Example of the Front Lines

As you know I have been on the front lines of the GoE doing some investigative reporting. The following is a transcript of my latest post in a thread about the growing threat of theocracy in this great nation.
....
Being inspired by Christian principles and morals is different then being BASED on such things. You say you did not see any evidence which I found amusing since there were DIRECT QUOTES from people stating exactly what I was saying, but of course that must be some big lefty conspiracy. Has a politician ever said they were attempting to make this the "kingdom of god", of course not, that would be political suicide.

Let me say, again, they want application of OLD TESTAMENT LAW into our government. It first started getting big with a book by RJ Rushdoony in 1973 called the Institutes of Biblical Law. This is a group of theory that believe the only valid legislation, social theory, spiritual beliefs or economic theory are those derived from the bible.
In their views in accordance to old testament law people would be executed for committing adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexuality, idolatry, prostitution, witch craft and a few other things that would have you stoned or burned alive according to the old testament. If you can support those things, more power to you (though it would eliminate almost every politician republican or democrat all at once). The status of women would be reversed to where their rights would be less then those of men, since this is old testament law.

So your religion believes homosexuality, sex before marriage and the like is a sin. Who are you to impose YOUR religion on those who do not believe? Are we not a melting pot, where ALL can be equal? You keep mentioning Islam and this time Congressman Ellison, why is he or Islam a threat? I understand why RADICAL Islam is a threat, but by your comments I can only assume you see each and every Muslim as a threat. Just because something is written within a religious book doesn't mean every single follower believes that portion of it. Does every Christian believe they should stone an adulterous wife? Hell, the Catholics and Protestants basically have the same book and their not even the same religion. Sunni and Shia are two different sects of Islam, yet every Muslim is a threat? Stop living in fear of every single person who prays to Mecca. Not all of them want to blow up your family in the name of Allah, sure there are those who do, but not all of them do. For if they all did, then why do we even attempt to befriend the Iraqi people and rebuild their country?

I realize a good number of folks like you like do do revisionist history. What to think that this country was founded as a "Christian Nation" yet you forget about Article VI, which states that public officials shall be "bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," basically taking the power of the church and setting up religious pluralism and the separation of church and state. Yes, the government was not supposed to get involved in religious matters, but religion was also not to take over governmental matters.
Rushdoony once wrote, "The Constitution was designed to perpetuate a Christian order," then asks rhetorically: "Why then is there, in the main, an absence of any reference to Christianity in the Constitution?" He argues that the purpose was to protect religion from the federal government and to preserve "states' rights."

Sadly RJ doesn't know history too well and ignores Article VI. Hell, many framers of the Constitution were strict Christians (as we noted prior) but it seems odd to me that a group so strict would do the exact opposite of what many try to claim. They became the first group that formed a government the had disestablishment, not only that WE INVENTED disestablishment. No other government in the history of man every created itself without the help of officially recognized gods and state connected ministers. Many colonies before 1787 had religious tests, allegiances and oaths to hold some kind of office, the Constitutional Convention however had very little debate over Article VI which unanimously passed article VI. Folks like you who believe this to be a "Christian Nation" think Article VI to not say or mean what it does say and mean. Which is simply the legal barrier against Christian theocracy and the invention of religious pluralism. If we were founded as you say, why would have they put up those barriers against a Christian theocracy?

As to appointing judges who are not religious, I don't care what their religion is. What I do care about is their interpretation of the law correctly without their own personal feelings getting in the way, much like Scalia does. I want my rights to be those guaranteed to me in the Constitution, not dictated to me by some religious book. One thing we can agree on is the Gods put us here with free will and I shall live my life with that and not under a boot of another person's religion.
A question was asked earlier that I would also address as I close. Someone asked me to name a terrorist group that was Christian, that part is easy, the Klu Klux Klan.