Separation of Church and State?
I generally do not weigh in on religious issues. First, I claim no expertise in the subject, second, people of faith, no matter the faith are not going to be pursuaded that their faith is not the best one, or that if they stray from it, there will be unwanted consequences in the afterlife.Since none of us can report their experiences in the afterlife back to the living, there is no way to verify the claim of any person of faith, no matter what the faith that there is, in fact an afterlife. We all have to walk that lonesome highway by ourselves. An article of faith by a Christian, Jew, Muslim or any other religion has to, in my view simply be accepted as something the holder of the view accepts, and I am willing to leave it at that. It is their faith and they are free to believe as they wish. I simply do not apply value judgments that says one religion is better than another.
Nearly all religions subscribe to the concept that there is an afterlife, most juxtapose the dichotomy of heaven for the virtuous and hell for those who are not. Some Christians reject the possibility that non-Christians or Christians who have not passed some test in life (being born again, for instance) will deny one the chance for redemption or heaven for failure to pass this test. Others do not feel that this test is necessary. Who is right? Who has reported back from the other side to either confirm or deny what is the right path. Or is there some other path? I do not know.
The question of what happens if one is not a Christian is often raised by evangelicals. A more fundamental question, I think is what happened to people of faith before Christ lived? The Old Testament records people being taken to heaven hundreds or even thousands of years before Christ walked the earth. If these people made it to heaven, why can’t people of other religions also go to heaven.
If one is supposed to be doomed to the fires of hell if they do not shape up, then the possiblity of heaven must exist for these individuals simply because heaven-hell are both ends of the same stick. By all accounts, people living on Earth in their mortal costume do not make the decision, St. Peter or God or Allah or some other godhead makes the decision. How can any person in the flesh say otherwise?
It is an article of their faith that they do not make the decision, even for themselves. The God of the Bible or Koran seems to have vindictive and tolerant days, does the choice break down into what kind of mood God is in on the day of your passing? That seems silly, but it also seems to be about as credible as other systems of faith. Who is to say?
I will say this. I believe that attempts to tear down the wall between Church and State that are taking place in America today are very dangerous. The assumption of one religion being favored over another in our government and legal system puts the faith of all Americans in jeopardy. If, say, evangelic Christianity gets the upper hand in the establishment of religion in America, what is the consequence for other Christians, say Roman Catholics or Methodists. Or one of the many manifestations of Baptists? An example here is Jimmy Carter is a Baptist, but the religion practiced in his particular church is significantly different than the type practiced by other more rigid conferences who say that the role of women is to be subservient or that the doctrine should be fire and brimstone.
I believe Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and others would get the short end of the religious/government combination, and the wind could blow the other way when a new president comes in. What would the religion who was in, and is now out do? How would they react? In modern times, the Islamic states where so-called theocracies were implemented, all other religions suffered, some egriously, some by genocide or significant loss of life of other religious traditions. B’hai in Iran, nearly all who disagreed in Afghanistan. In England during the 1500’s to 1700’s period the Crown vacilated between Catholic and Protestant. Forced conversions sometimes followed this change. Sometimes the punishment for being the other religion was economic or social.
Combinations of Church and State, all the way back to the Pharohs and Rome always caused much strife, repression and social isolation. Infanticide during the Pharohs. All kinds of stuff with the Romans. I am sure I could look up other bad combinations of Church and State throughout history. This is why I strongly advocate rebuilding the wall between Church and State in America. This wall is being torn down, and is badly in need of repair.
QuestionItNow Blogs




26 Comments:
It is interesting to see how liberals attempt to paint America as a burgeoning Christian theocracy without recognizing a few points. The separation between religion and the state already exists, and has existed since the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution was put in place. It is the liberals' attempt to confuse people into thinking that the values of religious people is tied to the attempt by a group to force America into one religion, when that is exactly not what is going on.
It also shows the lack of understanding of what a theocracy truly is. Saying that Islamic states (the ones where sharia is the law of the land) are "so-called theocracies" only proves my argument, as these states use the the Koran to determine the law and the punishments of its people. It is not that the Koran is used as a guide for the people ruling these nations, it is the actual phrasing (as they see it) of the Koran that is the law. Here in the US, there are many parts of the Bible that have been used as a guide to create our laws. But, we don't take the Bible, open it up, and say that this is the law of the land. We have a Constitution and a law code for that. We've taken the values espoused in the Bible and used it to create our own law, and constantly update it as times change. That is not a theocracy by any stretch of the imagination. A recent article about Sen. Brownback by Rolling Stone is laughable as it tried to do the same thing in tying Brownback and the Republicans as an attempt to establish a theocracy.
Unlike many nations where the rulers practice the Islamic religion, Christianity has only two theocracies remaining in the world, and those are theocracies in name only. The first is Vatican City where the Pope is the King. No more needs to be said there. The other is Great Britain where the monarch is also the head of the Anglican Christian church. But, the reality is that religious freedom there is very much like it is here; even the Catholic faith has made a comeback in Britain after centuries of oppression by the government.
Someone I work with asked how long and how often religion has mixed in with the affairs of government and I had to tell him that this almost always has been the case. In Egypt, the Pharaoh was a living god, as was the case in many states. In the days of the Roman Republic, the Senate would not convene until the appropriate religious rites were performed in order to receive good omens in the running of the city. Mixing the rites of a religion within a government is nothing new, but that is not what is going on today (or ever) in the federal government of the United States.
When discussing theocracies, make sure it is understood what a theocracy is, not what one thinks it is.
By
Steve, at 8:29 AM, August 09, 2006
By the way, the picture in the post is not indicative of a church (something pertaining exclusively to Christianity) but of a mosque (something pertaining exclusively to Islam).
By
Steve, at 8:59 AM, August 09, 2006
I want to weigh in here with some context. This was a response to a blogger in another site. I can't remember the thread, but the poster made what I considered to be an illogical statement. I expect Reb 84 can find a link to that discussion.
Steve, your comments in the past have impacted my view of what a theocracy is. I do not believe that most people will find argument with the conclusion that the Taliban and the Ayotollahs in Iran have instituted a theocracy. These stand out as extreme examples today that are benchmarks. The Wahabi leadership in Saudi Arabia qualifies in my mind as a theocracy as well.
History is littered with pagan theocracies. Ancient Egypt conferred god status on the Pharohs. The preists and pharohs were in total control of every aspect of life in that nation. They felt threatened by the monotheistic Jews, and worked to stamp them out. Infanticide with the killing of their firstborn. Exile, slavery, repression of all sorts.
The pagan Romans killed Christians for sport in the Coloseum. They nailed Jesus to the Cross. They persecuted Christians for hundreds of years. The persecution stopped only when a Cesar who was Christian took the throne.
I think I know what a theocracy is, and my personal opinion is that America is on the slippery slope by the melding of poltics and religion. Look up Reformation Ohio. Look up Patriot Pastors. Patriot Pastors is an organization of 2000 envangelist ministers with an agenda to elect like-minded public officials, with a very strong stated preference of Ken Blackwell in Ohio.
Texas has a similar organization. I expect you can find similar organizations in most states or regions. I see what is going on in Ohio, and I think it is dangerous.
The First Amendment does protect the right of all Americans to believe as they see fit. I see this amendment and others in the Bill of Rights, including the right to keep and bear arms under attack. If one amendment is destroyed, the others are also in danger.
Right now the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments are under growing attack. If we lose these protections, do you think the Second, Third, Seventh, Eigth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments can be far behind? Come to think of it, I already believe the 10th Amendment is under severe attack, as the federal government is signifiantly intruding into areas that were once the exclusive role of the states. The 10th Amendment grants some power to the Federal Government, and grants the remaining political power to the States, and to the People.
Only yesterday, it was disclosed by the Governor's association that pending legislation was usurping the Governors' authority to command and call up their well-regulated militia, the military reserve and National Guard units. This is a violation of the Second Amendment. Guns next?
By
Ohiodem1, at 9:07 AM, August 09, 2006
Steve - I did not select the top link, nor the picture. Reb 84 did that. He also did the headline, and misspelled separation. I write the content, he edits by emphasing, or occasionally adding a small comment or two. I take responsibility for the content.
Reb 84, please respond when you have a minute. Thanks. OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 11:13 AM, August 09, 2006
Steve,
If your read the whole of OhioDem1's post, you would note that he has provided historical and cross-cultural comparisons of how church and state marriages affect societies along the "slipery slope" towards theorcracy.
Obviously, the image selected is an extreme depiction of what militant adherence to narrow interpretations of any religion can become.
The link in the title provides an in-depth academic study of the state of America today. It is good background material for a constructive debate.
For the full context of the original discussion from which OD1's post evolved, please visit:
http://www.teambio.org/index.php?s=end+times+propaganda
By
REB 84, at 2:00 PM, August 09, 2006
OD1
You mentioned Taliban Afghanistan, today's Iran, and Saudi Arabia as examples of Islamic theocracies. Add to this Somalia (within the past month or so), the northern section of Nigeria (Muslims live primarily in the north, Christians live in the south), Pakistan, and Sudan (which has further problems), all of which use sharia as their basis for their laws.
Then, after mentioning a couple of other theocracies from history, you said:
"I think I know what a theocracy is, and my personal opinion is that America is on the slippery slope by the melding of poltics and religion. Look up Reformation Ohio. Look up Patriot Pastors. Patriot Pastors is an organization of 2000 envangelist ministers with an agenda to elect like-minded public officials, with a very strong stated preference of Ken Blackwell in Ohio."
I looked them up. So what? Are they trying to get legislation introduced that would force people to become one Christian denomination? Are they trying to get legislation introduced to have people go to some Christian church during the weekend (Seventh-Day Adventists go to church on Saturdays)? Take communion? Get circumcised? Face east and pray five times a day? Because that is what a theocracy does; by statute, a theocracy will tell you how to worship. What Christian ministers are doing in the US is not that at all. Therefore, they are not attempting to build a theocracy. If you provide proof to the contrary, well then I'm wrong. Somehow, I don't think you will, as that would be a true violation of the First Amendment.
And speaking of violating the First Amendment, I came upon John Conyers about a year and a half ago after he introduced legislation, H.Res 288, that was a true violation of the establishment clause when he said that (bold emphasis is mine):
"...the House of Representatives condemning bigotry and religious intolerance, and recognizing that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect."
Let's look at the First Amendment (again, bold emphasis mine):
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."
Yet that is exactly what Conyers did. He goes further in the bill:
"...disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity;..."
Really? Christianity and the Bible are desecrated all the time by the "tolerant" liberals in the US. I mean, look at this post. The title is "Separation of Church and State" and the picture is one of Islamic terrorists in black masks with AK-47s and what appears to be Korans. You will not find these people in a church. You will also not find the followers of a Jerry Falwell or a Pat Robertson, or even Pope Benedict XVI, carrying machine guns (and don't even mention the Pope's Swiss Guards; when were they last involved in starting a war?) and wearing black masks.
I read that other post and found it to be doing exactly what OD1 wrote about recently: it is prop-a-gan-da. Liberals keep pushing the fallacy, with completely unsupportable arguments, that the walls between church and state keep coming down. Reb did this in the other post when smearing and demonizing President Bush by calling him the "Evangelical in Chief". Right now, the only world leader promoting End Times propaganda is the Iranian Guardian Council's lapdog, "President" Ahmadinejad. (Yes, mine was a smear job. Of course, ol' Mahmoud has said, publicly, that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, kind of like ol' Adolf back in his day, so the smear is justified.)
Back to examining liberal violations of the Bill of Rights.
Every major city controlled by liberal Democrats have gun control laws that are a complete violation of the Second Amendment.
Democrats legislated the RICO statutes back in the 60's to combat the Mafia, and they've been used in an attempt to seize and stop all anti-abortion protest groups, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Those that commit violence against abortion clinics and/or doctors are roundly condemned by these groups and other Christians, and are properly prosecuted, so it is correct to say that anti-abortion groups are not in violation of the RICO statutes.
The Kelo decision was a complete violation of the Fifth Amendment, ruled by the liberal Justices of the Supreme Court (regardless of who put them in there).
The Texas court system (made up of Austin liberals, like Democrat prosecutor Ronnie Earle) violated Tom DeLay's Sixth Amendment rights by not granting a speedy trial after the state indictments were handed down. The federal indictments against DeLay are another matter, and seem to have been handled properly, so I am not dismissing any federal wrongdoing by DeLay. But the state charges are questionable at best and the court not allowing the trial to have taken place violates the rights of Tom DeLay.
As far as the federal government intruding into the rights of the states, the judiciary branch (at both the federal and state levels) already have intruded into the legislative process by ruling on political matters in Roe v. Wade and the Massachusetts gay marriage court ruling, especially Roe. It has been used to overturn any challenged laws restricting abortion for the past 30+ years, even when they are reasonable. I was glad that the Senate passed the recent bill regarding requiring parental notification for cross-state abortions on minors. Liberal Dick Durbin saw fit, with a questionable parliamentary maneuver, to stop reconciliation of the Senate and House versions of the bills because of his pandering to campaign contributors NARAL and Planned Parenthood, groups who want to allow abortion-on-demand for any woman, at any age, and at any term in a pregnancy, and want the federal government to pay for it (don't even think to tell me they don't, because they do).
I've been watching how "tolerant liberals" are trying to "warn" America of the "dangers" of an establishment of a theocracy in this country. But their definition of what makes a theocracy is wrong. To continue to say it is happening is propaganda, and lying propaganda at that. And, if it does continue, then the idea that Conservatism = Radicalism is also lying propaganda. The truth would be that today's "Liberalism = Tyranny".
By
Steve, at 8:35 AM, August 10, 2006
Reb,
I don't know if you are a Christian or not. If you are, then you are bordering on major hypocrisy when on the one hand you demonized President Bush by calling a fellow Christian (Bush) the "Evangelical in Chief", then on the other hand you quoted the Bible in a comment below.
BTW, it is laughable that you won't do any research to see if what "Sandy" says is true (regarding Bush's spending on the poor), probably because you might find something that disproves what you say. "Sandy" is right. This President (and the Republican Congress) has done more for the poor by keeping those programs we conservatives have shown are the real drain on the federal budget, and it has been a bane to us for the entire Bush presidency since getting them removed or altered isn't happening.
Also (and BTW), Bush isn't a fringe pseudo religious type (you implied it when you smeared him earlier while in the process of smearing "Sandy"). Bush is a Methodist.
OD1
George Ryan didn't commute those sentences only out of the goodness of his heart. He knew he was going to be prosecuted for the crimes he committed and wanted to show what a decent guy he was. Past policies of his caused the deaths of many innocents (he was responsible for illegally handing out drivers licenses to people who shouldn't have been given one, and this led to many unnecessary traffic fatalities).
By
Steve, at 8:58 AM, August 10, 2006
Very little time to comment right now. Roe v Wade is not under discussion here.
If you want to see examples of theocratic legislation in the United States, look at Missouri first. Recently, a legislator introduced a bill to make Christianity the official religion of Missouri. This is an attempt (a grandstanding attempt) to establish a religion in America. Unconstitutional. There are some other glaring examples from Congress.
Conyers' bill was a resolution with no force of law if passed. This was in response to the reports of people pissing on the Korans of prisoners in Gitmo. It did not go anywhere. It raised a freeper attack on Conyers website, and forced the registration system, which I opposed. You should note that I have always supported not banning you from Conyers when others demanded it. I have also advocated not blacklisting Mel Gibson (in HuffPost), because it is a slippery slope on my side of the fence.
On gun control, the NRA is on record as saying that the current gun laws should be enforced, not new ones promulgated. I am ok with that. Do you want everyone to have an AK-47 and an RPG in his house? Then you would have the security in your home that they have in Iraq or Afganistan.
The Texas court system, which authorizes exections all the time and favors big business over individuals does not seem to me to be a hotbed of liberalism. The Earl indictmennts. DeLay made a lot of noise about going to trial immediately, then his lawyers sought and were granted continuances. Let the juries decide. If you have the law on your side, they always say get a judge to decide your case.
Gotta go.
By
Ohiodem1, at 11:06 AM, August 10, 2006
I did hear about that Missouri thing, but could never find a link to the legislation. I agree, a violation of the First Amendment. But you brought up Ohio and I don't believe the same was done there.
Conyers' resolution was a crock of crap. That whole pissing on the Koran incident was a lie made up by the morons at Newsweek. They've already admitted to it.
Roe became part of the discussion when you brought up Republican's restricting the rights of all Americans. It isn't just a Republican thing as Democrats have decided to make Roe a super-precedent when confirming federal judges and Justices.
By
Steve, at 12:11 PM, August 10, 2006
It was done in MO, not OH.
Seems like the R's like to nibble away at Roe, too. I think it makes too good a political issue to overturn it.
Conyers has 1 million Muslims in the Detroit area, and I think their feathers felt a little ruffled by this issue.
To follow up on Kelo. In Ohio, the Oh Supreme Court overturned the ability for purely commercial gain being the sole criteria for the use of Eminent Domain here. The vote on the decision was 7-0, and the makeup of the court is 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat. The Democrat is liberal and retiring this year, at least 3 of the Republican Justices are moderate and generally can go either way on just about any issue, and at least 2 of the others are generally considered to be conservative, but not extreme. It is actually a pretty good court.
This ruling was about 4-6 weeks ago, and you should be able to look it up. The family that won the suit was in the Cincinnati suburb of Norwood, and this family was featured about a year ago on NOW. Unfortunately, all but three of the houses have been torn down in this neighborhood to make way for a shopping center which got the city council in Norwalk to opt for a bigger tax base over the rights and needs of a neighborhood.
By
Ohiodem1, at 2:55 PM, August 10, 2006
I dug this up but noe I want to give my take on seperation of Chuch and State First! Religion serves no need in our politics beyond being the impetus for what makes one do the right thing for the country and "we the people"
Religion or perverted religion is being purposely injected into our politics today. It is against the Constitution and is very harmful to America.
It has been purposely used to drive a wedge in society purely for political gain.
Looking at the grotesque example Bush has been displaying in America it is obvious why our founding fathers were right to have seperation of church and state.
Bush should be held lible somehow for perverting Christianity and our democracy. He has done to America and Christianity what the Islamists have done to Islam.
As a result we have unbridled perverted Religiosity on both sides of this war equation.
No, just look at the problems in Islamic countries and you can see there is no place in government for religion. But then you don't have to, just look right here. Our forefathers were right! You must have seperation of church and state.
Following is Intelligent design verse Evolution and Bush's interference on that!
Evolution verse Intelligent design but why?
Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 04:46:25 PM PDT
Thinking about this renewed daily debate with daily reminders in the news I remembered that this was an issue a while back and I wrote about it from an unbiased viewpoint. Here it is in response to Bush's intervention.
I had to talk about this because I thought the President had no right to inject his beliefs into this debate but I did find myself agreeing with a small part of what he said and that never happens.
Of course it isn't for the obvious reasons or for any selfish personal agenda but rather it is the facts. We have discussed in the past the theory of intelligent design.
I do not believe in this for Religious reasons but rather for common sense. like most, i happen to believe in evolution.
I also believe in what we call intelligent design. Both if thought about unbiasedly are fact.
However due to personal bias most take one side of the issue or the other. Both views however are part of the whole which is man today as we know him.
Religion should not be taught in our public schools. However, in teaching one or the other you are just giving half the equation and thus injecting your own personal agenda.
Bush was speaking up for his base the fundamentalist Christian Right to lifer's and he has no right to advocate any principle as he has no leg to stand on.
He has no right to advocate that religion in any context be taught in our public schools. Evolution is an undeniable fact, so too is some kind of intelligent design.
We must remember that in the end our selfish bias should not be the measure. Right or wrong, the truth, the whole story, should be the only measure.
We must get back to Thomas Jefferson's ideal that once you became a member of society you would automatically obtain common sense and do the right thing for that society. Forget about it today. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/6/194626/635
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
By
an average patriot, at 4:15 PM, August 10, 2006
OD1
You said:
"To follow up on Kelo. In Ohio, the Oh Supreme Court overturned the ability for purely commercial gain being the sole criteria for the use of Eminent Domain here."
I did read about that. You have no idea how happy I was with that decision. I posted it in my own blog here. You've got a great Supreme Court in Ohio. Maybe it should be moved to D.C.
Average Patriot, I started reading your comment, but am running out of time to keep an appointment. I'll respond later.
By
Steve, at 5:42 PM, August 10, 2006
OhioDem,
As Reb will tell you I am a Christian minister. While I agree that the US was founded on fredom of religion, I also agree that that means ALL religions including Evangelical Christianity. From my stand point I see us sliding down the slope of another religion...Secular Humanism. Defined in Webster as a religious worldview based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and ethical relativism. I also agree that Christians are responsible for significant losses of life throughout history. One aspect that you are missing and do not understand is grace. Grace is a gift freely given that was not deserved. My religion is not based on my performance. We don't have to 'Pass a test'to use your words. We don't have to 'shape up'...If you read the bible it states that we could never pass that test and can't shape up because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" We don't go to heaven by being better people. We go to heaven because Christ died to pay our sin debt to a Holy God. Reb says that God is love. This is true. God is also God. He is holy and cannot look on the sin of man. The reason others don't go to heaven is because of this fact. I...we...didn't make that up. It's in the bible. It's what we believe just like the "average American" believes in evolution an un-proven theory. Later you speak about the moods of God. God never changes. He is always Holy. We always change. We are never Holy. None of this means anything unless we see that we are sinners and fall short of His holy standard (the OT Ten Commandments and Jesus' greatest commandment).As I have further read your post I have come to one conclusion. You really don't understand what an Evangelical Christian is. You don't like Bush and the like...He's an EC...EC's must be baaad people. Ask Reb...I'm not a bad guy. I bleed just like you. I have a wife and kids and a dog and a mortgage just like everyone else does. I'm not perfect by any means...I've just been given a free gift from a loving God who loved me enough to send his son to die in my place so that I can live with him in eternity. I will pray that you will come to know what I know to be true...because I am truely Free
By
Cal Trask, at 11:36 PM, August 10, 2006
Steve,
A common tactic of aggressive right-wing talkers is to strongly assert opinion as fact. They also conveniently re-write definitions and history to support their opinions. Following is a case in point. In responding to OhioDem1, you stated:
“Are they trying to get legislation introduced that would force people to become one Christian denomination? Are they trying to get legislation introduced to have people go to some Christian church during the weekend (Seventh-Day Adventists go to church on Saturdays)? Take communion? Get circumcised? Face east and pray five times a day? Because that is what a theocracy does; by statute, a theocracy will tell you how to worship.”
I have found that
3 entries found for Theocracy.
the•oc•ra•cy Pronunciation Key (th - k r -s )
n. pl. the•oc•ra•cies
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Theocracy
n 1: a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)
2: the belief in government by divine guidance
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Theocracy
a word first used by Josephus to denote that the Jews were under the direct
government of God himself. The nation was in all things subject to the will oftheir invisible King. All the people were the servants of Jehovah, who ruled
over their public and private affairs, communicating to them his will through
the medium of the prophets. They were the subjects of a heavenly, not of an
earthly, king. They were Jehovah's own subjects, ruled directly by him (comp. 1 Sam. 8:6-9).
Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
The first and third definition most closely relates to your argument. However, they are not nearly as narrowly defined as you attest. The second definition #2 is most close to what OhioDem1 sees developing in America.
You also took the following out of context and twisted the original meaning: ‘Reb did this in the other post when smearing and demonizing President Bush by calling him the "Evangelical in Chief".’
Following is the original paragraph:
I personally find this all very disturbing, particularly when one considers that our Evangelical in Chief helped orchestrate an elective war in the heart of the Middle East. Are the "End Timers" in seats of power intending to do what they can to bring about Armageddon in the near future? Are they actually working out a self-fulfilling prophecy? If so, I suspect Hell has a special room reserved for what the band Black Sabbath called the "War Pigs."
While Bush himself has not overtly stated his support for end-times theology, he has welcomed preachers of this persuasion to the White House and also accepted their campaign contributions. Any thinking American has a right and duty to ask how deep these ties go.
Is Bush influenced by 'end times' theology?
By
REB 84, at 11:37 PM, August 10, 2006
Steve, Steve, Steve,
I am starting to believe you don't really take the time to read my posts before you make your completely disconnected comments. Are you suffering from attention deficit disorder?
"BTW, it is laughable that you won't do any research to see if what "Sandy" says is true (regarding Bush's spending on the poor), probably because you might find something that disproves what you say. "Sandy" is right. This President (and the Republican Congress) has done more for the poor by keeping those programs we conservatives have shown are the real drain on the federal budget, and it has been a bane to us for the entire Bush presidency since getting them removed or altered isn't happening."
I DID NOT USE THAT LABEL FOR BUSH.
No, I truly have no interest in doing Sandy's or your jobs for you. When one of you Bush lovers makes a totally unsupported comment it is your responsibility to provide supporting documentation and/or clarifying statements when challenged as I did above and as I am continuing to do here. Please don't attempt to waste my time with such an inane comment.
BTW - Your second sentence is circular and I have no idea what you are attempting to say.
Now you have smeared me and completely lied when you stated, "Also (and BTW), Bush isn't a fringe pseudo religious type (you implied it when you smeared him earlier while in the process of smearing "Sandy"). Bush is a Methodist."
Following is the original comment:
Recently I heard a radio news report that CNN ran a serious news report asking if we are in the "End Times." I found it rather odd that a mainstream media outlet would devote serious resources to covering conjecture and fringe pseudo religious prophetic movements.
If you have read any of Sandy's comments and or seen the mysterious racist links that appeared after calling him/her out you would agree that Sandy exemplifies the radical lunatic implied by this original comment.
Why are you so high maintenance?
By
REB 84, at 11:51 PM, August 10, 2006
Cal,
Thank you once again for inserting an even tempered, understanding voice into this discussion. I believe you can understand that the "Evangelical in Chief" comment was not meant as a slap to evangelicals in general. I know and work with evangelicals and most are good people who attempt to live by Jesus' example.
However, what I see in Bush and people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell are power hungry individuals who wrap themselves in the evangelical label in order to push their own agendas. This is very similair in spirit to the propaganda pushed by the radical Islamists.
I'm sure you can relate to the following quote.
"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy."
- Barry Goldwater
By
REB 84, at 12:07 AM, August 11, 2006
OT
Average Patriot:
I agree that religion has no place in public schools, and I am a great believer in evolution and have been for years.
I think that the Bush administration trying to influence the adoption of Intelligent Design (I don't know anything about it and haven't taken the time to look into it) is exactly the reason the federal government needs to get out of the education business, with the exception of setting standards all states can meet. I know that No Child Left Behind attempted to do that, but nobody likes it (I'm not thrilled with it). But that is an argument for another day.
By
Steve, at 12:24 AM, August 11, 2006
Reb:
You ended your second reply with:
"Why are you so high maintenance?"
That's my wife, not me. OK, enough humor (or the lack of it).
Let me state, succinctly, why this country is not in any imminent danger of becoming any kind of Christian theocracy:
1. I am a non-practicing Catholic.
2. I cannot be arrested for being a non-practicing Catholic.
3. I cannot be taxed differently for being a non-practicing Catholic.
4. I can live anywhere in the United States and items 2 & 3 will still be true.
5. All people who believe in whatever faith they believe have the capabilities as I do in items 2, 3, and 4.
Christian ministers do not have the political power some people think they have. They don't go around with private armies and they don't go tell their people to go and kill people. This occurs frequently in many parts of the Muslim world, especially where true Islamist theocracies exist: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, parts of Nigeria, Somalia.
Regarding research by us Bush lovers, you don't have to. Fortunately for you, I did do my homework on how much is going out this year. The 2006 Budget (from the OMB in September, 2005; I did not include in outlays for the Iraq war or Katrina):
Agriculture
Disc. Outlays - $21.2B
Mand. Outlays - $73.3
Credit - $28.0B
Commerce
Disc. Outlays - $6.4B
Mand. Outlays - $.1B
Defense
Disc. Outlays - $424.4B
Mand. Outlays - $1.9B
Education
Disc. Outlays - $56.9B
Mand. Outlays - $7.4B
Credit - $93.3B
Energy
Disc. Outlays - $24.1B
Mand. Outlays - -$1.1B
HHS
Disc. Outlays - $69B
Medicare - $340.4B
Medicaid - $198.9B
Other - $34.2B
Total - $642.5B
Homeland Security
Disc. Outlays - $33.6B
Mand. Outlays - -$.3B
HUD
Disc. Outlays - $42.1B
Mand. Outlays - -$1.9B
FHA loans - $136.2B
Other loans - $.360B
Total - $176.6B
Interior
Disc. Outlays - $11.1B
Mand. Outlays - -$2.1B
Justice
Disc. Outlays - $21.2B
Mand. Outlays - $2.2B
Labor
Disc. Outlays - $11.1B
Unemployment - $36.9B
Other Mand. Out - $3.7B
Total - $51.7B
State
Disc. Outlays - $32.4B
Mand. Outlays - -$.6B
Credit - $12.3B
Transportation
Disc. Outlays - $59.4B
Mand. Outlays - $1.2B
Treasury
Disc. Outlays - $11.8B
Mand. Outlays - $41.3B
Veterans Affairs
Disc. Outlays - $30.4B
Mand. Outlays - $37.8B
Credit - $47.9B
Army Corps of Engineers
Disc. Outlays - $4.6B
EPA
Disc. Outlays - $8.3B
Mand. Outlays - -$.1B
NASA
Disc. Outlays - $15.7B
National Science Foundataion
Disc. Outlays - $5.6B
SBA
Disc. Outlays - $.8B
Credit - $22.1B
Social Security
Disc. Outlays - $9.5B
Mand. Outlays - $564.3B
Other
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Budget - $.099B
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Budget - $.062B
Corporation for National and Community Service
Budget - $.921B
District of Columbia (City and Courts)
Budget - $.370B
Election Assistance Commission
Budget - $3.1B
EEOC
Budget - $.331B
Executive Office
Budget - $.329B
FCC
Budget - $.304B
FEC
Budget - $.054B
FTC
Budget - $.212B
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Budget - $.262B
National Archives
Budget - $.314B
NEA
Budget - $.121B
NEH
Budget - $.138B
NLRB
Budget - $.252B
NTSB
Budget - $.077B
NRC
Budget - $.702B
Office of Personnel Management
Budget - $.242B
Regional Economic Development Agencies
Budget - $.078B
SEC
Budget - $.888B
Smithsonian Institution
Budget - $.615B
Total - $9.4B
Overall Total - $2,594.5B
The Medicare and Medicaid numbers are outrageous and getting worse. Corporate welfare is another area in serious need of examination (and probably removal; I hate subsidies).
I stand by my statement that your "Evangelical in Chief" is a smear against the President. Your "tone" was very condescending, especially since you believe "end timers" (and no, I am not one of them) have power. Where? Because they help finance his campaign? As if they were the only religious people in the world who finance the Bush campaign, or that they are a significant percentage of the conservative base.
And if we're talking about religious ties, Dearborn, Michigan is smack dab in the middle of Michigan's 14th District and represented by John Conyers. As I stated earlier, he put together a whopper of a resolution that was a complete violation of the First Amendment. Recently, Muslim constituents in Dearborn staged a large protest against Israel, even after Hizbollah committed an act of war against it. Israel is our ally, and Hizbollah is a terrorist group, even Conyers admits to that. Yet, Conyers, on two separate occassions (along with neighbor John Dingell), voted against two non-binding, non-approriation resolutions in support of Israel (H.Res. 191 in 2001 and H.Res. 921 a couple of weeks ago). In both instances, Hizbollah (and the anti-Semitic Kofi Annan and UN as well, in the first instance) was clearly at fault, yet Conyers seems to believe it more important to pander to these "constituents", even when Israel is clearly in the right. Not only that, several people from Dearborn have been convicted in recent years of illegally funneling money to Hizbollah through their "charities". What would be interesting to see is how deep these ties are.
By
Steve, at 1:18 AM, August 11, 2006
Steve - Your failure to include off-budget expenditures vs receipts does not present the whole picture. This drives the real federal deficit up by about 150 Billion dollars.
This argument should be in the previous thread, lying wiht statistics. It is a hell of a lot worse than the administration is owning up to, and the total effect of continuous unsustainable debt is hyperinflation. Look at the total effect of making permanent the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and pay particular attention to the numbers under the assumptions of the budget.
Congress, both D and R are complicit in this mess. Finally, Medicare and Medicaid, and particularly Medicare are in a significant way, the province of the Republcian presidential and congressional leadership, including the holding open the House vote, in the middle of the night for hours as arm twisting and attempted bribery took place to pass the Prescription Drug bill, again, in the middle of the night. In this case, the D's were the fiscally responsible party. BTW, it is well known that the numbers presented to congress by the administration were lies, and they were deliberately withheld from Congress, even to the extent of the threatening of an actuary's job if he told the truth of his calculation of the budget impact to Congress.
Several R's congressmen stated that if they knew the real budgetary impact of the legislation, they would have voted against it.
They are shifting the tax burden back to you and me. I don't like it, and you shouldn't either. That's my opinion.
By
Ohiodem1, at 12:14 PM, August 11, 2006
Men,
I think one thing we are teetering near the edge of is labeling people in groups instead of speaking about individuals. We can easily make comments that muddle the important points we may have by calling each other names. Using the phrase "evangelical in chief" to some folks is quite offensive. Remove the "evangelical" and insert the words: Jew, athiest, lesbian, African American, Asian or any other race creed or color and we'd be having a different conversation...One think I respect about you guys is that you tend to stay away from labels...In this case I think you need to re-think why you used that title. Do you have some deep seeded offense with Christians as a whole? If you don't (I don't think you do) then you need to change the post.Just my opinion...
CT
By
Cal Trask, at 12:28 PM, August 11, 2006
One of the inspirations for QuestionItNow came from an HR director who was also a local delegate to the Bush re-election committee in 2004. This woman was very adamant and rigid in her viewpoint. Through my encounters with her, I quickly realized that there is no rationalizing with true members of the Cult 'O Bush. These people do not ask questions.
There's is more or less a blind obedience to the Bush party line.
I also saw close-up how some are abusing their positions as "religious" leaders to brow-beat their flock into voting a particular way.
This HR Director forwarded an email to many within our company from her "Pastor." This dude asserted that anyone who votes for John Kerry was essentially buying a one-way ticket straight to hell! This joker added a little caveat to the beginning of the message stating he was speaking as a "private citizen." While this support will not show up on anyone's income statement, it is an example of abuses to the spirit of the separation of church and state.
By
REB 84, at 12:29 PM, August 11, 2006
Cal,
As you see in my response to you at "End Times Propaganda" the label was put in for effect.
However, many other's are questioning how much Bush's black and white worldview is influenced by a narrow interpretation of Christianity.
Evangelist Bush
I'm off to vacation this evening. I will circle back towards the end of next week.
By
REB 84, at 12:40 PM, August 11, 2006
OD1
I was responding to Reb's assertion about doing research, and I had done it. I didn't include the other numbers because it was last year's data and I didn't have what is current. If I remember correctly, It was over $300B.
I also proved the case that Bush has done much spending to help the poor, and in some cases, spent much on crap (the Medicare bill you mentioned). And while Dems appeared fiscally responsible in this case, too many still call for a one-stop health plan with the government being the stop. Not me, brother. Socialism in this country is dead. Get the federal government out of the over-regulated and over-litigated health care industry.
Reb, your point about the HR director is amusing. I remember reading about WorldCom's Bernie Ebbers holding prayer meetings with the board as he was flushing the company down the toilet.
Your point also has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. I could make the same case with the ridiculous and idiotic diversity training I had to go through where I work. The idea that someone's nationality, religious background, gender, etc., needs to be factored in how I work with someone is stupid, when all that needs to be said is that I must be a professional and do my best to keep the company profitable and maintain my employment (the bottom line for me). I expect the same from others that work with me.
Diversity is perversity.
And Reb, have a good vacation.
By
Steve, at 8:06 PM, August 11, 2006
Steve, I am taking a vacation too. If you haven't seen this on the eminent domain argument, this may be of interest to you.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/13/91153/4281
Back in September. Everyone, enjoy what is left of summer.
OD1
By
Ohiodem1, at 11:25 PM, August 13, 2006
Have a great vacation OhioDem. You have deserved it.
By
REB 84, at 11:21 PM, August 18, 2006
In the Old Testament, Christians/Jews didn't have a precident to follow; i.e. a perfect example (Jesus). So, if they lived their lives praying to God and doing as He asked, they went to Heaven.
However, after Jesus came, some things changed. One had to accepted that Jesus came to live here to save us from our sins, in that time and in the future. The process of getting saved, praying, reading the Bible living the Godly life...that's what gets you there to Heaven now.
A lot of things have changed. You don't see people cutting off hands in every country for doing something wrong, right? Now, I know that some countries still do these kinds of things, but had it not been for the changes that came about in the New Testament, many people would be handless.
You have to consider the whole bible when asking questions, not just half of it.
By
Allie, at 12:16 PM, July 16, 2007
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home