It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats are against the First Commandment.

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
I thought it would be fun to post Piglosi's comment on "the word".

Watch the part when the reporter deals Piglosi a blow-PRICELESS.

"When was the word made, was it at the annunciation when Jesus was conceived by the power of the holy spirit as the creed says, or was it at the nativity when he was born of the Virgin Mary and when did the word get the right to life?"

Response-

"We bow our heads when we talk about it in Church."

Anytime a POLITICIAN uses spirituality they are selling their soul.

The question and answer is at 1:04





posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


Okay so I did a bit more research as well as watching the whole interview, and sorry I am getting back to this so late, or in my case early but I did get some sleep haha!

Glad you slept, ProjectJjimmy. For a change that happened here too...it must have been time...hahal! Thanks for this great analysis.



It almost sounds like she is talking about Christian Dominionism, at least she skirts close to it. I don't want to put words into the candidate's mouth too much here but at least some of her ideas are borrowed from the movement.

When I started reading your post, i said, whoa. Christian Dominionism is something I read a bit about a while back, when researching Xe (then Blackwater). Dominionism was my initial gut reaction when I heard her, but I said, naw can't be...it's your imagination. I don't want to put words in her mouth either. This is a pretty serious thing.


The thinking here is that an American nation that operates under biblical principals will be a blessed and favored nation in the eyes of God. Instead of divine retribution, there would be a set of positive consequences, miracles and the like placed upon the given nation.

Ugh. Favored nation. Where have we heard this before?here.]This [/url] was an interesting read.


Christian Dominionism is split between hard and soft approaches, but the end result is to at least infuse American law and governance with a conservative Christian version of biblical law, if not replace it outright.

This hit me immediately too...and stuck with me...when I heard the interview. So did the thought that they want their own country...or ours.


Generally the Dominionist will hold at least in some form or another that the United States Founding Fathers were Christians, and envisioned a Christian nation at the founding of the country. They can go so far as to believe that the 1st Amendment applies to different denominations of Christianity as opposed to all religion, and that the Treaty of Tripoli is in error, although others instead believe simply that such things need to be changed in order to bring them into line with Christian thought instead of being designed as such outright.

Hence the references that pop up with great regularity of America being "a Christian nation?" Replace the First Amendment with the First Commandment?


Some conservative Christian Republicans in the past have attempted to run on platforms that included a few of the aspects of Dominionism, such as Governor Huckabee's intention to write God into the US Constitution during his presidential run in 2008, but generally the American voting populace has largely rejected these attempts and sought out a more moderate interpretation of religion in politics.

I remember this vividly...and we must continue to reject it. It's dangerous. I can think of a few others who might have this leaning, and I'm almost convinced that it played a great role in the first two presidential elections in the 2000s. Check out the interview with Katherine Harris on the page I linked above.


There is also a large portion of Christians that reject the ideas of Dominionism, specifically anyone whom would have problems with Neo-Calvinism as those wishing to turn a given nation into a Christian one draw heavily upon it.

Okay, neo-Calvinism I had to look up. So Dominionists would have issues with this: The New Calvinism?


Most moderate and liberal denominations within the United States specifically also harshly criticize Dominionists because of teachings in the Bible that dictate differentiation between religions and nations. These ideas of separation became more popular within mainline Protestantism and Catholicism during the Early-Modern period, which is around the same time the United States was founded.

This explains a lot. Now a question or three. I want to be sensitive here, but here goes.

Could this explain some of the very close ties between some of the Christian churches in America and Israel? There are some churches here in the south that I can only describe as "fortresses." Huge buildings and complexes (I often wonder where they get the money to build such things. I guess being tax exempt helps with that!_ And sometimes they fly the Israeli flag.

Hypothetically speaking, if Dominionists were to get their way and have a , how the heck do we think they would they deal with the non-Christians and even Christians opposed to Dominionism? The American diaspora? (That was facetious...I think.)

I guess the good news here is that she's currently behind in the polls. The bad news is that she's running against Reid. The other good news is...well I don't know. LOL

[edit on 8/5/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 

I've actually visited the Guidestones. It's a very strange experience. A totally deserted spot near a cow pasture. The minute we pulled up a police car came and sat and watched us look around. I honestly don't know what to make of that whole thing. How do you think this is related to say what Angle is saying or maybe to Dominionism?
 

reply to post by endisnighe
 

That was one of the strangest things to come along in a while. Sort of out of the blue. I swear if I didn't erm know better, I'd think someone has "taken her over."

[edit on 8/5/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
this is why religion should stay out of politics. when politicians want to make laws based on a mythical being written down in a book from 2,000 years ago, then those people should not be in charge of making any discisions for anyone else.
i don't know why this is so hard for people to grasp. most westerners have a good understanding on how to use critical thinking skills in and around their lives. the ONLY "religion" i personally live by is the "golden rule"...it is simple to understand, no church needs to be built, no sermons, no praying, no people to run it, no money needs to be spent...."do unto others, as you would have them do unto you"...there is no more that needs to be preached or practiced.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 

If only everyone could come to an agreement about how important it is to separate the two. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 





The Democratic Party as a whole though generally tends to follow the Carter Doctrine when it comes to religion, keeping their faith more private and generally not using it to score political points by wearing it on their sleeves.


The Carter Doctrine has nothing at all to do with keeping religious faith private:


The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," Carter proclaimed:


Further, Jimmy Carter did not keep his faith private, and is famously misquoted: "I have lusted in my heart", from a Playboy Interview in 1976:


Because I'm just human and I'm tempted and Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. The Bible says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Christ said, I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery. I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times.... This is something that God recognizes, that I will do and have done, and God forgives me for it. But that doesn't mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock. Christ says, don't consider yourself better than someone else because one guy screws a whole bunch of women while the other guy is loyal to his wife. The guy who's loyal to his wife ought not to be condescending or proud because of the relative degree of sinfulness.


More recently Nancy Pelosi gave a speech to some Catholic Cardinals that can be seen in part here. She was most assuredly using her religious faith to score political points. John Kerry's website states:


Not long after John Kerry was born, the family settled in Massachusetts. Growing up there, his parents taught him the values of service and responsibility and the blessings of his Catholic faith, lessons John Kerry carries with him to this day.


Senator Harry Reid, of whom Sharon Angle is running against, was named Mormon of the year: 2009 by Times and Seasons Magazine, a Mormon publication. In 2007, Reid gave an address to Brigham Young University, titled Faith, Family, and Public Service where he talks openly of his faith, quotes the Gospels often, and speaks to his conversion as a Mormon. He can be heard saying:


"In the struggle of evil, only faith matters"


It is somewhat of a media mis-characterization that only the Republican Party speaks openly about their faith. Many who oppose the Republican Party are not Democrats, and I am one who opposes the Republican Party and am not Democrat. However, there is a left wing biased political agenda that does all it can to ignore the open courting of religious votes from Democratic Party politicians. Both parties use their religious faith, those that have one, to court the religious vote.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Good points, Jean. Both sides do use it. One side, though, does seem to have attracted most of the radical fringe element. Just my observation.

I'm all FOR keeping your faith out of politics and campaigning or even voting based on it. But that's just me. We can't really stop anyone from doing this. They have the right.

I'll tell you where I see a fuzzy line though...campaigning from the pulpit. If churches get involved in attempting to sway votes, campaign, seek donations for candidates, and set policy and even lobby for things like government contracts for their members, we might want to reconsider their tax-exempt status.

I don't know if what I just said even makes sense...I don't know how to crystallize this thought, but it seems like there's some sort of weird connection there that doesn't make sense itself.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
The mixing of religion and politics in the US makes me wanna puke tbh. Political decisions should be based on LOGIC, FACTS, and RATIONALITY. Religion doesn't adhere to those principles, so it should stay the hell away from politics.

Wanna believe in a god??? Fine!! But do it without using it as an excuse/reason to vote one way or the other...because if you do, you throw common sense, logic, rationality and facts out of the window and replace them with BLIND FAITH AND BELIEF. Quit acting like blind sheep and start using your brains instead of blind belief!



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Ah ha! Here are a couple of threads I found on ATS sort of related to this...or Dominionism. I haven't read through them yet, so I'm not recommending them...just putting them out there in case anyone is interested.

The Links Between Blackwater, CIA, Politics, Hitler and The " New Christianity"
Sarah Palin a Secret Agent for Dominionist Christianity?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


That dumb "mamma grizzly" woman doesn't deserve to be mentioned!! Now she acts like she's a friggin' mamma bear looking out for her children...when in reality she didn't even have the balls to complete her official term. And why??? Simple really: SHE FIGURED OUT THAT SHE CAN MAKE MORE MONEY BEING A SOUL-LESS SELLOUT WHO TELLS PEOPLE EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANNA HER...no matter how wrong/stupid/ridiculous her statements are. People are soooo easy to manipulate through emotions, too stupid to look at facts...



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Okay...weedwhacker,,,watched the video you posted. Yikes.

Here are another couple from YouTube. One goes beyond Angle and into the Independent American party, which she was a member of for six years. Erm sounds like this party might have had a few members from ATS, including me


Here's a good one. Angle attacks Reid over 'coked-up stimulus monkeys'

Yes, they're Rachel Maddow, but...





[edit on 8/5/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

OMG they're referring to her as the new leader of the feminist movement? That woman makes me cringe to belong to the same gender.

Looks like there might be a connection between the two fruitcakes...Sarah Palin to Sharron Angle: Stay Strong

It's great material for comedy though...video here of Daily Show






[edit on 8/5/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   


She'd totally deserve a body-check like that considering the sellout she is...

John Cleese analyzed her better than I ever could:




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 





Good points, Jean. Both sides do use it. One side, though, does seem to have attracted most of the radical fringe element. Just my observation.


If by fringe element you mean the Christian right, I don't really think these people constitute being a marginal, peripheral, or secondary part, as fringe is defined in this context. The Christian right article I linked has this to say about that group:


Defining the Christian Right is the first task of this essay. At the end of the 1980s, it was commonly assumed that the Christian Right consisted entirely of evangelical Protestants. Polls from that period suggested that evangelical Protestants comprised the majority of adherents, but many members of the Christian Right were not evangelical Protestants, and many evangelical Protestants were not members of the Christian Right. More precisely, the Christian Right drew support from politically conservative Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and occasionally secularists.


A Wikipedia article about the Christian right begins as such:


The Christian right (also known as the religious right and the evangelical bloc) is a term used predominantly in the United States of America to describe a spectrum of right-wing Christian political and social movements and organizations characterized by their strong support of conservative social and political values. The politically active social movement of the Christian right includes individuals from a wide variety of conservative theological beliefs, ranging from traditional movements within Baptist, Mormon, and Calvinist organizations to groups within Lutheranism, Calvinism and Catholicism that are more theologically conservative than the denominations as a whole.


An article written by Steven Waldman in the Huffington Post is titled The Religious Left is As Big As the Religious Right, which does break down both sides as being 12.7% and 12.9% respectively, which I suppose both constituting just a little more than 10% each, could be viewed as fringe elements, but one of the things the Wikipedia article points out is that the Christian right became visible because of their proclivity for turning out in huge numbers to vote, so while they may represent only a little more than 10% of the U.S. population, they represent a higher percentage of the voting population, or at least once did. As a 2007 Time Magazine claims evangelicals are "deserting the Religious Right in droves"

Whether they truly be a fringe element or not, it is genuinely hard to tell because most Americans tend to keep their religious faith more private, and as such, that faith may have much to do with how they vote, even if they do not vocally declare it so.




I'll tell you where I see a fuzzy line though...campaigning from the pulpit. If churches get involved in attempting to sway votes, campaign, seek donations for candidates, and set policy and even lobby for things like government contracts for their members, we might want to reconsider their tax-exempt status.


The IRS does have a regulation called "The Johnson Amendment" which was enacted in 1954 that prohibits pastors from endorsing a political candidate at the pulpit.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Hah!!

...funny....and Palin is the gift that keeps on giving, especially because she's been out there longer. I see incredible parallels with Sharron Angle, though (just to keep this to topic)...

Still...anyone been following the "Doonesbury" strips lately? Been a joyous poke at the "Tea Party", and Palin in particular. Is Sharron Angle also "angling' for Tea Party endorsements???

This is just too delicious not to share...from a recent "Doonesbury" panel:


"Everything she says is programmed in. Her brain is empty. Sarah's a dummy, a shiny plaything, a cipher, a blank, a total nothing... not a thought in her head, just a piece of plastic crap."


The set-up is a little girl with a rafter of toys --- dolls --- that speak to her, and are plotting various "Tea Party" activities, etc.

Here, this site has (by permission, one hopes) a few of the recent strips:

The Immoral Minority blogspot

Perhaps they'll get into Sharron Angle soon??




[edit on 5 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 





The Democratic Party as a whole though generally tends to follow the Carter Doctrine when it comes to religion, keeping their faith more private and generally not using it to score political points by wearing it on their sleeves.


The Carter Doctrine has nothing at all to do with keeping religious faith private:


The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," Carter proclaimed:


Further, Jimmy Carter did not keep his faith private, and is famously misquoted: "I have lusted in my heart", from a Playboy Interview in 1976:


Because I'm just human and I'm tempted and Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. The Bible says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Christ said, I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery. I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times.... This is something that God recognizes, that I will do and have done, and God forgives me for it. But that doesn't mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock. Christ says, don't consider yourself better than someone else because one guy screws a whole bunch of women while the other guy is loyal to his wife. The guy who's loyal to his wife ought not to be condescending or proud because of the relative degree of sinfulness.


More recently Nancy Pelosi gave a speech to some Catholic Cardinals that can be seen in part here. She was most assuredly using her religious faith to score political points. John Kerry's website states:


Not long after John Kerry was born, the family settled in Massachusetts. Growing up there, his parents taught him the values of service and responsibility and the blessings of his Catholic faith, lessons John Kerry carries with him to this day.


Senator Harry Reid, of whom Sharon Angle is running against, was named Mormon of the year: 2009 by Times and Seasons Magazine, a Mormon publication. In 2007, Reid gave an address to Brigham Young University, titled Faith, Family, and Public Service where he talks openly of his faith, quotes the Gospels often, and speaks to his conversion as a Mormon. He can be heard saying:


"In the struggle of evil, only faith matters"


It is somewhat of a media mis-characterization that only the Republican Party speaks openly about their faith. Many who oppose the Republican Party are not Democrats, and I am one who opposes the Republican Party and am not Democrat. However, there is a left wing biased political agenda that does all it can to ignore the open courting of religious votes from Democratic Party politicians. Both parties use their religious faith, those that have one, to court the religious vote.


That is the Carter Doctrine on Middle East policy. Now President Carter also was very private regarding his faith while in office, and I have personally heard Democrats refer to their more private professions of faith to be called the "Carter Doctrine" as well. It is also what we call it in a few of our files here.

As for your proclaimed media bias to paint the Republicans as religious nuts, I never would call all of them in the pocket of the Religious Right, not by a long shot.

However when you have more than half of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates openly professing that they do not believe in evolutionary theory at a debate, opposing same-sex marriage and abortion, giving massive amounts of government funding to religious charities, forming "Faith Based Initiatives" offices in government and bringing up Dominionist ideas, yes I will say that those are in fact not things I have seen coming from the Democrats in large numbers.

You can cite individual and isolated cases all you like, but what I am referring to here is a larger trend within the Republican Party. This started in earnest under President Regan, which in turn lead to his falling out with Barry Goldwater.

All one actually has to do to see the alliance that has been formed between the GOP and the Religious Right is to look at polls, or simply listen to the media of the Christian conservatives. It is right there, and willfully ignoring it is just as bad as supporting this erosion between church and state in my mind.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   


If the GOP wants any credibility, they have to stop catering to America's village idiot!



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 





That is the Carter Doctrine on Middle East policy. Now President Carter also was very private regarding his faith while in office, and I have personally heard Democrats refer to their more private professions of faith to be called the "Carter Doctrine" as well. It is also what we call it in a few of our files here.


The Carter Doctrine is not called The Carter Middle East Doctrine to distinguish it from a second doctrine where Carter holds that faith should be held more privately than publicly, and as I demonstrated by linking to an excerpt of the famous Playboy interview, Jimmy Carter did not, by any stretch of the imagination, keep his religious beliefs private.


"We should live our lives as though Christ were coming this afternoon."


~Jimmy Carter~ (From a speech given in 1976)


"Since I was 18 years old, I have taught the Bible. For the last fifteen or twenty years, I have taught every Sunday when I was home or near my own house, so that would be 35 or 40 times per year. Half of those Sundays, the text comes from the Hebrew Bible. I have had a deep personal interest in the Holy Land and in the teachings of the Hebrew people. God has a special position for the Jewish people, the Hebrews, or whatever. I know the difference between ancient Israel and Judaea, and I know the history. I don’t have any problem with the Jewish people."


~Jimmy Carter~


"The unchanging principles of life predate modern times. I worship Jesus Christ, whom we Christians consider to be the Prince of Peace. As a Jew, he taught us to cross religious boundaries, in service and in love. He repeatedly reached out and embraced Roman conquerors, other Gentiles, and even the more despised Samaritans."


~Jimmy Carter~ (Nobel Lecture; Oslo, Norway 2002)

As to your characterization that:




However when you have more than half of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates openly professing that they do not believe in evolutionary theory...


Consider a poem written by Jimmy Carter titled A Contemplation of What Has Been Created and Why.

Then there is this remark by Jimmy Carter regarding abortion:


"For instance, I have never believed that Jesus Christ would approve either abortions or the death penalty, but I obeyed such Supreme Court decisions to the best of my ability, at the same time attempting to minimize what I considered to be their adverse impact."


~Jimmy Carter~ (as quoted by John Meacham from American Gospel: God, The Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation.

It is fair to say that those "more than half" of the Republican politicians have also acquiesced to the Supreme Court decision.

Jimmy Carter has been more than upfront and unabashedly willing to discuss his religious faith. You and your Democrat buddies can call this idea of keeping religious beliefs whatever you want, it is your right to do so, just as it is your right to call a table a thingamaflop if you so choose. Of course, if you tell someone to put the casserole on the thingamaflop, it should come as no surprise that you will more than likely get strange looks of confusion, and at some point you will either have to point to the table, or simply just call it a table. The Carter Doctrine is what it is, and it is not a doctrine of keeping religious beliefs private, regardless of what you have in your files.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I guess I was defining fringe as people who really are out to take control of the government in the name of god.

I was just reading this about something called the Constitution party. Check it out.


The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

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 and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.


They're saying on this page that Angle has "deep ties" to this party? As well as to the Independent America Party I mentioned earlier.

[edit on 8/5/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


I agree about President Carter because I remember noticing and thinking about this a lot. It was one of the many things I respected him for. He was and still is a man of very strong faith, but the knows how to separate his private faith from government.

In private interviews and after he left office and in his books he expounds on his faith. But while he was campaigning for and in office he did not mix the two. Contrast him with Bush-43, who misspoke on the subject so many times, I lost count around 2004.


[edit on 8/5/2010 by ~Lucidity]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join