Thanks for Commenting
Theodore Roosevelt
Yeah I was trending Palin til I got to the list and there wasn't a "I am a far right religious wackjob with no knowledge of the history of my own country" line.
The Palin nomination sure has brought the religious bigotry, indeed, anti-Christian hositlity, of the Democratic Left to the surface. Assemblies of God is a very large denomination that does a lot of good work in the U.S. and across the globe. But, look out, they actually read and pay attention to the Bible. Not all of us may read the Scripture the same way. But to suggest that those who take its words to heart are "freak shows" (Democracy for New Mexico) or "wackjobs" (Dan) is unalloyed bigotry. A significant percentage of registered Democrats identify themselves as evangelical. Many Catholic Democrats are charismatic or very orthodox. And the largest increase in conversions to Pentecostalism is among Hispanics. I suppose they are no longer welcome in the Democratic Party. Whatever happened to the vaunted religious outreach of the Obama campaign? Was that an insulting shame?
Let's just hope she doesn't turn out to be a "Big Government" Republican like Roosevelt.
Roosevelt was a hunter and naturalist. I can only imagine he would turn over in his grave at the comparison to Palin, who openly endorses the hunting of wolf and bear from aircraft. I believe Teddy would have considered that unsportsmanlike. I expect he would not have supported drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge either.
I don't call Palin a religious wackjob because of what denomination she belongs to Jim. I call her one because she believes that the Iraq war was God's mission for America and because she thinks God wants Alaska to build a natural gas pipeline. I'd say the same thing of any person who ascribes their political desires to God.
It would make me just as much a religious wackjob if I were to claim that God wants McCain/Palin to lose in a landslide of historic proportions. Just like it makes Osama Bin Laden a wackjob to claim that God wanted 3000 people to die on 9/11. Just like it made Jerry Falwell a wackjob to claim that God wanted that attack to occur because of tolerance for gay people. Sarah Palin, personally, is a religious wackjob because of her publicly avowed wackjob beliefs.
I suppose it could be true that she doesn't actually believe what she said. Of course, that would make her a liar.
Keep ringing that alarm bell of religious intolerance though Jim. Pretend that I was attacking her church or the evangelical nature of her specific brand of Christianity. It makes you look just dim as Bill O'Reilly with his annual "war on Christmas" klaxons. It kind of makes me wonder where *you* were when Obama was attacked for things his Pastor said.
"Not all of us may read the Scripture the same way."
"The" [S]cripture? Do you mean the soi-disant "New Testament"? Do I detect a very slight trace of parochialism, or even religious intolerance here?
Some, even many, of us do not consider the "New Testament" to be scripture at all - that is, we don't consider it holy, or inspired by God.
Personally, I consider those who think that Christianity, or some aspect or sect or interpretation of Christianity, should be written into our laws to be un-American and unpatriotic. I'd include those who just naturally assume that all us reasonable people around here are Christians. We're not.
WOW!America's forefathers founded this country with God and religion as it's backbone.What is un-American is thinking only the enlightened libel wanting to take God and morality out of this country is patriotic.God has everything in this world happen for a greater plan which no human can understand,whether it's natural or man made.To consider anyone a"whack job"for believing there is a greater plan is,well God will decide.Good thing He forgives!
"WOW!America's forefathers founded this country with God and religion as it's backbone."
On the off chance you're serious, and not either sarcastic or trolling, I'll respond seriously.
You're talking utter nonsense. The US Constitution's prohibition on religious tests for office, and prohibition on establishment of religion, clearly indicate the falsity of your claim.
Additionally, most of the founding fathers were Deists and as a result not even properly Christians (Deists considered Christ a prophet and not the son of God.) Thomas Jefferson even made his own edit of the Bible eliminating all references to miracles performed by Christ because he considered them nonsense.
Also, as I said before, Palin isn't a wackjob because of her faith, she's a wackjob because she ascribes things she likes (invading Iraq) and wants (a natural gas pipeline for Alaska) to God.
I on the other hand don't think that the biblical Jesus would advocate invading a foreign country and killing thousands of innocents and justifying it with outright fabrications and falsehoods. I also think he'd frown on the claim that God cares one way or another about natural gas pipelines.
Blessed are the warmongers, for the strong shall inherit heaven.
OK folks let's settle this nicely.
Yes, our founding fathers were Christians and while they recognized a higher power in their own lives (note "In God we Trust" on our currency) they also crafted a document that recognized the differences amongst Christians living in this country at that time.
And while they could not have envisioned the spectrum of believers and non-believers that make up the America of the 21st century, the genius of their planning for our country's future allows us to continue to live within the basic framework they crafted.
If we continue in this country to allow every argument about government to degenerate to the "my God vs no God" level we lower ourselves to the level of those religious zealots who flew planes into the WTC 7 years ago.
I believe that most of the readers of this and other blogs are thoughtful, intelligent and eloquent people. We might all discover more common ground if we refrained from the mudslinging, name calling and knee jerk reactions and focused on a civil exchange of opinions.
I'm sorry, ColoMichelle, but you're repeating Jim Scarantino's error when you say "document that recognized the differences amongst Christians."
The constitution doesn't say "Congress shall make no law establishing one of the many varieties of Christianity". It says "No law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't say 'no particular vaiety of Christianity shall be required', it says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust."
Our founding fathers did not put "In God we Trust" on our currency. In fact, there was no US currency at the time. The phrase first appeared on US currency some 90 odd years after our founding.
And yes, they coud well have envisioned the "spectrum of believers and non-believers that make up the America of the 21st century." They were familiar with atheists and budhists and jews and muslims and shinto and hindu and a zillion other varieties of religion. They were quite familiar with the religious wars that had done such terrible things to europe over the previous few hundred years.
You're right, however, about their genius. But it is the genius not of saying "all varieties of Christiannity are accepted" but instead "all varieties of religion or non-religion are accepted and treated equally". The idea tha religious tolerance means tolerating only the various christian sects is, in my opinion, pernicious.
History 101. Our forefathers left England to escape religious persecution from the church of England and to have the freedom to worship in their religion of choice without consequences.
Notice that Teddy Roosevelt had a lot of other experience in state and Federal government besides being a governor.
Michael H Schneider:
you might want to take another look at the journals of the founding fathers and the authors/signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It might clear up some things for you.
I am against religion being used in many arenas, but I am also against saying certain things are thought of differently because of religion. Most people understand that we should treat our fellow man the way we want to be treated. That crosses over all religious/non-religious lines. My own morals are shaped quite a bit by religion, but they are also usually common sense societal morals that have been lived by for thousands of years, that today many ascribe solely to religion. We are all free to believe what we choose. However, society itself has,over the many millenia that man has been on the earth, created certain laws that just happen to coincide with many religious beliefs i.e. murdering is wrong, stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, etc. they go right along with the whole Ten commandment thing. The founding fathers knew this and created a government and nation based on many of these societal norms while at the same time making sure no one religion dominated the country. To say the founding fathers did not believe in Deity or at the very very least a higher being is a falsehood that justifies many in accusing others of religious discrimination basing it on the constitution. The founding fathers made it very clear for us their purposes and left behind many records indicating this.
Whoisright4me:
I'm not sure I understand your point, but I'll take a guess.
I don't see that it matters a lot whether "the founding fathers and the authors/signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution" were Deists or Christians or Scientologists or whatever. The Constitution itself clearly and unambiguously says that religion - any particular religion or religion in general - shall never be imposed by the government or required of any person. The words are clear and I mentioned 'em several times above. It seems to me that we can listen to the words themselves, and not have to guess or speculate or draw inferences based on tertiary sources such as the drafters' journals. It was the words of the Constitution itself which were ratified by the several State legislatures, not the private musings.
I'm also confused by your mention of the ten commandments. First, you'll notice that there's nothing in the Constitution about murder, or bearing false witness or any of those things. The Constitution sets out the framework, and imposes limits on the substance of our laws, but doesn't set out that substance. Second, what do you do about commandments such as 'you shall have no other gods before me' and 'you shall not worship graven images'? Do you think that those are part of our substantive laws too, so that anyone caught worshiping a graven image should be tossed in the New Mexico State Prison?
The conversation has been and always will be how far will society let religion have influence? I was just pointing out the fact that the founding fathers had their own religious beliefs that most definetely shaped the document that they authored. That is the first point. Secondly, I didn't mention "thou shalt not covet" and others from the ten commandments exactly for the reason you stated, I was just mentioning that there are the majority of them that coincide right along with societal norms, which some would claim are not shaped by religious beliefs but your own conscience.
See how easily we saw each others points without getting negative and dirty, others should take note and follow our example!
Not requiring a religious test means not requiring a religious test. It doesn't mean that candidates have to pass the test of not seriously believing in God.
As for Roosevelt and hunting from airplanes... he'd probably have thought it was a hoot. And drilling in Anwar? He'd probably ask a few questions and find out what was going to be done and what safety precautions were involved and *where* in the vast reaches of Anwar the drilling was going to be done and he'd say... go for it!
Most people who love to hunt and love the outdoors want to take care of the animals and keep nature open and undeveloped.
And if opposing drilling in Anwar makes a person a better person consider this.... oil will be drilled for, just someplace else, by people who don't care about the environment or about their workers. If we really can become energy independent by pursuing all of our options including exploiting our own oil and gas resources we can control how it's done and assure that the greatest care for the environment is taken and that workers are not abused.
Anything other than that is complicity in the environmental abuses of those who aren't so careful... but sell us their oil.
Commenting by HaloScan
