Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you tell me where exactly in the Constitution one can find the words "separation of church and state?" Your Marxist Sociology 101 professors at Penn State failed you big time. Question liberal authority, you'll be the better for it.
Does it get any clearer than the wording in that 1797 treaty, Sophia? Our founding fathers most definitely did not intend to found a "Christain" nation. If they did, our government would more closely resemble Tehran's than the secular, live-and-let-live state we enjoy today.
I agree with you that some liberal positions are at odds with Christianity; however, I think conservative philosophy is anti-Christain at its core. I just don't think Jesus would endorse a program of selfish individualism. I think it's easier to be a liberal Christain who supports biblical teaching on abortion and homosexuality than it is to be a conservative Christain who supports selfishnesses and only pays the thinnest lip service to supporting moral principles.
I believed exactly as you do for years, but I find it an untenable, inherently contradictory position. Liberalism -- at least social liberalism -- is steeped in secular humanism, which is an atheistic belief system. In fact, it's not just steeped in it, it's based on it. It's as rooted in secular humanism as (social) conservatism is rooted in Christianity. It's possible to be a liberal Christian, just like it's possible to be a conservative atheist, but there's no denying the contradiction in holding belief that are based in opposing positions.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't vote for someone who only paid lip service to enforcing Christian morality (for example, Newt Gingrich or Mark Sanford). I think Michele Bachmann actually cares about promoting Biblical principles. As for selfishness, I agree that we shouldn't be selfish, but I don't think it's the government's place to force people to be selfless. Sacrifice isn't sacrifice if it's forced, giving isn't giving if it's forced.
Quote:
I also think that America is a pluralistic nation. It's not anti-Christain to think so. It simply means one is educated. George Washington made a point of supporting Jewish communities as a signal that America was for more than just Christains. We also signed an early treaty with Libya that expressesly stated we are *not* a Christain nation.
Here is the wording from that 1797 treaty:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
I know America is pluralist now, but I don't think it should be that way. I think our nation SHOULD be based on Christian, Biblical principles. I'd stop short of calling for a theocracy, but I think Christianity should play a huge role in public policy.
Does it get any clearer than the wording in that 1797 treaty, Sophia? Our founding fathers most definitely did not intend to found a "Christain" nation. If they did, our government would more closely resemble Tehran's than the secular, live-and-let-live state we enjoy today.
That's not what I asked. You answered a question that I did not ask. Epic fail.
Does it get any clearer than the wording in that 1797 treaty, Sophia? Our founding fathers most definitely did not intend to found a "Christain" nation. If they did, our government would more closely resemble Tehran's than the secular, live-and-let-live state we enjoy today.
Personally, I really don't care that much what type of nation the founding fathers intended to start. As a Christian, I want America to become a Christian nation. I don't care what we believed in 1797.
I know America is pluralist now, but I don't think it should be that way. I think our nation SHOULD be based on Christian, Biblical principles. I'd stop short of calling for a theocracy, but I think Christianity should play a huge role in public policy.
You are entitled to your opinion, but this is not the United States that was intended by its founders. We are a pluralstic nation by design.
Personally, I really don't care that much what type of nation the founding fathers intended to start. As a Christian, I want America to become a Christian nation. I don't care what we believed in 1797.
You can't be. One sets aside "self" for God whilst the other promotes self for the good of self. The two are incompatible with one another. Socialism is in and of itself a form of religion predicated upon secular humanism.
This is not true at all. The ideals of socialism derive in the form that it is better to first take care of the community as a whole to improve one's own life. Socialism does not put "self" first. That's INDIVIDUALISTIC capitalism.
Also, you have absolutely zero authority on telling who and who can't be a Christian. You should try reading the Bible sometime instead of cherry picking things that fit your personal gains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophiasmommy
Can you tell me where exactly in the Constitution one can find the words "separation of church and state?" Your Marxist Sociology 101 professors at Penn State failed you big time. Question liberal authority, you'll be the better for it.
There are several locations where it is evident:
Here is a quote from Article Six:
"but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Here is a quote from Article One:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Both of which are derived from Thomas Jefferson's viewpoint:
"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Also I never took Sociology at Penn State, so you failed there. Good try though at completely bashing the education system again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22
I agree. We shouldn't throw around terms like "Marxist." Liberals aren't Marxists or Communists. Let's tone down the inflammatory rhetoric and debate the issues on their merits.
It just shows complete ignorance towards actual viewpoints.
Quote:
I disagree. I think the Bible speaks for itself on the subjects of morality, and liberals oppose many of the moral principles found in God's Word.
Jesus triumphs trust in Him, not individualism, collectivism or pluralism. God commands us to care for our neighbor, and He also tells us to make personal, individual decisions to follow Him. As with many issues, Christ's commands come down on both sides of the aisle.
Throughout the Bible, there are constant examples of ensuring that others are taken care of before one's self. A good example is ensuring that visitors to one's place are taken care of instead of ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophiasmommy
If I put a fish bowl on my head and stare up at the stars and wait at my door everyday for NASA to show up does that make me an astronaut? There are certain criteria for one to be a Christian; it's not a spiritual buffet where one can pick and choose what they like.
Matthew 7:1-5 ESV
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Romans 14:1-13 ESV
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ...
Because independent voters are essential to win, and a moderate is certainly the best thing for this.
After all, Reagan was quite moderate.I know he's not perfect, but if he has pro-business policies it's ok.
Obama is the most centrist candidate in 2012. Hell he's probably more center right than Romney on some things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
