Fear Christian Politicians... Seriously

Religon and government are instruments of control, that is all they ever were, and that is all they ever will be. Belief or faith, patriotism, they are all fine and noble concepts, but they are false implications. Like one of the basic laws of physics, those in power tend to stay in power. Saying the foundation of our government is one of religon, while that may be correct to an extent, it is also a statement which would lead one to believe that the foundations of our government is based on some high and mighty sense of morality, and that is a dangerous illusion given any government's inherent ability of exploitation adn control. There was a reason for the seperation of church and state, unfortuanately this is also an illusion as the organized churches are no more than a powerful politcal lobby. Yes most of our founding fathers were religous men, but lets look at at why they established this country, and even how they went about it. Ask any native american what they think about the high moral concepts of our founding fathers. How about the chinese that immigrated here in the 1800's? Or the african americans that were brought here for that matter. This government is like any other in the world, corrupt, evil, and manipulative. Trying to put our founding fathers on some kind of pedastal claiming that they were all good religous men is simply not accurate. But more to the point of the thread, yes you should be very wary of any group wielding power over any of our elected officials, but far more dangerous to the citizenry of this country are the coporate lobbies. They didn't call it an industrial "revolution" for nothing. It was indeed a revolution and coporate interests literally seized the soverignty of the american people. The church is no better, organized religon is even more dangerous of an institution as it superceeds nationality.

religion is a means of control and has been misused throughout history BUT

That does NOT mean there is NO GOD!!!

There IS a GOD!! and THERE ARE REAL CHRISTIANS and REAL RIGHTEOUS people who have faith in God, people who know God and have experienced his loveingkindness and joy.

---BUT----

Where it gets TRICKY is when people say they have had a religious experience and follow the God of the bible but perform hideous acts of lawlessness....these people are known as FALSE...ESPECIALLY if they continue in lawlessness well after their "religous experience"
Thats why it says in the bible simply that JUDGEMENT STARTS AT THE HOUSE OF GOD...and goes on to ask this question : "If the righteous are barely saved then what of the heathen?!?!" And when does this judgement of GOD start to fall?? when people like the above start to become prominent ...when you cant tell the difference between the WORLD and the CHURCH.

Originally posted by TruthStrgnrThanFiction
There IS a GOD!! and THERE ARE REAL CHRISTIANS and REAL RIGHTEOUS people who have faith in God, ...

Yes, people like little Ralphy Reed (why hasn't a real American shot him yet?) who preach the killing of Doctors and the removal of science from schools, who teach that only his form of christianity should be allowed to fester, unimpeded in the world.

Originally posted by Chuck Stevenson

Yes, people like little Ralphy Reed (why hasn't a real American shot him yet?) who preach the killing of Doctors .

I haven't been able to find any evidence that Ralph Reed has ever advocated killing an abortionist. I have seen sights that accuse him of complicity (guilt by association), but that that would implicate anyone who opposes abortion, which is an absurdity. I think you're allegation is wholly baseless.

Regard the following.

Ralph E. Reed, Jr.

When David Gunn and Paul Hill killed abortion doctors in Pensacola, Florida, they did more damage to the pro-life cause than many of the proponents of abortion have in recent years. To kill in the name of defending life is hypocrisy, pure and simple. When we allow the violence of abortion to overcome our weapons of mercy and grace, we fall to the level of the abortionist. In a sermon delivered in November 1956 in Montgomery, Alabama, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Always be sure that you struggle with Christian methods and Christian weapons. Never succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter. As you press on for justice, be sure to move with dignity and discipline, using only the weapons of love."

Martin Luther King overcame the violence of segregation and the injustice of Jim Crow through nonviolence and through Christian methods. Those who advocated violence against white segregationists were wrong. Those who advocate violence against abortionists today are wrong. In seeking to promote and defend the sanctity of innocent human life, we must allow mercy to overcome bitterness, justice to overcome hatred, and nonviolence to overcome violence. How we conduct ourselves will ultimately be as important as the principles for which we stand. Pro- life leaders must be vigilant and consistent in denouncing violence as a tactic for their movement.

Ralph E. Reed, Jr. is Executive Director of the Christian Coalition.
www.leaderu.com...

Guilt by association? Seems flimsey to me:

But Reed and some of the other Christian Right leaders, now so cozy with the Republicans, want to twist and turn further on abortion. They want to keep up the drum beat about �abortuaries� and a fetal �holocaust.� Then they want to deny all responsibility for helping to fuel the violent wing of the anti-abortion movement.

Each new attack on doctors and clinic workers raises the public relations liability for Republicans hooked on Christian Right support. Yet each time the most respectable leaders of the Christian Right condemn the clinic shootings and bombings, they intensify the desperation of the �justifiable homicide� advocates among them.
www.zmag.org...

Consider this:

On abortion, undoubtedly the most fevered question in our public life, there was a notable brouhaha when word got out that Reed's book proposed a weakening of the Republican platform's commitment to the pro-life position. The book did nothing of the sort. The New York Times splashed the story of Reed's "change" on the front page, and the next day had to run a front-page retraction (without calling it a retraction, of course). While the book suggests alternative language on abortion, Reed clearly supports the formulation of the goal as it is embraced by all the major anti-abortion groups: Every unborn child protected in law and welcomed in life.

He also knows that goal will never be achieved perfectly, and will only be achieved partially through democratic persuasion-including the persuasion necessary to pass a constitutional amendment protecting the unborn and others (the "useless" aged, the radically handicapped) who may be denied legal due process
www.firstthings.com...

There are those who believe that Reed is not "militant" enough:

According to Reed, we need to be cautious about speaking for God as we enter into the world of politics: "Religious folk are now becoming more wise to the possibilities as well as the limits of politics. While they believe they possess the truth about matters of eternity, they are less assured about temporal matters, which tend to be more ambiguous. There are some political issues that the Bible addresses in principle. But most matters await the hereafter before they reach a final resolution."3

Ralph Reed accurately describes the problem of believing that politics is "the answer." It is not. Civil government is only one institution of God given to be reformed according to the Word. He is mistaken, however, when he assumes that the Word of God only speaks to "some issues in principle."

The Word of God is clear on one thing: the moral Law of God is the standard, not natural law, not pluralism, not what man thinks is right in his own eyes. The Bible provides the vast majority of laws needed to govern a society. Those it does not directly define, it addresses in principle. Although we may not always agree on interpretation, we agree on the Law of God as the standard. Either we stand for the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the totality of life, or we become enemies of the cross.

Politically Incorrect constantly advocates a standard that is different from what the Word of God requires: "If religious conservatives served in government, parole would be abolished for violent felons and repeat violent offenders would spend the rest of their lives in jail... Convicted drug dealers who peddled on school grounds or to minors would go to prison - without parole.... there would be fewer divorces, more intact families, and more live births than abortions in even our largest cites.... States would be free to restrict abortions except in cases of the endangerment of the life of the mother, rape, or incest."4

The moral Law of God requires only two punishments for law breakers: restitution or execution. A repeat violent offender would spend the rest of his life in servitude or would be executed. Convicted drug dealers who sold drugs to children would be executed for the crime of sorcery (Greek: "pharmakeia", see Rev. 9:21; 18:23; 21:8; 22:15). Divorce would be available only in instances of proven adultery. Abortion would be a capital crime and would be considered murder. But Ralph Reed flatly refuses to stand for the moral Law of God.
www.forerunner.com...

He looks absolutely moderate by this account:

�[C]onservative Christians are "demonized" by their opponents for standards they want enacted into law on abortion--like John the Baptist, who lost his head for condemning a King for his immoral behavior. But, in addition, Ralph Reed also is denounced for his liberalism, for allegedly abandoning his followers and principles in a quest for influence with Bob Dole, and with Republicans and conservatives who do not share his social agenda.

[�]

Far from the fringe, Reed encourages support for moderately pro-choice Republicans; he condemns personal attacks on President Clinton; he broadens the agenda to include economic issues; he avoids personal endorsements of presidential primary candidates; he cultivates the Roman Catholic, the Black, and the Perot voter; he calls for a modest realism on abortion legislation and on the party platform; and he lets other activists like Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council take the heat. All these moves are designed to avoid giving the press unnecessary offense. Republican victories in 1994, it is said, vindicate this strategy.

[�]

Reed proposed an abortion statement that would be acceptable to many supporters of the Roe v. Wade decision as long as they opposed abortion on demand. "We deplore abortion on demand as a grave evil and a national tragedy." Anyone supporting a limitation on abortion, such as the partial birth abortion ban, who agreed that tax dollars should not fund abortions, who nevertheless thought that abortion was legal, could with relative ease and complete integrity sign on. Deploring abortion is now universal; making it illegal is not. Ironically, physician-assisted suicide is explicitly rejected in Reed's statement but abortion is not. When he writes, "We will seek by all legal and constitutional means to protect the right to life for the elderly, the infirm, the unborn, and the disabled," he leaves room for those who consider Roe v. Wade the law of the land.

At issue in principle is whether abortion should be generally available with some restrictions, as Reed's trial balloon would allow, or illegal, with some few exceptions, as he would prefer. Making room for both views, his platform proposal is long on moral considerations, short on legal prohibition.

[�]

However, by opposing abortion "on demand" in the platform rather than simply "abortion," he is only limiting abortion.
www.neopolitique.org...

And here:

[NP] How can Christians be in the political world and still follow the New Testament advice to not be of the world?

[Reed] The same way they do it in every other area. In the words of St. Paul, they are aliens in a foreign country. They have dual citizenship. They are citizens of the kingdom of God and they are citizens of whatever temporal kingdom they are a part of at that moment in time. I think the main thing is for Christians who get involved in the political arena, to not make the mistake that Christians on the left did in the 1960s in thinking that you could solve and ameliorate great social problems through political action and through government programs. We, for example, as pro-life, conservative Christians, may think that if we just pass a law banning abortion that we will solve the problem. The fact is, that even before Roe v. Wade, about 1 of every 5 pregnancies in America ended in abortion. You don't end abortion by passing a law against it. You don't end racial discrimination by passing a law against it. You don't end poverty by declaring war on it. These are matters of the heart and matters of the soul.

That is not to say that political action and government activism doesn't have a role. But it has to be a limited role. I think the biggest mistakes for Christians in the political arena is in thinking that political action, rather than the Church, can usher in a spiritual renewal. The government can't do that. No matter who's in charge of it. It's not an issue of the good intentions of those in power. It's an issue of the institution. The institution of government is not ordained, nor is it well suited for the task of social regeneration or reformation.
www.neopolitique.org...

And here, he absolutely enrages some by supporting Tom Ridge, who is pro-choice, as a candidate for Vice-President:

Pro-Life Conservatives Upset By Ralph Reed's Comments on Tom Ridge as VP

Calls and e-mail messages are piling up in our office as a result of a May 5, 1999 article in Hotline, a publication circulated on Capitol Hill. Ralph Reed, former executive director of Christian Coalition and currently president of a Georgia-based political consulting firm, reportedly said that Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge's support of abortion "will not necessarily mean that" religious conservatives will object to him as a possible VP nominee.

According to the report, Reed predicted on May 4 that religious conservatives' reaction "would depend on how strong a candidate's views were on the subject and whether he or she opposed" partial birth abortion and government funding for abortion. "I don't see any significant difficulty there. The emphasis is the vice part, and he's [the VP] not setting policy." Governor Ridge supports, as a matter of public policy, the legal right of a mother to kill her unborn baby.

The U.S. Constitution provides for the office of Vice President of the United States so that he can assume the powers and duties of the Presidency in the event of the President's death, resignation or inability to discharge the duties of his office. Because he is "a heartbeat away from the presidency," it is absolutely necessary that any nominee for Vice President be held to the same standard of philosophy and ideology as the Presidential nominee. To say that a Republican ticket featuring either a presidential or vice-presidential nominee who is pro-abortion would be acceptable to the vast majority of pro-life voters is simply not true. Tom Ridge is no more acceptable than Christine Todd Whitman, Arlen Specter or Pete Wilson. Such a ticket would be an invitation to grassroots pro-life Republicans to stay home in the general election.

Some politicos have suggested that, because Ridge is Catholic and the governor of a large state, he could help the nominee secure the "Catholic" vote. Perhaps they should think again. Some may not have noticed, but Governor Ridge, because of his support for abortion, is considered by the Catholic Church to be complicit in the abortions committed on his watch and within his jurisdiction, and because of this, he has excommunicated himself from the Catholic Church. Just last November, Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, PA, applied the gospel of life by telling Governor Ridge to no longer appear at Catholic events in his diocese.
www.rnclife.org...

Originally posted by shanti23
There are many religions in the world Thomas Crowne and America is not the sum of history.
Christianity is one such religion and to use it as a source for dictating government policies would be a throwback to the medieval systems that spawned the Inquisition and the Crusades.
When I said that religion and government don't mix, I meant that it is unfair to dictate to others what should be a personal choice.
Religion should never again become a public policy enforced by law, any religion.

That's not to say that Christians can't govern people, of course they can - along with the Protestants, Catholics, Assyrians, Islamics, Buddhists, Confucists, Hindis, Sikhs, Taoists, Shintoists, Jainists, Pagans, Shaminists, Atheists, etc etc etc . . .

That's not ignorance, it's called another point of view.

[edit on 26-9-2004 by shanti23]

Here's a clue for ya, Scooter, I'm not concerned with the other nations. Did you kind of get that feeling when (if) you read my post. By the way, that post was not a cut/paste, that was out of my head and is factually correct. So, whatever you meant there has no relevance.

Your assertion that this being a Christian nation is a throwback to the days of the Crusades (When Europeans pushed the Muslim invaders back and set out to take back Jerusalem from the Islamic conquorers) is also not relevant. This nation was expected to be a Christian nation, not a theocratic government. The fact that you can't wrap your public education brainwashed mind is not my fault. I'd take the time to spoon-feed that to you as well, but a working man has to sleep sometime. Reread my post (or read it for the first time) and try and see what the Founders envisioned. It isn't as you have been misled into believing; I assure you.

You're a little rusty on relgion as a whole, I see. You list Christianity separately from Protestant and Catholic, which are both Christian, just different "sects" (Again, try and read my post. You be amazed!) A Christian nation, the American culture, is based on this set of beliefs. Again, read a few words in the above post; concentrate on the words of the smart dead guys, not mine. A society is a group of people with commonalities that allow them to live in a unified manner. People whose beliefs are diametrically opposed can't very well live as a society. This nation wasn't meant to be a multicultural and dysfunctional mass but a melting pot. The difference is self-evident. One set of values and principles must be the ruling one, and the Christian values were the ones meant to be the presiding ones of this nation. Islam belongs elsewhere, as well as Taoism and the rest of the isms you mentioned. This isn't rocket science and one need not have a degree in sociology to comprehend this. Heck, one needn't even have to drawn on the incredible knowledge I carry in my unbelievably powerful brain; some things should just be as clear as simple math.

Just because something is an uneducated opinion does NOT mean it isn't moronic!

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Here's a clue for ya, Scooter, I'm not concerned with the other nations. Did you kind of get that feeling when (if) you read my post. By the way, that post was not a cut/paste, that was out of my head and is factually correct. So, whatever you meant there has no relevance. Your assertion that this being a Christian nation is a throwback to the days of the Crusades (When Europeans pushed the Muslim invaders back and set out to take back Jerusalem from the Islamic conquorers) is also not relevant. This nation was expected to be a Christian nation, not a theocratic government. The fact that you can't wrap your public education brainwashed mind is not my fault. I'd take the time to spoon-feed that to you as well, but a working man has to sleep sometime. Reread my post (or read it for the first time) and try and see what the Founders envisioned. It isn't as you have been misled into believing; I assure you.
You're a little rusty on relgion as a whole, I see. You list Christianity separately from Protestant and Catholic, which are both Christian, just different "sects" (Again, try and read my post. You be amazed!) A Christian nation, the American culture, is based on this set of beliefs. Again, read a few words in the above post; concentrate on the words of the smart dead guys, not mine. A society is a group of people with commonalities that allow them to live in a unified manner. People whose beliefs are diametrically opposed can't very well live as a society. This nation wasn't meant to be a multicultural and dysfunctional mass but a melting pot. The difference is self-evident. One set of values and principles must be the ruling one, and the Christian values were the ones meant to be the presiding ones of this nation. Islam belongs elsewhere, as well as Taoism and the rest of the isms you mentioned. This isn't rocket science and one need not have a degree in sociology to comprehend this. Heck, one needn't even have to drawn on the incredible knowledge I carry in my unbelievably powerful brain; some things should just be as clear as simple math.

Just because something is an uneducated opinion does NOT mean it isn't moronic!

Wow another rude, self glorifying gop supporter, imagine that. Why is it when faced with a difference of opinion the typical response of a neocon is to throw insults and rhetoric? You say this isn't meant to be a theocratic system, but a christain one? LOL you just blew your whole point. Maybe you should take that "incredible knowledge I carry in my unbelievably powerful brain" and look up theocracy.

Thomas, the reason for my initial post to this thread was to agree with the original poster in saying that it is unfair to legislate from the Bible.

Originally by Thatoneguy
he scary part is at the bottom.... The very last paragraph

"Never allow the enemy to block you," Thomson urged them. "Get around them, run over the top of them, destroy them — whatever you need to do so that God's word is the word that is being practiced in Congress, town halls and state legislatures."

The reason I answered your post was because it referred to my opinion as being moronic. I wished to clarify the remark I made that religion and government didn't mix and that I have done.

My other assertion is not that a Christian nation is a throwback to the days of the Crusades; it is that the Crusades are a historical example of what can happen when religion dictates government policy.

It is my understanding that the current administration have attempted to change the constitution of America regarding the issue of gay marriages - that is a more recent example of the lunacy that religion can bring to democracy.
This is the twenty-first century and America is arguing on basic human rights because of a religion, which is subjective, especially in a multi-cultural nation.

You state that: 'One set of values and principles must be the ruling one'.
I argue that most fundamental Christian moralities are inherent in everybody, regardless of their religious beliefs.
For example, 'thou shalt not kill' is a no-brainer - you don't need the good book to teach basic human morality; although the fact that America has the highest number of people killed with firearms in an industrial country would suggest that maybe the good book hasn't worked very well, along with the recent foreign policy of causing collateral damage in the name of democracy.

You have adopted the title of 'Unassuming', yet you're full of assumption with regard to both my education and the fact of whether or not I had read your post.
Your post borders on a being a personal attack, I refuse to be bullied, especially by a 'super moderator'; who incidently should show a better example for the other members of this board to follow, otherwise you'll give the impression that we can all resort to making condescending and derogatory remarks about other members in order to make our points understood.

Oh, one last thing:

Originally by Thomas Crowne
The fact that you can't wrap your public education brainwashed mind is not my fault.

You do realise that the grammar in that sentence is incorrect, which is not so clever, considering the point you're trying to make.

[edit on 27-9-2004 by shanti23]

Well, I started to read through this thread as I feel the issue of whether religious belief should have a place in decisions made by political leaders is an important one. Regrettably, I must say - and this is regardless of my own opinion on the thread topic - when I read the posts written by Thomas Crowne (a Super Mod, no less) I was extremely disheartened by the manner in which he chose to present his views. Here are some examples:

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
...Which one of you ignorant brain surgeons...

Is this really necessary to show you disagree with the views of others?

...We have one moron who says...

Calling someone a moron hardly helps your own argument - now does it?

...as old Thomas Crowne has grown tired of the ignorant but loud majority here at Abovetopsecret.com.

And now you're calling the majority of the ATS-members - ignorant? If this is truly your opinion; why do you even want to be a staff member of this board?

...your public education brainwashed mind...

No comment on this one; just another bad example...

IMHO, it should always be one's goal to avoid resorting to insults, no matter how important the issue might be. Evidently, Thomas Crowne doesn't share that opinion.

I apologize to the thread author for going off topic with this post, but I had to say something.

[edit on 27-9-2004 by Durden]

The only thing about religion and politics is the same problem around the world politicians does not really have to be in the "religious" category themselves to use it and misused to follow their personal power agendas.

If anybody thinks that these politicians have the people's well being in their harts you are mistaken they only thing they have in their harts is to have control and to use it. Here in the south is not political candidate that will not use religious innuendos to get in power the more religious they look the better for their political career it does not matter that once they are in power in the name of god the end up screwing the people. Sounds familiar?

And again in the name of one god over other god we are fighting wars around the world.


[edit on 27-9-2004 by marg6043]

Durden,

I have to agree with your assessment. In fact, I had copied TC's post to break it down just as you did... Thanks for doing the work for me! Last I checked, this isn't the Mud Pit...

Although not a "Christian", most Christian values (not all) are basic human values, and should be part of our government. However, it crosses the line when the government tries to dictate that I "pledge my allegiance" to some "God" not of my own choosing, or state that I have "trust" in such a "God", etc. when I do no such thing. I will pledge allegiance to our nation. die defending it, etc. without hesitation, but feel no need to pledge the same to a god I do not worship. Likewise, it crosses the line when it tells me how to live my life, when it does not interfere with the rights of others. THESE are the Judeo-Christian values I do NOT agree with.

There is a reason for separation of Church and State. The founding fathers knew this. In fact, many of the first settlers came here to escape their respective churches...or did we forget that? Calling someone a "moron" just because they don't agree with you, has never been the best way to argue your point....

Has anyone heard of an organization called, I believe it was Jacob's Army? I ran across something awhile back on it, but have done searches since and have been able to find anythng on it. But, it was kind of like a militant cult or something, where they believed that they could bring in the kingdom of god through community politcal action, and on to state and federal levels....or something like that. I just ran across it, read it some but I was on someone's else's computers. so didn't save the site I was looking for.

I was taught that the kingdom of God wouldn't come until God said it would come....and Jesus would bring it. Man cannot bring it into the world, and the more he tries, the more he pushes us down the wrong path.

shanti23, I m aware that your argument is in agreement with the original poster, that it is unfair to legislate from the Bible. Where is legislation conducted from the Bible, as so many seem to fear will happen? This is nothing more than typical fear-baiting aginst Christians.
As I clearly pointed out, the nation is a Christian nation, or laws are based upon Christian beliefs, and that is the way it is. I clearly explained why one nation cannot have several conflicting moral bases. Moronic responses ranged from suggesting that we go and have sex with slaves (Gee, that was widespread? And these were Christians? And such activity was expected of us from our leadership? Does anyone else see that response as particularly stupid, or am I the only lucid one here this evening?), to suggesting Ralph Reed was a murderous lunatic. Great responses.

On the other hand, we can look back and see great leadership from great Christian leaders. WAnt to start back to the first elected President? That man spent more time on his knees praying to God than on his feet. That is probably why he was so effective when on his feet. Who was another leader in troubling times? Ohh, Yeah, old Abe. I sure am glad we had a fine Christian at such a troubling time. Too bad evil blew his brain apart, elsewise the nation would be better today.

I could go on, but there's no need. There is no evidence that a Christian is a bad leader, but there is reason to believe that a Christian would be the best choice, and the choice we need. You do have a choice, though, and you should exercise it. But you might want to think about one thing, we're all better off with a leader who humbles himself to the Creator, the one who has ultimate authority, than being led by a man who sees his own wishes as the ultimate authority.

Originally posted by Chuck Stevenson

Originally posted by TruthStrgnrThanFiction
There IS a GOD!! and THERE ARE REAL CHRISTIANS and REAL RIGHTEOUS people who have faith in God, ...

Yes, people like little Ralphy Reed (why hasn't a real American shot him yet?) who preach the killing of Doctors and the removal of science from schools, who teach that only his form of christianity should be allowed to fester, unimpeded in the world.

Example of why I find this place almost more than I can bear, an idiot who makes wild assertions and suggests that a real American should have murdered this guy by now.

Going back to the thread, I don't have problems with presidents devoted to their believes as long as they don't claim Jesus or God talk to them now I do have a problem with that, if God is telling a president how to rule the country.

I can understand your thoughts, Marg, you're afraid that maybe a schizo will take the helm of the most powerful nation and have control of the nuclear launch codes.

Have you never heard the soft words of God? I have, couple of times. I'm ashamed to say that I do not try and draw near to Him where He can draw nearer to me. He isn't Satan, he doesn't push Himself or be brazen. If a leader claims that he has heard the voice of God, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that. He doesn't even have to say that God tells him how to run the nation as the Bible is clear that we have total choice - except leaders; God reserves the right to control a leader.

Now, if a leader said that God talks to him through his dog.....

And, by the way, I may come across as a jerk. No, that is leaving room for debate. I do come across as a jerk. I have a huge problem with wild assertions based upon thin air. There is no reason to believe that this nation should fear a Christian leader and there is furthermore no reason to believe that this isn't a Christian nation. It isn't my opinion of something, one way or another, that makes a difference, but the facts.

Now, if someone figures tha tthe nation being a Christian nation was a mistake and we should reevaluate our laws and our constitution, I could respect that. No, I wouldn't vote with them for the changes, but I could certainly respect that. Saying that Christians are people to be fearful of is just plain old ridiculous. Having Christian morals, ethics and principles and realizing that God is the final authority and not you, that is bad?

Thomas I have heard the words of god and yes without seem like crazy I was taken out of my body in dreams and brought to a present and not even once I feel like I was being admonish or judge all I felt was peace no pain no worries and the feeling that I was home and that all I wanted was to stay there because it was beautiful but I was send back because it was not my time. Since then I am not a hell believer anymore, and I now see religion with skepticism.


No I am not a Jesus follower I just believe in a creator of all things.

When you read the absolutely hateful things that people say about Christians based on radicals like Falwell, Swaggart and others the majority of Christians don't agree with, you tend to get upset. I normally ignore these threads because I already know what's going to be said. It's very trendy to bash Christians, and it's the one group in this country that you can get away with it. Take the Simpson's view on Christianity for example, while it is funny, it's also very skewed. The misinformation spread because of some radical leaders, and the fact that Christian bashing is now quite rampant on TV and movies; people tend to get a slightly uninformed view about what most Christians believe and are about. On a site that has "deny ignorance" as its motto, the ignorance spewed and tolerated about Christianity is suprising. If someone were to say the awful things people say about Christians, about Muslims or Wiccans, they would be deemed mighty closed minded.

Christians aren't perfect, few claim to be. It's the people that don't agree with Christianity that put Christians on such a lofty pedestal in hopes that they'll fall and can subsequently revel in it. If we were perfect we wouldn't have to worry about being forgiven for our sins.

While Thomas threw some barbs in, his argument is factually solid and well put together.

Sorry this is kind of off topic, but it seems it's the direction the thread is going...

Political leaders have the right to worship who and what they want. I have no problem with that as long as it doesnt interfere with their judgement.

I have a friend that is voting for Bush because he wants him to be a Christian leader. He told me that he is glad Bush is in office because he gives out the christian light and he believes he can do the same for Iraq

That is what concerns me.

Thatoneguy, I agree with you. That is a legitimate concern.