Posted on 10/29/2010 7:01:36 AM PDT by jimluke01
John Adams, our second U.S. president, famously observed: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The U.S. Constitution, indeed our entire republican form of government, was crafted by deeply pious men who were overwhelmingly Christian. It was fashioned within the context and framework of the Judeo-Christian zeitgeist of the time and was further intended to function in harmony with a Judeo-Christian worldview – period. Though leftists may deny this reality, it remains indisputable fact. The historical record is unequivocal.
Patrick Henry said this: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
George Washington agreed:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. … [R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
I'll say it: I agree with George Washington. Those godless, postmodern secular-socialists, who, today, hold the reins of government, are unpatriotic. Fringe leftists like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seek to "subvert" Washington's "great pillars" of "religion and morality" and are distinctly un-American for it.
Part and parcel of Obama's agenda has been to push, at a fever pitch, the most extremist pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Christian agenda in American history.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
This is nonsense. A theocracy is the wrong track for the United States to follow.
I think you would change your post if you were to read the article. Pastors and churches being more involved in public policy issues hardly constitutes a “theocracy”.
From the article:
“Am I calling for a theocracy? Of course not. Am I calling for men and women of strong faith to retake control of all high-level positions of influence in government, academia, media and entertainment? Absolutely.”
Would you prefer the muslims take over? Because that’s where we’re headed. I prefer Christian influences over islam in America.
“Am I calling for men and women of strong faith to retake control of all high-level positions of influence in government, academia, media and entertainment? Absolutely.”
Next Tuesday is just the start of that!
Neither Christian, nor especially Muslims, should dominate U.S. government operations. I don’t care what religion an individual is, as long as their religion not factor into the government’s operations.
No good has EVER come of a theocratic construct, only persecution has resulted.
As for the article’s author protesting that he isn’t calling for a theocracy...he protests too much.
What is your definition of a theocracy? I doubt anyone is suggesting a priest become a dictator over America. But we have had quite a few Christian presidents and survived just fine. Again, I’ll take Christians over muslims any day. I don’t want a theocracy, either. I don’t think anyone does, other than muslims.
If you read the article, you will learn that the author plainly states that he is NOT advocating a theocracy.
When church and state are united, instead of the state being improved by religious principles, the church becomes corrupted by governmental principles (e.g., power), loses its moral authority, and degenerates into a cheerleader for absolutist government instead of a respected promoter of morality. For centuries in Europe, many of the battles for liberty were between the religious (right side) and The Church (wrong side).
1) I vote as a Christian. My duty to God is greater than, and informs, my duty to Country.
2) Your statement is absurd. A man's faith and practice of his faith is part of who and what he is. A Christian will govern as a Christian, a mohammedan will govern as a mohammedan, an atheist will govern as an atheist. You seem to demand that all, regardless of faith or practice, govern as atheists. Do I understand your intent correctly?
This article is right in line with something I pray for every day: national revival and deliverance from the evil that afflicts us in the person of Obama and his Administration. I also pray that God would raise up Christian men and women to take the places of the evil ones currently in our government and that we once again would be a nation under God.
Ping for later
History has numerous horrifying examples of the righteous riding roughshod over those whose opinions differed from the norm, particularly in Europe. Jewish populations were horribly persecuted by Christian dominated governments. The devoutly religious don't necessarily make for less able government officials; it is just that they feel so righteous about their stance on issues that they can't resist browbeating other people over issues. Actually, the crazy Liberals and Progressives act the same way.
Prohibition in the U.S.A. is perhaps one of the best examples or religious indignation gone berserk.
Yes, indeed: the bloody XX Century is rife with examples of the dangers of atheist religion informing public policy.
Your attitude is exactly why people who’ve been persecuted in the past by Christians, such as the Jews, don’t trust Christians presently in our joint struggle against the evils of Islam.
‘Arrogant’ is part of your handle here on FR. I really wish it didn’t fit your attitude so well.
I note that you choose to respond by insulting me, and ignoring the issue.
I should have known not to expect a rational, informed response from someone who irresponsibly uses the term “theocracy.” Your grasp of history, of which you claim to be an avid student, doesn’t rise above the level of the average government school student who has read a few books from the Howard Zinn school of historiography.
Someone more intellectually sophisticated would recognize that everyone has a “religion”; that is, a worldview with a metaphysics. You don’t occupy some privileged conceptual space. Rather, you just haven’t reached the level of self-awareness of Moliere’s bourgeois gentleman, who was astonished to discover that he had been speaking prose all of his life.
I did not ignore the issue nor did I insult you. You’re the one calling yourself “ArrogantBustard”. You want to put on those boots and walk around in them, well, I’m not going to get in your way!
You are conveniently ignoring the historical fact that many religions, and not just Christians, have abused their position of dominance to viciously persecute people of other faiths. That is terrible but all too true.
I am not an atheist but neither am I determined to see my nation fall under the sway of any particular religion. Our present government has, to my way of thinking, become patently anti-Christian and pro-Muslim, a situation I find abhorrent in the extreme. We’ve arrived at the position where the Ten Commandments are being banished from courthouses, something very distressing, and new born babies are being treated like disposable trash with the murderers often given suspended sentences. Bringing back an activist Christianity into government won’t change this trend but an alteration in our law courts will.
There is a much better way to govern. It involves shrinking the size of the Federal government and devolving power to the States. States have leeway to allow religion a greater role in government. That way, if someone doesn’t like the domination of one particular religious group they can always pull up roots and move to another state.
LOL!! Your post is bull.
ROFL!!!!! You actually believe, that, don't you? Sad ...
many religions, and not just Christians, have abused their position of dominance to viciously persecute people of other faiths.
"Religions" don't do things. People do things. The most recent, and most notable examples people engaging in persecution have been folks motivated by atheistic and anti-theistic beliefs.
Our present government has, to my way of thinking, become patently anti-Christian and pro-Muslim, a situation I find abhorrent in the extreme.
So, what? Is your response that Christians who are elected to public office should not carry out their duties in a manner motivated by their Christian beliefs? Is your response that Christian citizens who vote should not carry out their duties in a manner motivated by their Christian beliefs?
Bringing back an activist Christianity into government won’t change this trend but an alteration in our law courts will.
That's patently absurd, for two reasons: 1) Activist atheism and anti-theism brought us to where we are. Activist atheism and anti-theism will not bring us back. Nor will activist mohammedanism. 2) Our law courts are part of our government. You did know that, right? What "alteration" in our law courts do you advocate?
shrinking the size of the Federal government and devolving power to the States is a very good idea.
States have leeway to allow religion a greater role in government.
Vomit. This is a republic. Government, at whatever level, is a creature of the people. The question is not of the state "allowing religion" a "role", but of the people voting and governing according to either just or unjust principles. I suggest that honest, committed Christians and Jews who act according to their beliefs will do a lot more toward restoring our republic than folks who try to pretend that they have no beliefs. In fact, I think the latter are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
As an aside, I find that your post is internally contradictory, and is suggestive of muddled thinking on your part. Further, you do not seem to know what "theocracy" means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.