Huckabee is nutso.

[Newscaster]

:scared::scared:

Huckabee’s Courting of the Far, Far right
People for the American Way:

It looks as if Mike Huckabee is heading to Texas to raise a bit of money with the help of a few of his right-wing supporters:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has been gaining ground in the Republican presidential primaries, is scheduled to meet campaign donors in Houston today at the Tanglewood home of physician Steve Hotze, a longtime Christian conservative activist. Like other major presidential candidates, Huckabee is making a last dash for Texas cash before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary next month. His trip includes a fundraising event in Dallas after his Houston event.

Co-hosts for the $500-per-person Houston event include state Rep.Debbie Riddle of Tomball and Texan Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America, which works to mobilize pastors and church congregations for political action.

If you’ve been reading this blog for any length of time, you are undoubtedly familiar with Rick Scarborough, the self-described “Christocrat� who heads Vision America and has a penchant for suggesting that evangelicals leaders are dying off because the nation has turned its back on God, suggesting that Christians will have “the blood of martyrs on [their] hands“if they don’t oppose hate crimes legislation, blaming “the church� for just standing by and allowing the election of “unrighteous leaders� in 2006, and saying that opponents of the War in Iraq are committing treason, among other things.

Sadly, Rick Scarborough may be the most sane of the group named. PFAW has this quote from Riddle:

“Where did this idea come from that everybody deserves free education, free medical care, free whatever? It comes from Moscow, from Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of hell. And it’s cleverly disguised as having a tender heart. It’s not a tender heart. It’s ripping the heart out of this country.�

Leave aside we’re the ONLY western country that doesn’t offer national healthcare, Moscow is the pit of hell? That’s just so Cold War of you, Deb. Join this century, shall we? And Dr. Hotze strikes me as a wee bit out of date as well:

According to a separate Houston Press article that suggests that Hotze’s medical credentials and views are a bit suspect, he also signed something called the Coalition on Revival’s Manifesto for the Christian Church in 1986 that dictated:

A wife may work outside the home only with her husband’s consent.

“Biblical spanking� that results in “temporary or superficial bruises or welts� should not be considered a crime.

No doctor shall provide medical service on the Sabbath.

All disease and disability is caused by the sin of Adam and Eve.

Medical problems are frequently caused by personal sin.

“Increased longevity generally results from obedience to specific Biblical commands�.

Treatment of the “physical body� is not a doctor’s highest priority
Doctors have a priestly calling.

People receiving medical treatment are not immune from divine intervention or demonic forces.

Physicians should preach to their patients because salvation is the key to their health.

Good lord. Did this guy just decide that progessing beyond the Middle Ages was unneccessary? Does he practice medicine by leeching out the ill vapours? People were rightfully up in arms over donations made to Hillary by Norman Hsu, but these guys scare me far more.

There has always been a good valid reason forseparating church and state. Huckabee reminds us what that reason was......because these bible thumpers are out of their freaking minds.

[ViolaLee]

The last thing we need is a fundamentalist religious wackjob in the White House, again.

Can we have some sanity this time - please America?!?!?!

[NortheastCynic]

Indeed. He would be a great preacher and a horrific, God-awful President.

-NC

[ViolaLee]

Indeed!

[preservanation]

Get the Huck out of Dodge
Thomson is the one !

[ViolaLee]

You mean Thompson?

He's a lazy, do nothing...

[preservanation]

Yeah, that guy....the guy way to the right of Hillary in you sig.......way to the right.[hr]Prob out of your picture.
But that doesn't surprise me.

[Drocket]

Indeed. He would be a great preacher and a horrific, God-awful President.

Sooo... crazy people make good preachers?

[preservanation]

Huck is a lib, ergo he would make a bad leader of America.
Clinton split the hairs because his feet were held to the fire by Newt and the '94 congress, but Carter (also a religious candidate) almost destroyed this nation single-handily.
No more libs!

Thomson!
Dammit

[Chris]

Get the Huck out of Dodge
Thomson is the one !

No we dont need another rich white man in the WH. This guy is the poster boy for rich white america. Complete with trophy wife.


Huck is a lib, ergo he would make a bad leader of America.
Clinton split the hairs because his feet were held to the fire by Newt and the '94 congress, but Carter (also a religious candidate) almost destroyed this nation single-handily.
No more libs!

Thomson!
Dammit


How in the hell is Huckabee a lib?

[Drocket]

How in the hell is Huckabee a lib?

Insufficient hatred of brown people combined with a belief in human rights. He's been working hard to overcome these serious negatives, though.

[Newscaster]

Insufficient hatred of brown people makes someone a lib? No wonder the republicans are talking themselves out of existence. No, Mr Drocket...hatred of brown people does not make one a lib, it makes one a moron. It makes one blind to the fact that people of all color have contributed to the welfare of the United States and they have served this country with valor, bravery and honor and each one of them has helped to make this a great country. Under normal circumstances, I might sday I was surprised at a statement such as yours but really, I am not surprised. Unfortunately this country, in its ability and desire to help all Americans, has allowed pockets of people like you to fester in dark corners under your personal assumption that you are the true Americans and that somehow this country belongs to you and no one else. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the people who display such ignorance that turn the world against us. This country belongs to all people who love it, help it to survive and move ahead. Statements like yours certainly to not.

[Pookie]

Good heavens, if Huckabee's a liberal, I just got elected Pope and not a damn soul in here had the decency to let me know about it.
Thanks a lot, you meanies. I thought you all were my friends.
See if I throw any holy water on YOU!
Huckabee a liberal. OMG.
Purrs,
Pookie

[PatrickHenry]

Newscaster, could I ask you to always use the quote function and include a link when you are posting material written by another?

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/12/courting_the_ri.html?tr=y&auid=3268486

Thanks :love:

[Newscaster]

Sure, you can ask.

[Drocket]

Insufficient hatred of brown people makes someone a lib?
I was being sarcastic. Well, mostly sarcastic. Sorta sarcastic...

I'm not saying its a good thing, but there's most definitely a not-insignificant number of people on the Republican side who have - lets just say issues - with minorities. Its been quite disgusting watching the Republican candidates do what they can to pander to the hicks.

[PatrickHenry]

Sure, you can ask.
Are you saying, "No. I won't?"

If that is your response, I must label you a plagiarist and completely non grata on any civilized site.

I certainly hope that is not true, given your profession.

See, I could not tell where your own writing began in the original post for this topic. It is only by comparing the page I linked to what you wrote that the original material is made clear.

Are you really so dishonest? Or was that just a flippant response to another member you dislike? I hope it's the latter...

[Newscaster]

Mr Patrick, do you know the difference between a quote, a question or a statement?
When you put a question mark at the end of a sentence that had been written before but without a question mark, it is no longer a quote. When I quote someone, I put quotation marks around the worlds as does most of the rest if the world. Thewy look like these...." --". I would loosen up and read the words of the post and not worry about grammatical markings. Its the worlds and their meaning that carry additional meanings.....not diacritical marks.[hr]
If that is your response, I must label you a plagiarist and completely non grata on any civilized site.
-0-
I certainly hope that is not true, given your profession.
-0-
Are you really so dishonest? Or was that just a flippant response to another member you dislike? I hope it's the latter...


Oh, the term is persona non grata....not just "non grata". Those marks are quotation marks. As far as flippant remarks in response to someone I dislike.......I dont dislike you. Disliking someone takes far too much effort and I am quite laid back. I am also far too old to fight wars that do not benefit me. So, have a nice day.

[Kevin67]

I dont really like Huckabee much either, but I'd much prefer Huckabree as Pres over Hillary.

[ViolaLee]

Newscaster are you a plagiarist?

[Finuzzo!]

I dont really like Huckabee much either, but I'd much prefer Huckabree as Pres over Hillary.



Agreed.

[The Wolf Star]

You know Huckabee will win most every primary. Why? He's the darling of the CFR :help:

http://www.cfr.org/bios/13301/mike_huckabee.html

[Elrathin]

I hope Huckabee does get the nominee, it will guarantee a dem Victory. You conservatives that support Huckabee should have learned your lesson with Pat Robertson. I would LOVE Huckabee to be the Republican nominee LOL.

Religious fucking whackos = Other side gets victory.

[Mark L Hamburger]

I hope Huckabee does get the nominee, it will guarantee a dem Victory. You conservatives that support Huckabee should have learned your lesson with Pat Robertson. I would LOVE Huckabee to be the Republican nominee LOL.

Religious fucking whackos = Other side gets victory.


I think that's Zo's reasoning too :lmao:

[Newscaster]

I dont think Huckabee will get the nomination. Iowa just has an inordinate number of religious extremists that other states do not have and I believe Iowa will turn out just be an anomaly more than a true picture of voter choices. I could be wrong but I dont think I am. Huck has quite a way to go and McCain still has a lot of states where he is very strong.

[ViolaLee]

Huckabee will NEVER win in New Hampshire. They are much more reasonable and logical and secular and "New England" ;) than Iowa.

It's pretty darn cool that they gave it to Obama, Iowa is 97% white!

[Elrathin]

Huckabee will NEVER win in New Hampshire. They are much more reasonable and logical and secular and "New England" ;) than Iowa.



Let's all hope that Republicans play the dumb card though and nominate him. The rest of America will wake up and realize that a religious nutjob like Huckabee should never be president. It will be a Dem Landslide.

Come on Viola, let's hope and cheer for a Huckabee Nomination :)

[ViolaLee]

El - America voted for a religious nutjob twice already. If you believe the votes were honestly counted that is, in 2000 and 2004. Don't you think it's risky to root for another one to run?

But then again, the conservatives are calling him a liberal because he raised taxes to balance the budget. I guess it's now a liberal trait to be fiscally conservative. :clapper:

So he would split the Republicans and a Democrat would easily win.

But who cares? A Democrat will easily win anyway after 8 years of this horrific neocon Republican, moronic White House we have now.

Easy peasy.

[Elrathin]

El - America voted for a religious nutjob twice already. If you believe the votes were honestly counted that is, in 2000 and 2004. Don't you think it's risky to root for another one to run?


In 2000 you may have had a point, but I think 2004 was legit and it was done off of fear IMO (Yes, I know about Ohio, but I just don't see it so call me silly then I believe Bush was elected again out of fear). I don't think fear is going to play a part in this election. People have wised up to that.

[ViolaLee]

Unless we have a terror attack again before the election. Do you think the GOP is above letting one happen so they can win out of fear? Giuliani is their fear candidate.

[Elrathin]

Unless we have a terror attack again before the election. Do you think the GOP is above letting one happen so they can win out of fear? Giuliani is their fear candidate.


Actually I don't think fear is a player in this election. I think Huckabee was a fluke in Iowa. I may be wrong, but that is what I think.

As far as Guiliani goes, he has name recognition (from 9/11) with the idiots of the conservative party and in some part the others feel he has experience. Fear I don't think is a player. Again I may be wrong, but that is how I feel.

For once, I think fear is going to take a backseat in this election. That's not to say other stupid things won't take precedence :)

[ViolaLee]

Unless we have a terror attack again before the election. Do you think the GOP is above letting one happen so they can win out of fear? Giuliani is their fear candidate.


Actually I don't think fear is a player in this election. I think Huckabee was a fluke in Iowa. I may be wrong, but that is what I think.

As far as Guiliani goes, he has name recognition (from 9/11) with the idiots of the conservative party and in some part the others feel he has experience. Fear I don't think is a player. Again I may be wrong, but that is how I feel.

For once, I think fear is going to take a backseat in this election. That's not to say other stupid things won't take precedence :)


Unless there is another attack.

Right?

I think Iowa has a great number of fundamentalist Christians and that's why Huckabee won. Other states don't have that issue, so he won't do well all around. I think the Republican primaries will be very interesting, with different candidates winning different states. McCain might win one place and Giuliani another, then Romney might win somewhere else. I hope Ron Paul wins a state. That would be awesome.

[Elrathin]

You make good points Viola, but I don't think there will be another attack.

I think the top two candidates for the Republicans will be Guilian (Mainly the name recognition) and McCain (For the veteran name recognition). I don't think either of those two would be really good presidential candidates, but they seen to be the top runners IMO. Yes, I know guiliani scored the lowest (or really low) in Iowa Caucus, but I still think those are the two front runners. I still think Huckabee was a fluke although I would like to see him get it cause it would be a guaranteed Dem Victory.

[ViolaLee]

What about Romney?

I hope you're right about the attack.

[spirobulldog08]

You people are pathetic that are against Huckabee and his devotion to Christianity. This is primarily directed at the first page of comments. Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution and is a slap in the face to the God who made us what we are today. WHAT ON EARTH DO YOU THINK MADE THIS COUNTRY SO STRONG TO BEGIN WITH!? We started out as a Christian country all the way back to our Founding Fathers. Even the liberals of that day and time were still understanding that God is the center of the success of the country. And guess what happened when we had our priorities straight. We spent YEARS as the leading country in the world in every way imaginable. Now we're stuck in a rut and are trying to get out. Let me assure you, a LIBERAL is NOT the way to go! I do believe that if Huckabee had been elected President that I would be willing to deal with a lot of negative things to be able to hold my head up high and say, "Yes that is my country, we voted for a Christian President!" I would be willing to deal with those same things to say that we had the favor of God with our leadership. The day we as Americans lose our morals, values and relationship with God is the day we will die! If you don't believe me, maybe you should read your Bible, Christians! If you're not a Christian and are reading this then nothing I say will matter anyway so don't even bother responding. The only thing you'll get me is a prayer you don't want anyway.

[Drocket]

We started out as a Christian country all the way back to our Founding Fathers.

Deism: look it up.

[Pookie]

What's biblical spanking? Do you whack your kid with a Bible?

[PatrickHenry]

...we voted for a Christian President!" I would be willing to deal with those same things to say that we had the favor of God with our leadership...
Hmm. Isn't GW Bush a "Christian?"

See--Christian can be a heart change, or increasingly, it is a masquerade.

And anyhow Huck is a hasbeen/neverwas.

BTW, Huck's a liberal.

[spirobulldog08]

Deism: look it up.


Bible: read it.

[spirobulldog08]

Hmm. Isn't GW Bush a "Christian?"

See--Christian can be a heart change, or increasingly, it is a masquerade.

And anyhow Huck is a hasbeen/neverwas.

BTW, Huck's a liberal.

I would say so, but for me to say someone is Christian without knowing them is like me trying to tell you Hillary Clinton is a Christian. She may claim to be but is in fact far from it. The point is moot whether or not we think the President does a good job. If he/she does what God wants then He will be their judge and it makes no difference what we think. And I do believe you are immature for making a comment like "Huck's a liberal." It is apparent that he is most definitely not and if you paid ANY attention to what REALLY goes on (as opposed to wherever else you get your information) then we might not be having this argument.

[Pookie]

I would say so, but for me to say someone is Christian without knowing them is like me trying to tell you Hillary Clinton is a Christian. She may claim to be but is in fact far from it. The point is moot whether or not we think the President does a good job. If he/she does what God wants then He will be their judge and it makes no difference what we think. And I do believe you are immature for making a comment like "Huck's a liberal." It is apparent that he is most definitely not and if you paid ANY attention to what REALLY goes on (as opposed to wherever else you get your information) then we might not be having this argument.

Wait a minute, Spiro, who made you the judge here? He's not immature. You're judging without knowing the person, just as you are judging who is and isn't a Christian.

About judging: Read your Bible, too:

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

You told another member to read the Bible, so here you go.

Purrs,
Pookie

[Drocket]

Bible: read it.

I have, but I must have missed the part where it explained how not believing in Jesus's divinity doesn't disqualify you from being a Christian if you found a country.

[Easy90]

Personally, I am getting pretty tired of this "Merica is a Jesus country....and if you don't have Jesus, you ain't a Merican!" BS attitude! If you want to live in a theocracy...go to Iran!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy90 said:
Personally, I am getting pretty tired of this "Merica is a Jesus country....and if you don't have Jesus, you ain't a Merican!" BS attitude! If you want to live in a theocracy...go to Iran!

(standing round of applause) ;)

[PatrickHenry]

I would say so, but for me to say someone is Christian without knowing them is like me trying to tell you Hillary Clinton is a Christian. She may claim to be but is in fact far from it. The point is moot whether or not we think the President does a good job. If he/she does what God wants then He will be their judge and it makes no difference what we think. And I do believe you are immature for making a comment like "Huck's a liberal." It is apparent that he is most definitely not and if you paid ANY attention to what REALLY goes on (as opposed to wherever else you get your information) then we might not be having this argument.

My, my, my!

You call me immature for my opinion that Huck's a liberal? Listen, Shorty...I am not the only one who thinks so!

http://coloradoconservativeproject.blogspot.com/2007/10/huckabee-is-liberal.html

http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/742931899.html

And as far as HRC...heh. How can you know her heart? We just see the FRUIT of someone's life. I would be inclined to agree with your assessment, but need I point out that YOU'RE not the Righteous Judge?

So anyhow we can agree that those who claim the name of Christ are often acting out a role because it works for elective office. In fact, many at the top of the political heap have untold filth in their lives, including mayhem and murder, all while wearing a mask of gentility.

[spirobulldog08]

I fully understand now why I don't bother to talk about religion in a forum that obviously doesn't want to accept the truth. Calling me a judge for saying someone is immature in itself is looking for a way to get at me without having substance because it is most definitely not. It does however say in the Bible that you are to judge one by his fruits. And I do most definitely know Senator Clinton and Governor Huckabees fruits. I've seen their true colors, no one can deny facts. Say what you will of me, I can't help it, I have obviously struck paydirt in order to be causing such a stir. I have seen why America is in such trouble. As long as we try to exclude him then war and chaos is all we'll ever have. No matter your political orientation, good luck in November.

[Pookie]

You're denying what it says in the Bible? Let me repeat, dear, just so we are all on the same page:

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

And look. Here is a lesson for you, ye who judges us:

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

You cannot cast the beam out of thy eye.

You cannot see clearly.
Therefore, you are frightened of us, for I exposed you for the hypocrite you SEEM to be, however, you will not be a hypocrite if you very, very patiently teach us the right way as you see it.
However, it is clear that you do not wish to do so, since you give up and run away.
We are all open to education, enlightenment, and different viewpoints.
Don't insult us. Educate us. Enlighten us.
If you cannot do that, then you probably need more help about comunicating with people.
And don't you even think of congratulating yourself on hitting paydirt. You did not.
PROVE YOU DID, OK?
THEN, and only then, will you have proof you can stand on here. Because you see, if you just poof away without defending your point, we will laugh at you. You will be a fool.
So, it's up to you, and there you go. So you think you hit paydirt? Let's see the proof.
We're waiting.
Pookie

[PatrickHenry]

Well, I hope he stays around.

I don't think him a fool, but he should at least try to defend his stuff in a debate.

[Pookie]

Well, that is why I did this stuff, ok?
Geez.
Pookie

[spirobulldog08]

I still am not judging them. I am doing exactly what the Bible says. And in order to make a decision of who I want as President of the co untry I have to pass a "judgement" if that's what you want to call it on whether or not they will follow Christ in office. That doesn't necessarily mean I don't think they can go to Heaven and I'm judging their life as damned to hell. The Bible says this:

Matthew 7:20 (http://bible.cc/matthew/7-20.htm) "So then, you will know them by their fruits."
Matthew 12:33 (http://bible.cc/matthew/12-33.htm) "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit."

These tell us that people are known by the fruit of their life that they produce and show others. We are to observe that. It is not judging as in saying they're going to Heaven or Hell, it's judging whether they're following God's will or not and whether they have or not.

A lot of things He does doesn't make sense, and a lot of things His followers do, but as long as they're doing what He says then I'm going to support them. If Huckabee is following God's will then I will support him just like I would if Hillary or Obama were doing what his will is. I can clearly say that they are not because of their policy, lies and most notably the Clintons' history of fraud in the White House. God would never have someone to do the things and tell the lies that were told in those 8 years.

I agree fully with the scriptures you posted, they are 100% correct but they aren't necessarily relevant to what I said because I was not saying that Hillary and/or Obama could not be saved and go to Heaven, I simply stated that, as is, they are not following God's will by the issues they support or by the cloud of deceit they create (Clintons predominantly). I should not have said they are not Christians, they could very well be. I should have said I believe that if they are they are astray and should come back. But I can't back up so far as to say I think they're great people, the same way I can't say that I'm a great person. The bottom line is, as a Christian, I should want the person who follows God best in office, because if our leadership has the will of God in mind, then we are bound to succeed in God's eyes.

I've jumped around on this post a lot. I wrote things and then went back and inserted others so if I repeated a lot, that is why.

[Osborn F. Enready]

What does the damn BIBLE have to do with a presidential candidate?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

This is not a theocracy.....

[NortheastCynic]

You people are pathetic that are against Huckabee and his devotion to Christianity. This is primarily directed at the first page of comments. Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution and is a slap in the face to the God who made us what we are today. WHAT ON EARTH DO YOU THINK MADE THIS COUNTRY SO STRONG TO BEGIN WITH!? We started out as a Christian country all the way back to our Founding Fathers. Even the liberals of that day and time were still understanding that God is the center of the success of the country. And guess what happened when we had our priorities straight. We spent YEARS as the leading country in the world in every way imaginable. Now we're stuck in a rut and are trying to get out. Let me assure you, a LIBERAL is NOT the way to go! I do believe that if Huckabee had been elected President that I would be willing to deal with a lot of negative things to be able to hold my head up high and say, "Yes that is my country, we voted for a Christian President!" I would be willing to deal with those same things to say that we had the favor of God with our leadership. The day we as Americans lose our morals, values and relationship with God is the day we will die! If you don't believe me, maybe you should read your Bible, Christians! If you're not a Christian and are reading this then nothing I say will matter anyway so don't even bother responding. The only thing you'll get me is a prayer you don't want anyway.
A: This country is "in no sense founded on Christian doctrine" - George Washington, Founding Father.

B: The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" That is a legal separation of Church and State by definition. The state cannot establish religion the two must be separate.

C: I do not read the Bible when I'm looking for political wisdom. I read it when I need spiritual guidance. Similarly, I read Hayek for political wisdom and not spiritual guidance.

-NC

[spirobulldog08]

B: The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" That is a legal separation of Church and State by definition. The state cannot establish religion the two must be separate.

First of all you are right about what the first amendment says, but nowhere in that does it say anything about separation of church and state. That is totally a false reading of the first amendment. That is interpreted by many to say that but it is absolutely false. It says that there shall be no established religion, but it does not say that there shall be a separation of the two. They must not be separate according to the Constitution. That is how you choose to interpret it.

C: I do not read the Bible when I'm looking for political wisdom. I read it when I need spiritual guidance. Similarly, I read Hayek for political wisdom and not spiritual guidance.You do raise a good point that validates your point of view. But on the other hand, if you read the Bible and understand how important God is in our life, you must certainly realize that God is not bound only to giving us spiritual guidance. He can do so much more if you'll only let him. To say he can only give spiritual guidance is putting too much limitation on the being who created the entire universe including ourselves.

[NortheastCynic]

First of all you are right about what the first amendment says, but nowhere in that does it say anything about separation of church and state. That is totally a false reading of the first amendment. That is interpreted by many to say that but it is absolutely false. It says that there shall be no established religion, but it does not say that there shall be a separation of the two. They must not be separate according to the Constitution. That is how you choose to interpret it.How do you interpret the First Amendment? Specifically, how is it different from my interpretation while still adhering to the words of the Constitution?

You do raise a good point that validates your point of view. But on the other hand, if you read the Bible and understand how important God is in our life, you must certainly realize that God is not bound only to giving us spiritual guidance. He can do so much more if you'll only let him. To say he can only give spiritual guidance is putting too much limitation on the being who created the entire universe including ourselves.No. I understand how is God important is to me. I respect the fact that others do not believe in God or adhere to a different religion. As such, I do not believe my religious beliefs should be forced on anyone. God gave us free will, it is not the place of government to strip of us it. By becoming intertwined with religion [any religion or all religions] it inhibits the free will of others to not become involved with religion [any religion or all religions].

-NC

[Buck Laser]

You people are pathetic that are against Huckabee and his devotion to Christianity.
Bulldog, I can't think of a forum in the world where a post beginning with "you people are pathetic" is gonna win any interested readers. Why don't you go back and try again?

I have considerable respect for Huckabee, particularly since he spoke so forcefully for Obama's pastor in his prophetic role. But Huck really doesn't understand that the US is a secular nation and always has been. Many of the proposals he made during his campaign were so patently unconstitutional that his election would surely have precipitated a constitutional crisis.

[Elrathin]

You do raise a good point that validates your point of view. But on the other hand, if you read the Bible and understand how important God is in our life, you must certainly realize that God is not bound only to giving us spiritual guidance. He can do so much more if you'll only let him. To say he can only give spiritual guidance is putting too much limitation on the being who created the entire universe including ourselves.

Tell me, was Jesus about forcing god on people, or about letting people come to god. That should should pretty much explain the whole separation of church and state.

Jesus was not about FORCING people to change, but having them choose to change.

That proves that the separation of church and state is what Jesus would have wanted.

[spirobulldog08]

Bulldog, I can't think of a forum in the world where a post beginning with "you people are pathetic" is gonna win any interested readers. Why don't you go back and try again?

I have considerable respect for Huckabee, particularly since he spoke so forcefully for Obama's pastor in his prophetic role. But Huck really doesn't understand that the US is a secular nation and always has been. Many of the proposals he made during his campaign were so patently unconstitutional that his election would surely have precipitated a constitutional crisis.

First off you are right about your first comment about not having a very interesting opening. Secondly I have to disagree that we've always been a secular nation. That is not at all true. If it were true the following would also be false:
1. We are a country that was formed for freedom from religious persecution.
2. We are a country that openly accepts almost all denominations of Christianity without scorn.
3. Polling has always shown religious beliefs to carry a heavy load on voting for candidates.
4. We have "In God We Trust" imprinted on all American currency. (Whether we live by it or not)
5. The Bible is/was the number one selling book in America.

I'm sure there are other things I'm not thinking of. We have grown secular but we did not at all start that way. We as a country were the most successful back when we were truly one nation under God as it were as far back as the revolutionary days in the North. I don't want to get into too much history but there are numerous things that say we were not originally a secular country. It is unfortunate that we have become so much of one today, but I respect men like Mike Huckabee that believe we should not be one today.

Lastly, on the point of how Constitutional Huckabee was. I haven't studied any controversial issues that he supported as far as being Constitutional. If he did I must have missed it, which is probably the case because I quit following him so closely when he dropped out. Do tell me some of those things so that I will understand what you're talking about. I'm not calling you a liar I would just like to know what it is that I don't know. Thanks for the reply though and I apologize for my rudeness.

[spirobulldog08]

Tell me, was Jesus about forcing god on people, or about letting people come to god. That should should pretty much explain the whole separation of church and state.

Jesus was not about FORCING people to change, but having them choose to change.

That proves that the separation of church and state is what Jesus would have wanted.

I halfway agree with you because it's an interesting point of view, but on the other hand, it goes back to my comment above. We were founded on Christian principles as a nation by our Founding Fathers and I don't believe it was our right to interpret the 1st Amendment to say anything about separating church and state. The one thing that almost all Americans agreed upon was that they came to America for freedom from religious persecution, as I said above, and I believe it's safe to say they would be shocked at how far off course America is today form what they set in place because of people that look for ways to suit their own interpretation of the Bible instead of just taking it for what it says and not making their own "loopholes" in it.

To sum up I simply can't share the point of view that you present -as interesting as it may be- because separation of church and state wasn't implemented because of the reason you gave, it was implemented to satisfy someone offended by America's God. I personally don't think it's right that Christians have had to give up so many rights because of people like that, but that's another topic altogether.

[Elrathin]

The one thing that almost all Americans agreed upon was that they came to America for freedom from religious persecution....

And what exactly do you think would happen if we had the government being run by Christians?

You would have laws that CHRISTIANS follow, but it would restrict others and their religion. That is what people are trying to avoid.

And I hate to say it but the founding fathers were mostly deists and the principles they founded this country on were not just Christian, but they were shared by many religious and non-religious people at the time as well. Or are you saying "Do not murder" is strictly a Christian law?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Spiro said:
We as a country were the most successful back when we were truly one nation under God as it were as far back as the revolutionary days in the North.

What nonsense.....

Proof of that being nonsense:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[Buck Laser]

First off you are right about your first comment about not having a very interesting opening. Secondly I have to disagree that we've always been a secular nation. That is not at all true. If it were true the following would also be false:
1. We are a country that was formed for freedom from religious persecution.
2. We are a country that openly accepts almost all denominations of Christianity without scorn.
3. Polling has always shown religious beliefs to carry a heavy load on voting for candidates.
4. We have "In God We Trust" imprinted on all American currency. (Whether we live by it or not)
5. The Bible is/was the number one selling book in America.

Sorry Bulldog, but I think you're wrong on every single point here.

1. I can think of only three of the original colonies that were founded for the sake of religious freedom. Plymouth Colony was founded by Puritans, who were fleeing C of E persecution. However, they weren't all that tolerant of other faiths. Remember that it was in Massachusetts that the witchcraft trials occured. Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams, a Baptist, and it actually was fairly tolerant of other faiths. Maryland became a haven for Catholics early on. I don't know how tolerant they were of other faiths.

The fact is that profit was a much larger consideration in establishing the "new world" colonies than faith. Most of the southern colonies brought the C of E with them, while the Scotch Irish, who arrived nearly a century later, tended to be Presbyterian.

2. Refer to #1 above: alleged witches in the Massachusetts colony found little welcome. To bring it up to the 20th century, a good friend of mine, a Methodist clergyman, chose to wear a clerical collar in the performance of his duties. Once, stopped at a cafe in Tennessee, a waitress told him "I'm sorry, but we don't serve Catholics here." In my own schooldays in south Texas, I went for a year to a Lutheran parochial school where I was told that Catholics were fundamentally evil, and that they were likely to stop little Lutheran boys on the street and burn them with cigarettes. As an adult, friends who attended Catholic schools said they got the same messages about protestants.

3. Kennedy pretty much broke that barrier in 1960. His speech to the Baptist clergy assembled in Houston is one of the more important documents concerning religious liberty in American history. I worked as a volunteer in the Kennedy campaign in 1960, going door to door, and I found a small number of people who said "I like him, but I just can't vote for a Catholic." I suppose you could cite the "crypto-muslim" thing about Obama, too. But I don't think rational people will bother with that.

4. "In God We Trust" first appeared on American coins in 1861. It went on paper money in 1957. Like its addition to the Pledge of Allegiance, it was added as an afterthought. Here's a link to the factual datal;
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html
I'd say that a motto on money is next to meaningless in deciding whether to call the US a "Christian" nation.

5. I keep reading that stuff about the Bible being the best-selling book in the US. I just checked a couple of sources via Google, and sure enough, there it is. And right after it was Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. Right after it were several other faith's religious scriptures, including Hinduism and Islam.

Finally, and you need to keep this in mind: the founding fathers were mostly mostly deists, products of the 17th century enlightenment. The God they believed in was one who set the universe in motion, but remained aloof from it. Yes, others on this forum have argued that they were really believing Christians, but the Declaration and the Constitution reveal a far different orientation.

To get back on topic, I admire Huckabee's religious convictions, but I abhor his political philosophy. It's not in keeping with American tradition.

[spirobulldog08]

Sorry Bulldog, but I think you're wrong on every single point here.

1. I can think of only three of the original colonies that were founded for the sake of religious freedom. Plymouth Colony was founded by Puritans, who were fleeing C of E persecution. However, they weren't all that tolerant of other faiths. Remember that it was in Massachusetts that the witchcraft trials occured. Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams, a Baptist, and it actually was fairly tolerant of other faiths. Maryland became a haven for Catholics early on. I don't know how tolerant they were of other faiths.

The fact is that profit was a much larger consideration in establishing the "new world" colonies than faith. Most of the southern colonies brought the C of E with them, while the Scotch Irish, who arrived nearly a century later, tended to be Presbyterian.

2. Refer to #1 above: alleged witches in the Massachusetts colony found little welcome. To bring it up to the 20th century, a good friend of mine, a Methodist clergyman, chose to wear a clerical collar in the performance of his duties. Once, stopped at a cafe in Tennessee, a waitress told him "I'm sorry, but we don't serve Catholics here." In my own schooldays in south Texas, I went for a year to a Lutheran parochial school where I was told that Catholics were fundamentally evil, and that they were likely to stop little Lutheran boys on the street and burn them with cigarettes. As an adult, friends who attended Catholic schools said they got the same messages about protestants.

3. Kennedy pretty much broke that barrier in 1960. His speech to the Baptist clergy assembled in Houston is one of the more important documents concerning religious liberty in American history. I worked as a volunteer in the Kennedy campaign in 1960, going door to door, and I found a small number of people who said "I like him, but I just can't vote for a Catholic." I suppose you could cite the "crypto-muslim" thing about Obama, too. But I don't think rational people will bother with that.

4. "In God We Trust" first appeared on American coins in 1861. It went on paper money in 1957. Like its addition to the Pledge of Allegiance, it was added as an afterthought. Here's a link to the factual datal;
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html
I'd say that a motto on money is next to meaningless in deciding whether to call the US a "Christian" nation.

5. I keep reading that stuff about the Bible being the best-selling book in the US. I just checked a couple of sources via Google, and sure enough, there it is. And right after it was Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. Right after it were several other faith's religious scriptures, including Hinduism and Islam.

Finally, and you need to keep this in mind: the founding fathers were mostly mostly deists, products of the 17th century enlightenment. The God they believed in was one who set the universe in motion, but remained aloof from it. Yes, others on this forum have argued that they were really believing Christians, but the Declaration and the Constitution reveal a far different orientation.

To get back on topic, I admire Huckabee's religious convictions, but I abhor his political philosophy. It's not in keeping with American tradition.

Sorry Buck, but I'm not wrong.

1. Your facts are entirely incorrect, I have had many history classes and read many different versions of history books to prove this. I have also done outside research on various websites to add to this. I don't actually have links for the sites but it is true that the southern colonies were in America for money and a new life, but it however is not true for the northern colonies. Colonies that were formed in the north were all colonies that had their different beliefs about religion but were ALL formed on the basis of religion and family. The southern colonies were primarily formed by single men who wanted to change their life for the better. There is no denying that, even the college board will tell you that. You're totally wrong about only 3 colonies. To answer your questions, most of the northern colonies were tolerant of other religions, there were a couple that weren't, but mostly they were. Secondly, the southerners did not bring with them the Church of England, they wanted to reform the Church of England. However, this again wasn't their primary reason for coming over. I will agree that the southerners did come mainly for a new chance a life. The northern colonies wanted to completely break away from the Church of England.

2. First of all witches are not Christians, so no point there. Second, if you'll remember I said we accept most forms of Christianity without scorn, I didn't say all. To add to that last point I also didn't say that everywhere was the same. Just because they persecute certain denominations where you are from doesn't mean it's like that everywhere. In the town I live in there are many different denominations including catholic. We even have a Catholic teacher at our school. They are no less Christian than any of the rest of us. Grant you I do live in the Bible belt, but in comparison to the rest of the nation there are very few places that single out Catholics and persecute them.

3. You helped my point, you said "a few" people, you did not say a lot of people. And Kennedy did work to break that, I agree with you, he was one of the few examples of a good attempt at a liberal.

4. As a matter of fact it's not meaningless. It is printed on everyones' money. Not just Christians, but atheists, muslims, jews, etc. It's on every single dollar printed in America, therefore it signifies that, as a nation, we accept the quote imprinted on the money. It doesn't say in Buddha we trust or in Satan we trust. It also doesn't say nothing on it. The mere fact that it's on there signifies that we rely on God to provide one of the most important things for us to survive, and that's money.

5. I'm glad you actually looked something up taht was relevant to the point being made on this one. Now what I suggest is seeing how many more sales were made of the Bible than the other religions, then maybe we'll have something to discuss about this issue. Just because they're 3rd and 4th don't mean their sales were anywhere near the Bible.

And to answer your final comment. You find me somewhere that says the Founding Fathers were deists. Nowhere in any history book or article have I ever read that. As a matter of fact, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence do not at all lead one to believe that. If you refer to the Constitution not establishing any religion, keep in mind there were no influences of other religions in America other than Christianity at the time of writing. Obviously the first Amendment was intended to keep Catholics, Protestants, Puritans, etc from getting in power and setting up their denomination as the official religion. They were not even considering America adopting religions outside of Christianity at all. If they could see some of the crap we accept today they would be ashamed. Again, please come up with some proof that the Fathers were deists.

[Buck Laser]

1. How about some references that refute my assertion that only a few colonies were established for purposes of religious freedom?

2. The MA witches were accused of witchcraft: do you believe they acturally were witches?

3. My example of a "few" who feared a Catholic president reflects actual contacts, Bulldog, not evidence that Catholicism wasn't an issue. The rest of your statement makes no sense.

4.Pay attention!! "In God We Trust" is a late addition to our currency. It's hardly evidence of our faith any more than wearing a flag pin made in China is evidence of patriotism.

5. I haven't seen much evidence that buying Bibles translates into knowing the Bible. As it happens, I am (among a few other things) a retired clergyman, and I've spent a fair number of years in studying the Bible. I have to bite my tongue as I read the ignorant comments passed on as biblical wisdom in groups like this..

6. For starters, take a look at this article from the Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269535/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity
Like you, I've read a good many histories, and continue to read them. I'm also aware that there's been a recent spate of books and articles purporting to "prove" that the Founders were really devout theists. But the biographies of Jefferson, Adams, Washington, along with the works of Locke, Hume, Paine and others simply do not leave that impression.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I don't suppose you want to address my last post to you Spiro?

[spirobulldog08]

What nonsense.....


You can show me 1000 places in the Constitution or any other piece of official legislation you want, but to deny that America was founded by Christians for religious freedom is the nonsense in this argument. And for you to say that we were not a blessed country is also nonsense seeing as how we should have never beat England in the war due to shear numbers. I don't claim that the only reason we won the war is because of God but I do think it might possibly have something to do with it. I'm getting off topic, but for you to say that we were not a successful country at our beginnings is in fact the nonsensical statement being made here. Likewise is the statement that the beliefs of the original inhabitants of America was anything but Christianity. What little there may have been of others were so small it was insignificant.

[spirobulldog08]

1. How about some references that refute my assertion that only a few colonies were established for purposes of religious freedom?

2. The MA witches were accused of witchcraft: do you believe they acturally were witches?

3. My example of a "few" who feared a Catholic president reflects actual contacts, Bulldog, not evidence that Catholicism wasn't an issue. The rest of your statement makes no sense.

4.Pay attention!! "In God We Trust" is a late addition to our currency. It's hardly evidence of our faith any more than wearing a flag pin made in China is evidence of patriotism.

5. I haven't seen much evidence that buying Bibles translates into knowing the Bible. As it happens, I am (among a few other things) a retired clergyman, and I've spent a fair number of years in studying the Bible. I have to bite my tongue as I read the ignorant comments passed on as biblical wisdom in groups like this..

6. For starters, take a look at this article from the Encyclopedia Britannica: (deleted link to add room for text)
Like you, I've read a good many histories, and continue to read them. I'm also aware that there's been a recent spate of books and articles purporting to "prove" that the Founders were really devout theists. But the biographies of Jefferson, Adams, Washington, along with the works of Locke, Hume, Paine and others simply do not leave that impression.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion_in_the_United_States

These two pages collectively list the following states as having strong religious affiliation:
Pennsylvania = Quakers
Maryland = Roman Catholics
Massachusetts = Puritans
New Jersey = listed as "Plantation for religion"
Virginia = considered itself "militant Protestant"

Here are some quotes from the pages themselves.


"Most U.S. adult citizens adhere to Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) (78.5%[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-ARISKEY-1))...According to ARIS and other studies, non-Christian religions (including Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and others) collectively make up about 5.5% of the adult population."

"The largest religion in the US is Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity), practiced by nearly 78.5%[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-ARISKEY-1) of the total population. Roughly 51.3% of Americans are Protestants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestants), 23.9% are Catholics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism), and 1.7% are Mormons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism) (the name commonly used to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), and 1.6% to various other Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian) denominations.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-5) Christianity was introduced during the period of European colonization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_colonization_of_the_Americas)."

"Some of the original settlers were men and women of deep religious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) convictions."

"
Many of the British North American colonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_colonization_of_the_Americas) that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) religious persecution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution), refused to compromise passionately-held religious convictions and fled Europe.
The Middle Atlantic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Atlantic) colonies of New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_New_Jersey), Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Pennsylvania), and Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Maryland), were conceived and established "as plantations of religion." Some settlers who arrived in these areas came for secular motives—"to catch fish" as one New Englander put it—but the great majority left Europe to worship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worship) in the way they believed to be correct. They supported the efforts of their leaders to create "a City upon a Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill)" or a "holy experiment," whose success would prove that God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)'s plan for churches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church) could be successfully realized in the American wilderness. Even colonies like Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_and_Dominion_of_Virginia), which were planned as commercial ventures, were led by entrepreneurs who considered themselves "militant Protestants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism)" and who worked diligently to promote the prosperity of the church."


If you need any other references you can read the rest of those pages or ask me and I'm sure I can find tons of other sources to satisfy your desire to know that we were indeed founded on Christianity.

2. We aren't arguing whether they were witches or not. I said that Christianity, for the most part, is accepted in all forms of denominations. You argued that the witches were not accepted and I stated that they were persecuted because they were not Christians. I don't agree with judging them, but the fact is that you are incorrect in saying a Christian denomination was persecuted right there.

3. Okay, understood, but I did reread what I typed and I didn't see what didn't make sense about it. Please explain what you didn't understand.

4. I am not inclined to discuss this issue with you if you're going to be a jerk about this. I did pay attention and understood your point well, you apparently are the one who didn't pay attention. I do understand it is a late addition. The fact is that it doesn't at all matter. Once again, it does not say in Buddha we trust, it says in GOD we trust. We chose, as Americans to put GOD on our currency. It is in fact evidence of faith because faith depends on trust and it says in God we "trust." Don't try and word play with me because you're simply wrong that it isn't evidence of faith. And the last point you made is also false. It doesn't make a crap of difference where the pin was made. It doesn't make a crap of difference who wears it, the patriotism is whether or not you put the pin on because it looks good to do or whether you truly love the flag itself. You telling me wearing the pin isn't a sign of patriotism is offensive to myself and others that have worn it for the purpose of patriotism because you are questioning our devotion the the country. Please be careful what you stir up because I love this country and it's God.

As a final note to this reply, I believe it's also worth mentioning that in the Pledge of Allegiance it clearly states "Under God" in the text and has been hotly debated on whether it should remain there. Without devout Christian backing it would have already been removed. It's quite clear with this argument alone that Christians still carry a heavy weight in American policy and practices.

5. I am not sure what comments you are referring to as "ignorant comments passed on as Biblical wisdom," but I do hope for your sake that you aren't talking about anything that I have said. I believe the Bible as it is and would never do anything to misrepresent it to others.

However, I'm sure that's not what you meant so I'll address the issue you present. I agree that just because one buys a Bible doesn't mean it's being read and understood. I must say though that for the purposes of this argument, those that buy a Bible obviously aren't going out and supporting the Muslim or Buddhist religion. They are supporting the Christian religion, whether or not they practice it effectively or not (which is not our right to judge).

6. I've read the link you posted and I am going to quote it a couple times and discuss:



"Once again, diversity is the dominant pattern. Franklin and Jefferson were Deists, Washington harboured a pantheistic sense of Providential destiny, John Adams began as a Congregationalist and ended as a Unitarian, and Hamilton was a lukewarm Anglican for most of his life but embraced a more actively Christian posture after his son died in a duel."


"When John Adams and Jefferson discussed the possibility of a more conventional immortality, they tended to describe heaven as a place where they could resume their ongoing argument on earth."



Let me remind you of who those gentlemen are. Those were of the Democratic-Republican party. I know you know this but I remind you that they make up your modern day Democrats and would be arguing the same argument you're having right now. And as for your explanation as to why the Constitution and Declaration of Independence doesn't support Christianity, you must remember who wrote the Declaration of Independence and what group had the major influence on the writing of the Constitution. It were people like Jefferson and Franklin. If they were truly deists then that would explain their demanding that religion be left out of the Constitution. As you see mentioned also, Hamilton (a Federalist and present day Republican) was the one who accepted Christianity.


The last quote is Biblically incorrect. Whether deists or not, that is Biblically incorrect and has no foundation on which to stand. There is no arguing in heaven. It is described as perfect in the Bible. I find it difficult to support the points of view of those who make Biblically incorrect arguments.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Spiro said:
You can show me 1000 places in the Constitution or any other piece of official legislation you want, but to deny that America was founded by Christians for religious freedom is the nonsense in this argument.

So, regardless of how many FACTS are put before you, you will still allow your BELIEF to dictate your personal reality even though they directly contradict your perceived reality?

That is kind of my argument against all religions, but thank you for stating it clearly.

Spiro said:
And for you to say that we were not a blessed country is also nonsense seeing as how we should have never beat England in the war due to shear numbers. I don't claim that the only reason we won the war is because of God but I do think it might possibly have something to do with it.

You can believe that if you want, but there is no factual evidence, and people who don't believe in fairy tales, mythology and unicorns have no reason to believe such claims.

Spiro said:
I'm getting off topic, but for you to say that we were not a successful country at our beginnings is in fact the nonsensical statement being made here.

Where did I say that? Quote me please.

Spiro said:
Likewise is the statement that the beliefs of the original inhabitants of America was anything but Christianity. What little there may have been of others were so small it was insignificant.

I never said Jack about the original inhabitants of the Continent that weren't NATIVES, I was talking about the FOUNDING OF THIS COUNTRY, IN LAW, INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION, and under the CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS, after the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

In god we trust has no place on our money.....
...one nation under god.... has no place in our National pledge of allegiance.

People are free to practice religion as they see fit under individual rights, but government has no place, nor any right to recognize as they have in these instances.

[spirobulldog08]

There is no need for me to continue arguing religion with you. If you do not believe in God then there is no sense of us arguing because I'm arguing my points based on the TRUTH and you are arguing your points based on your "fairy tale" as you would call it. God is not a fairy tale, and for you to believe so will cost you dearly. There is no need to say anything else.

[Elrathin]

My God can beat up your god.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Spiro said:
There is no need for me to continue arguing religion with you. If you do not believe in God then there is no sense of us arguing because I'm arguing my points based on the TRUTH and you are arguing your points based on your "fairy tale" as you would call it. God is not a fairy tale, and for you to believe so will cost you dearly. There is no need to say anything else.

ROFLMAO!!!

If that were the case, all of your religious folks would be CONTENT to let your supposed God deal justice..... BUT YOU AREN'T, so you attempt constantly to use government FORCE to impose your SUBJECTIVE MORALS on the world.

Talk about the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

[spirobulldog08]

No, if you will read our Bible you will see why we aren't "content" to let our God deal justice. It is our job to seek and save the lost according to the Bible. Government and enforcing our "subjective morals" has nothing to do with it. Us trying to enforce moral laws or "subjective morals" as you want to call it, are simply trying to keep people like you from ruining a great country by taking away it's God. Once more, I'm not going to sit here and argue religion with you because it's pointless to argue about a topic if we don't have common ground on which to believe, which in this case would be the Bible.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Spiro, I am sure someone will try to label this a personal attack, but everything you just said contradicts itself.

I hope people more clearly see the lack of reason behind the evangelical movement.