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.

 

Are the Religious right and the Republicans joining forces to take over America?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I thought this question deserved its own thread


Since it seems that everyone has an agenda I thought I would post this one




Enforcing Biblical Law
Frederick Clarkson reports on the views of Rev. Joseph Morecraft on life and government. Rev. Morecraft is pastor of the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Presbyterian Church in Marietta, Georgia.

"In his book, and especially when speaking at the 1993 Biblical World View and Christian Education Conference, Morecraft discussed with relish the police power of the state. His belief in the persecution of nonbelievers and those who are insufficiently orthodox is crystal clear. Morecraft described democracy as "mob rule," and stated that the purpose of "civil government" is to "terrorize evil doers. . . to be an avenger!" he shouted, "To bring down the wrath of God to bear on all those who practice evil!"

"And how do you terrorize an evil doer?" he asked. "You enforce Biblical law!" The purpose of government, he said, is "to protect the church of Jesus Christ," and, "Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol!" "There ain't no such thing" as religious pluralism, he declared. Further, "There has never been such a condition in the history of mankind. There is no such place now. There never will be." "What is Christian Reconstructionism?" by Frederick Clarkson, The Public Eye.



Is this the secert Agenda that Bush and the Republicans are trying to bring about in America?

Is this what we have to look forward to if he is re-elected?

NOBODY has a right to worship any God but the Christan God? Not just Here but in the WORLD?

Could this be the REAL reason for invading the Middle east? Not oil or WMD but just an excuse to force the rest of the world to worship the Christion God?

Heres the link
www.4religious-right.info...


[edit on 21-10-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Heres another good one


www.apologeticsindex.org...



Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life--such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely ''social'' or ''moral'' issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionists have formulated a ''Biblical world view'' and ''Biblical principles'' by which to examine contemporary matters. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: ''The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law.''




The universal development of Biblical theocratic republics? That means a one world Christian Government With Old Testament Punishments for crimes like stoning for Gays, adulters, back talking kids, etc.


Here is yet another link

Does any of this sound familar?



www.webpan.com...



Christian political extremists have many different organizations, but only one agenda. That agenda is to establish a christian fundamentalist theocracy in the United States. But you will not hear Gary Bauer or Pat Robertson admit to that on CNN. When they are on national television, Religious Right leaders exercise moderation and restraint. They pledge their "love" for the people they hate (=everyone who doesn't share their views), and their deep concern for this nation, and, invariably, "our" children (as if liberals did not have children). They monopolize the word "family", acting as if only extreme-right, fundamentalist christians can be good parents. They have the impudence to claim that they represent "Judeo-Christian" values, but they do not even represent mainstream christianity. They claim the exclusive monopoly on morality - their own very special brand of "morality". They glorify the "golden 50's", a time when the US were supposedly a "moral" nation.


there may be more to this than meets the eye

[edit on 21-10-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   
If I were a practicing and believing Christian, I'd say that these "reconstructionists" serve no god. They serve the devil.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Someone elses thread started me onm this and I started it as a joke, but just think about what you hear coming from SOME of the Christians here and people like Pat Robinson, Jerry Falwell, etc.

I dont think all Christians are this way but if you do the research it does seem like there could be a lot of truth behind this



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Well what is going on is that the christian fundamentalist with lot of "funds" to put on the republican party are taking over many political positions withing the party itself, you take that in consideration and you will see how that can affect the republican party from withing and in the law making, a lot of influence can change laws to satisfy any religious agendas that they have their minds set on, like banning gay rights to married as an example, if they get away the banning will be push into taking any rights that they gays may so far has been able to get.

The gay is just and example. Also will be reproductive laws or abortion rights.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   
LOL!! How sad.

Amazing that people are still so unknowledgeable of the God of their Forefathers.

Let me clear it up for you. There is no way, I mean NO WAY, to force Christianity on someone. Either you accept Him or you do not. That is clearly between you and the Holy Spirit. This is in contrast to, say, a reigion whose name means "submission", where you accept its idea of god or a follower releases you from the responsibility of balancing your head on your shoulders!

Judging by this thread, I'd say they'd have to first extract the heads of some from dark, squishy places before they could cut it off!


Sorry, Amuk, I couldn't resist the last paragraph. It was meant in fun and with absolutely no insult or seriousness at all!



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Let's clarify something, Marg, homosexuals do not have the right to marriage, and they never have. Also, murdering the unborn has nothing to do with "reproductive rights"", and a highjacked Supreme Court is not law. All we have here is the left trying to legislate from the bench that which the public will not allow through Congress.

To say that some want to retake from the left what it has worked so hard to take from the mainstream for the last 60 or so years can hardly be called unAmerican or some evil conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Thomas I used that as an example and by the way I am for women rights and it has never been otherwise for me.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Setting aside my convictions against Bush, although he is wrongfully combining church and state under his reign, I don't believe he has any plans to take over America with religion. Despite his supreme asinity, he would be aware of the negative effects of what he would do.

For the Religious Right, however, I would not be surprised if they were planning to take over America. They are, after all, about 26 cards loose of a full deck.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   
What I feel once more is that both sides - liberals and conservatives - believe they represent the mainstream. Furthermore, each side views the others as a minority voice, not truly "American". There is a mutual, if informal, "outlawing" of the other side.

More and more, I believe we're seeing two Americas, not one.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
homosexuals do not have the right to marriage, and they never have


Last I checked, they can legally marry in Massachusetts.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Judging by this thread, I'd say they'd have to first extract the heads of some from dark, squishy places before they could cut it off!


Sorry, Amuk, I couldn't resist the last paragraph. It was meant in fun and with absolutely no insult or seriousness at all!


I was wondering when our resident Bible thumper would join in

No insult intended


they are not talking about forcing anyone into anything you could choose death instead we cant trample on free will now can we


From most of your posts I would think you would approve of this kind of Government


seriously though

I think this thread has every bit as much creditabilty as several other Threads, with this one you even have a money trail to follow. I would think there is a LOT more proof for this than the "Gay Agenda"

Is this one any less likely? Do you deny that these people said these words?Can you, or anyone else for that matter, give any links to disprove this?Can you tell me that NO CHRISTIANS out there believe this? I have even heard them speak here in Arkansas.


To be honest I dont think the VAST Majority of Christians would go along with this, BUT it is plain that at least a few do, probably as many as go along with the "Gay Agenda". Again my point seems to go over someones head.

There are idiots in every group



[edit on 21-10-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
LOL!! How sad.

Amazing that people are still so unknowledgeable of the God of their Forefathers.


The God of MY forefathers was Odin not Jesus


I dont believe in him ether

[edit on 21-10-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
[
The God of MY forefathers was Odin not Jesus


I dont believe in him ether

[edit on 21-10-2004 by Amuk]


Amuk I am a fanatic of viking myth and lore.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 09:34 PM
link   
John Kerry, in the 3rd debate, made an interesting comment that "the Constitution should be interpreted according to the law', which is totally backwards, but unfortunately is what many people in this country believe.

George Bush said that he is a strict constructionist, meaning that he believes in the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land.

The Constitution IS the ultimate law of the land, and ALL other law must be judged by its adherence to that document. This is the law, and that is that.

Most schools erroneously teach that the Constitution is a "living document" and subject to endless re-interpretation by the Supreme Court as social conditions change. The lie is put to this argument by the writers of the Constitution itself, both in the language of that document and in the "Federalist Papers", which were written at the time as a series of essays published in the newspapers of the day to explain what the Constitution meant and to encourage the voters in the various 13 states to ratify it (Sorry, all you gun-haters.....the 2nd amendment really does guarantee the individual's right to bear arms independent of any government restrictions for the purpose of allowing the populace to rebel against a tyranical regime. In fact, until WWII the general populace was better armed than the military......civilians could buy semi and full-auto weapons while the Army was still being issued bolt-action Springfields. Read the Federalist Papers to learn what the 2nd amendment means and why it was considered to be so important that it was #2)

I don't think that Bush has all the answers, but I DO think that he is prefrerable to the BACK-STABBING, ANTI-AMERICAN, SELF-CONFESSED WAR CRIMINAL, COMMUNIST-LOVING, COMPATRIOT-BETRAYING, JANE FONDA ALLY, VIET NAM VET-BASHING DESPISER/HATER, GENERAL SCUMBAG that is John Kerry.

Anybody care to disagree with my above assessment of John Kerry and his despicable activities in the 70's?

Let the flames fly..................may the best man win.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by RR98
Anybody care to disagree with my above assessment of John Kerry and his despicable activities in the 70's?


I dont disagree at all but what does it have to do with the topic?



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Amuk I feel that the religous agenda in the present administration is worst that most people beleive, you allow this president to get 4 more years and let him appoint 3 supreme court judges that are in a religious fanatics agenda and you will see what will happen.

I think we will be regulated from the way we dress to what we can see or not on tv and who knows what else specialy women will lose in the religous madness.



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I think Bush just talks christian, and speaks to God directly, but I hear tell that the White House has a mighty hard time at getting the prez to go to church on Sundays or any other day.
He's just trying to appeal to the christian masses. FOR THE VOTES.
He's on a devils mission



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
marg6043

I think in a way you are correct but not just with the Bush White House. There is a LOT of evidence that there are a group of religious fanatics that do indeed intend to turn this country into a "Christians Only" Nation.

I do not think that most Christians would go along with it if they understood what was happening.

Take the middle east for example doesnt it make any one nervious that the man that controls our Nuclear Missiles thinks that the world will end in an all out nuclear war started in the middle east in the very country we have invaded?



posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Amuk - I copied and pasted the info in the first post to my actively Catholic girlfriend. Her reaction: "kill me now - such close-mindedness and hate is NOT what Jesus Christ preached!"




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join