Theocracy in America

bin ladens bad but heres a taste of an american christian terrorist:

COR's goals do not exclude violence in accomplishing them. At a 1989 COR conference, one well known evangelist suggested that Christians should pray that God would kill all of those leaders who are opposing Dominion Theology. Then later in the week, another well known pastor from the Dallas area suggested that God is purging his church and purifying it for a great revival, and that believers need to be willing to use violence if necessary in order to help bring in the kingdom. This violence message is really scary. The call to be willing to use violence to bring the kingdom can't be more clear--even if that violence is directed against Christian brothers and sisters. "

Thomas,

I am a servant of God as he is a friend of mine. And I also oppose this absurdity of gay marriage as well as individuals desire for it. What's up with that And thank you for the constructive advice, I have eaten 3 hot dogs and one fried potatoes a six pack and a pint of Canadian Whiskey some Chocolate Pudding and Red Licorice. How much trouble am I in
This is a good thread, at least it is not polarized as others are. There is wiggle room for lack of a better term
Polar Bear

Originally posted by TruthStrgnrThanFiction
bin ladens bad but heres a taste of an american christian terrorist:

COR's goals do not exclude violence in accomplishing them. At a 1989 COR conference, one well known evangelist suggested that Christians should pray that God would kill all of those leaders who are opposing Dominion Theology. Then later in the week, another well known pastor from the Dallas area suggested that God is purging his church and purifying it for a great revival, and that believers need to be willing to use violence if necessary in order to help bring in the kingdom. This violence message is really scary. The call to be willing to use violence to bring the kingdom can't be more clear--even if that violence is directed against Christian brothers and sisters. "

I can hear that kind of crap almost any day of the week on my SW radio. But I don't see any action being taken, especially against Christian brothers and sisters. If someone walked up to me and started preaching that stuff to me, I'd tell him to kiss off. What's he gonna do? Drag me to the river of baptism and dunk me till I vote for him?

That's the point. Maybe I'm just different, but this crap doesn't affect me or even bother me. There have been religious loonies since there have been religions. People in the US tolerate them, as long as they keep it to their own selves and their congregation. They will not, however, take over this country. There will be no American theocracy. The American people will not let them do it, including a large portion of the 60 million that voted for Bush and who are painted as the "religious right". I am more afraid of those who are trying to make me accept something that I find repulsive. But as someone here has already said, keep it to yourself and I won't come looking for you.

Calling these people Christian terrorists and comparing them to bin Laden is ridiculous. I haven't met a preacher yet who will whack your head off just because you're from the west.

And please - don't bother with calling me a sheeple or a blind follower. I know when an issue is for real and when it is merely sold that way to help pass an agenda.



[edit on 21-11-2004 by jsobecky]

Polar, that is because we are rational. Stranger may be stranger, but he can discuss a point, drink a beer and shoot a game of pool, all at the same time. That ability makes the place a lot more fun.

Anyway, back to the point of....HOLY POLARS BEARS, BATMAN!!! You'll be suffering from lava flow while you sleep, too!

Ahem....back to the point. That kind of loony crap is just that - lunacy. The Kingdom of Heaven will not be "brought down" to this nation through violence. As a matter of fact, we silly and corrupt humans won't bring it down at all! That group of dimwits sound more like Islamic militants than well-versed Christians.
I do find that scary. However, I also have something for them.

Here's a good article

www.washingtonmonthly.com...


Here's another good one

October 24, 2004
Bush's United Theocracy of America
Having grown up in a theocracy, Iranian blogger Hossein "Hoder" Derakhshan is well versed in the rhetoric of fundamentalism. In his aptly titled post "Welcome to Islamic Republic of America" Hoder draws a parallel between Bush's third debate comments and the language of Iran's clerics:



"The following part of Bush's answer about his faith really turned me off. This is what exactly Iranian clerics say when they want to get people's vote. I'm so sorry for Americans that their leaders are getting much more like Iranian clerics or what they usually call as Mullas. (From the transcript of the third debate)

"BUSH: First, my faith plays a lot -- a big part in my life. And that's, when I answering that question, what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot. And I do. And my faith is a very -- it's very personal. I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for our troops in harm's way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls.""

I must say, I was equally bothered by Kerry's remarks about his faith as well. And while I believe Kerry's comments were essentially strategic (i.e., to show that being Catholic/Christian does not preclude progressive visions and that one's personal beliefs should take a back seat to one's professional obligations to justice and reasoned leadership in a democracy), I felt that it simply did not belong in the debate. I would have preferred more discussion of the further erosion of the boundary between church and state and the importance of this division to a healthy, functional democracy.





Do you think creationism should be taught in schools Tom?

[edit on 22-11-2004 by TheInfidel]

[edit on 22-11-2004 by TheInfidel]

I wouldn't put too much stock into that Bush-mullah comparison. The mullahs probably copied the lines from another religion, maybe even the early Christians.

I have no problem with a politician saying what the source of his guidance is. It is only an issue when it negatively affects the citizenry. Otherwise, it is a sign of insecurity to worry about it, as if one is not secure enough in ones' own beliefs and feels threatened by people of strong conviction.

Originally posted by jsobecky


Calling these people Christian terrorists and comparing them to bin Laden is ridiculous. I haven't met a preacher yet who will whack your head off just because you're from the west.



[edit on 21-11-2004 by jsobecky]

That's because Christians are from the west....but differ in opinion and watch out. How about the Christian terrorists that blow up abortion clinics (some who happen to be the preachers themselves). I'm pretty sure Timmothy McVeigh was a Christian also. How about the lovely Christians that bomb gay bars,....etc. Religious fundamentalism is not exclusively Muslim....period.

Originally posted by MacMerdin

Originally posted by jsobecky
[edit on 21-11-2004 by jsobecky]

That's because Christians are from the west....but differ in opinion and watch out. How about the Christian terrorists that blow up abortion clinics (some who happen to be the preachers themselves). I'm pretty sure Timmothy McVeigh was a Christian also. How about the lovely Christians that bomb gay bars,....etc. Religious fundamentalism is not exclusively Muslim....period.

Here's the difference. We on the right condemn that just as much as anyone on the left. We have our loonies, you have yours. The difference is that while we distance ourselves from them and speak out against them, the left tends to embrace them and say "yeah!"

I am Catholic and proudly so. Does that mean I want a Catholic president? Truth be told, I don't care. Do I want a faithful one? Yes. absolutely. I want to know that he (or she) has some foundation for their beliefs. I want to know that their foundation is the same as mine.

Sure, I may "build up" a bit differently than they do, but at the base, where it matters we have a shared belief and a shared dream of what the world can be.

Conservative is not another word for hate.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
In other words, Infidel, because the Christians speak up because some states wnat to push homosexual marriage in their face, this country is a theocracy?

Here's a flash bulletin for you - if this place truly was a theocracy, things would be a whole lot different, now wouldn't it? A very clear lack of understanding of Christianity is slathered in here, too.

Why is it that it is too simple for some that we are at war because we have been attacked by an enemy that is not cofined by borders?

Why can't we let the states decide for themselves whether they want to illegalize gay marriage?
Even murder is handled on the state level. I don't think a state like Alabama or Georgia should dictate how a state like California or Massachusetts should behave.

I don't think it's a matter of the Kerry states "wnat to push homosexual marriage in [the Christians'] faces". It's a matter of them wanting the freedom from the Federal gov't to decide for themselves whether they should allow gay marriage.

Nox that's an excellent question and i hope i can answer it...i'm sure we all remember the san francisco debacle that essentially started this whole gay marriage mess. well a year prior to that incident the state of california had a state-wide vote on whether to allow or ban gay marriage. guess what, they voted to ban it. so from that point on gay marriage was in fact illegal in california. but then here comes that jackass san francisco mayor who feels the will of the people doesn't matter and, against state law, begins to marry same sex couples. he went on allowing them to marry for months, against state law. in my opinion that mayor should be arrested. this is why states can't decide for themselves. because even if they do make a decision there can always be another idiot progressive mayor that feels like doing what he wants and not what the people want. then there's the problem with "activist judges". those are judges who say "screw the will of the people" and pass judgement allowing gay people to marry, essentially negating state laws. both of these examples, because both scenarios have actually happened, are why it may be neccessary for a new constitutional amendment, so that the will of the majority of americans won't be stomped upon. keep in mind, however, it may turn out that the states get to decide for themselves still. the bill in congress to constitutionally ban gay marriage did fail afterall. by the way, there is one more problem with allowing states to decide for themselves. what if a gay couple marries in California, and then moves to Georgia where gay marriage is illegal? what would be the status of that couple? would they revert to being not married while living in Georgia? or would some benign law force Georgia to recgonize that couple just because California did?

Excellent Astro, thank you.
On another but similar matter. What do you think of legislatures removing from the judicial system the ability to Judge. On both levels State and Federal. I am speaking of the imposition of Mandates. I mean if a law becomes a mandate what is the point of having a Judge? All we need is a clerk or a computer operator.
Why give a judge all that money to not judge?

Polar Bear

Thank you for your prompt answer.

I am aware that California did vote against gay marriage. However, some time has passed since then.
I believe states with higher population densities tend to shift towards liberalism. So in the near future, the majority of California may change its mind.
I didn't even mention the (very liberal) New England states, other than Massachusetts.

Thus real question was: "What gives Bush states the right to tell what high population density states (Kerry states) what to do about abortion and gay marriage?"

You say that there might be complications that arise when a married gay couple from one state moves to a place like... Alabama?

First, I think the number of those occurrences is very low. I have many homosexual friends and none of them even consider moving to a religious, right-wing state in the deep south.

Second, for those rare occurrences, I think it would be up to the state to decide. Personally, I am biased so I would ask of those anti-gay marriage states to respect that compact between the two homosexuals, but I understand that different people have different opinions, which is why states should have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to respect marriages ratified by another state (the same way they respect drivers licenses issued by another state).

Also, if a rogue mayor or judge does ignore state law, shouldn't it be the state itself that punishes that mayor or judge? Does it have no indication of the people's will that no one seems mind that the judge or mayor made a slight transgression?
If a judge blatantly breaks such a law, I would agree with you, he should suffer some consequences... consequences handed out by the state.

But I seriously think that the federal gov't should stay out of this. The federal gov't handles serious crimes against America as a country, not God. What does it suggest when states are given murders but the federal gov't has to step in for abortion and gay marriage?

I honestly don't care if Alabama or any other state outlaws homosexuality all together. If that's what they want, they can have it. Let their laws stay within their borders. All of the homosexuals will just leave the area anyway. But just because a few low density population states feel it is within their right to deny everyone else around them to right to love, they can impose this "mandate" on the entirety of America?

Again, keeping in mind that people living in different states often have different experiences and opinions: "What gives Bush states the right to tell what high population density states (Kerry states) what to do about abortion and gay marriage?"

EDIT: I do not mean to offend by using "Alabama" as an example. I have a tendency to want to use concrete examples instead of abstract ones like "a religious southern state". Also, Alabama was the first state that came to mind.

[edit on 25-11-2004 by Nox]

God never created the concept of Marriage, for the record*

America, mechanicly, is not a theocracy, but it's leaders, without a grain of doubt, do abide by Christians ethos, not that there is anything wrong with it, except for the fundamental fact that these leaders still laud thier country as one which preaches religious tolerence, secularism, and pluralism; to then make judgment on an entire populace based on Christian ideals is quite hyopcritical...no ?

Deep



[edit on 25-11-2004 by ZeroDeep]