The Reply

As mentioned earlier Friday, the war of religion has been ongoing. The following is the reply...
------------------

Shane, you missed the point. Point was, if "they" whoever "they" is, want to try to shape our government that way, "they" have a right to think that way. Just the same way Nazis can think their way, and Islamo-facists can think their way. They get to try, if they are American citizens. I no more want the establishment of "Old Testament" Biblical law in the US than I want Sharia Law - I am perfectly content with our Constitution and our Republican Democracy. By the way, Followers of Christ" "Christians" for short, are much more interested in what Christ had to say than in instituting the old Jewish laws associated in the old testament concerning stoning and whatnot. Stoning is so — messy. However, the Ten Commandments are wise words for a society to consider when shaping its laws. There's other wise words to consider from other religions as well.

You had mentioned in a previous post that Christians were somehow insinuating themselves into the government affairs because of the institution of Marriage. Personally, I'd like to see "marriage" removed entirely from our government's laws and nomenclatures and make such arrangements simply legally binding "contracts", irrespective of who was doing what to whom. Marriages are sanctified by a religious institution; contracts and contract law are the stuff of government. But that is not what the homosexual community is after. For some reason or another, they feel they'll only be validated if their same-sex "unions" are called "marriages". To me, that's demeaning of the religious institution of marriage. But I'm getting off topic.

If I am inspired by my Christian beliefs to act in a certain way, and therefore to try to get elected government officials who believe in the same things I do, how is that wrong? My actions ARE based in my belief system. From what you said above, it's OK for me to be "inspired" but I'm not allowed to "base" my actions on my beliefs. That makes no sense whatsoever, because you can never know exactly WHY I took any particular action that I did. I could tell you one time I was "inspired" because of the writings of John-Paul Sartre or for the same action I could tell you I did it based on my religious beliefs - and you would have no grounds whatsoever to refute or believe either of those statements. You cannot regulate thought - you can only react to action, and all actions have consequences, good or bad.

I have never heard of RJ Rushdooney - is he a political appointee or is he an elected official? If he is neither of those things, then what he thinks or says has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. If he's an American citizen, he has a right to think anything he wants and to write about it if he wants to. I and you are both free to not listen to a word he says, nor buy his books, nor seek to get him or any of his believers elected into public office. Is RJ Rushdooney the leader of some secret sect we all haven't heard of, who somehow pulls puppet-strings for President Bush and/or the Republican members of the House and Senate? If so, I missed that in your explanation. If so, that's one secret society that must be pretty good at keeping secrets! I sure haven't heard that one before. Is he like, a Freemason or something? Does he have a secret club or secret handshake thing going?

"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. "

Let me be very clear on this - I don't believe capital punishment for any of the things you mentioned above is appropriate. I could no more support capital punishment for those things than I could the institution of Sharia law. I really haven't heard any politicians or, frankly, any groups standing on soapboxes on streetcorners calling for capital punishment for such things. Have you? Even if you did, how big a following do you think groups such as those have? Heard anything like that on the news lately - either the MSM or FOX? It amazes me that, for a person that appears to be intellectually honest, you appear to be very frightened of these whackos. Try to get a grip - I don't think there are a lot of them around. Compare to the number of radical Islamists there are in the world, and see which is of greater concern to you.

Now, that having been said, there are a LOT of Christians around, and we sure do believe in morality as espoused in the Ten Commandments, and perhaps even more importantly, in the "Big Two" from the Lord Jesus. In fact, you're probably pretty OK with number Two: Love thy neighbor as thyself - It's what they taught you in Kindergarten as "The Golden Rule." Congratulations! It does in fact form the basis for what we see as "right" and what we see as "wrong." However, moral relativism gives everyone a "free pass" so to speak, and really is supportive of anarchy. Where is the line between anarchy and a society of law and order? The answer is that in a society of law and order, the governed agree on a common method of determining law, and agree to abide by it. Law defines what that society believes is "right" and therefore legal, and what is "wrong" and therefore not legal. And the society agrees to abide by those things. Those who do illegal things are dealt with under the law, again as agreed to by the society. Now, as long-winded as I typically am, I am not going to teach the government course here today (maybe later), but I will point out, again, that American law has its basis in Judeo-Christian ethics. What Christians often see is an erosion of what used to be "wrong" by moral relativism, which espouses that nothing is wrong - its all relative. We believe that results in a loss of the moral compass which has guided our civilization so far. We may not like it, but "Que Sera Sera". Doesn't mean we won't try to stop the moral decline, as allowed under our laws and our Constitution.

My religion believes it is wrong to murder someone in cold blood. Should we not punish that act, Shawn? How about stealing from someone else - (That's number 7) - should we not punish that act? Where do you stop? - I'll tell you where - we stop in the Legislature, and with the Executive Branch, and with the Judicial Branch. Our wonderful Constitution, which I swore an oath to defend, and still do to this day, set up those agreements under which we as an American society choose to live. We all agree, as Americans, to run things by the Constitution. I don't really like the fact that it's OK to kill unborn babies, and to have the Government pay for it. I think it's wrong. However, the law of our land, carried out under the Constitution that I agreed to pay my life to defend, if necessary, says that that's OK. Now, I don't have to like it, but I have to live by the law, as an American. And I do. And I can express my opinion about it without my Government imprisoning me for saying so. I also get to try to work through the government, using the means our Constitution gives us, to get that law changed. I don't have the right to do something illegal (such as hurting someone else or blowing up a building) to try to get that changed. If I do that, I am responsible for the consequences of that action under thew law. Similarly, you have the right to try, using the means of our Constitution, to get whatever laws you disagree with changed, be they laws associated with homosexuality, marriage, murder or stealing. THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF OUR AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE! and on this I am pretty sure we'll find common ground. I do in fact respect the right of every moonbat who marched down the street on 15 September - they get to do that. I get to stand there when they walk by and tell them what I think :) That's the beauty of our Country and our Constitution.

So I'm sorry if you don't like it that some groups who call themselves Christians go overboard - I am too. But they get to do that, under our Constitution. Being intellectually honest, I'd no more glom on to some group trying to make Christianity the official religion of the nation than I would some other religion. But, the Constitution allows only that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

That's it - that's what it says. Any person or group who wants to try to get the laws changed to fit their or their religion's ideas of what is right or wrong is free to try to do so AS LONG AS THEY DO IT IN THE WAYS OUR CONSTUTUTION ALLOWS.

Islam is not a threat. Islamo-facism is a threat. Two posts ago, I explained the difference. Please go re-read that. Now, regarding Congressman Ellison, he is an elected official. The people of his district elected him to represent them. There is nothing wrong with that. As long as he is acting in accordance with our Constitution, he'll get no trouble with me. However, in the battlefield of ideas, he and I can and will go head to head. I'll work like the dickens to keep candidates in office who I think will best represent me and my ideas of right vs. wrong, which are based on my religious beliefs, and work like the dickens to keep people out of office who I think will weaken our country. You'll do the very same thing - and rightly so.

I do not see every Muslim as a threat. I don't think my Brother-in-Law is a threat. But he doesn't threaten to blow me up so he can get 72 Virgins in paradise - he's just as happy here on earth with my sister. I see people who want to blow me up as a threat, and I see those who believe that they need to offer me a chance to either convert or be killed as a threat. That is radical Islam, and I consider that more of a threat than some backwoods preacher, because I can see the real effect radical Islam is having on the world. Those murderers are killing innocent people every day, yet the left chooses to think our American soldiers are the murderers. How thoroughly unenlightened! I saw it on 9/11/01, and I saw it before then. Please search my posts and see if you can find where I said that I felt ALL Muslims were a threat? The "Religion of Peace" (called that by some of its proponents) doe in fact hve specific direction in the Qu'Ran indicating exactly how they are to take over the world by conversion. In the NEW Testament, you aren't going to find anywhere in there saying we have to kill people if they don't convert. In every case, you'll see my concerns are with Islamo-facists, "Radical" Islam, and those who support Radical Islam - the same as you. So, you assume wrong - and you know what they say about when you assume…:).

"I realize a good number of folks like you like do do revisionist history.

That's a terribly disingenuous thing to say, Shawn. You take that back. You don't know me, but for the several posts I've put up. Please point out wherein I "rewrote history" - let me know if you find anything untruthful about what I have posted so far.

If anyone is trying to do "revisionist history, it's the folks on the left who teach our young children in school, and folks like Achmadinejad who tell us the Holocost never happened. Here's an article for you to read, by the way, on "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."

I haven't forgotten that at all :) The oath I took states:

"I do solomnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter - so help me God."

But you know what, they wouldn't have stopped me from swearing that same thing (you're allowed to "affirm" in stead of swear if you want, when you take your oath) if I had left out the "so help me God" part. It still counts. I swore to defend the Constitution. That's what I'm a -doin' :) Nobody gave me a religious test when I took that oath. As long as the Constitution says what it currently says, no one ever will - nor will they deny me my appointment because I practice a particular religion. The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

But you are once again assuming things that aren't written in the Constitution directly. The words "Separation of Church and State" do not exist in the Constitution. Therin lies the difference between a strict constructionist (such as Justices Thomas and Scalia and myself) and judicial activists (such as Justices Ginsberg, Souter and Kennedy)

Once again, I never heard of RJ Rushdooney, and if he is not an elected or appointed government official, he has no bearing on this discussion - he gets to think and write whatever he wants, whether you and I choose to believe it or not.

"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?"

Lemme clue you in, Shawn, I don't believe the United States is a "Christian Nation" nor do I want it to be. YOU pasted that moniker on me - incorrectly once again. I believe we are a nation that has a lot of Christians as citizens - in fact a majority of Christians in it - but it surely is NOT a "Christian Nation." - Just take one look at the utter garbage Hollywood is putting out. And a lot of Christians can decide that they want to elect people who, under the Constitution, will do what they believe is "right" and not do what they believe is "wrong". Simple as that. For a long time, Americans who were Christians sat back complacently and let moral relativists become a driving force (both cultrally, in the media, and politically) that, in my opinion, have weakened our nation considerably. We're not sitting back complacently as much any more. And we can do that or not, as we choose. When we become a nation that has a lot of atheists, well, the Constitution and the laws will reflect that, and the United States will be, let's say, different than what it was when you were born.

I know exactly what the Constitution says. And I don't have to read anyting into it or assume it means anything more than what it says. The founders put those words in the Constitution to mean exactly what they said, no more and no less. But it is impossible to ask representatives of any faith or lack of it to divorce their proponancy for shaping laws from their basic belief system. They will vote their conscience (if they are intellectually honest and not taking bribes), which is based on their belief system or lack thereof. You can't legislate that out of the decision making process, because it is impossible to get into their heads - see my opening paragraph. But you can ensure, by law, that no religious test is required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Sure hasn't been one for me :) How bout you? Know of any of your other friends who were shut out of public office because they failed a religiousity test of some sort? If not, then what you really seem to be afraid of is that the Christian majority in this country might decide to become politcally active. Sorry, but, under the Constitution, they get to do that. But they have to do it under the laws as established under the Constitution.

Ain't me or anybody else in the Christian community gonna force you to swear an oath to love Jesus or we'll cut your head off. That's not what Jesus instructed us to do. I cannot say that for proponents of Radical Islam, whose Prophet does instruct them in this way. Consider which one is the bigger threat to you.