thus was an oligarchy, not a real democracy). It was not until 366 B.C. that the FIRST plebian was allowed to serve in the Senate. Note that WOMEN, SLAVES, and conquored peoples who were not Roman citizens but constitutied the vast majority of the population were still not able to participate.

>By the early part of the first century B.C., Sulla had undermined the senate and the Empire was birthed. They had 300 years of a nominal "Republican" form of government that was somewhere between oligarchy and republic.

300 years. so, how do you define 'very difficult' and 'impossible'?


>You keep repeating that this is a false presumption, but the facts do not support your assertions. Rather, five thousand years of human history support my position, and your endlessly repeating that it is a false presumption does not change that one bit.

false presumption. democracies and republics formed by 'heathens' supports my assertions tremendously.

cheers.

anka

[Dataman]

What is it that you know that John Adams did not know, when he wrote that the Constitution was designed for a moral and religious (i.e. Judeo-Christian) people only, and would be wholly insufficient for any other?

Absolutely correct, Bib! A point well-made that manages to remain largely unobserved: America is the most unusual, most successful and most compassionate republic that has ever existed. The "why" is given slight attention and even those that studied it (de Toqueville, for example) are given little attention. Alexis de Toqueville agreed with Adams as to the necessity of the Christian foundation to the survival of the USA and predicted its failure should that foundation subside.

[Alex Murphy]

...but to an uninformed individual from half-way across the world these wars might be looked on as those 'damn christians' fighting each other again...

Really - you're being too hard on yourself.

[anka]

>Really - you're being too hard on yourself.

care to offer more than a lazy 'one-liner'?

try not to hurt your brain.

cheers.

anka

PS: I'm right here in the greatest nation, the USA.

[Alex Murphy]

care to offer more than a lazy 'one-liner'?

Sure - try reading back farther than your own posts. Either that, or try reading my profile page.