Christian beliefs
Posted By: sm on 2008-09-07
In Reply to: A few quotes from Palin regarding God and politics. - Agnostic
The Lord's Prayer:
...Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven....
This is a Christian prayer, for those of you who are unfamiliar. There is nothing radical about what she is saying. She is a faithful Christian woman.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Christian beliefs. sm
Then, I suppose my next question would be, why do posters who do not agree with how boards are handled and who do not agree with the political spirit continue to come here? And my second question would be why, with two boards, posters could not have maintained their thoughts to those boards. Objectively, I believe that is why TWO boards were set up. The people you seem to have the biggest problem with made a pact not to come here. They kept that pact. By the way, I see sickness of spirit on both sides. There were occasions on the other board when posters were were wished death and to burn in hell. Would you fight back against that? Personally, I would have left then. Both of these boards are a mess. And it solves nothing to sit here and talk about posters who will no longer be here. Move on.
Any group that insists its beliefs are the only true beliefs,
works actively to force those beliefs on me, have reduced sex to "expression" and the more partners the better, needs to control their reproductive organs a little bit better, not my enemies either, but their way is not the only way...hellooo democracy...it's part of your name isn't it?
As to Jehovah's Witnesses, I take their booklet, thank them kindly, and throw it in the trash.
No one is forcing anything on you.
Just participating in a Christian church does not make you a Christian (sm)
Everyone who goes to a Christian church is not automatically a Christian. Only God knows if you truly are or not. He could easily still have Muslim values and attend a Christian church. Does he? I have NO IDEA. I really don't know. What I DO KNOW is that the Christian church he attended did not teach what God wants to be taught. I know that from the Bible because we are not supposed to preach hate or damnation, yet that is what his minister preached, LOUDLY.
.Sure, O is Christian. His mother was Christian
his father Muslim. In Indonesia, where O spent 4 years, age 7 to 11, he attended a catholic school and received outside the school Islamic teachings.
When he was 12 his mother took him back to the US into the care of her mother and the rest is history......
I am not pushing my beliefs on you...
I am merely standing for what I believe in, just as you do. You seem defensive, and when people are defensive, that generally means they feel guilty. If you believe in a woman's right to choose to abort a child, that is your right, and you do not need me to endorse that. Just as I do not need you to endorse my feeling that life does begin at conception, I believe the soul begins at the same time. I do not believe a child growing in the womb is soul-less. We agree to disagree.
This is where our beliefs differ...sm
*...and we need to support our country's efforts in Iraq and support the men and women who are there trying to keep just this thing from happening.*
Your Rush Limbaugh cup runneth over. Sure anything can happen in America, but it is ridiculous to believe that us pulling out of Iraq is going to be our death certificate. That somehow we will just lie down and surrender the USA to Arabs.
where our beliefs differ....
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis (unlike some liberals, I am fully capable of forming an opinion without the help of others), and the opinion I stated is my own. Ever heard the old saying the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step...? Well, every time we pull out of somewhere or ignore an opportunity (like Bill Clinton did out of Somalia, like Bill Clinton did in NONreponse to HOW many terrorist attacks during his presidency) we lay the groundwork for defeat. What makes you think that the same waffling liberals now won't be the same waffling liberals who run to Canada or anywhere else they can if we are attacked here? Tell me, Democrat, why should I believe you or put faith in your party who want to run yet again, to NOT to just lie down and surrender the USA to terrorists? Please tell me how I can have confidence in that? Because you SAY you will?? You need to understand these people...every weakness you show empowers them. They would see us pulling out now as a great victory. Maybe YOU want to give them that. I DO NOT.
False beliefs
On the flip side, what good will the war do us when we lose our house, our jobs, can no longer afford the food in the stores, can't buy gas to get to work (if you still have a job), you and your family now have to find a campground or shelter to live at (or worse) and the banks close and now you can't get any of your money out that you may have in there (this has already happened somewhere - would have to research again to find the exact location but its here in the US). This is exactly the scare tactics/agenda McCain is trying to push (gotta keep up the war, keep up the war, everyone is the enemy, lets keep it going for 100 years) - give me a break! They are trying to get enough people to be afraid (which is in itself a form of terrorism) that we are going to be attacked again. You know what...get our troops home and we will have more troops to protect our borders and increase security here in the US) Well first the economy is the most important issue (at least to me), unless of course you plan to pack up your stuff and go join the service and fight over there. If the economy collapses where are you going to be. How bout your parents/grandparents who cannot just pick up so easily and move to another area. McCain keeps pushing the war issue because he has no clue about the economy. He doesn't even remain consistent with his issue on gay marriage. My feeling is I don't care if George & John down the street or Mary & Sue down the road want to get married - that will not effect my day-to-day life however the economy does, my job does, eating and paying bills does affect me each day. McCain was at a meeting and he said he was for gay marriage, then 11 minutes later he said he was not for gay marriage. He's too old and out of touch with reality. Do you really want someone with his temper ready to hit the launch button in in whim? He is not a stable man (in my opinion).
OP said not to force beliefs on others...
if you don't want to read religious toned posts, don't open them.
We know your beliefs....... O lover
If you're not an O lover, then one must be pyschotic. At least they're not led by a nose ring.
Exactly and that's the basis for my beliefs. n/m
x
Sorry you have no religious beliefs....... that is sad!
--
Though I think this is more beliefs than political . . .
I would never want to be kept alive like that. Would you? I have voiced this to my whole family, and they are well aware that when God tells me it is time to go, they need to let me go. I would much rather starve to death than be kept here on earth miserable in my own flesh.
Not at all. I was summing up Chomsky's beliefs. sm
In direct response to your remark about the quotes I posted.
An example - UW professor still under attack for beliefs.sm
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=90930&ntpid=1
Religious beliefs are not the issue here...
We were discussing the law...the phrase concerning Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is actually in the Declaration of Independence, and does not mention "citizens" at all. Regardless of your religion or lack thereof, I'm not aware of any nation in which murder or the taking of a human life is not outlawed.
As far as the ultimate decision resting with God, of course all decisions ultimately rest with God. But does that mean we should not govern ourselves or our behavior while we are here on this earth? Of course not. Laws protect the innocent - few are as innocent as an unborn child. It never ceases to amaze me that people can condone the killing of unborn babies, but are horrified if someone kills one that is 3 days old...or leaves one in a dumpster shortly after birth...or on the doorsteps of a church. I think it has been drilled into our heads for so long that this is a choice for women and our RIGHT that we actually never step back and think about the fact that we are talking about killing babies. If someone were to propose a law that men...simply because they were men...had the right to, oh, kill 3 year olds, people would laugh their heads off at the absurdity of it. Yet that is exactly what we are doing - giving women the right to kill their own children, simply because they are women and the child is in their body. Why not give the fathers the right to abort the child? After all, it is half theirs? Again, an absurd notion. But because we are women and the children grow in our bodies, we have the right to kill them? I'm sorry, I can never understand the justification for this. There are alternatives. There are choices. Choosing to kill the child should not be an option. In what other situation is it acceptable to kill another human being as a viable choice? I can think of only one - self-preservation. Self defense. So I supposed under the law, if the unborn child is killing you, you should probably be able to protect yourself. I would have to agree with that argument, but sadly, that is rarely the reason for an abortion.
not questioning your ideas or beliefs -
I am just wondering how is that? Are you and your husband both American? I am just being nosy and I guess you don't have to answer me if you don't want to... just curious how that happened or how it works and if it was something you chose.
Polygamy isn't just religious beliefs
There are others, such as "swingers" who engage in group sex. Who's not to say that they wouldn't start to fight for the right to marry, even if only for the massive tax break they would get?
No, it's not a human right.....contrary to your beliefs
marriage is supposed to be a gift from God for those that actually understand what that means in the first place. No where in the Bible does it talk about 2 men or 2 women having a relationship as blessed by God, but it sure tells us it is WRONG!
How do you manage to be so screwed up that you don't know the difference between homosexuality and difference in color of skin? Last time I checked, blacks go to school with whites and have for a long time, at least they do in my community.... blacks have every right whites have..... homosexuals have every right we ALL have.
I personally feel that our beliefs
of right vs wrong come from our own personal upbringing. I was raised in a very strict family. My mom attended church every Sunday and took us three kids with her. Dad smoked and swore and refused to go to church on Sunday because he didn't want to be a hypocrit because he wasn't going to give up his cigarettes, etc. My dad believed in God, but he just didn't want to be one of the people in the pews on Sunday talking about how great of a Christian he was when he knew he was going to walk outside and light up a cigarette.
My husband is an atheist. He believes in evolution and says that he doesn't need a higher power or supreme being to tell him what is right and what is wrong. However, he has no problem with his two boys going to church because he feels the morals that are taught at church are good for the boys. If they believe in God, he has no problem with that. If they decided not to, he has no problem with that. I don't push religion on my husband and he doesn't push his beliefs or lack thereof on me either and we've been happily married for 8 years now with two wonder boys and another baby on the way.
I feel that rules do change with time. We no longer stone people who commit adultry. We don't cut hands off of people who steal. We don't kick people out of our communities for being "unclean" even though there are a few I'd like to kick out. LOL! I don't see anyone sacrificing virgins or children either.
I feel that right and wrong should be based upon what is best for the majority of people and not small minority groups. We are never going to do everything that makes everyone happy, but we have to do what is best for a majority of people.
They stop trying to push YOUR beliefs on
--
Who belittled Kfir's Jewish beliefs?
I might be missing something here but I can't find posts by Kfir discussing her Jewish faith. It was all about the war. It was about the state of Israel not about the Jewish religion. Isn't that 2 different things?
No matter how long ago it was, Ayers still has the same beliefs sm
He has shown that by not apologizing, but even saying right after 09/11 in 2001 saying that he still didn't feel they had done enough and wished they had done more. People died in those bombings. He was and is a terrorist right here in homeland. He has posed in recent years with himself standing on top of a crumpled American flag - and yet we buy Obama's excuses as to why he won't acknowledge respect of our flag? You really think those two things are not related? That Obama on national television is in essence giving a "wink and a nod" to his cohorts? It screams obvious. And now all the voter fraud with Acorn, and I guess Obama is just coincidentally involved with them too?
Stay out of my bedroom, my beliefs and my uterus first of all.
Then, provide a sound infrastructure (low crime rate, low poverty rate) with my hard earned and eagerly paid taxes with is all a citizen can do for his country besides obeying the laws and living the Golden Rule.
"Muslim is wrong?" "I don't judge anybody or their beliefs?"
explaining away the conflict in this statement TO YOURSELF before you take it upon yourself to explain it to others.
Emanuel had beliefs that align with both parties.
he is not necessarily a president's top advisor.
Rahm Emanuel supported Bush on Iraq from the get go. "Lefties" NEVER did...not for a single moment. His poolitical views align with the Democratic Leadership Council, the core belief of which is that the party should shift itself away traditional populist positions and toward the more "third way" centrist views. It has been called the "republican wing" of the democratic party by progressives and the left of centers. His views on Israel are decidedly republican and are more extreme than even the shrub.
Having said that, the chief of staff is not primarily and advisory position. In fact, the nature of the position is primarily defined by the president himself, and the chief of staff can operate only within the parameters that his president allows. JFK did not even have a COS. Obama has not indicated one way or the other how he views his relationship with the COS or how much he will or will not rely on him for advice.
For every single other aspect of those job responsibilities, Rahm Emanuel is undeniable strongly qualified by his experience. The president's chief of staff first and foremost must be trusted by the President, perhaps more than any other person in his cabinet or ministry. I would say the most important qualification for that job is that of impeccable discretion. We have no evidence to indicate that Rahm Emanuel does not posses that trait.
I don't understand...you are saying Hitler's beliefs are factual and sane?
I am very puzzled. When challenged on your historical knowledge, you cite Hitler as a source for your information? Remember, he also planned to exterminate the Poles and all Catholics eventually. I don't think the reasons he cites for hating the Jews are really the basis for any historical reality. He was, after all, one the greatest propagandists.
You're right, I cannot change your beliefs, not directed solely at you (sm)
But at anyone who supports partial birth abortion really. It is just an overwhelmingly horrible thought to me.
I don't see anything Christian in it, either.
It looks like America is becoming a theocracy. I always thought that freedom of religion was one of the greatest things about America. I'm worried it isn't going to exist in a very short time.
The letter you posted is great! Thanks. 
49 out of 55 were CHRISTIAN
From WikiPedia:
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Episcopalian, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Jefferson. Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin. However, notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of deists, including Franklin, Jefferson, and Ethan Allen.[11]
Although not a religion, Freemasonry was represented in John Blair, Benjamin Franklin, James Mchenry, George Washington, Abraham Baldwin, Gunning Bedford, William Blount, David Brearly, Daniel Carroll, Jonathan Dayton, Rufus King, John Langdon, George Read, Roger Sherman, James Madison, Robert Morris, William Paterson, and Charles Pinckney.
Well I am a Christian
and I don't want the lack of morals and judgments in this country forced on me but they are everyday. I can't turn on the t.v., open a magazine, or walk into the mall without seeing sex, violence, drugs, etc.
Even if you don't believe in the Bible or Christ, you cannot argue that this country wouldn't be a better place if people followed the rules and laws that are laid out by Jesus in the new testament.
Christians have been passive far to long in this country. We've sat back while God was pushed out of everything. Well it's high time we stood up and pushed back. Don't tell me the fact that this country has gotten so liberal minded and anti-God and the fact that murders, school shootings, robberies, unwanted pregnancies, drugs, etc have skyrocketed isn't a coincidence.
To christian enough
christian enough for what? You said in one of your posts below that, "I find it especially interesting that black churches cannot be "angry" but white churches are free to do a shout out of the next anti-christ?
Hello? If a black church is preaching hate towards white people, I would call that "angry." If a white church is preaching about the coming of the anti-christ, how is that "angry?" Please tell me. One church is teaching racial hate, the other teaching Bible prophecy. Please tell me what you mean?
I dont know what kind of church you have been to, but it must not have been a good experience. God talks about the need for church in the Bible. We are supposed to worship him, keep the sabbath holy and all of that. You seem very sarcastic when you speak of Christianity. I hope that your sister is praying for you.
You are a Christian?
Judy, I am not being ugly here, but reading this post it sounds like you claim to be a Christian and then I read the ugly statements you posted yesterday and it just floors me.
How can someone who says they vote based on the Bible talk and act that way. That brings shame on the church and its members, which I was taught in my Bible is wrong.
A Christian is supposed to be tolerant of others and not judgmental of others.
As a Christian, it is a lot to me actually...nm
s
How very Christian of you!
Is that what they teach you in Sunday school?
He's just as much a Christian
as Jeremiah Wright is!
A Christian according to you
is 'mentally disturbed', but a gay living a deviant lifestyle is perfectly normal and in the right?! Being gay is a mental disorder in itself. I think you know where you can put your stick, although you'd probably like that.
What lie? He said he's Christian.
him being Muslim, convince yourselves and those voices in your head that he is Muslim and then say he's lying about being Christian.
America is supposed to have freedom of religion. I don't care what his faith is. He's not my pastor. He's my president.
As a Christian..
I don't even like to use the terms homosexual, heterosexual, gay, straight or any other such term to describe a sexual behavior which is what all these are. I'm female myself and my sexual behavior is my business. People would assume that because I'm with a man that I'm "heteroseuxal" and they would be correct. However, I do not describe myself as heterosexual. As a Christian, I believe that's a behavior and not a lifestyle. sex is a behavior, regardless of whether your male, female, or animal. Not all forms of sexual behavior are acceptable. But it is quicker to type out "homosexual" than it is to type out "people who engage in sinful, dysfunctional, disgusting behavior." But I actually choose to not even acknowledge the terms homosexual, heterosexual, gay, straight, etc. as these are simply behaviors, just as you label someone who steals as a thief, someone who sells their body for sex as a prostitute and so on. That is why homosexuals demand "tolerance" but, since the country already tolerates these people, what they really want is "acceptance" and since I can't accept homosexuality as wonderful and good, I in turn cannot accept homosexuals as wonderful and good. Homosexual/homosexuality. They go hand in hand.
As the Christian you say you are...
didn't you ever learn not to judge your fellow man? It is not very Christian to be calling someone "dysfunctional and disgusting." I do believe He taught us to love our fellow man, and I don't think he specifically limited that to the ones we agree with.
As a Christian myself
I don't condone that lifestyle and I'm against same sex marriage. However, I do not see where ones listening to the music of a gay man is showing acceptance of that lifestyle.
A christian, hun?? I dont think so
Robertson calls for assassination of Chavez
Televangelist calls Venezuelan president a ‘terrific danger’ to U.S.
OMG, you used the word Christian! SM
Run!!!!! By the way, I totally agree. But they have to give it little names like fetus and things to keep from admitting it is a human being that God has helped create. Whatever floats their boat.
The Christian right isn't political at all. sm
There are many Democrats who belong to the Christian right. I am not sure why you feel politicizing religion is so important, but I realize how important labels are to you. It's unfortunate. Jimmy Carter just recently came out and spoke against the Democratic party for abandoning God. If Christians feel they have to place to turn but the *right*, whose fault is that? Pat Robertson doesn't speak for me. However, he is a good man and a Christian man. As far as calling for an assassination that's bogus and was taken out of context and anyone who cared to do their research would know that. But it's just way more convenient and fits into the left's philosophy to damn him to hell. THERE' s the left for you.
Democrat plus Christian
I resent you stating that Democrats are trying to get Christians mad. Do you not believe that there are Democrats that are Christians? I was born in a Christian Democrat family, all my relatives are Christian Democrats. If you are a Christian does not mean you have to automatically be Republican. This is a falsehood that actually I have only seen happening in the last 10 years or so. Believe me, there are plenty liberal Christian Democrats out there that are quite tired of Republicans giving the impression they are the only true Christians.
Ok here is a better example...my father is Christian
x
Jon Christian Ryter
By Jon Christian Ryter
McCain's "Palin" decision has already cost him the election.
Even though thousands of conservatives who had previously decided to sit out the Election of 2008 but have done an about face because GOP presumptive nominee John McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, either the Election of 2008 or the fate of the 2nd Amendment may have been decided shortly before noon on Aug. 29 even though the voters will not officially speak until Tues., Nov. 4, 2008.
To appease radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and the evangelical leaders who opposed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney because of—they claimed—his fuzzy view on abortion (when their unspoken opposition to Romney was really based from his Mormon faith), and Sen. John McCain's staff who surmised that the liberal Hillary Clinton-feminists who balked at supporting pro-abortion Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama (with whom they agree) would support a conservative pro-life, pro-gun, first term governor (with whom they vehemently disagree) just because she is a woman.
![](http://www.jonchristianryter.com/IMAGE/Palin1.jpg") This was the same type of mistake President George Herbert Walker Bush made in 1992 when he "courted" Ross Perot supporters. They were Ross Perot supporters because they had already made a conscious-decision not to be George Bush supporters. And, the Hillary Clinton supporters are Hillary Clinton supporters because they rejected the core tenets of the Republican Party. In other words, the wayward female Clinton supporters won't vote for a woman just because she's a woman. Many of the Clinton supporters who would have voted for left-of-center John McCain will not vote for him specifically because he added prolife Gov. Sarah Palin [R-AK] to his ticket.
McCain knew he was taking a calculated risk in naming Palin simply because she is virtually unknown to voters in the continuous 48-States. Furthermore, like Obama, she is completely untested on both the national and international stage. But even more important, like Hillary Clinton who unconstitutionally sought the office of President, Palin is also constitutionally ineligible to run or, be elected to, or serve as, Vice President of the United States because of the provisions of Article II of the Constitution.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution appears to establish only four ironclad qualifications for the job as President of the United States. The president must [1] be at least 35-years of age, [2] must be a natural born citizen and [3] have lived in the United States at least 14 years. And, finally, 18 times Article II reiterates that the President of the United States will be a man. What that means is that not only could Hillary Rodham Clinton not seek the office of President of the United States without Congress first adopting a constitutional amendment degenderizing the office of President, but Gov. Sarah Palin cannot seek the office of Vice President for the same reason. The Vice President is one heartbeat away from the office of President. Logic suggests that, constitutionally, since a woman cannot be President she cannot be Vice President either because the job of the Vice President is to be prepared to step into the Oval Office as President should anything happen to the commander-in-chief/head-of-state.
The news that McCain picked a virtually unknown running mate came on the heels of reports that the two key front-runners for the job—Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney—confirmed to the media that neither made the final round. Former Washington Times reporter and Fox News Deputy News Director Bill Sammon correctly guessed that Palin would be McCain's choice several weeks ago. The McCain camp would not only not confirm he was right, but pooh-poohed the notion as "premature" when he tried to get a confirmation.
Palin was picked not only because she was a woman but, in 2006 when the Democrats swept both Houses of Congress and took the governor's mansions in several States, Palin orchestrated the stunning upset of two popular Alaska political figures. First she knocked off former four term US Senator and first term GOP Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski in the primary. Palin was involved in a three-way race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination. ![](http://www.jonchristianryter.com/IMAGE/Palin2.jpg") She took 51% of the vote, bowling over both Murkowski and former State legislator John Binkley. Former governor Tony Knowles won the Democratic primary with 74% of the vote. Palin defeated Knowles in the general election. Knowles fully expected a cakewalk in the November, 2006 election. After all, his opponent was the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska—and a former local beauty queen, Miss Wasilla. Knowles should have know better. Palin earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" in high school because in athletics—as in politics—she was extremely aggressive.
When Palin's name was first bantered as a possible GOP veep candidate she told the Washington Post that her being picked by the presumptive GOP nominee as vice president was "an impossibility," even though the idea of serving in national office intrigued her.
When she answered Kudlow & Company Larry Kudlow's question about the possibility of her being picked as McCain's running mate a month ago, she said: "As for the VP talk...I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the US, before I can even start addressing that question."
![](http://www.jonchristianryter.com/IMAGE/Palin_Vogue.jpg") But as good as she sounds—and as good as she looks—the only pick that would have been worse for McCain would have been Condolessa Rice or Kay Bailey Hutchinson—or Tom Ridge or Jeb Bush. But the entire blogsphere knows that while feminists will vote for a woman as vice president as long as she's on the Democratic ticket, they won't vote for one on the GOP ticket. At least, not with enough votes to bring the victory home to the GOP. Because in the conservative world, mom's "house" is home, not Congress—and it's certainly not a cozy pink Oval Office in the White House.
McCain's people should have gone back and looked at the 1984 presidential election results. The Democratic ticket that year consisted of former VP Walter Mondale for President and former Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro for Veep. Ferraro made history by becoming the first woman at the top of a national party ticket when it was prohibited by the Constitution. While Reagan and Bush-41 took 54,455,472 votes against Mondale and Ferraro's 37,577,352 votes, Mondale took only one State—Minnesota in the worst political upset since 1820 when James Monroe took all but 1 electoral vote from John Quincy Adams. The voters flatly repudiated the notion of a woman Vice President in 1984—and most of them were not even aware that the Constitution mandates that the President of the United States—and those in line to become President—be male.
HITLER WAS A CHRISTIAN.....
The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The phrase "separation of church and state" which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.
Wikipedia - Separation of Church and State United States
http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm
If he ever was a Christian, he certainly renounced it....
Nice try tho.
Was Hitler a Christian?
The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity.
The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
That is their intrepretation. Those words DO NOT appear in the Constitution of the United States. There are just as many opinions that that is not what was meant by the letter. Bottom line...they are NOT a part of the Constitution.
again why do i have to repeat this over and over WHO SAID IM CHRISTIAN!
IVE NEVER said that and in fact in my first post said "not all people against gay marriage are christian".
sacred to me means something i believe strongly in no matter what "faith" has to do with it, sorry you have nothing like that
What kind of Christian
I have been a Christian my entire life. I was raised in the Southern Baptist church, but branched out when I started studying theology on my own and not taking what I was told in church at face value.
The church I belong to, a congregation of PC-USA, considers itself pretty radical. Not all Christians are evangelical in theology. Jesus was a bit of a radical too. Lots of us are Obama supporters, but there are McCain supporters as well. Thing is, we don't question each others Christianity because of the way someone votes. Isn't really a Christian thing to do.
I see nothing wrong with keeping religion out of the government, and I actually prefer it that way.
|
