Posted on 08/03/2012 4:42:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
I actually have no problem with ANY of the points. And I did read them all. My point is that it should read that we are all conservative tea party Americans. I personally have an issue with labeling things Christian. And I am a Christian.
I behave as a Christian (not calling others idiots is a good example.). I go to a Christian church. I actually read the bible. And I know that it is critical that our government not establish a religion (thus the first amendment comment.). By stating that you support that—and then go on to state that you can have religious displays—all based on your version of religion—concerns me.
When I see statements about how great things would be if we all worshipped the same version of God, it just gives me the willies.
Since when is it a Christian or conservative principle that it is acceptable to kill a child for the crime of his father?
Cordially,
Sex and drugs and Rock n Roll.
As a Red Sox fan, I cannot comprehend this desire to go to Yankee Stadium.
And...really...would you want to wear a suit coat in the right field bleachers of Fenway park? Things were nicer back then, I will grant you that. But some changes...like wearing shorts and a tee shirt to a ball game are changes for the better. But, I still wish they wear caps with the bill facing forward.
If you are truly a Christian, who else would you have others worship?
I agree and add that if our justice system worked properly there would be far fewer cases of sexual predadation that resulted in unwanted pregnancies.
I have to agree with you there...
I do not want a christian ( i am one ) or anyone else dictating to me what I should think, feel and do..
I do not want one group of christian’s dictating and forcing their personal moral standards upon me.
This is why I like the tea party. They are at war against big government. This is why it consists of both pubs and dems.
I do not want the so called “moral majority” to take charge of this grass roots protest.
Start your own “morality” party.
I want people to be free to worship whomever or whatever they want. I know I am supposed to be a missionary...I guess I come up short in that aspect.
This one is confused. These are not examples of people being free to practice their faith. These are examples of the state practicing religion. That's why they are a problem in the first place.
You can put a manger in your yard. That doesn't mean the town hall should.
YES! Thank you.
This is not now, nor I pray will EVER be, a theocracy. While the founders were clear in their personal beliefs and discussed them openly, they were equally clear in stating there is to be NO government-established religion. Thank GOD for that..
Why would anyone want to wear all that stuff to a baseball game in July?
Christians know the creator and perfect example of them
I personally have an issue with labeling things Christian. And I am a Christian.
Sure.
The government is in the process of building a theocracy based on secular humanism.
I'll second your opinions and also add I don't like the idea of public school teachers touting their own supposedly private feelings about religion to captive students. I don't mind the pledge of allegiance, but I draw the line at public school teachers starting the day off with a prayer. Pray at a parochial school ( where I went for twelve years) if you want to go to school to pray. Keep them out of public schools.
No where in the post is there an indication or implication of being Christian other than by free choice.
As a Christian you are supposed to be an example of the benefit of Christianity, encouraging others to choose Christianinty of their own free will. You are a missionary through your actions and words and the example you present. By implying coercion and hiding behind freedom, you abdicate your responsibility, lightening your load.
The first amendment is no way forbids a 100% Christian nation (even if it be theoretical) - if all the people willingly chose to be so.
What the first amendment forbids in this regards is hindering religious practice of faith (though there can be moral limits to that, reflective of an underlying ethos of the gov.) and which practice includes evangelization, and it also forbids Congress establishing a formal religion, thus requiring souls to belong to it. But which was not intended to forbid States from affirming religious faith at all.
And as it is impossible for the gov. not to operate out of an ideology which somewhat functions as religion, and which usually finds its roots therein, and as in a Democratic Republic those who make laws are elected, directly or indirectly, then the laws that the gov. makes will be reflective of the beliefs (and the wisdom thereby) of the people.
This form of government also presupposes that the people will be sufficiently controlled from within by God and conscience so that they need not be controlled from without by the government (God-control vs. gun control).
And that they will be guided by wisdom so that they do not elect such things as lying politicians promising a socialist utopia, and or whose interpretation of the first amendment replaces Christian morality with the ever-morphing immorality of secular humanism.
A difference here is that in a Republic, government is sppsd to be limited by constitution or charter which reflects the Founder’s ethos, even when those who concur with it are a Minority, while in a Democracy the Majority has unlimited power over the Minority. However, in practical application the Majority can elect those who interpret the constitution as supporting the current Majority view.
John Quincy Adams In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not on the power of government...[but] upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
John Adams Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with passions unbridled by morality and religion.”
“Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.”
Abraham Lincoln “It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God and to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.”
“I know that the Lord is always on the side of right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I - and this nation - should be on the Lord’s side.
Alexis de Tocqueville The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live. (Democracy in America, Volume I Chapter XVII (1835)
Daniel Webster If there is anything in my thoughts or style to commend, the credit is due to my parents for instilling in me an early love of the Scriptures. If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.
More: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Quotes_compare.pdf
In addition is the dictum attributed (but disputed) to Alexander Fraser Tytler ( 1747 - 1813) a Scottish lawyer, writer, historian, and professor:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy collapses over loose fiscal policy...always followed by a dictatorship.”
(Lots of us Jewish Tea Partiers around, too. Just sayin’)
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.