U.S. is NOT Founded on Conservative Christian Values.

[Guest]

Let's take a look at this one folks... Stop me when I'm wrong

DKClassen wrote "Let's not forget our country was not founded on socialist liberal principles to which ptownrob is speaking of, it was founded on conservative christian principles."

Well, I don't think anyone would disagree that this is one of the "God, guns & Gays" issues used to demonize anyone conservatives-calling-themselves-christians see as Un American (Liberals, Gays, Intellectuals, Hollywood, etc.)

First Problem: Supporters of this statement are virtually unanimous in saying that the Constitution is not a "Living Document." It does not change unless amended, and thus any law made outside its structure is both invalid and an insult to our founding fathers

With apologies to the colonial Spanish Florida, in the period of 1620-1776, Conservative Christianity- for that matter, mainstream Christianity consisted of what the Roman Church instructed, which had NOTHING to do with democracy, equality, or pulling oneself out of one's situation for a better life.

The Puritans, who represented a rather RADICAL form of Christianity, had no interest whatsoever in protecting the rights of anyone but themselves, but created the first "democratic" form of self-governance and communal sharing of goods and services. Very radically socialistic that was- the stronger and better-off providing for the sick or weak (and there were many), but still allowing each to make his own fortune.

The Dutch, and founders of New York, which became the model of capitalism for us, and the world, were only interested in making money. A noble enough cause, but hardly based in Conservative Christianity.

The Pennsylvanians were founded on principles of extreme religious tolerance-something quite unique in the Colonial world of Conservative Christianity. In fact, even today, the traditions of Quakers, Mennonites and other meetinghouses are demonized as being un-American because of their extreme Deist, pacifist and non-"Christian" nature.

The Virginians, who are arguably the most influential of our Founders, espoused no literal acceptance of the Biblical Text, and avoided a strong Christocentric theocracy in favor of giving homage to "The Deity" who was, in their world-view, a benevolent Christian image figure, if a "figure" at all. None of them speaks of a Second Coming, Rapture, Literal Creation or any other restrictions on human freedom that present-day conservative-fundamentalists claim is the bedrock of our nation.

Conclusion: Our founding fathers represent a diverse Christian-Deist movement founded not on Conservatism, but rather on beliefs that in their time were radical- politically, ethically and socially. They were "revolutionary." If the Constitution has not evolved since its adoption, then the claim of some super powerful Judeo-Christian conservative ethic does NOT exist in it from its origins. IT WAS ADDED TO (ACCRETED) AS TIME PASSED.

Second Problem: There are as many Judeo-Christian "beliefs" that are anathema to our society that to the Founders as may have been positives. Slavery? Women as Chattel? White Supremacy? Land-Owning Supremacy? Clearly, our concept of Judeo-Christian values has evolved since the writing of the Declaration and the Constitution.

Third Problem: There were even more Judeo-Christian Values that the Founders kept out of their own lives, to secure their own fortunes: Divine Right of Kings? Religious Infallibility? The Biblical mandate for the Hebrews to slaughter all who stood before them? The imminent return of some All Conquering Judge? Polygamy (except the Mormons, God Bless 'Em!)?

Fourth Problem: The founding Fathers built clearly NON Judeo-Christian privileges for themselves, both Federally and by Sovereign State that are anathema to J-C Values, beginning with the legalized discrimination and persecutions of the very "Judeos" that modern fundamentalists would claim the Founders honored. We institutionalized slavery, not just in the Constitution, but through our criminal law system which prohibited slaves from learning to read, permitted murder without trial for escaped slaves, etc.

While there very well may be some aura of attempting to seek to harmonize the founding of this great nation upon the BENEVOLENT gifts and wishes of a BENEVOLENT God or Being, there is clearly no documentation that the Deity these very progressive, forward-thinking white male property-owners appealed to is anything like the Judgemental, Angry, Wrathful God that "conservative" Christians call values today.

SO where does all this Christian intolerance and chest-thumping evolve from? Well, sorry to let out the secret folks, but it's appearance on the American funadmentalism, firmly rooted in Calvin, Wesley and Whitehead- was a strong reaction AGAINST the Enlightenment movement that was the underpinning philosophy of the United States. It did not have any strong influence untiul nearly one hundred years after the Revolutionary War

In other words, Fundamentalism is in it's very core ANTI-American, at least if you consider the original Constitution and Declaration to be non-living documents.

Fundamentalists condemned the liberalism enshrined in our founding fathers' ideologies precisely because the Enlightenment driven Founder's did not acknowledge: 1.) The Literalism of the Bible, 2.) the Virgin Birth, 3.) the Return of the Messiah in Judgement 4.) God's grace as the only means to salvation. 4.)The literalism of Jesus miracles.

This movement did not even "exist" until the latter 1800's- under the auspices of revivalist and Dispensationalists Dwight L. Moody (1837 – 1899), Arthur Tappan Pierson and British preacher and father of dispensationalism John Nelson Darby (1800 – 1882). While all of this backgorund information is off the internet, one only has to step back and think about what the HISTORY of traditional "Conservative Christian" values were:

1.) Support for Slavery, under the guise of State's rights. These states's rights trumped the "inalienable rights" of the Decelaration when slavery was the issue

2.) Support Racial Segregation and Discrimination as part of "God's Plan"

3.) The subjugation of women, under the guise of "traditionalism" in the home-itself nothing more than an extension of the biblical concept of women as chattel

4.) Protests against allowing marriage between the races as destroying the purity of the races which God Himself established

5.) "temperance" - The Forced Prohibition of alcohol based on nohting scriptural except an obscure line in the obscure Book of Joel, but rooted in those same fundamentalist thoughts as the others. George Washington was the U.S. largest distiller of Whiskey and Sam Adams a legendary brewer. What part of the Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Constitution justifies tee-totalling?

So this is just the tip of the iceberg. Even the supporters of modern conservative christianity would not say that the movement "Popped up" pvernight. It has a history- an undeniable history- which can trace its roots through those original (Though now largely discarded) beliefs. If conservative Christians awant to somehow claim that they are the bedrockof the Constitution, which I have argued they are not, they they must also acknowledge the subsequent stones built upon it- Support for slavery, segregation, subjugation of women, and the like. It cannot be had both ways.

I would maintain them, that not only is America NOT built on "conservative Christian" values, it is in fact anti-American in its foundation and core.

[Guest]

My basic belief is that extremist on either side are dangerous..both liberal and conservative ! We seemed to have lost the middle ground somewhere and while many want their PARTY to be in power, I will welcome anyone with a D or R if they come to the middle in some fashion !!!

Having said that.....the rant that started this thread brought back a quote from President Obama's "hero" (Yes that is my word but he in both of his books and it is chronicled studied this man and idolized him)...and the quote from our President's icon as a beginning to his book that President Obama used to hone his skills....

“From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”

Saul Alinsky...Rules for Radicals

[Guest]

And the point of all of this is.....what?

I can agree that the colonists were the social liberals of their time. However, when one compares the colonists' societal and religious beliefs to the platform espoused by the social liberals of today, there is considerable difference. Much of today's liberalism and behavior was considered 200+ years ago by those liberal colonists as pagan, hedonistic and blasphemous. That may not be a popular feeling, but it is accurate.

The USA is a unique entity. It's actually 50 separate nation states (and a couple trust territories) which collectively established a legal entity (the federal government) which would handle relations with outside nations, provide for a common defense, and several other items best handled by virtue of economy and logic by a central party. However, the originators of this collective did not want all state authority absorbed by this central party, as each of the states wanted to maintain local control over most societal matters. That's why the 10th Amendment to the Constitution is so important, as is does limit the federal government from becoming all-powerful regarding local society.

The freedom of travel and resettlement by the populace throughout the 50 states blurs the fact that states are indeed "nations" which can and do exercise dominion and control over many of life's matters. States - not the fed - control laws regarding everything from who can marry and when, what constitutes education, temperance, drivers licenses, and so many other things.

Has this state's rights situation resulted in different laws and practices among the states for doing many things? Sure it has.

So, if the voters of State Alpha wants to redefine societal rules per its 10th Amendment authority, that's their choice. If any of the citizenry of State Alpha relocate to State Bravo which operates under different societal rules, then those folk are bound by the rules in effect in State Bravo, whether they like it or not., and it does not matter if what they are doing was legal in State Alpha.

So, if a resident of MA does not like the laws of FL or anywhere else regarding any issue within State's Rights per the 10th Amendment, there is no one forcing any MA resident to relocate to FL. Or vice versa. I think the gun laws and tax laws of MA and MD are lunacy, but when I'm there I abide by them. And I know the Federal government has no authority (thank God!) to infringe on those gun laws and tax laws, either in MA, MD or FL.

So, while we have federal laws that do apply to the USA population on some things, we will never have federal laws that apply to the USA population on everything. And we can still live in relative harmony because we all, as voters, can tailor the local environment to almost anything we want it to be within the context of the US Constitution as tempered by the 10th Amendment.

What's so bad about that?

[Guest]

William Bradford
• wrote that they [the Pilgrims] were seeking:
• 1) "a better, and easier place of living”; and that “the children of the group were being drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses [in Holland]“
• 2) “The great hope, and for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world"
The Mayflower Compact (authored by William Bradford) 1620 | Signing of the Mayflower painting | Picture of Compact
“Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together…”

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations. "A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

James Madison
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)
• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

James McHenry – Signer of the Constitution
Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”

The three branches of the U.S. Government: Judicial, Legislative, Executive
• At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.


I can go on and on and on and on....

[Guest]

please clarify just exactly what the point of this thread is supposed to be. I don't want to second guess what appears to be a weighty subject. I am just not sure what it is!

BTK:shrug:

[Guest]

Ptown, you have finally popped your cork. I usually don’t bother to read anything so long but a glance showed so much bull…, lies and misstatements that I gad to read it. I will do the best that I can to steer you straight. (no pun intended)

I do not agree with either you or DKClassen. This nation was founded by men who were for the most part, deists. They believed in a supream being but may have had several views. It was not founded on Christian principles but on Judeo-Christian ethics in part.

Next, I disagree. I do not understand how you can put gays on an equal footing with God and guns as far as our founders were concerned. Where out founders were conservative was in the amount of power allotted to the central government. It was their intent that the central government would provide for the common defense and not a lot more. The bill of rights was inserted in order to limit government and protect the people from the government.

(First Problem) You state this accurately but I do not see how it is a problem. The constitution was not intended to be changed at a whim but it could be amended for serious and sincere reasons. The oath of office for most elected officials, including the president is to defend the constitution, not the president.

The Catholic church had little influence in the founding of America other than to force the protestants to settle in the new world to get away from the “Church.”

The Puritans started out as communists but this almost killed them all. It failed as soon as people learned that they would be fed even if they didn’t work. The second year they were allowed to keep the product of their efforts to barter with others. This saved them.

Second Problem: These things have all been changed through amendment.

Third Problem: Blah Blah Blah. Is there a point?

Fourth Problem: Based on Judeo-Christian principles not Created with them.
Slavery was the way of life of the time. Blacks in Africa sold captives as slaves. Blacks in America owned slaves. Again, Changed through amendment.

Skipping comment on the rest of your hate speech, why do you live here. There must me many nations that live up to your ideals. By the way, why don’t you name a few of those wonderful places for us?

Yoda

[Guest]

please clarify just exactly what the point of this thread is supposed to be. I don't want to second guess what appears to be a weighty subject. I am just not sure what it is!

BTK:shrug:

Lemme know when you figure it out or get an answer. The posts are geting longer and longer with more archaic quotes than I can keep up with.

[Guest]

Yoda:

I believe the Yoda image is copywrited, surprised the admins haven't busted you for breaking the laws of this great land of ours.

[Guest]

Now THIS is what I think this forum should be about. When members address an important subject or issue, research it and present intelligent, well-written, cogent arguments for their conclusions, we can all learn from their efforts.

Hear, Hear to you all!

[Guest]

Just another opinion, but I have never read such dribble and stupidity. I can't even guess what would allow people to have such excess time to think, believe, post such insane ideas. Take it back to Provincetown and let that place soften your brain cells some more. Real scary to think people have such twisted ideas.

Now let the diatribe really begin.

[Guest]

This nation was founded by men who were for the most part, deists.

Better do some research. A lot of their own writings would disagree with that.

[Guest]

Better do some research. A lot of their own writings would disagree with that.

Perhaps I was too specific. Most believed in God, a God or the equivalent thereof.

Yoda

[Guest]

Hi Folks-

FYI, I started the thread by copying a statement from Dklassen (sorry for the earlier incorrect address) from the "out of touch" thread: "Let's not forget our country was not founded on socialist liberal principles to which ptownrob is speaking of, it was founded on conservative christian principles. That's why we have become in such a very short time the most prosperous and generous nation in the world."

Yoda then speaks he does:

"I do not agree with (sic) either you or DKClassen. This nation was founded by men who were for the most part, deists. They believed (sic)in a supreme being but may(sic) have had several views. It was not founded on Christian principles but on Judeo-Christian ethics in part."

I agree with Yoda 100% about this. It is our ethical foundations, in large part, that are based Judeo-Christian, and even more so on a Deist version of those ethics. Without upsetting ALL sides, I feel comfortable in saying that, by the numbers and the content, our founders were more infulenced by the Enlightenment concepts enshrined in the Masonic practices of the time. I'm not referring to the secret rituals, but rather guiding principles. My point about the three "G"s is absolutely NOT about the Founders, but rather about the strategy of present-day conservative christians to galvanize their base through motifs of fear, exclusion and hatred. Hence, (G1) only conservative Christians can worship God or fulfill his expectations for America correctly; (G2) only conservatives will protect your right to own firearms, and everyone else will simply take them from you and (G3) conservative christians will say that, "gay" anything, abortion, women holding jobs, single-parenting, evolution, and every other "liberal agenda" item makes THEM (the liberal-commie-pinko crowd) a threat to America. It's a contemporary reference, not meant to include the Founding Fathers.

I believe that anyone attempting to justify the founding of this nation, including the First Amendment, on "atheist" values is just as wrongheaded as conservative christians are. Clearly, virtually all of these men believed in some higher power, and that belief is most easily expressed through our Judeo-Christian imagery. Clearly the American image of "the Deity" or transcendence of the "Enlightenment" is not a many headed, multi-limbed Shiva, or a meditating Buddha.

But this Deity is also NOT Jesus arriving on clouds preceded by four horsemen bringing death and destruction; the Deity is not the scrubbed vision of a white women in blue robes acting as our only interceder to some wrathful God; the Deity is clearly not some ativistic/animalist/natural system of rituals and beliefs.

But I'd like to return to Dklassen's quotations of founding fathers and other notables about their religious beliefs. These quotes, more often than not, can be matched or even outmatched by the same individuals warning against the excesses of a particular religion, or any FORMAL religion being enshrined in our official documents. The Declaration is about Independence from a tyrant, not an affirmation of a religious doctrine. It is about proclaiming that the rights of men (white, male, blah,blah,), which had always been subservient to any royal monarchical system, are, because of this new Enlightened understanding of "Our Creator," now equal to all men. Not just elevated, or having rights, but equal to. Not just revolutionary in terms of breaking away from England, but revolutionary in its concept of what equality actually is.

Government gets its power from the governed- REVOLUTIONARY. ALL men are created equal- REVOLUTIONARY. NO organized RELIGION has any more influence within our government than does any other organized religion, the state shall not declare any religion superior to any other through official support, and freedom of all to worship in their own manner and choosing is a protected right- REVOLUTIONARY.


Personally, I'd believe that Dklassen's quotes of Jefferson- who just happened to be the author of the Constitution- reflect the general religious tenor of the Founders, and therefore their intent:

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

Notice, Jefferson says a "real" Christian, in his opinion, follows the doctrines of Jesus. And as if we don't "get" that "coded" explanation, he uses the subsequent paragraph at one point: "that tend to all the happiness of man."

Notice, no mention of Pauline doctrines of intolerance, notice no flaming rhetoric about End of Days, Second Comings, Wrathful Gods, Horsemen, Beasts, etc. All things espoused as critical to the live of a Christian according to conservative christian dogma, but not to Jefferson, and not to the framers.

Whatever their personal beliefs, as one reads through the Federalist papers, or the letters of Madison (who wrote the bulk of the constitution), there is no 8,000 lb elephant of Christianity in the room. It just was NOT crucial to developing the nation's foundation, other than acknowledging that "rights" are based on something larger than himself or herself, larger than the government and definitely larger than some earthly monarch.

Steve Z writes: "I can agree that the colonists were the social liberals of their time. However, when one compares the colonists' societal and religious beliefs to the platform espoused by the social liberals of today, there is considerable difference."

Absolutely no argument here either. How many have stopped to think just how progressive those men would be today if they started a revolution today? What would be their political and religious leanings? The only comparable (yet wholly different) situation would be the downfall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Eastern Europe. We saw magnificent freedom movements in Poland, Hungary and Germany. But we also saw tribal barbarity in the former Yugoslavia, and currently see unresolved ethnic controversies throughout the former USSR.

I think the founders would be the intellectuals, the movers & shakers, the entrepreneurs and others. They would be young and financially independent. They would not be hung up on religion, race, or gender or sexuality. They would want a government that stays out of their personal lives, but protects them from outside hostilities- both domestic and abroad. I think they'd want a government that, in this world, provides for the common good, as well as the common defense, but that does nothing to inhibit the fair accumulation of property, goods and the pursuit of happiness.

So would the founder's be thrilled about the state of our nation today. I'd say no. But would they say, "Let's just go back to the way it was.?" Again, I'd say no.

Steve notes: "Much of today's liberalism and behavior was considered 200+ years ago by those liberal colonists as pagan, hedonistic and blasphemous."

True, but I'd offer that many of the behaviors of the founders' would also be seen by the conservatives of the day (Torys, papists, Calvinists, etc.) as pagan, hedonistic and blasphemous as well.

Finally, I love this country as much (not more than, and not less than) anyone else. I will not buy the argument that criticizing the exploitation of three G's means that someone is unAmerican (Thus we return to the beginning of the previous discussion). The complex questions surrounding issues of Guns & God - First & Second Amendment- are not owend by conservative christians. The cross is not owned by conservative christians, and the flag is not owned by conservative Americans, yet somehow these "symbols" were deliberately co-opted by a very narrow slice of the angry and the fearful. The third "G" represents all the social liberalization in our culture- beginning with the end of slavery and following organically through desegregation, suffrage, keeping government out of women's decisions, public education, science, gay & lesbian equality, and hopefully, carrying right through to giving every American affordable, decent health-care regardless of their occupation.

For those of you who can't figure it out, I am a baby-boomer- I'll be 52 next month, so I fall right in the middle of the pack. I have always been proud to be an American, even if I have been ashamed at times of what some leaders have attempted to do in the name of the United States government.

I have volunteered and worked in politics since I was 16, and I proudly worked and fund-raised for federal, local and state candidates, according to our political system and my belief in what is best for this nation- sometimes against my own enlightened self interest. I also spent a successful career in the private sector and in religious organizations dedicating to helping the most frail, needy and least able to represent themselves in our nation.

Finally, I'd have to say I'm most proud of seeing America become respected again as the leader of the Free World, through reasserting her highest ideals. Those who are afraid of this world-view will demonize me, those who understand need no further explanation than what I've given.

[Guest]

Interesting....

While some of the projections of the founders in a rather idyllic light have a subjective view, those projections run counter to recorded facts.

On of the best sources for information about several of the founders, especially those who lived in or near Boston back then, can be found in the Kirstein Business Library (now part of the Boston Public Library system). As a kid I had to research a few of the more notorious and romanticized persona of the time, and Kirstein's records were not so "idyllic" in their portrayal. There were particular founders who owed small (and large) fortunes in back taxes, had outstanding debts of rather high proportions (under the then-standard of conduct), and thus had a financial stake (to include avoiding debtor's prison) in the revolution .

However the founders were in fact, whether they would condone the concepts of abortion, open homosexual relationships, euthanasia, gun control, or even a graduated income tax is pure conjecture. These were men who had one unifying trait - fear of a powerful, central government which could at whim change their immediate environment, forcing tacit acceptance of morality and behaviors they found personally reprehensible.

Liberalism is not the advocating of concepts of morality and behavior to the point where there is no longer any morality and all behavior is permitted. Liberalism is not against laws and definitely not for anarchy. Liberalism is to view all laws to the full extent of the writing, versus the enforcing of a law so tightly that unintended consequences occur.

Conversely, Conservatism is not the abolishment of all behaviors because they are "different" or unexpected. Conservatism views laws as specific and enforceable, and expects contrary behavior to occur only when the laws are amended by the citizenry. Anarchy is abhorred.

Neither Liberalism nor Conservatism condone outright scofflaw behavior, and both accept that local mores dictate local conduct. Both agree that society is evolutionary, and also the pace of that evolution difffers according to the will of the local voters. Both also try hard to influence those voters.

Again, this thread has been interesting....

[Guest]

Interesting and informative but is that what this website is really about? We are all blessed that we can say and read these things without fear of anyone kicking in our door because of what we do or dont believe. I thank the members of our armed forces past and present for preserving the right for us to say and read what you are talking about and I thank the teachers and clerics who taught us to compare the differences and be tolerant of all people. I do take offense however at the referance to the "white woman in blue robes ' as the only intercessor to Jesus. Whether you have faith in Our Lady or not is up to you and I dont question your beliefs.

You are lucky to have had the education you apparently must have had to be able to speak so profounly in comparison to my basic but deeply felt words.

Somebody give him an exlax.

[Guest]

so i spelled profoundly wrong, emotional flooding after reading his statement. To the powers that be I did not mean to upset anyone and apologize if I spoke out too boldly.

[Guest]

so i spelled profoundly wrong, emotional flooding after reading his statement. To the powers that be I did not mean to upset anyone and apologize if I spoke out too boldly.

Far from it. Nothing to apologize for. You are among friends.

[Guest]

Steve- can't really disagree with you, since trying to affix motivation of others is pretty relative. That, of course gives support to a more liberal overall view of relativism v. absolutism, but does not necessarily apply to the specifics of a situation.

My education is a cross between history/pol. sci as an undergrad & theology as a Masters. You won't find me getting passionate about string theory, engineering or statistics- but this area always energizes me. Some "live" for softball or line dancing- I believe that this is much more important than that!

I've always found the very strong differences between the John Adams' & Thomas Jeffersons' style to be very indicative of the two general "sides" that still divide our nation politically/philosophically today. I think Jefferson would probably have been pro-choice and quite a liberal, John Adams would have made a great conservative Republican.

We are blessed as a nation to have George Washington as our "First"- he blended the best of both, and showed tolerance for the other side.

MaryAnn- I meant no offense. I have said my share of decades and Novenas, and was profoundly moved by visits to Lourdes & Fatima. My point was only that the IMAGE of Mary as a white, fair haired blond wearing a blue robe with gold trim just doesn't square with who the historical Mary MUST have been, and there is a whole movement in church history that says the only way to "reach" Jesus is through Mary.

The use of Mary as sole Intercessor has no Biblical foundation. In fact, I'd say that the "reason" the curtain tore in the temple at Jesus' death was to illustrate that humanity no longer "needed" any intercessors (priests of the temple) to be in direct contact with God through Jesus Himself. Just be ready for the blinding light of the Transfiguration or Damascus if you're going to try that route!

There is Biblical evidence of Mary's unyielding loyalty to her son, and of her virgin birth, but the use of Marian adoration evolved through tradition and practice. The Roman Church of the Founders' time would not have recognized the difference between Biblical and Traditional practices.

[Guest]

Steve- can't really disagree with you, since trying to affix motivation of others is pretty relative. That, of course gives support to a more liberal overall view of relativism v. absolutism, but does not necessarily apply to the specifics of a situation.

My education is a cross between history/pol. sci as an undergrad & theology as a Masters. You won't find me getting passionate about string theory, engineering or statistics- but this area always energizes me. Some "live" for softball or line dancing- I believe that this is much more important than that!

I've always found the very strong differences between the John Adams' & Thomas Jeffersons' style to be very indicative of the two general "sides" that still divide our nation politically/philosophically today. I think Jefferson would probably have been pro-choice and quite a liberal, John Adams would have made a great conservative Republican.

We are blessed as a nation to have George Washington as our "First"- he blended the best of both, and showed tolerance for the other side.

MaryAnn- I meant no offense. I have said my share of decades and Novenas, and was profoundly moved by visits to Lourdes & Fatima. My point was only that the IMAGE of Mary as a white, fair haired blond wearing a blue robe with gold trim just doesn't square with who the historical Mary MUST have been, and there is a whole movement in church history that says the only way to "reach" Jesus is through Mary.

The use of Mary as sole Intercessor has no Biblical foundation. In fact, I'd say that the "reason" the curtain tore in the temple at Jesus' death was to illustrate that humanity no longer "needed" any intercessors (priests of the temple) to be in direct contact with God through Jesus Himself. Just be ready for the blinding light of the Transfiguration or Damascus if you're going to try that route!

There is Biblical evidence of Mary's unyielding loyalty to her son, and of her virgin birth, but the use of Marian adoration evolved through tradition and practice. The Roman Church of the Founders' time would not have recognized the difference between Biblical and Traditional practices.

I would disagree on the Roman Catholic Church comment regarding biblical/traditional practices. There are very few "constants" in this world, but the Roman Catholic Church rates as one. The Church moves at the equivalent pace of a glacier, and for good reason. There is sufficient confusion surrounding us, and the Church reminds us that species homo sapiens is not as smart as s/he thinks, especially when behavioral matters are involved. In a sea of radicalism and chaos, a safe harbor and an anchor are indeed welcome.

[Guest]

Thank you Rob and Steve for your words. I often think about what Mary really must have looked like considering her family background and ethinicity and where she lived. The artists have rendered their own interpretations. It isnt important what she looked like, it is who and what she was and is to each individual. I appreciate what you have written.

[Guest]

The feature is from an unknown author and has been circulated on the Internet. The parallels of the state of our nation and the
purposeful removal of God from public life is so powerful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNjpddyn0HE

[Guest]

Truer words have never been spoken. "We reap what we sow."

[Guest]

They didn't kick God out of the schools. The just won't let the kids say, "Hi."

Yoda

[Guest]

IMHO, the separation of church and state is a good and wise thing...
Too bad more countries don't try it...

[Guest]

Separation of church and state is made up terminology by the left. It doesn't exist in the Constitution.

[Guest]

Separation of church and state is made up terminology by the left. It doesn't exist in the Constitution.

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s

[Guest]

It still doesn't exist in the Constitution period.

It says "congress shall make no law." That doesn't translate into no prayer, no ten commands, no crosses on public land, no nativity scenes in front of city hall, etc, etc, etc.

It doesn't even say that the state is prohibited from supporting a particular religion. It just says they can't pass a law regarding it. Yet another distortion from the far left... including some supreme court judges.

I've read the letter from Thomas Jefferson and had this discussion with a few friends before. Funny how liberals like to quote the funding fathers when they think it fits but they ignore everything else they say including how some of them felt the bible should be taught in public schools or keeping the size of government limited.

[Guest]

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s

And in no case did the U.S. Supreme Court ever state that any reference to God shall be devoid from all governmental matters. Neither has the U.S. Supreme Court ever interpreted the First Amendment to say that atheism trumps religion.

With regards to Mr. Jefferson's commentary on "separation of church and state," today's religious antogonists routinely fail to report that Mr. Jefferson, as most of the signatories of the Constitution, was raised as an Anglican - The Church of England. Mr. Jefferson and his colleagues appeared to want to insure their national creation did not mimic the English duality where Head of State and Emissary of the Creator were lawfully endowed as one and the same.

Had these fine and articulate men intended a further separation than that, these wise persons would never have referred in the ratification section of the Constitution that their signing as occurring "in the year of our Lord (emphasis added) one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth".

[Guest]

It still doesn't exist in the Constitution period.
It says "congress shall make no law." That doesn't translate into no prayer, no ten commands, no crosses on public land, no nativity scenes in front of city hall, etc, etc, etc.
It doesn't even say that the state is prohibited from supporting a particular religion. It just says they can't pass a law regarding it. Yet another distortion from the far left... including some supreme court judges.
I've read the letter from Thomas Jefferson and had this discussion with a few friends before. Funny how liberals like to quote the funding fathers when they think it fits but they ignore everything else they say including how some of them felt the bible should be taught in public schools or keeping the size of government limited.

Fine.
You said that separation of church was "made up by the left". Are you then denying Mr. Jefferson's letter?
Or did you mis-state?

[Guest]

Nope. I'm pretty sure I know what the Constitution says. There's no denying that the Bible was regularly taught in public schools and played a major role in shaping our country.

Remember the "One Nation under God" thing?... or how about this "In God We Trust." I think it's still on our money in fact.

Patrick Henry said, "The Bible is a book worth more than all other books that were ever printed." Thomas Jefferson was the first President of the Washington D.C. school board which adopted the Bible as a primary reader.

So we went from the Bible in public schools to no crosses on public land and no prayer or ten commandments in schools.

So how's that been working out for us so far?

I hear the public schools in D.C are in dandy shape these days, no shootings in over a month now.

[Guest]

Nope. I'm pretty sure I know what the Constitution says. There's no denying that the Bible was regularly taught in public schools and played a major role in shaping our country.
Patrick Henry said, "The Bible is a book worth more than all other books that were ever printed." Thomas Jefferson was the first President of the Washington D.C. school board which adopted the Bible as a primary reader.


Once again, I am not disagreeing with your Constitutional or Biblical knowledge.
I am questioning your statement attributing church and state separation to the left.
You still have not defended that statement.

[Guest]

Yet another distortion from the far left... including some supreme court judges.

I've read the letter from Thomas Jefferson and had this discussion with a few friends before. Funny how liberals like to quote the funding fathers when they think it fits but they ignore everything else they say including how some of them felt the bible should be taught in public schools or keeping the size of government limited.

Yoda! You gettin' this ad hominem?

[Guest]

I am questioning your statement attributing church and state separation to the left.

I may be wrong. The ACLU could be a right wing organization. Or the one's that want In God We Trust taken off money, maybe they are right wingers.

Or how about the people that sue schools to have the Ten Commandments removed or sue schools so they can't say a prayer before a football game. Maybe they are conservatives.

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's the left.

[Guest]

Yoda! You gettin' this ad hominem?

I try to stay out of arguments that are backed by Wikipedia as a reference of proof.

Yoda

[Guest]

I may be wrong. The ACLU could be a right wing organization. Or the one's that want In God We Trust taken off money, maybe they are right wingers.
Or how about the people that sue schools to have the Ten Commandments removed or sue schools so they can't say a prayer before a football game. Maybe they are conservatives.
Nope, I'm pretty sure it's the left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danbury_Baptists
The Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut sent a letter, dated October 7, 1801, to the newly elected President Thomas Jefferson, expressing concern over the lack in their state constitution of explicit protection of religious liberty, and against a government establishment of religion.

In their letter to the President, the Danbury Baptists affirmed that "Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor..."

Thomas Jefferson's response, dated January 1, 1802, concurs with the Danbury Baptists' views on religious liberty, and the accompanying separation of civil government from concerns of religious doctrine and practice. Jefferson writes: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Thomas Jefferson a card carrying ACLU leftest? Doubtful.

[Guest]

I try to stay out of arguments that are backed by Wikipedia as a reference of proof.
Yoda

How about the Library of Congress?
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

"To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802."

[Guest]

I would disagree on the Roman Catholic Church comment regarding biblical/traditional practices. There are very few "constants" in this world, but the Roman Catholic Church rates as one. The Church moves at the equivalent pace of a glacier, and for good reason. There is sufficient confusion surrounding us, and the Church reminds us that species homo sapiens is not as smart as s/he thinks, especially when behavioral matters are involved. In a sea of radicalism and chaos, a safe harbor and an anchor are indeed welcome.

(No offense Maryann!)

Steve, I think that's why liberals & conservatives see two different worlds. Same in politics or religion. The Roman Catholic Church is not a constant at all. How do I come to that conclusion?

Well, First of all, in it's first 300 years, the Church evolved dramatically from an underground band of dreamers and schemers who were hated by both Jews and Rome, into a world dominating force that co-opted the Roman Empire, and was co-opted by Rome.

The Church moved from a radical affirmation of the power of the individual to achieve salvation through a DIRECT contact with the Holy Spirit to a multi-leveled system of both clergy and saints interceding- therefore blocking- a direct and personal relationship with God. That was all about power- which is what Rome, and all earthly powers are ultimately all about.

The priesthood did not even exist for the first 300 years. Christians were teachers, prophets, healers and elders. There was no evidence that "ordination" was necessary to celebrate a valid Eucharist. There was no requirement for a celibate priesthood until the 12th century, where it was instituted not for holiness sake, but to stop priests from passing on their land grants to their heirs. No wife, no legitimate heirs, and the Church kept the property.

Even more disturbing is to read the arguments against marriage and ANY intercourse as being filthy and an abomination when near the Eucharist.

The history of the Church is action-reaction, action-reaction, and I believe that you can no more say that Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism doesn't represent "arms" of an ever-changing Church than I could cut off my own arm and say, "That's not my arm any longer."

I'd say arguments to this would come rather easily from a conservative mindset, and they'd be valid. Rome is always Rome, the Pope is the Pope.

But I really support the more radical "view." The church is about change, about bringing people to a personal relationship- a transformative relationship-that empowers the individual. It's Liberation Theology v. traditional theology. It's working towards justice for the poor and disenfranchised rather than focusing on upholding the moral structure of a historically fallible institution.

Fallible? Well, we've had married popes (and priests and bishops), we've had sexually promiscuous popes, two sets of popes at the same time, murderous popes, armies of slaughter under popes, and even most recently, a pope who was seemingly silent about Nazi atrocities. Compare all of these behaviors to that of the early martyrs and founders**, who willingly gave their lives to uphold their faith in Jesus.

So, as a "liberal," the Church represents the open possibilities of working out my Christhood through the grace of God, not pounding my chest about the sinfulness of my human state. The Church holds great mysteries and lessons for transcending our human condition- but those lessons require leaps of faith. The Church exists not to keep us in a state of separation from God, but rather to encourage us to risk it all to become one with the Father. If we see the Church only as some solid, unchanging "rock" we tend not to take the risk of "Dieing to oneself" to be reborn again.

Two very different visions and, I believe irreconcilable ways of seeing our relationship to God, and of OUR relationship to the Church. "Unless a man dies unto himself, he cannot see the kingdom of Heaven." John 3-3. the Cross and sin mean nothing if we don't die on the Cross ourselves. Jesus shows us how to "Cross over." In fact the word "Cross" as in cross the line or criss cross comes from "crux"!

Well, I've taken this thread on a total tangent!

[Guest]

Can someone please restate the purpose of this rant? It has gone on so long that I have forgotten. There must be at least 2 positions.

Is it anti-religion?

Is it anti-American ?

Is it anti-constitutional?

Is it, is it, What the he.. is it?

Yoda:shrug:

[Guest]

ptowmrob - I just signed on and decided to look at the last page of this post. I read your summary of the church's history and started to wonder what the heck this entire post is about - not just yours but all the posts in this string. I do want to say that when you put together as many accurate facts as you have, coupled with logic, it makes it hard for the opposition to "chit chat". Whatever it's about, it sure is fun reading.:shrug: OK, my 3 AM break is over - back to bed.
Irish

[Guest]

(No offense Maryann!)

Steve, I think that's why liberals & conservatives see two different worlds. Same in politics or religion. The Roman Catholic Church is not a constant at all. How do I come to that conclusion?

Well, First of all, in it's first 300 years, the Church evolved dramatically from an underground band of dreamers and schemers who were hated by both Jews and Rome, into a world dominating force that co-opted the Roman Empire, and was co-opted by Rome.

The Church moved from a radical affirmation of the power of the individual to achieve salvation through a DIRECT contact with the Holy Spirit to a multi-leveled system of both clergy and saints interceding- therefore blocking- a direct and personal relationship with God. That was all about power- which is what Rome, and all earthly powers are ultimately all about.

The priesthood did not even exist for the first 300 years. Christians were teachers, prophets, healers and elders. There was no evidence that "ordination" was necessary to celebrate a valid Eucharist. There was no requirement for a celibate priesthood until the 12th century, where it was instituted not for holiness sake, but to stop priests from passing on their land grants to their heirs. No wife, no legitimate heirs, and the Church kept the property.

Even more disturbing is to read the arguments against marriage and ANY intercourse as being filthy and an abomination when near the Eucharist.

The history of the Church is action-reaction, action-reaction, and I believe that you can no more say that Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism doesn't represent "arms" of an ever-changing Church than I could cut off my own arm and say, "That's not my arm any longer."

I'd say arguments to this would come rather easily from a conservative mindset, and they'd be valid. Rome is always Rome, the Pope is the Pope.

But I really support the more radical "view." The church is about change, about bringing people to a personal relationship- a transformative relationship-that empowers the individual. It's Liberation Theology v. traditional theology. It's working towards justice for the poor and disenfranchised rather than focusing on upholding the moral structure of a historically fallible institution.

Fallible? Well, we've had married popes (and priests and bishops), we've had sexually promiscuous popes, two sets of popes at the same time, murderous popes, armies of slaughter under popes, and even most recently, a pope who was seemingly silent about Nazi atrocities. Compare all of these behaviors to that of the early martyrs and founders**, who willingly gave their lives to uphold their faith in Jesus.

So, as a "liberal," the Church represents the open possibilities of working out my Christhood through the grace of God, not pounding my chest about the sinfulness of my human state. The Church holds great mysteries and lessons for transcending our human condition- but those lessons require leaps of faith. The Church exists not to keep us in a state of separation from God, but rather to encourage us to risk it all to become one with the Father. If we see the Church only as some solid, unchanging "rock" we tend not to take the risk of "Dieing to oneself" to be reborn again.

Two very different visions and, I believe irreconcilable ways of seeing our relationship to God, and of OUR relationship to the Church. "Unless a man dies unto himself, he cannot see the kingdom of Heaven." John 3-3. the Cross and sin mean nothing if we don't die on the Cross ourselves. Jesus shows us how to "Cross over." In fact the word "Cross" as in cross the line or criss cross comes from "crux"!

Well, I've taken this thread on a total tangent!

Perhaps we need to spin this discussion off the political board completely, and request that a philosophy board, where such discussions may be more appropriate. I'd love the opportunity to continue the discussion , but off the pol-board.

[Guest]

Can someone please restate the purpose of this rant? It has gone on so long that I have forgotten. There must be at least 2 positions.

Is it anti-religion?

Is it anti-American ?

Is it anti-constitutional?

Is it, is it, What the he.. is it?

Yoda:shrug:

I think RANT was the key word in your post....

[Guest]

I think both sides look at the same thing in two different ways.

Generally liberals and or atheists tend to believe it means (separation of church and state so called) no government involvement or support of religion in any way.

Conservatives believe it means what the Constitution literally says, in that the government can't pass any laws with respect to religion.

It is very clear that religion i.e. the Bible was an every day part of government and our schools from day one.

Contrast that today where the ACLU and others have made every attempt possible to completely eliminate it from any government entity to the point where they will sue even of a city puts a nativity scene on city hall property or the school wants a prayer before a football game... or even the words in God We Trust on our money.

I don't think that's what Jefferson had in mind.... do you?

[Guest]

The makeup (diversity) of the U.S. is much different than in Jefferson's day. Laws need to reflect changes like this.

[Guest]

dklassen left off....aclu, et al.......that is their sole goal and purpose for existing. And the point to be made is these are much smaller organizations than ANY representative groups that support what these minority (not race!!) groups are against. YET, they get their way!

Until such time as the majority in this Country gets off the couch, off their cell phone, etc.....they will continue to be taken for a ride...that THEY themselves will deem ..."is not right".

Apathy, appears to be the incurable disease we are confronted with (for years). The Republicans lost the election ....by not a huge margin the numbers will tell us. And each of the religious infringements the aclu and others gain, yields more to their purpose.

And unfortunately the longer the apathy remains, the more it becomes an acceptable (to some) way of life. Then time will take a lot of us out of the majority and the apathy will become the norm.....BUT NOT BY THE MAJORITY ANY LONGER!!!


I have harped this for years.....to little avail...apathy doesn't seem to truly describe the loss of the values this country was founded upon.

We still have a few years left to shift the momentum, but I fear it will never happen....folks are just too busy.....:cus::censored:

BTK

[Guest]

Some want America to bend it's ways (or maybe bend over is the correct term) and do away with it's traditions in the name of diversity. I say if you want to be an American you need to respect our ways and traditions that have been with us since day one.

If you want to practice Buddhism, fine that is your First Amendment right and I support you 100%. However that doesn't mean that we have to take down our Ten Commands or nativity scenes so we don't offend Buddhists.

Well... some think we should. I'm not one of them.

[Guest]

Ptownrob loves to stir the pot and get people to react to him. His post here and his even more juvenile one "It's the villagers here who are out of touch!" are typical of middle school boys trying to sound smart. While the US was founded by men who believed strongly in Christian values and assumed they would always be the underpinning of this nation - it is clear today that we have largely moved away from these values.

[Guest]

I've got to agree, we've gone off on the wildest of tangents from a topic that started with whether we were founded as a "Conservative Christian Nation."

BBQ/Billie/Steve/Yoda & Dkl.. State that I love "to stir the pot." Well, first problem with that is the implication that somehow, you guys "own the pot"!!!
As far as I can tell, this is a political discussion board, not a "We are conservatives, come commiserate and agree with us" discussion board.

And yes, as you all know, whoever posts the first topic DOES steer the subsequent direction of the string (unless like this one, it goes wildly off course)

Ptownrob loves to stir the pot and get people to react to him. His post here and his even more juvenile one "It's the villagers here who are out of touch!" are typical of middle school boys trying to sound smart.

Aside from the personal attack (take note Yoda), you must be projecting a former student, or some unresolved issue onto me. No biggie. It just always bewilders, and bemuses me that both "sides" love to throw the very weakness they have at the other side.

Let's just leave it at "take the Plank from your own eye before removing the splinter of another." Or People who live in glass houses...or drawing sins in the sand. On a visceral side, it's that energy you get from saying, "GOTCH-YA" without realizing or recognizing that the only one who got "got" was the speaker. Shakespeare (Hamlet) called it being hoisted by one's own petard.

Dem. Elliot Spitzer caught with prostitutes after preaching all sorts of morality.
Rush getting caught with 3,000 oxycontin tablets after preaching for stronger drug laws.
Jimmy Swaggert & Jim Bakker getting caught with whores after preaching judgment against those who practiced infidelity.
Ted Haggard condemning homosexuality while using male prostitutes and crystal meth.

So BBMan, while you seem so quick to judge "me" you seem unwilling to accept that I am not a nation to myself. I represent the positions and opinions of tens of millions of Americans who love this country as much as you claim to, except we choose to display that love in a way that seems to threaten the conservative mindset. If you knock this straw man (me) down, then the reality of your rants will suddenly have all the Truth of God the Conquering Hero returning to His chosen country.

I'm not against having the 10 Commandments up in public places, or allowing a minute of silence in public schools for, "prayer or reflection- according to one's beliefs or desires." And I don't believe that means every other faith or belief has to be equally represented. I would object to public students being forced to recite the Lord's Prayer or Ten 'Hail Marys'. I would object to government paying for some statue or monument, or of it being placed in such a manner as to "block" entry to a building, as the judge in Kansas unsuccessfully tried to do.

Billie, I believe you mistake "apathy" for millions who simply don't agree with you. You rant about the greatness of this nation, yet when it doesn't move, or doesn't stay traditional, then you rant about apathy and the ACLU.

The ACLU is a valuable organization in this nation, as is the NRA or any other advocacy group that seeks to keep our Constitutional Rights safe and untrod upon. Without the ACLU, government has no "check" to balance it against tyranny. And don't count on corporate controlled media to stand up for you.

For example, no one would have brought suit to expose what is rapidly becoming a scandal about torture that Americans were carrying out at the same time the President was swearing to the UN that "Americans don't torture."

I'm presupposing that you find that whole exercise distasteful or anti-American, when in fact, millions of Americans believe investigations of these abuses represent the BEST of America.

[Guest]

Ptown.

There was no personal attack on you. In fact there was no attack on you – either implied or actual. If you believe that I am ‘judging you’ by describing your teabaging comment as juvenile and simply middle school sexual maturity, you are either dead wrong or totally disconnected from reality. Your teabaging post was clearly juvenile. If you are so inclined, please tell me/us why, “dipping your teabags on John McCain's head” was not, at best, a middle school rant. As to, “the Truth of God the Conquering Hero returning to His chosen country.”, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about – do you?

Ptown, You are a bright and capable person. Please stop the kos comments and start using your own mind.

[Guest]

I've got to agree, we've gone off on the wildest of tangents from a topic that started with whether we were founded as a "Conservative Christian Nation."

BBQ/Billie/Steve/Yoda & Dkl.. State that I love "to stir the pot." Well, first problem with that is the implication that somehow, you guys "own the pot"!!!
As far as I can tell, this is a political discussion board, not a "We are conservatives, come commiserate and agree with us" discussion board.

And yes, as you all know, whoever posts the first topic DOES steer the subsequent direction of the string (unless like this one, it goes wildly off course)



Aside from the personal attack (take note Yoda), you must be projecting a former student, or some unresolved issue onto me. No biggie. It just always bewilders, and bemuses me that both "sides" love to throw the very weakness they have at the other side.

Let's just leave it at "take the Plank from your own eye before removing the splinter of another." Or People who live in glass houses...or drawing sins in the sand. On a visceral side, it's that energy you get from saying, "GOTCH-YA" without realizing or recognizing that the only one who got "got" was the speaker. Shakespeare (Hamlet) called it being hoisted by one's own petard.

Dem. Elliot Spitzer caught with prostitutes after preaching all sorts of morality.
Rush getting caught with 3,000 oxycontin tablets after preaching for stronger drug laws.
Jimmy Swaggert & Jim Bakker getting caught with whores after preaching judgment against those who practiced infidelity.
Ted Haggard condemning homosexuality while using male prostitutes and crystal meth.

So BBMan, while you seem so quick to judge "me" you seem unwilling to accept that I am not a nation to myself. I represent the positions and opinions of tens of millions of Americans who love this country as much as you claim to, except we choose to display that love in a way that seems to threaten the conservative mindset. If you knock this straw man (me) down, then the reality of your rants will suddenly have all the Truth of God the Conquering Hero returning to His chosen country.

I'm not against having the 10 Commandments up in public places, or allowing a minute of silence in public schools for, "prayer or reflection- according to one's beliefs or desires." And I don't believe that means every other faith or belief has to be equally represented. I would object to public students being forced to recite the Lord's Prayer or Ten 'Hail Marys'. I would object to government paying for some statue or monument, or of it being placed in such a manner as to "block" entry to a building, as the judge in Kansas unsuccessfully tried to do.

Billie, I believe you mistake "apathy" for millions who simply don't agree with you. You rant about the greatness of this nation, yet when it doesn't move, or doesn't stay traditional, then you rant about apathy and the ACLU.

The ACLU is a valuable organization in this nation, as is the NRA or any other advocacy group that seeks to keep our Constitutional Rights safe and untrod upon. Without the ACLU, government has no "check" to balance it against tyranny. And don't count on corporate controlled media to stand up for you.

For example, no one would have brought suit to expose what is rapidly becoming a scandal about torture that Americans were carrying out at the same time the President was swearing to the UN that "Americans don't torture."

I'm presupposing that you find that whole exercise distasteful or anti-American, when in fact, millions of Americans believe investigations of these abuses represent the BEST of America.

Nicley Put!!! They are way to many people and views of different opinions on here to set back and call the kettle black. Heck I guess now a days that would be politically incorrect to make that statement. Bottom Line is he made a statement, and seems he believes in this statement. Why is he so wrong for having that view of things. I agree we should not change or take down our nativity scenes either. But things changes, things move in different directions, things happen for a reason.

But just because one person views it differently than some of us dont make them a uneducated person. Many times I have wanted to just sit here and write a huge rebuttal to most of this, but why cut a person off at the knee for saying something. Talking about middle school BS that is. One of those he hurt my feelings now take that back rants.

Say No More...

Money Out