Hey Jill,

Are we continuing another thread here?

I'm not sure why this same article was re-posted from last Friday.

Those who read this website with regularity know that Jill angrily shouted down several posters who on 4/16/08 and in early May pointed out the very same information about McCain she writes about here, (and on 5/9/08 she banned one of them from further posting).

Comment on this article at your own peril.

Will the pro life "purists" refuse to vote in this election, or will they throw in a 3rd party running on a fundamentalist Christian pro life platform?

Rather than vote for a Republican who is wishy-washy at best on abortion, supports stem cell research, and was one of the most outspoken politicians AGAINST Bush's "Protection of Marriage Amendment" (quoted from McCain: The proposed amendment "strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.") would you rather put your vote behind a candidate you truly support, even if you know they will lose the election? Or will you vote for McCain because, as Jill has said, he's the lesser of two evils compared to Obama and Clinton?

Pro-lifers...will have to choose McCain. He knows that. We know that.

Sorry, but no... I'm a pro-lifer and I don't have to vote for McCain. Why can't I vote for Paul, or Keyes, or Nader?

Is Nader solid on the life issues, Cranky?

Cranky, you could, and you'd be making a point, but you'd be tossing your vote.

RSD, Bystander - I took my post and morphed it into my WorldNetDaily column, hence the duplication, atlhough not quite exactly.

well, when I registered to vote, I didn't register as Republican OR Democrat. I will probably have no choice but to vote for McCain. I'd rather vote for Sam Brownback or Duncan Hunter, but they both dropped out.

I won't throw my vote away on a 3rd party candidate.

Bobby:

Ron Paul is pro life but is against any and all federal interference. His stance is to over turn Roe V Wade and allow it to be a state decision. So while he does not support a federal law making abortion legal, he also does not support a fedral law making it ilegal.

As for Nader... he's 100% pro choice.

Ralph Nader on Abortion:

Supports NOW's agenda on Reproductive Rights. (Feb 2008)
Supports stem cell research. (Feb 2008)
If Roe is reversed, decision just reverts to the states. (Sep 2002)
Threats to overturn Roe are “scare tactics”. (Nov 2000)
Women should decide whether to use RU-486, not government. (Oct 2000)
No government role; let women privately decide. (May 2000)
Roe v Wade is safe; GOP must back off pushing it. (Feb 2000)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ralph_Nader.htm

Ron Paul is also opposed to a federal ban on assisted suicide, and was opposed to the governmental involvement in the Shiavo case, as was McCain I believe.

Putting myself in your shoes for a bit, where these issues are one of, if not the most important to you, I don't know that I could vote for either of them...which is why I'm wondering if there will be a desire to fund another candidate, if for no other reason than to make a point.

RSD:

Does that mean Really Slow Dude?

Amanda:

Your desparation slip is showing.

I suggest you switch to a longer dress.

Sorry, I couldn't help it. Sometimes ludicrosity can only be dealt with by sarcasm.

Stud:

Perhaps that info about Nader is available in a previous issue of Consumer Reports? Go on their search menu and enter this: "Condoms, Abortion, Birth Control, Nader"

Hey Cranky:

Have you ever heard of the word vanity? Please don't vanitize your vote. Hey, how's Ross Perot doing these days? Yeap, wasn't 8 years of Clinton swell? I mean now we've got 12 year old girls performing oral sex and calling it what? That's what you get when you throw away your vote.

Bystander:

Your "Sky is falling" warning is not necessary. I have Jill and MK firmly in control on this McCain issue. Jill, please, please don't ban me, please, you're awesome, you're great, love your site.

Guys, my apologies, after seriously posting all morning, I just had to get some sarcasm out or I might be tempted to call one of you an obsessive anti-murder wacko.

Hmmm... I wonder why Cranky even suggested him then... My BOY Wesley J. Smith's hero is Nader, but Smith is one of the biggest outspoken opponents of ESCR. Strange...

"Putting myself in your shoes for a bit, where these issues are one of, if not the most important to you, I don't know that I could vote for either of them...which is why I'm wondering if there will be a desire to fund another candidate, if for no other reason than to make a point."

That's thoughtful, Amanda. You're right, supporting a third candidate would send a solid message. I don't know though. I think in the end I'll vote for McCain. It's tough, though. I need to pray on it. God love you.

I'm not a Republican and I was asking the people at the precint if there was a "Catholic vote"..and they said only Dems and Reps are available...

But, I will vote for McCain...he IS the lesser of 2 (or 3) evils...

Stud:

Ever heard of the Samson and Delilah story? You got hair?

Amanda has one goal, and one goal only, to get a pro-abort elected. Don't aid her in getting the Philistine pro-aborts to take away your strength.

There's two big candidates. One says kill as many as you want. The other says you can only kill a few. And then there's a little guy who says you can't kill any. I shouldn't vote for the little guy because he doesn't stand a chance at winning?

Bobby -

What would really be great is if all of the non-politicians and non-special interest types (meaning - the vast majority of Americans) finally just said "enough is enough" with the current electoral/political system and stopped voting for the mainstream republican OR democrat candidate - since its pretty rare for us average folks to feel overly enthused about either of them.

I mean, I wonder what would happen if we removed the D or R labels, even the "liberal" or "conservative" labels and voted for candidates on their stance on issues and their voting records alone. Who knows? We could end up with a pro life, anti war, pro environment, anti assisted suicide, pro welfare state President.... and regardless of where we all stand on the issues, things would certainly be less split between "red and blue" as they are now.

I would like to add a point to your excellent column that helps put the lie to the stealth socialist, Soros-owned McVain's "pro-life" stance...

Juan is a vigorous embryonic stem-cell research supporter, which is the default "humane" rationale for baby killers everywhere.

But, I will vote for McCain...he IS the lesser of 2 (or 3) evils...

The "100 years in Iraq" guy is the lesser evil? I am always amused by antis' priorities.

Jill, thank you for that clear statement on Alan Keyes:

Keyes, always clear, although these days so hostile he has alienated all but a core few, nailed them both on their duplicity.

That is much needed at this time. He was right then to point out the duplicity, but sadly misses his own recent duplicity when he rightly stands for a strong pro-life position while connecting himself with (and not subsequently distancing himself from) those who attacked Dr. Dobson for his statements regarding Carhart.

GREAT column today. I can only add that I will NOT be voting for McCain. I do NOT trust him. He is a liberal who likes to hang around folks like Kennedy.

As a Christian I have drawn a line in the sand. I will not vote for the same old Republicrat party. I WILL however, vote for the Constitution Party.

I am fed up with voting for the lesser of two evils as most of my friends will do. Ronald Reagan was right when he said the Democrat Party left him, he did not leave it. My position is the same with the Republican Party.

We are becoming or already have become a post-Christian nation. Who would ever have thought we would have two Dems fighting it out that are both Marxist and the one Republican left standing that is the MOST liberal to be our next President of the USA.

Something very wrong is going on, and we all have our heads in the sand, when we should all be drawing a line in the sand.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Voting for the lesser of two evils is a compromise on principle. And we've seen how far compromising on principle has gotten us.

Stop the compromise.

"The "100 years in Iraq" guy is the lesser evil? I am always amused by antis' priorities.

Posted by: Ray at May 14, 2008 11:57 AM"
-----------------------------------------

Yeah, Ray, laugh it up...as opposed to supporting the killing of defenseless, unborn, AMERICAN babies.

The soldiers are trained to defend themselves and they have a choice NOT to enlist.

Garry,

Post-Christian nation? Please research your country's history. It never started as a Christian nation.

There is a lot of confusion about Ron Paul's stance. He is not for turning the decision of the LEGALITY of abortion back to the states. He knows, as a constitutionalist, that abortion is ALREADY ILLEGAL in every state. He believes that the states should be allowed to determine the particular punishment for the crime of abortion. He is for removing Roe v. Wade, so that the states can start arresting the abortionists again.

Also, about Terri. I don't believe he ever said that he was against the government intervening. I never heard him directly say that. What he said was that he would not support legislation concerning this issue. Why not? Because, again, he knows that the Constitution is all we need on the matter of life. And the leaders to uphold their oath to follow the Constitution. Once you get into legislating, you get into trying to define life, and it is unnecessary! Life is life, and it is protected under the Constitution. Too many pro-lifers watched the speed round at the "Values Voters" Debate, saw him answer no to Bobby's question about legislation, and didn't take the time to research WHY he said no.

We need to think these things through correctly. If we understand that we are a Constitutional Republic, we need to act like it. We can't want smaller government except for where we want big government. The Constitution, with the Bill of Rights, is sufficient. Abortion and euthanasia are already illegal. We need leaders with the guts to act on that. I will not ever vote for John McCain. The less of two evils is still EVIL. Maybe if we end up with an Obama or a Hillary, we Christians will WAKE UP and do something about taking our country back for Christ. In the meantime, we "hold our noses" and vote for what we determine to be "less" evil.

John McCain is not the choice of many pro-lifers but at least he has no problem identifying with the pro-life movement. He needs votes not critiques. Hillary and Obama are pro-abortion, pick on them.

Steven,

I hear you. And I pick on the other 2 plenty. Call me the bad cop. Want to keep him in line.

Did you view the video? McCain's vile in it. Can't help but think you haven't.

Thank you for all you do. I love it. Don't stop for any reason.

However... just a thought.

You mentioned in the last sentence of your column that we will probably have to vote for John McCain (JM), unless...

With liberals (in both parties) and about 99.9 percent of all politicians, I am constantly reminded of John 8:44: Satan is a murderer and liar (please read the passage). I cannot shake that passage where politics is concerned. It has stuck in my mind for years.

To suggest that we need to support JM is to say:

1) we need to support a pro-abort who will lie for your vote and

2) as importantly, in doing so we are supporting SITUATIONAL ETHICS (SE).

SE is perfectly described in John 8:44, because it is entirely a lie and it, of course, condones lying and murder.

I was forced to take a situational ethics class in college in the late 70s to acquire my worthless teaching certificate. I hated the concept then, though I unknowingly used the concept in politics for a few years after the class.

I realized what I was doing after I had held my breath and voted for George the first, Mr. New World Order. Since then, I have not used SE just to see an R beside the name of an elected flim-flammer.

I have found candidates who will not compromise on those issues that are so dear to us: abortion, homosexuality, second amendment, cutting taxes and government, punishment of criminals, national sovereignty, essentially, just standing against evil in government.

I now vote with a clear conscience, and understand that God is in control of nations. I usually vote Constitution Party or don't vote, if there is no sound conservative in the vanished Republican Party.

My faith is not in my vote nor in any political party, but in God. I can now rest with my political decisions knowing I did not support evil in my vote. One should never support evil in any context.

I was glad to see the Constitution Party had a candidate (who I need to look more closely at to verify his positions). Assuming he is good on the issues, I will not only vote for him but will try to get others to not use SE, and to not support evil in the voting booth.

JM is not in my thinking because of John 8:44. I vote for the right candidate(s), and I don't worry about JM lying to me to get my vote and I don't have to worry about our foolish nation, because God is in control.

Our battle is not against ugly candidates. It is against evil.

Vickie -

"He knows, as a constitutionalist, that abortion is ALREADY ILLEGAL in every state. "

Not true. Some states still have laws on the books, some states don't. Most of the states with old laws on the books are very outtdated and refer to things like "the quickening". They would quickly be rendered inadequate if R v W was overturned. The only stats where abortion would become illegal immediately are the ones that have created trigger laws.

"I don't believe he ever said that he was against the government intervening. I never heard him directly say that. What he said was that he would not support legislation concerning this issue. "

How exactly would the government intervene if they had no legislative authority to do so?

Rex,

I appreciate your position.

My position is I want to save as many babies as I can when I can. And if either Hillary or Obama get in, more babies will die, quite simply. And McCain is solid on the judges issue, which is extremely important.

I have friends who argue taking an absolute stand now will save more lives in the longrun. I'm just not to that place. I've looked one of the short-term babies they'd forego in the eye.

Jill -

do you think the posts on this thread so far indicate how MOST pro lifers feel (so far it seems like most will not vote for McCain)? Or do you think that for the most part your view is more common?

And will you feel more or less settled with your decision to vote for McCain if he does end up selecting Romney as veep?

Hey Jill!

I found this voting record on John McCain that I thought might be interesting to you and your readers.

http://www.govote.com/2008/John_McCain_Abortion.htm

Thanks for the article.

"My position is I want to save as many babies as I can when I can. And if either Hillary or Obama get in, more babies will die, quite simply."

Jill, I'd like to understand this a bit more. You might be correct, but I'm having trouble following. Can you give me an example of a woman who would have an abortion if Obama is President but wouldn't if McCain is President?

Our country never started as a Christian nation, Edyt? You must be joking.

Amanda:

You make a good point but it is not realistic. These two parties will be in power barring a cataclysm in the US, however, I don't necessarily disagree with you and the distinction between them is hazy at best.

For the record I am a Christian pro-lifer not a Republican. I support the party that most represents those values. And if you hadn't noticed how "Christianesque" Barack and Hillary have become. We are not deceived, actions speak louder than campaign slogans.

And the ideal candidate you describe is called George W. Bush:

He's pro life.
He's anti war (he didn't seek this war, he was forced into it and had the testicular fortidue to push back on the terrorists, any President would have in light of 9/11 or been termed a wimp).
He's pro environment (he's adopted the big Algore lie)
He's anti-assisted suicide
He's pro-welfare state.

The welfare state is destructive. It encourages people to become dependent on the government. It teaches that if a man doesn't work he will eat. That is anti-Biblical. I'm all for compassion to those who really need it. I'm not for the Liberal notion of the redistributiopn of wealth which is basically theft.

Vickie:

You said this: "Maybe if we end up with an Obama or a Hillary, we Christians will WAKE UP and do something about taking our country back for Christ. In the meantime, we "hold our noses" and vote for what we determine to be "less" evil."

So you think there's nothing like entrenched power and the way to break that power is to give it power? No wonder we still have abortion in our midst. Let's do nothing so something will happen.

I guess we agree on the goal but not the method.

Perhaps out Lord should have not died on the cross and just let evil have it's way. Have you ever read Paul where he says, "Should we sin so that grace may abound, may it never be"?

Probably one of the biggest enemies to defeating abortion are uninformed Christinas. Pro-aborts love guys like you.

man, I wish he wasn't so invested in the war, otherwise he'd have my vote hands down...

From On The Issue:

John McCain:

Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions
McCain said he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned and said he would support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger.

He was then asked how he would determine whether someone had in fact been raped. McCain responded, “I think that I would give the benefit of the doubt to the person who alleges that.”

Support adoption & foster care; work together on abortion
Q: Should Republicans encourage pro-choice voters to support their candidates?
A: "We must begin a dialogue and a discussion on the issue of abortion. Both pro-life & pro-choice people believe very strongly that we need to eliminate abortion. I and my wife, Cindy, are proud adoptive parents. We need to encourage adoption in America. We need to improve foster care dramatically. We can work together. We can have respectful disagreements on specific issues, and we can work together on this one".

Carla:

From the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a clarification letter about the Constitution to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (Jan. 1, 1802) calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison also wrote that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

From the Declaration of Independence: Governments are instituted among men.

Thomas Jefferson was a deist and wrote the majority of the Declaration. It was quite clear he was not talking about the Christian God. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This "nature's view of God" agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.

The Treaty of Tripoli:

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 Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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.

Thomas Jefferson, speaking about why common law is not derived from Christianity:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."

"". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

The Founding Fathers realized some of the colonies were making laws limiting public office to those of a particular faith or taxing the public to pay for the churches, and they sought to destroy that, having witnessed that particular problem in Europe.

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration he used wording he knew would be respected by all people, that's why he used "Our Creator" rather than "The Lord Jesus Christ" or any other Christian note.

Patrick Henry, who wanted to vote in favor of taxing people to pay for churches, was in the minority and soon Jefferson and Madison and others ended that practice in Virginia.

Maryland representative Luther Martin said that a handful of delegates to the Constitutional Convention argued for formal recognition of Christianity in the Constitution, insisting that such language was necessary in order to "hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism."

Apparently that view was not adopted. Early leaders celebrated the fact that ANYONE could come to America and worship in the way they wanted, including Jews, who were, even in those days, victims of anti-semitic beliefs.

It is true that a large majority of the people who came to America were Christian, but the country was not in any way founded with Christian beliefs in mind.

Lisa:

You are truly a "truthseeker".

Seems like McCain's Achilles heal is embyronic stell stem research. The insider story on that was that McCain was asked by Mo Udall's (AZ) wife to support the then new research because of his grave condition and the hope that this would be a cureall. Unfortunatley he's had to now deal with that bad decision which was done out of a misinformed act of compassion for a friend. That's a mistake, not evil. Obama and Clinton, now they are evil.

With no positive embryonic stem cell research breakthroughs resulting, it will become a non-issue and die on its own.

"a vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil"
==========================================

As Fr. Pavone said, "it is a vote to limit evil which is good".

link: http://catholicfire.blogspot.com/2006/10/fr-frank-pavone-choosing-evil-or.html

Of course, even with Jamestown and the first colony, less than half the settlers came to seek religious freedom. Most settled for trade reasons.

Furthermore, we should consider the true Americans in our study of whether America was a Christian nation... because most native Americans held polytheistic beliefs based on nature. Those native Americans settled in about 12,000 years before European-Americans did ...

We just happened to kill off those people. And of course, the Founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with religious intolerance and made that clear.

The Supreme Court in 1971 actually created a "lemon test" to determine whether a law is permissible under the Constitutional separation of church and state. Its three parts are:

1. A law must have a secular purpose.
2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

I think you American's better get use to not having a good candidate to vote for. It seems that this will be the way now for many many years.
In Canada, there are NO prolife leaders and it's been this way for about 3 decades. Sad in a country founded by Catholics and where there are lots of Catholics in politics, most of which are apostates.

Edyt:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal".

The Mayflower. England. Quakers, King Henry. Religious Persecution.

Hello???????????????????

Your atheistic/Richard Dawkins approach to life is tiring.

HisMan, like I said earlier, less than half the Jamestown settlers came to escape religious persecution. Many different faiths came to America for that reason, but the Declaration of Independence was not written to affirm Christian faith. It was meant to establish religious tolerance by using wording all religions could agree with. It was also reflective of Jefferson's deist faith.

Other quotes by Jefferson:

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

Feel free to Google quotes on Jefferson, and you'll see a whole lot more criticizing Christianity and further mentioning the need for separation of church and state.

Hi Edyt,
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible. George Washington

I think you just like to stir things up. :)

Rex:

You make good points and the theological basis is sound.

However, your assumption is that John M is lying to you with regards to abortion. I'm not saying he's a saint, but if he isn't lying to you, you make a big mistake. So you think he wouldn't appoint pro-life judges who ultimaltey have the power to repeal Roe v. Wade, not the president?

I think your logic is clouded by your political prejudice, not your faith.

Do you have proof that John M is lying? If so please prove it. I don't think the evidence exists.

All anti-Christian groups love to cite this Article. There is just one small problem with their argument.

THERE IS NO ARTICLE 11 IN THE AGREEMENT !!!!!!

One of the early translators was Joel Barlow. An anti-Christian, he fabricated and
added this Article.

As Adolph Hitler once said" "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

Carla,

I'm just clarifying that our government was not founded on Christian principles. Perhaps religious ideals were in play, as shown by Adam's quote.

However, there are many documents out there proving that we were not founded on the ideals of a Christian nation. There have been many many attempts to make this a Christian nation. Fortunately, we infidels, along with Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other spiritual beliefs, still have the right to practice our beliefs without persecution. Furthermore, we have the right to have any of our beliefs represented by the government as long as it does not advance nor harm the establishment of religion.

HisMan, Barlow wrote the Treaty of Tripoli. He didn't translate anything. He wrote Article 11, and the Senate approved it.

Edyt,
One nation under God...

There is something about you that I like. Can't quite put my finger on it right now but I think it's your sweet way of acting superior. You talk to me like I am 5 and it just cracks me up.

"One nation under God" added in 1954.

In 1956, the words "In God we trust" were added to paper money.

I don't think that counts as America being founded as a Christian nation.

P.S. I wouldn't use such big words if I was talking to a 5-year-old. ;)

Yes. I am a big girl. Just a tad older than 5. :)

You and I will never agree on this, will we, Edyt?

I believe God created EVERYTHING. He is in control. He is the maker of heaven and earth. He numbered the stars. He knows the very hairs on your head. He formed us in our mother's wombs. He does what pleases Him. Eternity is written on our hearts.

So........that's that, huh?

Carla:

In Edyt's ideal world, there is no god, and there are certainly no Christians, we all have unrestrained and unaccountable sex, we worship at the altar of evolution with Richard Dawkins as it's high priest, babies in the womb are killed at will and without consequence and of cousre, she reigns.

Sounds like satan's world to me.

Carla, I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to believe that. You should! And your beliefs should and are protected under the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and a number of laws tolerating religion.

I just disagree that America was founded on Christian principles, that's all. Religion has and always will influence the laws we create and how we govern our society. Right now, Christians (of varying doctrines) are a majority in America and have been for a long time, so it's very likely that our laws will be (and have been) created around Christian ideals. But America is not and has never been a Christian nation.

But where do you think our laws originate from?? Not RELIGION.
God.
God has His hand on this nation whether you choose to believe it or not.

Ok. Agreeing to disagree then.

Whose God?

Edyt : 1:55: Right now, Christians (of varying doctrines) are a majority in America and have been for a long time, so it's very likely that our laws will be (and have been) created around Christian ideals. But America is not and has never been a Christian nation.

This statement contradicts itself. Don't you see?

"One nation under God" added in 1954.

In 1956, the words "In God we trust" were added to paper money.

I don't think that counts as America being founded as a Christian nation.

These facts prove nothing about the founding of our nation almost 200 years prior. I would argue that this nation was founded on Christian principals. Perhaps these additions to the pledge of allegiance and our paper money were done to remind people of where this country came from, before we forget about God completely.

Edyt: To make it simple, pretend you are five:), in my opinion God is God is God, no matter where you live in this world. I don't believe God damns everyone who isn't a Christian and you don't have to believe he does either if you don't want to. The most important thing is to believe in God....and love Him, honor Him, and love your neighbor as yourself. That's not so complicated.:)

Edyt,
God is the Creator of heaven and earth.

Edyt,
Do you mean whose God?

Or Who is God?

You were taught all of that. You were raised with it and then abandoned it. You left your faith, just as I did.
But, like a child I found my way back to God, who NEVER left me. Remember that song Jesus Loves Me?
Do you remember John 3:16?

I somehow doubt that you are actually "searching" for God. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If Obama becomes president....
We pull immediately out of Iraq
All the ten's of thousands of democracy supporters in Iraq get slaughtered...
A Sunni-Shiite civil war rages...
Terrorists emboldened and strike US interests across the globe, including in the US...
All rstrictions on abortion are removed so there is no longer any "hope" to stop their slaughter.

If McCain becomes president
We support those who seek democracy in Iraq
Terrorists know that they'll get their asses bombed if they attack the US again.
The slaughter of unborn children is reaonably restricted.

Hmmmmm

I'll second that hmmmmm, Truthie.

Janet,

Being a Christian nation is different than creating laws with Christian principles in mind.

One is a theocracy, the other is not.

Carla, belief in Jesus is belief in a Christian God. Hindus believe in God too but they are also polytheistic and pantheistic. They believe in karma, reincarnation, and a trio of gods, like Christianity, except their goals are different: Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the Preserver), and Shiva (the Destroyer. They do not believe in the Christian idea of God.

I'm not arguing against Christian beliefs, but it is arrogant to assume your perception of God represents all gods that other cultures believe in and as such, should represent the ideals America believes in. If Hinduism was a majority belief in America, we would perhaps have meditation rather than church services, and our idea of punishment would be different.

So when I stopped being a Christian, I stopped identifying with one religious belief. When I became an atheist, I didn't identify with any.

Right. Right.

It is always arrogant to believe that God is who He says He is in the Bible. It is arrogant of me to believe what HE says. It is arrogant for me to hold to a belief and live my life with faith in God the Father, God the son and God the Spirit.

It is arrogant of you to believe that I am arrogant because I believe.

Being a Christian nation is different than creating laws with Christian principles in mind.

Edyt, You are splitting hairs. Or nation's government was founded on Christian principles.

Carla, were you raised Catholic or Evangelical, or another religion?

Carla, that's not what I said. You are free to believe whatever manifestation of God that you want.

What I said was that it is arrogant to believe your manifestation represents all other gods other people believe in. Certainly, when I went to school with a good majority of Muslims, their perception of God was different from the perception I had been raised with. That is not to say one is better or worse, or more right than another. It's simply arrogant to believe that your perception is the same perception all other faiths have.

Edyt, You are splitting hairs. Or nation's government was founded on Christian principles

Janet, I didn't say it wasn't. And I don't think highlighting the fact that our Founding Fathers did not intend for America to become a theocracy is "splitting hairs."

By trying to make America a Christian nation, you are effectively destroying everything they set forth to do... which is establish religious tolerance.

I was raised Lutheran. I am not "into religion." I am a Christ follower.

God is God. He is not anyone else's god or gods.
There is no other God because HE SAID not because CARLA said. Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. I am not arrogant because I believe it.

Oh, and my belief is not a perception. How arrogant of you to think that.

Carla,

What do you consider Muslim beliefs? Hindu beliefs?

Probably an interesting column, but I'll never go to the WND site again.

Gee Edyt,
I don't think I have to spell it out for you. Smart girl.

You KNOW what I consider Hindu and Muslim beliefs. Idolatry. Now you can go on and on about how arrogant I am.

Excuse me but I have 4 children to indoctrinate.:)
TTFN

Excuse me but I have 4 children to indoctrinate.:)

Posted by: Carla at May 14, 2008 4:11 PM

LOL! Nice one Carla!

I should add though that Muslims believe in one God so I can't say that's idolatry. Actually they are the closest religion to Christianity of all the religions of the world. Meaning they believe in one God and that Jesus was born of a virgin.

I know practically nothing about Hindus so I can't comment.

Janet said: Edyt, You are splitting hairs. Or nation's government was founded on Christian principles

Edyt said 3:35:Janet, I didn't say it wasn't. And I don't think highlighting the fact that our Founding Fathers did not intend for America to become a theocracy is "splitting hairs."

By trying to make America a Christian nation, you are effectively destroying everything they set forth to do... which is establish religious tolerance.

Right, but today everyone equates religious tolerance with freedom from religion, which is not what our founding fathers had in mind. The scales have tipped too far in the direction of intolerance for any religion, IMO.

Have a good night. I may be back later!

Hey, what do you guys think of Bob Barr, the Libertarian?

I don't agree with some of the things he's done in the past.

I found googling his name and the issue you are concerned about helpful in finding out what he is all about.

I have some problems with his party though. According to this link,

http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml

it says, quote: "But Libertarians are also socially tolerant. We won't demand laws or restrictions on other people who we may not agree because of personal actions or lifestyles."

This is a very broad statement.

Although when I researched on google, HE stands pro-life and one woman, one man.

So, I'm wondering how you all feel about him.

Sorry, I forgot to link to Bob Barr's site so that you could look.

It's

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/?gclid=CKWVwK34pJMCFQoTIgodMjtKog

Although when I researched on google, HE stands pro-life and one woman, one man.

So, I'm wondering how you all feel about him.
Posted by: Lisa at May 14, 2008 6:10 PM

Well, those are two strikes against him. Also, as I recall, he was a big force trying to keep the citizens of D.C. from counting the votes on their Medical Marijuana initiative. Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. I'm read some stuff he says I agree with.

Carla:

You're raising 4 kids? God bless you abundantly. You have the most important job in the world. My wife's gotcha beat by one. However, I think its even harder today.

And raising them to be Christians? You're a world changer. Just think of the impact that 4 more Christians can have on the world over a 100 years. The value of saving just one soul from an eternity in hell is inclaculable and I now prophesy that your kids will lead multitudes to Christ.

Proverbs 31 at ya......

Kristen, nothing is close to Christianity except Christianity. There is only one Gospel, One Savior, One Lord. Paul warns us emphatically to never accept another Gospel except as that presented in the New Testament. Islam isn't even close since Allah doesn't exist. As far as Jesus goes, Muslims believe that He was a prophet and not the Son of God. They also diss the idea of the Trinity because they think it violates their idea of a monotheistic God. They can't grasp the idea that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, same as humans have a body, mind and spirit in one person.

HisMan, the Jews don't believe in the trinity either- nor do they accept Jesus as the Son of God.

So why do you like Jews more than Muslims even though they're very similar in that regard?

HisMan, Edyt, Carla & Kristen:

(and anyone else interested....)

Here's a link with an awesome (tears of happiness) story....

http://goodnewsfromthemiddleeast.com/

Thanks HisMan!! Momma's tired. :)

HI JLM! Sweet story!

Anonymous, I'm betting that you're willing to listen. So I am taking a great deal of time answering your question. Please respect my time by carefully reading all of the following. I ma sorry that it is so lengthy, but the profound question you ask deseves a thorough answer. Thanks.

You said: "HisMan, the Jews don't believe in the trinity either- nor do they accept Jesus as the Son of God.

So why do you like Jews more than Muslims even though they're very similar in that regard?"

I didn't say I liked Jews more than Muslims. In fact, I spent a lovely afternoon with my Iranian nephew-in-law who is a Muslim. I love the guy like a brother. Hopefully through my example he will someday accept Jesus.

Regarding your question about the Jews, it's God's doing, however, I'll answer you with a scripture:

Romans 11
The Remnant of Israel
1I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3"Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"[a]? 4And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal."[b] 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.[c]

7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."[d] 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever."[e]

Ingrafted Branches
11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

All Israel Will Be Saved
25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this is[f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."[g]

28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Doxology

33Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and[i] knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"[j]
35"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"[k]
36For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

And regarding the Arabs, this is God's doing about all this:

Genesis 16
Hagar and Ishmael
1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."
Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.
When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, "You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me."

6 "Your servant is in your hands," Abram said. "Do with her whatever you think best." Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.

7 The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. 8 And he said, "Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?"
"I'm running away from my mistress Sarai," she answered.

9 Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her." 10 The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count."

11 The angel of the LORD also said to her:
"You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael, [a]
for the LORD has heard of your misery.

12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward [b] all his brothers."

And what did Paul say about this?

Acts 17:
22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

29"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

And Paul said this too:

Romans 9
God's Sovereign Choice
1I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."[b] 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."[c]

10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i] 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "[j]

27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
"Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality."[k]

29It is just as Isaiah said previously:
"Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah."

Anonymous:

The knowledge of God is worth the effort.

Thank you good sir. I appreciate it.

Now I have a few problems because I will admit, I have a very hard time understanding scripture. I am not good at reading that style of writing.

I will take the time to re-read through your post a few more times before I comment further.

Now I've re-read it a couple times and to be honest, I don't see how those passages really answer my questions.

Now this could be because I don't understand the passages due to lack of context or I'm just really bad at reading- but yeah, it doesn't explain at all why it's okay to be Jewish and that the Jews believe the same God as Christians where as the Muslims are "misguided" and are idolaters.

It doesn't explain (to me) why it's different for the Jews to reject the concept of the Trinity because it violates a truly monotheistic God (to them) and reject Jesus Christ as the messiah compared to Muslims who do the exact same.

Now I've noticed that previously you stated it's because the Muslims believe in a false God. And I know previously you've stated that they believe in a false God because their "God" is actually an old Arabic tradition of the Sun God or something, correct? Is that why the Muslims are misguided even though they're beliefs on Jesus Christ and the Trinity are in line with those of the Jews?

Now tell me, how is it that Islam has *very* similar components in the Koran as the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah? How is it that the Biblical Old Testament has very similar, if not identical components to the Torah (well...the Torah *is* the Old Testament) and the Koran?

Anonymous:

The point is all must make a decision about Christ.

Gentile, Jew or Muslim.

God knows who will already but each of us still has to make the choice.

Right, but today everyone equates religious tolerance with freedom from religion, which is not what our founding fathers had in mind.

Actually, they did have that in mind. Those who wish to practice religion can, those who do not, do not have to. That's what religious freedom means.

The scales have tipped too far in the direction of intolerance for any religion, IMO.

Really? Can you provide some examples? Because I've read and witnessed much more intolerance from those who are religious than those who are atheist.

Also, for anyone who wants to answer this...

If Christianity is the one true religion, why was it created after Hinduism, which is the oldest known religion still being practiced today?

(Please don't answer blindly. Read a little about Hinduism first)

@Edyt: You know what I always found interesting about Hinduism? The fact that Hindus can also be Christians if they wish, because Hinduism is a very religiously tolerant religion (of course, there are exceptions- the dickwad extremists).

But yeah, in Hinduism, you can be both a Hindu and a Christian or some other religion. I thought that was cool. :)

Rae,

I found that intriguing too, and I always wondered how they managed to do it since Christianity is an inherently intolerant religion.

My friend Indraneel tried explaining it to me (so forgive me for totally butchering it)...it's that you can believe in the Christian God and Jesus and stuff- but live by Hindu principles (nonviolence, no eating beef or any other meat) as well.

I think that's what it was. I would ask him to clarify, but i haven't talked to him in 2 months because he moved away and he doesn't email me anymore. :(

Christianity is an inherently intolerant religion...that's your opinion then Edyt?

I beg to differ of course. Our country is constantly moaning about tolerance, except when it comes to Christianity.

My question to you Edyt is this...how did you arrive at the the conclusion that Christianity is an inherently intolerant religion?

I did not spend my day studying up on Hinduism. Sorry. I did however look over my notes on Tactics in Defending My Faith. :)

That's not an opinion, that's what the Bible says.

Where in the Bible does it say that?

I found that intriguing too, and I always wondered how they managed to do it since Christianity is an inherently intolerant religion.
Posted by: Edyt at May 15, 2008 12:48 PM
Inherently intolerant of hate. Jesus commanded us to love one another. Just what do you find so offensive about that? Is it because it is a
"commandment"? If you see a commandment to love one another as intolerent then so be it.

And if you are an atheist and do not believe in God or in His word then why are using the Bible as a reference?

Well, clearly I don't agree with intolerance of other religions. But this is your holy book, and as such you should follow it, right?

That's not an opinion, that's what the Bible says.

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known ... thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.--Dt.13:6-10

It would seem to me that you taking your pot shots at Christianity shows that You are intolerant of Christianity but tolerant of all others religions.

If the Bible is "my Holy book and I should follow it" then doesn't it stand to reason that you, Edyt have a belief system as well and obviously follow it? Why is it ok for you and not for me?
What makes you think I don't follow it? Can you give examples of me slamming atheistic views?

Please clarify for me what an Old Testament verse taken out of context has to do with YOUR intolerance of Christianity?

Nah, if you were Muslim I'd have a few questionable verses from the Quran for you to answer to. :)

The statement I made was about Christian intolerance for other religions, which appears in quite a few Biblical verses and have been used throughout history to justify anti-semitism, the witch hunts, and the Inquisition (to name a few).

My belief system is not based on the Bible.

And I'm really confused as to when we started talking about atheist intolerance.

What is your belief system based on?

Do you think I am intolerant of atheism?

Why yes, your holy book commands you to be.

Please tell me how that verse is taken out of context.

Do you think I, ME, CARLA have shown myself to be intolerant of Edyt and her beliefs as an atheist?

You do not believe in God or His Holy Word and you picked a verse you think fits your definition of intolerance.

What is your belief system based on? What does your belief system "command you to be?"

You tell me about the verse you picked out, Edyt.

Whether or not YOU are intolerant is not the point. Your religion as a whole is intolerant.

Why should I? I find it deeply intolerant. You're the one who says it is taken out of context. Burden of proof is in your hands.

It's an honest question, Edyt. Have I in any way treated you with intolerance of your views regardless of my beliefs?

Your religion as a whole is intolerant. HHMMMM..
So what I hear you saying is that it is ok to judge me based on my religion which you believe is intolerant.
How intolerant of you.

Do yourself a favor and look up "intolerance" in the dictionary. Then we can continue this discussion.

If you wish to pick out a verse and how it relates to any point you wish to make then the burden of proof is on you.

This discussion can only continue if I look up a word?! Puhlease.
It is you and I having a discussion Edyt. You are not speaking with a "religion."

Still don't know what your belief system is based on but maybe some other time you will enlighten me? As you may have noticed...I learn by asking questions. You can tell me to stuff a sock in it but then I don't get to know you and try to understand what you mean.

The cherubs just walked in. :)

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known ... thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.--Dt.13:6-10
Posted by: Edyt at May 15, 2008 2:34 PM

Edyt, We have been through this discussion extensively on the May 9th Hindu infanticide blogline. The purpose of the scripture article is to teach you....
"idolatry leads to a world of pain and death".

You can go back to afforementioned post for more detailed explanations of these passages and there purpose. But, here is cut and paste of my summary explanation from that previous discussion we had on this topic.
******
Edyt, In the olden days people had no salvation through Jesus so they were "doomed" because all they had was God's law and they were unable to follow it. Now we have Jesus and his
"commandment" to love one another. Life is good. If you can understand that really simple explanation then you would not think God wants people to hate and kill.
Posted by: truthseeker at May 13, 2008 12:43 AM
******

Well, if you did, you'd learn that you can tolerate a belief and still question it, still have an opinion of it, and still not believe in it.

Atheists don't have a book telling them what to believe. I don't have a "system" of beliefs.

Yet, I do think you can judge a person based on what they believe in, and everyone does it.

But I'll have to continue this later, I have to go to an alumni party thing.

Right, TS, but that scripture commands Christians to act on it. To commit acts of violence against those you view are idolatrous. Are you saying they shouldn't do that?

Carla,
It's hopeless trying to talk to Edyt about religion because she has none herself. Those brain cells that understood it died a loooong time ago. Now she assumes it is a purely intellectual argument, but that will only get one so far.... I've pretty much given up on discussing it with her.

Janet,
:) Edyt gives me mucho practice for my class.

Right, TS, but that scripture commands Christians to act on it. To commit acts of violence against those you view are idolatrous. Are you saying they shouldn't do that?
Posted by: Edyt at May 15, 2008 3:45 PM

Yes Edyt, I am saying just that.

And Edyt, it does NOT command Christians do anything. It was before the birth of Christ :)

Edyt, In the olden days people had no salvation through Jesus so they were "doomed" because all they had was God's law and they were unable to follow it. Now we have Jesus and his
"commandment" to love one another. Life is good. If you can understand that really simple explanation then you would not think God wants people to hate and kill.
Posted by: truthseeker at May 13, 2008 12:43 AM
******
Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 3:39 PM

Truthseeker: Excellent. Life in the times of the Old testament was much different than the in the New.......

But then, if one considers the bible to be just a collection of myths, none of it makes a lot of sense, does it?:)

Vickie, you wrote: "...abortion is ALREADY ILLEGAL in every state. "

Where in the world did you get that idea? It's not.

Jill, you wrote: "And if either Hillary or Obama get in, more babies will die, quite simply. "

Why do you believe this? If McCain wins, we'll see more of what we have seen: marginal, ineffective symbolic right-to-life gestures which don't prevent a single abortion (like the "partial-birth" abortion ban).

The same number of abortions will be done regardless of who wins the election.

Carla, Edyt is correct. Religion was carefully excluded from the Constitution by its authors.

The USA was NOT founded as a Christian nation. It was founded as a nation neutral on religion.

HisMan, you quoted the Declaration of Independence to Edyt: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal".

In what way does this sentence show that America was founded as a Christian nation? It doesn't say anything about HOW or BY WHOM all men are created equal.

Carla, you quoted the Pledge of Allegience, to Edyt, as if to show that America was founded as a Christian nation.

"Edyt,
One nation under God..."

Are you really ignorant of the fact that the phrase "One nation under God..." was INSERTED into the Pledge in the 1950s as a response to the Red Scare?

For someone who claims to know how America was founded, you are astonishingly ignorant of american history.

You need to go back to high school.

Carla, you wrote: "But where do you think our laws originate from?? Not RELIGION.
God. "

Carla, laws in the USA are made by human beings. The House of Representatives and the Senate (and the President, he can propose laws and veto laws.)

Not "God".

Watch C-span some time. You can see it happening.

Carla, you wrote: "The most important thing is to believe in God"

Hitler believed in God (he never renounced his Roman Catholicism, and he wrote at the end of Chapter 2 of MEIN KAMPF: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

The 9-11 hijackers believed in God.

The Spanish Inquisition believed in God.

Clearly, believing in God is NOT "the most important thing".

"HisMan", you wrote: "....Allah doesn't exist."

"Allah" is the Arabic word for God. You have just claimed that God does not exist.

Carla, you wrote: "It would seem to me that you taking your pot shots at Christianity shows that You are intolerant of Christianity "

So does ANY criticism of Christianity mean that the person making the criticism is "intolerant" of it? In order to be "tolerent" of Christianity one must refrain from making ANY criticism of it, in your view?

Janet, you wrote: "It's hopeless trying to talk to Edyt about religion because she has none herself. "

So you think only religious people can understand what religion is?

US Constitution link.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

I've been reading here and there, on this post. Sorry if I'm repeating something that was already on here. This country and its laws were founded by many men's belief in a creator. The reason they were so careful in their wording was because many of them were escaping from a government controlled religion.

Here is the The Amendments link.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

What I have a problem with is when people misinterpret the first amendment to say freedom FROM religion when it doesn't say that.

It says... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Agree or not, Atheism is a religion. It takes an incredible amount of faith to believe what science is telling you.

Agree or not, the Bible is the oldest Historical document in the world.

Agree or not, or definition of right and wrong is based on Biblical laws and principles.

Agree or not, religion, in our country, is meant to be tolerated BOTH WAYS. I may not agree with you and I can try to teach you why I believe the way I do, but your decision is YOURS. Under that same first amendment, I have the freedom of speech, as much as you have.

Agree or not, if you don't like what I am saying... walk away. You have that right, but do not take away my right to my piece of mind.

I know that there are some on here that think that the terony is on them, when we talk about God and what is right and wrong. The terony is on all of us that are slowly being repressed in this country that is our inalienable right! If we don't like something... dog gone it... it is our right to speak up and change something if need to be.

People who speak up and say that Roe vs. Wade (for example) feel that they are speaking for the unborn dead. Thank God (or you can thank your backyard tree if you want), that you had a chance to speak your mind on here because your Mom decided to have you and give you a chance to come to a blog like this and tell all of us who believe in Jesus Christ and His saving grace, that NONE OF US has earned, and tell us all that we are nuts to believe in a Savior that loves you and me so much without you loving Him back. We are not standing on our thrones of judgment, but gratefulness.

So now that I have exercised my right... that's it for now.

Side note, Jill... something isn't working right on your "preview" post.

The same number of abortions will be done regardless of who wins the election.
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 5:03 PM

Just keep your head in the sand SoMG. The day is coming when abortionists will be tracked down like and brought to justice like any other hired killer.

Somg,
I did not say the most important thing is to believe in God.

Since I was talking back and forth with Edyt my questions were for her and specific to our conversation.

What is your belief system?
What are your specific criticisms of Christianity?

Janet, you wrote: "It's hopeless trying to talk to Edyt about religion because she has none herself. "

So you think only religious people can understand what religion is?

Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 5:31 PM

No, but I think they have a better chance of it. There is more to "being religious" than intellectual experience. Some people don't seem to get it, like some people don't get math or foreign languages.....

Lisa "preview" doesn't preview...for whatever reason. It's a mystery.... :)

Are you really ignorant of the fact that the phrase "One nation under God..." was INSERTED into the Pledge in the 1950s as a response to the Red Scare?

For someone who claims to know how America was founded, you are astonishingly ignorant of american history.

You need to go back to high school.

Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 5:12 PM

Just a thought - Maybe "Under God" was implied without being spoken until a point in history when that was no longer the case (in the 1950's...). Isn't that a feasible explanation?

Thanks, Janet.

Found this link.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:oeDCAYTG6FsJ:history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm+History+under+God+pledge&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Quote: "In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer."

So there you go. I also found this interesting from the same publishing.

Quote: "Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, [B]born and unborn[/B].'"

I thought that this was appropriate.

Sorry one more link to this.

http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html

Quote: "The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God"."

There you go again.

Oooh, Lisa. Excellent post!! :)

And Edyt, it does NOT command Christians do anything. It was before the birth of Christ :)
Posted by: truthseeker at May 15, 2008 4:07 PM

OOOPS but Christ said... “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” Matt. 5:17-19

Of course, Janet, when you can't defend your own faith you can always tell the other person, "You just don't understand me!"

Certainly I've heard a lot of adolescents breathe that phrase.

The real fear is that I actually do get it and have read your Bible and learned most history than you have.

I don't care if you don't agree with your Bible, but you all have failed to prove that those verses don't exist or don't mean what I have understood them to mean. Furthermore, there are a plethora of verses in the Bible demeaning slaves and women, and I am ever so grateful that I live in a country where I am not FORCED to marry because of your religious indoctrination.

"But times were different then," right? So how can you explain the continued use of the Bible as a weapon to justify the murder of innocent people of a different faith? To justify discrimination and hate crimes?

Bishop John Shelby Spong says it better than I do:

The Bible has been used for centuries by Christians as a weapon of control. To read it literally is to believe in a three-tiered universe, to condone slavery, to treat women as inferior creatures, to believe that sickness is caused by God's punishment and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God, I always ask, 'Have you ever read it'?

And one more before I go. More eventful alumni/new graduate stuff to do today.

Isn’t it amazing how self-pitying and self-aggrandizing the religious freaks in this country are? It’s not enough that they can make straight-faced professions of “faith” at election times and impose their language on everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the currency. It’s not enough that they can claim tax exemption and even subsidy for anything “faith-based.” It’s that when they are even slightly criticized for their absurd opinions, they can squeal as if being martyred and act as if they are truly being persecuted.

--Christopher Hitchens

Edyt,
Can you please just say what it is you really want to say??!!
Call all Christians intolerant bigots and be done with it.

Sheesh.

First, I would like to say that I recognize what people like Edyt, are trying to do here. They are like the Pharisees, trying to trip you up. You are not going to change their minds. They are here for the soul purpose to do the bidding of the one who is constantly trying to belittle Christ and His love for us. In their lives, someone has called themselves "Christian" and in their mind, did them wrong. They do not understand that we are not perfect, just forgiven, only because we recognize our sin and Jesus who died for it. It is not a club.

Now... I'll comment on Edyt quote from Bishop John Shelby Spong (whoever in the world he is?)

"The Bible has been used for centuries by Christians as a weapon of control."

The Bible has been used for centuries as a book of inspiration and guidance for many Christians. It has also been used as a guild to judge right from wrong, by the world. Where does your sense of right and wrong come from?

"To read it literally is to believe in a three-tiered universe, to condone slavery, to treat women as inferior creatures, to believe that sickness is caused by God's punishment and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession."

Three tiered? I have no idea what you are talking about! Do you mean, heaven, hell, and earth? Sorry to be so dumb here but I think you are going to have to explain this one to me.

As far as oppression you are talking about... that was caused by man. God had a different plan. Because you said you know the Bible, you should understand what I mean about the fall of man. All of the higher archy (except dominion over animals) happened after the fall. God didn’t make it this way. Man did.

"When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God, I always ask, 'Have you ever read it'?"

Because you haven't seen it, doesn't make it untrue. You are a dot in the span of time. There was a lot of History before you and time did not start when you were born. I also want to repeat, that the Bible is an inspiration to people, like David's story. It is filled with factual accounts, passed down from generation to generation. They were there or their grandparents were. It is filled with accounts of a "fallen" man and God's grace, mercy, and judgment. Not our judgment, His. Have there been people doing things in the name of the Lord that He didn’t approve? Yes and if you read the Bible, you will find out that it happened in Biblical History too! Nothing is new under the sun. That’s in Ecclesiastes

Thank you for mentioning Alan Keyes but I disagree with your description of him as being "hostile." Alan has always been direct but clear and reasonable in his responses. Yet candidates such as McCain and Obama have interpreted his responses in debates as "lecturing". See YouTube video of Obama and Keyes http://youtube.com/watch?v=Md2bf9DNVB4
What it amounts to is just as McCain and Obama have said, "I will not listen..." Because others refuse to listen to the voice of reason does not make Alan Keyes hostile.

HisMan... my brilliant friend... I went to services at Marinite Catholic church when I was young. Sometimes we went to the morning service, which was in Arabic.

The Arabic word for GOD is Allah.

In CATHOLIC CHURCH, He was called Allah.

Its a relief to know that your prejudice of Muslims comes from pure ignorance about their faith, and the Arabic culture as a whole, and not actual hatred.

Okay...next quote from whoever this person is and all his accomplishments. I'm just going to put this all down.

"Isn’t it amazing how self-pitying and self-aggrandizing the religious freaks in this country are? It’s not enough that they can make straight-faced professions of “faith” at election times and impose their language on everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the currency. It’s not enough that they can claim tax exemption and even subsidy for anything “faith-based.” It’s that when they are even slightly criticized for their absurd opinions, they can squeal as if being martyred and act as if they are truly being persecuted."

May I say that there are enough un-faith based stuff to more than balance out the faith based stuff? Example... government funded planned parenthood. Whatever tax exemption there is for faith based organizations, would you put up a stink on how much of your tax dollars go into this organization? How about the government controlled schools? Remember that they teach the faith of evolution and big bang, with no school prayer or anything that is remotely Christian (and yes, I said CHRISTIAN) sounding and most people are paying 80% of their property tax (or whatever kind of tax, referendums, levies of the kind) for this un-faith based organization.

As far as persecutions... when my first amendment freedom is being slowly taken away from me because I am a Christian, YES, I call it persecution. Yes, I'm going to speak up and not hide. I exist, therefore I am going to speak! Don't try to make me be quite just because you don't like what I am saying. It is my right as much as it is yours.

I think for too many years, Christian have not mixed religion with politics and that is a good reason why we are here today. Thank God, we are starting to wake up in this 10th hour. I just hope it isn't too late.

To HisMan and others alike,

Islam's history began with Mohammed, but their roots started deeper than that. They started for Abraham's(Abram at the time) son from Sarah's(Sarai...sp?) maidservant, Hagar. She birthed Ishmael. There is a deep history of belief in God there. God was merciful to Hagar and heard her prayer.

The question where Islam becomes a problem is with Mohammed. There are some... shall I say questionable acts by Mohammed such as Mohammed tortured and killed Safia's husband then had sex with her the same night. For Muslims it may be halal sex allowed by Allah. He did the same to his other wives Juavaria and Rehana. Then there is the whole Quran and what Mohammed did to justify his looting and raping binges. Then there is the "jihad" that was proclaimed on America on 9-11. According to Mohammed, he was told by Allah that he should kill people and rape their wives. So if you look at their definition as meaning god (small g) or God (the one true God), it is a different thing. Being told by God (large G) to rape someone is a true test here. There are times that God told the Israelites to go to war with a nation, but rape was not part of it.

There are some Muslim’s that claim they are peaceful, and I don’t disagree with that, but their history is a problem. How can you follow just a part of the Quran and ignore the bad parts? But I suppose that could be said of how some people who claim their following of the Bible, but leave out parts like the Universe being created in 6 days, or homosexual marriage is okay. What parts do you leave out? What parts are not true and what parts aren’t? It seems to be, if you believe, you believe in the literal truth of the whole book. So… this is my thoughts on all of this.

"It seems to be, if you believe, you believe in the literal truth of the whole book. So… this is my thoughts on all of this."

So then Lisa - you believe your husband should be able to beat you with a stick as long as its smaller than the width of his thumb, you measure his beard to make sure its the appropriate length, and you think indentured servitude is perfectly okay, do you think shellfish are dirty and impure? If not, why is it okay for you to not take the "literal truth of the whole book", but for Muslims its all or nothing?

Please show your refrences. Thank you.

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

Do you make your husband sleep in a different bed when you're on your period? Do you consider your menstrual cycle a "sickness"?

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

Granted, slavery then was more like indentured servitude, but do you still believe they'd be your property, and thats okay?

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

Hows your husband's beard looking this morning?

"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

Never eaten bacon or ham I suppose?

Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

No cotton/polyester shirts in your closet then?

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abominatio