Question about "attacks" on Christians

[disgracian]

I am sorry, but this struck me as quite funny. He is HERE because Christians are forcing their beliefs on him?

Yes, I am trying to change the world by ranting on Loveshack.

 

In all seriousness, this is merely an outlet for my frustrations. As an individual who seems to be in the minority, there is not much I can do. Political parties are very keen to pander to vocal Christians because they so often represent the deciding vote. You can see this by visiting http://www.australiavotes.org, and it will be of little surprise that I plan on voting for the LDP this year. Maybe I can get them a seat in the senate or something.

(And let's not forget disgracian, you are married to a Christian...that still puzzles me when you feel "forced" to accept Christianity. But that is your personal business...although it does not mesh with your concerns.)

If every Christian was more like my wife then this world would be a significantly better place. In fact I would have no problem with it at all. I still wouldn't be one, but it would not impose upon me and would instead be a benign and entirely positive influence on the world.

I highly doubt that anyone gets dragged to the Spirituality forum and forced to believe anything.

It's funny how I can point out three or four times (and other people can also point it out as well, thanks Enema) that I'm not talking about this silly forum when I talk about being imposed upon by religion, and it just doesn't sink in.

 

Thanks for the grand lecture about how message forums work, but rest assured that you're preaching to the choir here, if you'll pardon the pun. Please, James and Moose, do let me know when you finally get it.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

 

If every Christian was more like my wife then this world would be a significantly better place. In fact I would have no problem with it at all. I still wouldn't be one, but it would not impose upon me and would instead be a benign and entirely positive influence on the world.

 

It's funny how I can point out three or four times (and other people can also point it out as well, thanks Enema) that I'm not talking about this silly forum when I talk about being imposed upon by religion, and it just doesn't sink in.

 

Thanks for the grand lecture about how message forums work, but rest assured that you're preaching to the choir here, if you'll pardon the pun. Please, James and Moose, do let me know when you finally get it.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Those were very kind words about your wife. I know of some who fit that same description as well, but yes, I know some who seem to think that if everyone thought as they did, we would all be better for it.

 

I am sorry if you didn't think I "got it." I know you aren't coming here attempting to change the world. I was just quoting Enema in his phrasing that you were here...

 

He's here because christians are forcing their beliefs on him.

 

I knew that this is not how he meant it, but it came across to me that way.

 

SO, your input is appreciated...even if it is wrong. Okay, joke...relax.

 

Now shall we sing a hymn?

[Yosef]

Wow, disgracian, I can't tell you how much I agree with you. I would absolutely DESPISE when someone would try to convince me to be atheist, or to be buddhist, or pagan, or whatever. That's specifically their business, and they need to leave me out of it. I will beleive whatever I very well please, and whatever makes me a better person in actions and words.

 

I personally hate to evangalize unless they ask me. I could never push myself to go up to someone and convince them to believe in Christianity. It disgusts me, and makes me want to look away, when someone is yelling that everyone should turn to God. It is the second-most-thing that disgusts me.

 

Mind if I join in the singing?

[lonelybird]

I should speak something about mordern evangalizer. they have passion about Lord about people, the driven of their action is out of love, because they are perfectly knowing that none of us are good enough to deserve salvation, we are all same, it is God's grace that saved us and want others to share, and realize that they are just tools that God uses. yes, they make mistakes, but they are doing things. maybe they used wrong methods maybe not, but one thing for sure they have passion and love for people, despite of knowing that rejection will come to their way, they still want people to be saved. I very appreciate them, if without their reaching out to me, I am still living in darkness today. although I am checking myself about the method to approach people, I made many mistakes, maybe still do, Lord teaches me to improve my mistakes

 

to bring gospel out is the work that Lord asked us do. should nay-sayer think about again, cristicize the ones doing things or find out a more effective way to reach people? anyway no one is perfect here, why the criticism? disclaim a people who made mistakes will not make yourself look good.

[disgracian]

Now shall we sing a hymn?

Are you partial to koombya?

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moose]

That's two piles of BS for the price of one. You have made the most ridiculous, cliched and false generalisations about atheists out of all the Christians on this forum.

AH.....it worked....! Now you're finally, "Getting it".....

They apply to almost nobody except the imaginary atheist that exists only in your prejudices.

First off, I'm not prejudice. I purposely through that out there to see what kind of, "Call the kettle black", reaction I would receive, and it totally turned you around.

 

Now I'm getting the kind of response I've been looking for from posters like you:

I, on the other hand, am at least intelligent enough to recognise that if you judge any group of people by its worst members then everybody is guilty, so I don't.

(even though the, "so I don't part" could be argued a tad)

There are a lot of people for whom their religious faith inspires them to do wonderful things and become better people. I recognise that.

I would like people to respect other beliefs by recognising the similarities and the positive elements of those beliefs, rather than screaming "infidel!" or "heathen!"

And the following posts all have a totally different tone now.

 

That's all that I ask for are posts like this that doesn't place EVERY Christian on the chopping block.

 

So what do you say to other people who come here and post something like this?:

We are in a debate forum. We are here to "convert" and help people think critically.

Just what do you think this person is talking about? Personally, they'll not get a response from me simply because of a deleted remark that I saw before the mods got to it......but do you think they meant it as dropping my faith? Or do you think they meant it as each and every one of us should not make quick assumptions about our personal beliefs?

 

Because in the same post, they remarked:

I am glad that I am not an atheist living in Saudi Arabia, because Muslims are violent. Jews are racist. Christians are annoying and all are mostly ignorant.

Is that even handed enough?

It's too hard for me to tell. Is this person claiming to be an atheist.....or not?

 

AND, regardless if they're talking specifically about me being ignorant, the claim is that most Christians are.

 

What would you have a Christian to do when we read nonsense like this? And how do you think that kind of post reflects with the kind of posts you leave? Especially when you don't take the time like you have the last few posts to be careful about specifics?

 

I've already gotten personal messages from others who've noticed your tone took a 180 after you read what I wrote.....we can get along after all....

[Moai]

I don't think so. You seem to place Christianity as a battle between intellectuals. It's not.

 

Believe it or not, there are thousands, probably millions of Christian who are a lot brighter than you.

 

The battle however isn't over intellect, it's over morality.

 

Atheist just want a, "no excuse because there is no cause for one" society.

 

No, we don't. We want a society based on reason. That's it.

 

Could you clarify what "no excuse because there is no cause for one" means? I don't quite follow.

 

You are correct that intellect has nothing to do with it. While it is true that most atheists are better educated on the whole than larger society, that in and of itself doesn't mean anything.

 

I read somewhere that 40% of MENSA members believe in UFO visitation. Beyond the fact that having a club based on your IQ is pretentious and stupid, it shows that intelligence doesn't guarantee reaching the correct conclusion.

 

Get rid of all the Christians on Earth.....what would you have? How would you decipher what is right and what is wrong?

 

The same way we do now. Reason. The majority of the Earth doesn't follow Christian morality (which I admit in many cases is flat-out barbarism) right now.

 

Determining right and wrong isn't that difficult, and you don't need religion to do it. I know slavery is wrong because I don't want to be a slave. I know murder is wrong because I don't want to be murdered. And on and on.

 

Do you think that the Hebrews were stealing and murdering each other (they were murdering members of other tribes, certainly) before the Ten Commandments? How did the Egyptians develop an advanced civilization without those "commandments"--seeing as how they weren't the people to receive them?

 

Who get's to decide?

 

In a free society, all of us. Just like now. I hope you are not suggesting that Christians are the only ones who get t determine morality for everyone else.

 

Come on and tell us where the world would be right now if we had it your way? I'm curious.....really.....

 

If we had it "my" way, stem-cell research would be getting all sorts of funding, people wouldn't need security 24 hours a day because they criticized Islam, children would be getting adequate science education, and girls would get an HPV vaccine before high school. For starters.

 

By the way, Happy Thanksgiving! I hope that you and your family are well and healthy.

[Moai]

I've got news for you, it's never going away.....

 

Every religion dies. Norse gods died, Greek gods died, the gods of the Aztecs are long gone. Your religion will be no different.

 

Nobody is forcing you to stay in, "your" country.....are they?

I have no desire to live anywhere else.

 

The majority of us do treat our faith as personal. Others ask us, and we tell them.

If that is so, there is a very vocal minority out there.

 

Contrary to popular belief, America was founded by our Christian forefathers who put religion in our government and society themselves.

False. God is not mentioned ONCE in the Constitution of the United States. The majority of our Founding Fathers were deists. Look it up. The Constitution forbids any religious test for those seeking public office. Also, look at what they had to say about Christianity:

 

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." - Thomas Jefferson

 

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson

 

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson

 

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?" - John Adams

 

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" - John Adams

 

"Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents." - John Adams

 

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" - John Adams

 

"[Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects." - James Madison

 

I could go on and on. Anyone who tells you that the Founding Fathers were Christians and that we are supposed to be a "Christian" nation are LYING.

 

Those that do so are hoping to establish a theocracy in the United States, period. They are liars, and evil.

 

And you wonder why there are Christian Evanglists? You're just as guilty being emotionally motivated for a, "personal" cause.Man.....honestly, I would leave too....

I know that I am. I like freedom and hate totalitarianism, regardless of who is advocating it. IN the US, it is evangelical Chirstians.

[lindya]

The same way we do now. Reason. The majority of the Earth doesn't follow Christian morality (which I admit in many cases is flat-out barbarism) right now.

 

Determining right and wrong isn't that difficult, and you don't need religion to do it. I know slavery is wrong because I don't want to be a slave. I know murder is wrong because I don't want to be murdered. And on and on.

 

But people don't simply operate on reason, and they have needs that pure logic (and, in some cases, other people) can't or won't meet.

 

In a way, religion's a socially acceptable comfort blanket for adults. Telling them they are loved. Providing all kinds of promises of eternal bliss that might be illogical....but that give people comfort when they need comfort. People can't be shamed out of the need for comfort...and they'll often turn to religion because rather than telling them they're just weak and foolish, it accepts that need and says "here's a new, socially acceptable feel-good crutch for you. One you can use as part of a group. It's free, widely available and socially acceptable.

 

At it's worst, the church is all the things that atheists talk about, but there's that other side of it that promotes a sense of happiness, peace and contentment in many people's lives. A source of support that helps them to stop using other forms of support (eg substances) that have caused problems in their lives. Atheism can be very attractive in that it carries that inherent suggestion "I need no crutch. I can handle the cold, hard facts of life head on using pure reason to get by." On the other hand, I think churches often act as the heart in small communities, and I'd be sorry to see them laughed and reasoned out of existence.

[disgracian]

AH.....it worked....! Now you're finally, "Getting it".....I purposely through that out there to see what kind of, "Call the kettle black", reaction I would receive, and it totally turned you around....Now I'm getting the kind of response I've been looking for from posters like you...I've already gotten personal messages from others who've noticed your tone took a 180 after you read what I wrote.....we can get along after all....

You'd love to think it was all about you. Actually my change of "tone" was in response to JamesM's post, not any of yours. I don't think you and I will ever get along because your views and attitude are too much for me to stomach most of the time.

 

Cheers,

D.

[burning 4 revenge]

On the other hand, I think churches often act as the heart in small communities, and I'd be sorry to see them laughed and reasoned out of existence.

In Cuba the images of the saints were often just fronts for evil African deities and in the hour of the waxing moon the primative santeros would slaughter goats and chickens and spray the warm blood on satanic altars while chanting in the hideous Bantu dialect and they would puff on cigars and spit rum on sacrificial animals

[Moose]

You'd love to think it was all about you. Actually my change of "tone" was in response to JamesM's post, not any of yours. I don't think you and I will ever get along because your views and attitude are too much for me to stomach most of the time.

 

Cheers,

D.

Oh well, either way it's all good.....

Could you clarify what "no excuse because there is no cause for one" means? I don't quite follow.

I just meant it seems to me that most atheists I come across don't mind doing pretty much anything they want with little or no remorse.

 

There isn't a, "higher power" or any morality police to worry about.....

Anyone who tells you that the Founding Fathers were Christians and that we are supposed to be a "Christian" nation are LYING.

Thanks for the quotes.....I'll need to do some more research obviously....

By the way, Happy Thanksgiving! I hope that you and your family are well and healthy.

Thanks Moai, back at ya friend!

[taiko]

 

 

I know that I am. I like freedom and hate totalitarianism, regardless of who is advocating it. IN the US, it is evangelical Chirstians.

 

Curious what about Christianity in the United States is totalitarian? The term politically correct and the totalitarian codes it enforces come from the other side. The other side which forces a box to be put over a war memorial to hide its Christianess from American eyes. The side which forbides a public prayer which mentions God but not Jesus or Christ. The side which in Europe forbids the wearing of distinctive cultural clothing and headwear.

[lindya]

In Cuba the images of the saints were often just fronts for evil African deities and in the hour of the waxing moon the primative santeros would slaughter goats and chickens and spray the warm blood on satanic altars while chanting in the hideous Bantu dialect and they would puff on cigars and spit rum on sacrificial animals

 

Awww. You're only saying that to make me feel better.

 

Off topic - I wish you would write a book. You've got that magic realism thing down pat.

[shadowofman]

Ok, so I rambled a bit and said some things that were not fair and got punished. I made ignorant generalizations that are not my actual opinions.

Sorry everyone, and especially Moose. I was just kind of ticked that you seemed to imply that non-believers should leave the country. You probably don't actually think that either.

All I have to say, is that I'm not intending to attack believers, only the belief.

And your faith in belief. I'm attacking that too. But that's not attacking the person or suggesting that you have no right to believe whatever you want. Only that I don't have to respect any beliefs. No thought is sacred.

[taiko]

False. God is not mentioned ONCE in the Constitution of the United States. The majority of our Founding Fathers were deists. Look it up. The Constitution forbids any religious test for those seeking public office. Also, look at what they had to say about Christianity:

 

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." - Thomas Jefferson

 

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson

 

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson

 

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?" - John Adams

 

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" - John Adams

 

"Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents." - John Adams

 

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" - John Adams

 

"[Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects." - James Madison

 

I could go on and on. Anyone who tells you that the Founding Fathers were Christians and that we are supposed to be a "Christian" nation are LYING.

 

Those that do so are hoping to establish a theocracy in the United States, period. They are liars, and evil.

 

 

On the other hand many of the original 13 colonies were established as religous sanctuaries. The founding document was the Declaration of Indepenence and the Articles of Confederation. In Ken Burns Civil War I remember a quote: the war cause people to say the United States is instead of the United States are. A quick google search pulled up these quotes from those original state constititutions and colonial charters

 

New jersey Constitution

that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects."

 

Deleware

Article 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either House, or appointed to any office or place of trust... shall take the following oath:

'I _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, One God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration

 

'Connecticut

Article VII. Section 1. It being the duty of all men to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the Universe, and their right to render that worship in the mode most consistent with the dictates or their consciences, no person shall by law be compelled to join or support, nor be classed with, or associated to, any congregation, church, or religious association; but every person now belonging to such congregation, church, or religious association, shall remain a member thereof until he shall have separated himself therefrom, in the manner hereinafter provided. And each and every society or denomination of Christians in this State shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights, and privileges; and shall have power and authority support and maintain the ministers or teachers of their respective denominations, and to build and repair houses for public worship by a tax on the members of any such society only, to be laid by a major vote of the legal voters assembled at any society meeting, warned and held according to law, or in any other manner."

 

Georgia

Article VI. Representatives... shall be of the Protestant religion

 

North Carolina

Article XXXII. That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

 

South Carolina

3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion

 

Pennslyvania

Section 10... shall each [representative] before they proceed to business take... the following oath or affirmation:

'I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration

 

It seems that the people represented at the Constitution Convention were a bit more "Christian" then those chosen to see that the different Christian sects could form into a nation

[Moai]

Curious what about Christianity in the United States is totalitarian?

 

The Dominionist movement. They are neo-Fascists, with a distinctly Christian bent. Look up D. James Kennedy, for starters. Pat Robertson is one of them, as was Ted Haggard.

 

They believe (wrongly) that the US was set up to be a Christian thoecracy and that somehow that was forgotten, and that they and ONLY they are qualified to govern it.

 

History is not on their side, so they need to lie about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution in order to gain support.

 

The term politically correct and the totalitarian codes it enforces come from the other side.

 

Yes, political correctness is stupid. As far as a "totalitarian code" goes, I am not sure what you mean.

 

The other side which forces a box to be put over a war memorial to hide its Christianess from American eyes.

 

Reference, please? Never heard of this. If it is a memorial that is paid for with taxpayer dollars and is specifically Christian, said memorial is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. The same could be said if it had a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Ba'Hai message.

 

The side which forbides a public prayer which mentions God but not Jesus or Christ.

 

Reference? Public prayer is not forbidden. Prayer at a public event that is paid for with taxpayer dollars is. For example, if students want to pray before a football game, that is totally fine. However, once you use the PA system to broadcast said prayer, that is illegal.

 

Also, just mentioning "god" is illegal because there are people who are not monotheists. Buddhists postulate no deity, for example.

 

Common sense should tell you that this is a good idea. Let's say that we allow Christian prayers, led by the principal of a school. He happens o be Catholic. You are not. Now, every time your child goes to school he is forced to pray to the Virgin Mary. Because the school is paid for with your taxes, you are paying to have your child to convert to Catholicism.

 

Let's say we allow prayer in school, and we insist that it must be a Hindu prayer. That's cool with you, right?

 

Now, you might say that the majority of people aren't Hindu (in the US) that wouldn't be fair, but the point is that the minority is protected FROM the majority in this country.

 

If you really want your child to pray in school, you are free to send him or her to a private school and have them pray to your hearts content.

 

Religion flourishes in the US because the government stays out of it. You should be glad. But, like most Christians I have encountered, you don't understand our Constitution or the ideas behind it, and you think that because you cannot force others to practice your religion you are being oppressed.

 

The side which in Europe forbids the wearing of distinctive cultural clothing and headwear.

[Moai]

On the other hand many of the original 13 colonies were established as religous sanctuaries.

 

Perhaps. But that all goes out the window when the Constitution was ratified. Benjamin Franklin suggested that by law a prayer should be said to open each meeting of the Convention, and that was rejected.

 

The founding document was the Declaration of Indepenence and the Articles of Confederation.

 

Nope. Neither of these documents has a shred of weight in the governance of the United States.

 

By the way, you know that the "creator" and "god" referred to in the Declaration is not Jesus, right?

 

In Ken Burns Civil War I remember a quote: the war cause people to say the United States is instead of the United States are. A quick google search pulled up these quotes from those original state constititutions and colonial charters

 

New jersey Constitution

that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects."

 

Deleware

Article 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either House, or appointed to any office or place of trust... shall take the following oath:

'I _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, One God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration

 

'Connecticut

Article VII. Section 1. It being the duty of all men to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the Universe, and their right to render that worship in the mode most consistent with the dictates or their consciences, no person shall by law be compelled to join or support, nor be classed with, or associated to, any congregation, church, or religious association; but every person now belonging to such congregation, church, or religious association, shall remain a member thereof until he shall have separated himself therefrom, in the manner hereinafter provided. And each and every society or denomination of Christians in this State shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights, and privileges; and shall have power and authority support and maintain the ministers or teachers of their respective denominations, and to build and repair houses for public worship by a tax on the members of any such society only, to be laid by a major vote of the legal voters assembled at any society meeting, warned and held according to law, or in any other manner."

 

Georgia

Article VI. Representatives... shall be of the Protestant religion

 

North Carolina

Article XXXII. That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

 

South Carolina

3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion

 

Pennslyvania

Section 10... shall each [representative] before they proceed to business take... the following oath or affirmation:

'I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration

 

It seems that the people represented at the Constitution Convention were a bit more "Christian" then those chosen to see that the different Christian sects could form into a nation

 

Yep, and all those articles are ILLEGAL. Read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

 

Does ONE of those states have a religious test for political office? Hmmm?

 

James Madison was a devout Christian, and one of the staunchest supporters of secular government. Read the Federalist papers.

 

When the Constitution was ratified, fully 2/3 of the people in the US freaked out and called the Founders Satanists (among other things) because of the document's secular nature. Even then, Christians wanted to oppress everyone else. Just like you want to now. But it didn't work then, and it won't work now--that is, until you pick up a gun and have a go, in which case I will see you on the field.

[JamesM]

Moai, you and I don't usually agree...I suppose that is an understatement. Anyhow, sometimes you do bring up some interesting points that make sense. But here I would like to bring to your attention some generalizations.

 

I could go on and on. Anyone who tells you that the Founding Fathers were Christians and that we are supposed to be a "Christian" nation are LYING.

 

Those that do so are hoping to establish a theocracy in the United States, period. They are liars, and evil.

 

First off, I can link you to plenty of websites that can show that the "Founding Fathers" were indeed believers in a God and many if not the majority, were Christians. Here is one that lists each and the religious affiliation for each. You picked quotes for the ones who are deists or unitarians it seems. I can find quotes for those you chose and many others that indicate a different mindset than what you propose.

 

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

 

However, that is entirely a different issue from if this nation was founded for the purpose of promoting the Christian religion. And on this we can agree. It WAS founded on Christian principles, but the evidence does not show that the intent was to promote one belief over another. Fact is...the intent seems that no one religion should be "the government religion." This was because that many of the original immigrants to America came from countries where a particular religion was promoted while oppressing those who were different. The role of Christianity in this nation's formation is not without disagreement, but Patrick Henry said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship."

 

And despite your comment, most of those who do believe that America was founded on Christian principles do not want the US to be set up as a theocracy. Much as I think Christianity is the truth, I have no interest in making this a theocracy...for many reasons.

 

And to simply label all people who can show that this is true as liars and as evil is simply a hasty generalization without having met them.

 

Hmmm.... Moai is an atheist. Moai is a clamper and clampers like to drink. All atheists are clampers and like to drink.

 

 

I like freedom and hate totalitarianism, regardless of who is advocating it. IN the US, it is evangelical Chirstians.

 

Again, based on your information, it is SOME evangelical Christians...certainly not all. (Of course, that is very questionable. I quote Kennedy below.) Also, there are some who are not evangelical Christians who would like to see a theocracy. Personally, I consider myself an evangelical Christian, and I like freedom, and I don't like any sort of totalitarianism. And I do not want a Christianity that is government controlled.

 

Benjamin Franklin suggested that by law a prayer should be said to open each meeting of the Convention, and that was rejected.

 

Truth and untruth. Yes, Franklin's request was rejected because...

 

"1 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 452 (1911). His proposal was rejected not because the Convention was opposed to prayer, but because it was thought that a midstream adoption of the policy would highlight prior omissions, and because "[t]he Convention had no funds." Ibid.; see also Stokes at 455-456.

 

You can find this here.... http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0463_0783_ZO.html

 

I doubt this suggests anything regarding the Convention's view on Christianity.

 

The Dominionist movement. They are neo-Fascists, with a distinctly Christian bent. Look up D. James Kennedy, for starters. Pat Robertson is one of them, as was Ted Haggard.

 

They believe (wrongly) that the US was set up to be a Christian thoecracy and that somehow that was forgotten, and that they and ONLY they are qualified to govern it.

 

History is not on their side, so they need to lie about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution in order to gain support.

 

I love it...the "Domionist movement." We give them a name now. I had to go to Wikipedia to find this definition.

 

Dominionism describes, in several distinct ways, a tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action — aiming either at a nation governed by Christians or a nation governed by a Christian understanding of biblical law. The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy.

 

But if it makes you feel good labeling Christians as evil tyrants out to dominate the world, then so be it. It certainly is a distortion of any Christian I have ever met...politicians included.

 

I am not sure where you get your information. I hope it isn't from sites that misquote to support the belief that all Christians are evil and out to rule this country. Dr. Kennedy is now dead, but yes, I agreed with many of his doctrines. While he was a social conservative and did want more social conservatives in the government, I never read that he wanted to rule this nation nor did he think he was the only one qualified. I know from his own words...see below...he did NOT want this country to be a theocracy.

 

You seem to like to loosely use the word fascist. I guess if it helps paint the picture of those evil Christians...so be it. But here is a definition of fascists...

 

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fascist

 

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

 

I suppose you want to change a political movement into a religious movement, but it does distort the definition. And you are comparing fascism..an autocracy to a theocracy.

 

Definition of an autocracy.... http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/autocracy

Definition of a theocracy.... http://m-w.com/dictionary/theocracy

 

The difference is that a theocracy is divinely guided by definition, while an autocracy is simply one person who has unlimited power. The theocracy can be one or many people. You are jumping to unsupported conclusions with your arguments.

 

Again, as stated above, I think you have misstated statements of these evangelical Christians. While they may believe that the US was founded on Christian principles, this is a far cry from saying that it was a theocracy.

 

Here is a quote from a book by D James Kennedy called A Christian Perspective on the Issues. While you may not agree with him, he definitely states that he is not for a theocracy.

 

A THEOCRACY?

Modern secularists often accuse the religious Right of calling for a theocracy in America. Despite these claims, I am not advocating a theocracy. I am only trying to restore the truth that Christianity is, and always has been, a fundamental component in the marketplace of ideas. Throughout history, there has been only one theocracy, and that was the state of Israel in the time of the Old Testament. God alone ruled then. There was no legislature. The Sanhedrin was simply a supreme court. There was but one lawgiver.

 

That system of law stopped with the destruction of Israel, ending the only theocracy in history. I would not have America reinstitute the Old Testament civil and legal systems to replace our governmental legislation. Those laws are merely a guide to the kinds of laws that civil governments should form today. I do believe that the laws of every nation should be in harmony, not with the civil laws of the Old Testament, but at least with the moral laws of the Ten Commandments.

 

Jesus lived under that theocracy, but His death and the subsequent dispersal of Israel brought an end to it. By His Spirit working through the early church, it is very clear that He did not mean to perpetuate the theocratic system throughout the whole world. Even at the first council at Jerusalem, they said, “We had a system of laws that we ourselves could not bear, and now we should not try to impose this on the Gentile world” (see Acts 15:10). I believe the church has been acting in accordance with Christ, as He revealed His will through His Spirit to the early church.

 

And one last quote from you....

 

When the Constitution was ratified, fully 2/3 of the people in the US freaked out and called the Founders Satanists (among other things) because of the document's secular nature. Even then, Christians wanted to oppress everyone else.

 

I am not sure where you obtained such information, but even if it is true....since when has opposition equaled oppression? I think if we look around in every situation where someone opposes government, those that disagree can call it an attempt at oppression. Based on this, I guess opposition by Christians is not allowed. Oh wait....then THEY would be oppressed.

 

Interesting "attacks" and labels for Christians.

[Moai]

Moai, you and I don't usually agree...I suppose that is an understatement. Anyhow, sometimes you do bring up some interesting points that make sense. But here I would like to bring to your attention some generalizations.

 

Fire away!

 

First off, I can link you to plenty of websites that can show that the "Founding Fathers" were indeed believers in a God and many if not the majority, were Christians. Here is one that lists each and the religious affiliation for each. You picked quotes for the ones who are deists or unitarians it seems. I can find quotes for those you chose and many others that indicate a different mindset than what you propose.

 

James Madison was a devout Christian, as were many others I am sure. That doesn't mean that they set this country up as a "Christian Nation." That is the point of contention. It would seem that you agree with me that they set the country up to be religion-neutral. That is the truth, and I think it is a great idea. And that is also why religion flourishes in the United States.

 

The Treaty of Tripoli, ratified at the end of George Washington's term of office, states, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [bold text mine]

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

[/quote

 

Thanks for the link.

 

However, that is entirely a different issue from if this nation was founded for the purpose of promoting the Christian religion. And on this we can agree. It WAS founded on Christian principles, but the evidence does not show that the intent was to promote one belief over another.

 

Which principles would those be, exactly?

 

Fact is...the intent seems that no one religion should be "the government religion."

 

Exactly.

 

This was because that many of the original immigrants to America came from countries where a particular religion was promoted while oppressing those who were different. The role of Christianity in this nation's formation is not without disagreement, but Patrick Henry said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship."

 

James Madison argues in the Federalist Papers that if a form of Christianity is made official, on-Christian immigrants would be reluctant to emigrate here, and thus be evangelized. Interesting point, really.

 

And despite your comment, most of those who do believe that America was founded on Christian principles do not want the US to be set up as a theocracy. Much as I think Christianity is the truth, I have no interest in making this a theocracy...for many reasons.

 

I didn't say that all Christians want the US to be a theocracy, I said Dominionists do. All Christians are not Dominionists, but all Dominionists are Christians.

 

And to simply label all people who can show that this is true as liars and as evil is simply a hasty generalization without having met them.

 

No, it isn't. I have heard D. James Kennedy speak and heard him lie myself, I have seen his videotapes where he spreads his lies, and I have seen Ted Haggard speak, and lie, and he dmitted to a homosexual affair and possession of speed--though he denies using it. I doubt that is true, given his track record. The man behind "Wallbuilders", David Barton, got caught fabricating quotes and documents from Founding Fathers both in his books and on his website. Here is a website that lists the errors and fabrications he makes:

 

http://candst.tripod.com/bartchron.htm

 

I don't think that I was being hasty, nor do I think that I was generalizing.

 

Hmmm.... Moai is an atheist. Moai is a clamper and clampers like to drink. All atheists are clampers and like to drink.

 

I do not lump all Christians into the Dominionist camp, nor do I think that all Christians are liars. A lot of them are, but a lot of them aren't. Perhaps in your zeal to defend your faith, you read things into my post that aren't there. Or maybe I was unclear. I hope this clears that up.

 

Again, based on your information, it is SOME evangelical Christians...certainly not all. (Of course, that is very questionable. I quote Kennedy below.)

 

Yes, it is SOME. A very vocal SOME.

 

Also, there are some who are not evangelical Christians who would like to see a theocracy. Personally, I consider myself an evangelical Christian, and I like freedom, and I don't like any sort of totalitarianism. And I do not want a Christianity that is government controlled.

 

Groovy. I think most people would agree with us, which is why the Dominionists feel the need to lie about the issue, I think.

 

Truth and untruth. Yes, Franklin's request was rejected because...

 

"1 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 452 (1911). His proposal was rejected not because the Convention was opposed to prayer, but because it was thought that a midstream adoption of the policy would highlight prior omissions, and because "[t]he Convention had no funds." Ibid.; see also Stokes at 455-456.

 

What was untrue about what I mentioned? Did they pass a law requiring prayer or not? If it was a question of money, why not chip in privately if those who wanted prayer felt so strongly about that?

 

You can find this here.... http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0463_0783_ZO.html

 

I doubt this suggests anything regarding the Convention's view on Christianity.

 

Read the document that resulted, and you can see that they may have loved it privately (and some wrote that they hated it) but they wanted it as far from government as possible.

 

I love it...the "Domionist movement." We give them a name now. I had to go to Wikipedia to find this definition.

 

A Presbyterian minister wrote a book about them that is very good but his name escapes me. What is wrong with naming them?

 

But if it makes you feel good labeling Christians as evil tyrants out to dominate the world, then so be it. It certainly is a distortion of any Christian I have ever met...politicians included.

 

Again, only some. Hence the term "Dominionists". Catholics have a name, Methodists have a name and Baptists have a name. Big whoop.

 

I am not sure where you get your information. I hope it isn't from sites that misquote to support the belief that all Christians are evil and out to rule this country.

 

I am not aware of any websites like that. That wasn't my position on the previous post, and it isn't my position now.

 

Dr. Kennedy is now dead, but yes, I agreed with many of his doctrines. While he was a social conservative and did want more social conservatives in the government, I never read that he wanted to rule this nation nor did he think he was the only one qualified. I know from his own words...see below...he did NOT want this country to be a theocracy.

 

Write away for some of his videotapes.

 

You seem to like to loosely use the word fascist. I guess if it helps paint the picture of those evil Christians...so be it. But here is a definition of fascists...

 

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fascist

 

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

 

Fits the Dominionists pretty well, I'd say.

 

I suppose you want to change a political movement into a religious movement, but it does distort the definition. And you are comparing fascism..an autocracy to a theocracy.

 

Definition of an autocracy.... http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/autocracy

Definition of a theocracy.... http://m-w.com/dictionary/theocracy

 

The difference is that a theocracy is divinely guided by definition, while an autocracy is simply one person who has unlimited power. The theocracy can be one or many people. You are jumping to unsupported conclusions with your arguments.

 

No, I am not. The government that the Dominionists outline is a fascist theocracy. They don't use those words, but I do. Read their stuff.

 

Again, as stated above, I think you have misstated statements of these evangelical Christians. While they may believe that the US was founded on Christian principles, this is a far cry from saying that it was a theocracy.

 

No, they say that it was SUPPOSED to be a theocracy, and that "liberal courts" and homosexuals and immoral idolators have stolen it form those to whom it rightfully belongs. Meaning them.

 

Here is a quote from a book by D James Kennedy called A Christian Perspective on the Issues. While you may not agree with him, he definitely states that he is not for a theocracy.

 

He says that he isn't, then describes exactly that. He is also wrong that Israel was the only theocracy in history. Tibet, until invaded by the Chinese, was a theocracy. Afghanistan, until we invaded, was a theocracy. Iran could be described as a theocracy. The fact that he doesn't even know should tell you all you need to know about his "research."

 

And one last quote from you....

 

From textbook titled, "Major Problems in Early America." It had essays and newspaper articles about different issues surrounding the founding of the Country.

 

I am not sure where you obtained such information, but even if it is true....since when has opposition equaled oppression?

 

It doesn't, and I never said that it did. The oppression I refer to is outlines in the Letter to Thomas Jefferson by the Danbury Baptists. The were clearly being oppressed. Jefferson's response was where the term "separation of church and state" comes from. What they describe goes beyond just disagreement. Hence the term "oppression."

 

I think if we look around in every situation where someone opposes government, those that disagree can call it an attempt at oppression. Based on this, I guess opposition by Christians is not allowed. Oh wait....then THEY would be oppressed.

 

Interesting "attacks" and labels for Christians.

 

Christians are not oppressed. No religion in the US is oppressed. I know that Christians FEEL oppressed when they can't force their religion on others, but they are wrong.

 

As far as labels for Christians go, they label themselves. Catholic" is a label, "Protestant" is a label, and "Dominionist" is a label. You aren't Amish, are you? They are Christians, right? Is it wrong ro describe them based on their beliefs, seeing as how they may be Christians but believe differently than others?

[FleshNBones]

There was a time when athiests shared the public square with Christians, and other groups. They have grown belligerent, and now want to monopolize. What makes it worse is they are circumventing the democratic process, and are resorting to extortion and intimidation through our court system. Why win people over when you can bankrupt them?

 

I know there are atheists who consider the sound of church bells a form of forced conversion.

[JamesM]

Welcome back...you were off for a few days. Another clampout?

 

I could go on and on. Anyone who tells you that the Founding Fathers were Christians and that we are supposed to be a "Christian" nation are LYING.

 

James Madison was a devout Christian, as were many others I am sure.

 

Thank you. Your first statement said that if anyone tells you that the Founding Fathers were Christians..well, they are a liar. This is where I pointed out the link to you.

 

You are correct...we agreed that the intention was not to set up any particular religion as the religion of the government. However, despite the diplomatic statement mentioned by Washington, the general impression throughout history has been that the US is a Christian nation. That is because we have promoted Christian values. But the government was not set up as a theocracy.

 

I have heard D. James Kennedy speak and heard him lie myself, I have seen his videotapes where he spreads his lies,

 

I cannot argue with what you heard, but if he stated that there is a God, then in your opinion he lied. And if said that God created the earth, then in your opinion he lied. So I grant you...based on your worldview, he is a liar.

 

Personally, I have watched many video clips, listened to many sermons over a number of years, read some of his books, and even watched his funeral service. Those "lies" you indicated slipped by me.

 

I don't think that I was being hasty, nor do I think that I was generalizing.

 

I do. You drew conclusions about some individuals and then proceeded to imply a "vast right wing Christian evil empire" poised to take over America.

 

As for Ted Haggard, I have never followed his ministry. I cannot speak about it. He shamed his ministry, church and God with his recent scandals. There is no defense for that...I think you know I never spin that sort of thing no matter who the person.

 

What is wrong with naming them?

 

Nothing is wrong with naming a correct belief or "movement." However, to create a movement and begin to lump all conservative Christians into it simply because they would like to see more Christian values in government is incorrect. Many Christians I know have that viewpoint, but they are not interested in having a so called theocracy. Yet because they are considered conservative Christians, they are considered extreme. Your example of the Amish is not incorrect. But to begin including all farmers who go to church under the Amish moniker would be incorrect.

 

I do not lump all Christians into the Dominionist camp, nor do I think that all Christians are liars. A lot of them are, but a lot of them aren't.

 

Good, but not even all conservative Christians are in that camp. In fact if one were to actually find out how many Christians would truly be Dominionist by the definition, it would hardly be enough to be concerned with. But if the definition is broadened to include any conservative Christian who wants influence aspects of government with Christian principles, then it WOULD be a considerable population.

 

From Cornell University's website.....

 

"1 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 452 (1911). His proposal was rejected not because the Convention was opposed to prayer, but because it was thought that a midstream adoption of the policy would highlight prior omissions, and because "[t]he Convention had no funds." Ibid.; see also Stokes at 455-456.

 

Your quote regarding that same meeting....

 

Perhaps. But that all goes out the window when the Constitution was ratified. Benjamin Franklin suggested that by law a prayer should be said to open each meeting of the Convention, and that was rejected.

 

So your question....

 

What was untrue about what I mentioned? Did they pass a law requiring prayer or not? If it was a question of money, why not chip in privately if those who wanted prayer felt so strongly about that?

 

A proposal is not a law. No law was suggested, so you are correct...no law was passed. This was simply a proposal. Having been in many meetings, a suggested proposal is a lot different than passing a law. As was stated, this had nothing to do with accepting or rejecting the concept of prayer in government. No one felt strongly about it..nor did they expect an atheist to use this as proof that they did not want prayer in government.

 

A Presbyterian minister wrote a book about them that is very good but his name escapes me.

 

Probably D James Kennedy. (Oh, BTW, Kennedy was a Presbyterian minister.) I am not familiar with the book, but from what I have read, this movement was named to cover the Christian right by a sociologist and a journalist...Sara Diamond and Frederick Clarkson. As I said earlier, this name has been controversial even by many who are not Christians.

 

The government that the Dominionists outline is a fascist theocracy. They don't use those words, but I do.

 

Can't argue with that. You rule.

 

He is also wrong that Israel was the only theocracy in history. Tibet, until invaded by the Chinese, was a theocracy. Afghanistan, until we invaded, was a theocracy. Iran could be described as a theocracy. The fact that he doesn't even know should tell you all you need to know about his "research."

 

Hmmm..you are stretching it here. You and I both know that he is referring to a true Christian theocracy. By your definition of his statement, then yes. And then there even more. But reading his book, this is not what he is meaning. He is accused of wanting a Christian theocracy, and in his opinion, Israel during Bible times fits that description. If THIS is how you label someone a liar, I lose...you win.

 

You aren't Amish, are you?

 

I love it. As Moai types to me and I respond on a computer which is never allowed in the Amish communities (exceptions are there, I am sure), he asks if I am Amish.

 

Yes, I am. I am using my laptop while my boy drives me home in my buggy.

 

Seriously I don't say that to put them down. I have been in their communities and houses. They are respectable people. They are very kind and courteous. One can never forget how they handled the shooting in Pennsylvania. But no, I am not one.

 

Anyhow, let's not drag this one out into arguments back and forth. You have some good points. I understand where you are coming from. I have disagreements with you in some areas as I pointed out to you. For some reason, there are some of us (and I am just as guilty as the rest) who end up derailing threads on this board. maybe we can keep from doing this. I guess since I started this, I guess I should end it. You may have the last word.

[NoIDidn't]

Interesting points JamesM and Moai.

 

It is a bit extreme to throw out the *liar* label so much. We can't know those things for certain.

[Moai]

Welcome back...you were off for a few days. Another clampout?

 

ha! No, holiday madness.

 

Thank you. Your first statement said that if anyone tells you that the Founding Fathers were Christians..well, they are a liar. This is where I pointed out the link to you.

 

Thank you for pointing that out, I can see where it would seem that I meant NONE were Christians, and that is clearly not the case. The Wallbuilders, etc. claim that they all were Christians, though.

 

You are correct...we agreed that the intention was not to set up any particular religion as the religion of the government. However, despite the diplomatic statement mentioned by Washington, the general impression throughout history has been that the US is a Christian nation. That is because we have promoted Christian values. But the government was not set up as a theocracy.

 

It is a Christian nation if you are describing it based on the major religion of the people here. No doubt about it. But if you are describing the government it is a secular country.

 

I cannot argue with what you heard, but if he stated that there is a God, then in your opinion he lied. And if said that God created the earth, then in your opinion he lied. So I grant you...based on your worldview, he is a liar.

 

I wouldn't call someone who professes a belief in god a liar. By your logic above, anyone who says that there is one god and Mohammad is his prophet is a liar, since you don't believe that, right?

 

Now, if a man said to me that god told him personally that I should give him my car, I'd think he was lying. Wouldn't you?

 

Personally, I have watched many video clips, listened to many sermons over a number of years, read some of his books, and even watched his funeral service. Those "lies" you indicated slipped by me.

 

My aunt is a big fan, and used to leave his tapes around my mom's house. I also saw a leaflet that had some books you can buy, and he had some Creationist titles available. That tells me all I need to knwo right there, but if you like I'll go through the titles I have and give you some specifics.

 

I do. You drew conclusions about some individuals and then proceeded to imply a "vast right wing Christian evil empire" poised to take over America.

 

I never used those terms once. I don't think that the movement is vast, not by a long way. At the moment it is a small, very vocal minority.

 

As for Ted Haggard, I have never followed his ministry. I cannot speak about it. He shamed his ministry, church and God with his recent scandals. There is no defense for that...I think you know I never spin that sort of thing no matter who the person.

 

I know you don't, but he was a BIG proponent of a theocratic America. He used to talk to George Bush about policy every Monday.

 

Nothing is wrong with naming a correct belief or "movement." However, to create a movement and begin to lump all conservative Christians into it simply because they would like to see more Christian values in government is incorrect.

 

I didn't lump all conservative Christians into it. I am a Libertarian myself, so I often agree with conservative Christians. I never agree with Dominionists.

 

Here is a quote for you, from the Religious Tolerance website:

 

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"Dominionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought. Its followers, called Dominionists, are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of United States so that they match those of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious choice and freedom."

 

And:

 

[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"All religious organizations, congregations etc. other than strictly Fundamentalist Christianity would be suppressed. Nonconforming Evangelical, main line and liberal Christian religious institutions would no longer be allowed to hold services, organize, proselytize, etc. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs outside of their home would be tried for idolatry and executed. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would also be executed. At that time that this essay was originally written, this was the only religious movement in North America of which we were aware which advocates genocide for followers of minority religions and non-conforming members of their own religion. Since then, we have learned of two conservative Christian pastors in Texas who have advocated the execution of all Wiccans." [/FONT]

 

Many Christians I know have that viewpoint, but they are not interested in having a so called theocracy. Yet because they are considered conservative Christians, they are considered extreme. Your example of the Amish is not incorrect. But to begin including all farmers who go to church under the Amish moniker would be incorrect.

 

Ok. I have said repeatedly that I do no think that all Christians are Dominionists. At all. Not remotely. But there are Christians out there who are. That's it. My mother is a Christian and not a Dominionist. I don't think you or Moose are Dominionists. I don't think that the Pope is a Dominionist. I don't think that the 800 million or so Catholics on Earth are Dominionists. I don't think the Baptists are Dominionists. But I do think that all of the above are all Christians, and I think that Dominionists are Christians.

 

Good, but not even all conservative Christians are in that camp. In fact if one were to actually find out how many Christians would truly be Dominionist by the definition, it would hardly be enough to be concerned with.

 

Any group that advocates theocracy and totalitarianism is a group to be concerned with. Perhaps that is where we differ.

 

But if the definition is broadened to include any conservative Christian who wants influence aspects of government with Christian principles, then it WOULD be a considerable population.

 

Who is broadening it? Certainly not me. If there is someone out there doing that, I recommend that you address them, instead of aruging with me about things I didn't write and don't believe.

 

A proposal is not a law. No law was suggested, so you are correct...no law was passed. This was simply a proposal. Having been in many meetings, a suggested proposal is a lot different than passing a law. As was stated, this had nothing to do with accepting or rejecting the concept of prayer in government. No one felt strongly about it..nor did they expect an atheist to use this as proof that they did not want prayer in government.

 

How do you know? And it doesn't matter if an atheist doesn't want prayer in government, Christians didn't want prayer in government, either.

 

Probably D James Kennedy. (Oh, BTW, Kennedy was a Presbyterian minister.)

 

I know, and he was also a ballroom dance instructor.

 

I am not familiar with the book, but from what I have read, this movement was named to cover the Christian right by a sociologist and a journalist...Sara Diamond and Frederick Clarkson. As I said earlier, this name has been controversial even by many who are not Christians.

 

Yes, it's true. Look at Pat Robertson and his attempt to control the courts. I don't think that most Christians agree with him, though.

 

Can't argue with that. You rule.

 

Thanks!

 

Hmmm..you are stretching it here. You and I both know that he is referring to a true Christian theocracy. By your definition of his statement, then yes. And then there even more. But reading his book, this is not what he is meaning. He is accused of wanting a Christian theocracy, and in his opinion, Israel during Bible times fits that description. If THIS is how you label someone a liar, I lose...you win.

 

I wouldn't call him a liar based on that, just wrong. And wrong about something astonishingly simple.

 

I love it. As Moai types to me and I respond on a computer which is never allowed in the Amish communities (exceptions are there, I am sure), he asks if I am Amish.

 

I was being rhetorical/sarcastic.

 

Yes, I am. I am using my laptop while my boy drives me home in my buggy.

 

Super.

 

Seriously I don't say that to put them down. I have been in their communities and houses. They are respectable people. They are very kind and courteous. One can never forget how they handled the shooting in Pennsylvania. But no, I am not one.

 

I know. I was being rhetorical/sarcastic.

 

Anyhow, let's not drag this one out into arguments back and forth. You have some good points. I understand where you are coming from. I have disagreements with you in some areas as I pointed out to you. For some reason, there are some of us (and I am just as guilty as the rest) who end up derailing threads on this board. maybe we can keep from doing this. I guess since I started this, I guess I should end it. You may have the last word.

 

Thanks.

[Topper]

James m The list you provide of the religious affiliations of the Founding Fathers has been debunked.

29 of the 50+ who attended the 1787 convention were affiliated with a Christain Chruch 3 were Catholic the rest some Protestant denomination or the other. The remained were not religious

The most profound people of influence were Deist and not Christian.

Patrick Henry was a very devote man. i can see him saying something like what you have quoted. yet that would have been just his opinion.