Does America Need Be Saved From Theocracy?

[JustAGuy1]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

Businesses arent "government". Pharmacists arent "government". Businesses and pharmacies run most efficiently on GAAP and the APhA respectively. Not legislation. So how do you bring politicians into this? Well of course you have demanded government in everything havent you?

So the question isnt really whether politicians will legislate their beliefs. The fight is really over which beliefs they will legislate. And you want Marxist beliefs legislated in all facets of life.

A pharmacy is a business & thereby follows the rules the businesses must follow.

Laws should be void of religion.

You can't open a business & discriminate.

Well sure except that I do not have to bake a cake for when you marry Steve.

 

[RealDave]

1.I have actually had to endure posts from government school grads along this line of what passes for thinking:
“You religious Bible-thumpers want to ram your superstition down our throats…..this is not a theocracy!!!”

Wow.



There are ‘religion’ groups that do demand control of the society…but the Judeo-Christian view on which this nation was founded is not one. But this nation was created with Judeo-Christian principles in mind:

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



2. Now about that ‘ramming down disproving throats’ fable.

“Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America. Tocqueville compared this aspect to Islam: “Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.” Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” vol.2, p. 23.



3. Assume arguendo that there is as much reason to have a religious citizenry as there is to have an non-religious one. The solution is that you don’t have to believe, ....but it is in your interest to have others believe.

The most succinct argument in favor of a religious citizenry comes from a famous atheist, Voltaire: "I don't believe in God, but I hope my valet does so he won't steal my spoons."
How Voltaire's Atheism Overthrew Deism

And, Voltaire also famously said "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer." Mais toute la nature nous crie qu'il existe; qu'il y a une intelligence suprême, un pouvoir immense, un ordre admirable, et tout nous instruit de notre dépendance. "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented."

For the same reason as above....it is society's interest to have more religious folks, than non-religious


BTW…when about to die, Voltaire recanted: “He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ The Tragic Death of Voltaire the Atheist | Paw Creek Ministries





Atheism can’t sustain a rights-based, virtue-based system as a God-less ideology. Rousseau, Hegel and Marx took the opposite view, and the result was multiple millions slaughtered.


4. The less educated also claim that the Constitution somehow inveighs against religion and mandates it be separated from government. Another falsity.
The first amendment, formulated by a learned and religious group, simply made certain that no government of America mandated a particular belief. Or, have none at all.




Sooooo......where is the 'threat' of a theocracy?????

Here is the threat sista

Christian Dominionism-The Real Threat to Our Secular Republic

Disclaimer: I strongly disavow the blanket condemnation of any religion what so ever. Religion has the enormous potential to bring out the best in humankind but can also be a catalyst for oppression and violence. Recognizing this dark side to religion, I do in fact condemn those who disrespect the Constitution and our tradition of a secular government free of the undue influence of religion -that is what this thread is about. -Match Chao

Xenophobes, bigots and conspiracy neurotics are wringing their hands, and lamenting the rise of Islam in our country, which they claim will bring about the implementation of Sharia law. However, whether out of ignorance or the belief that religious freedom and the first amendment does not apply equally to all religions, they fail to focus on the real threat to secularism.

We are talking about Christian Dominionism.

Very few Christians identify themselves as “Dominionists.” But experts say the New Apostolic Reformation has gained traction among charismatic Christians and Pentecostals under the influence of C. Peter Wagner, a church-growth guru and prolific author. Prominent “apostles” in the NAR include Lou Engle, co-founder of The Call assemblies and Mike Bickle, director of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, Mo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_945601.html

While there is no reason to believe that the few Muslims in our government harbor a desire to usurp secularism, there are appointed and elected Christians in our government right now – or are aspiring to high office-who have openly expressed the belief that the bible is superior to the constitution and cavorting with those who are like minded.

David Barton is a chief proponent of what he calls Seven Mountains Dominionism : Seven Mountains theology teaches that conservative Christians are to take control of the seven primary institutions, or “mountains,” that shape and control our culture — (1) Business; (2) Government; (3) Media; (4) Arts and Entertainment; (5) Education; (6) Family; and (7) Religion — and use them to implement biblical standards and spread the Gospel.

It is worth remembering that Barton is not only an influential Republican activist but also runs one of the main super PACs supporting Ted Cruz.

David Barton Will Train Christians To Take Control Of Government And Transform America Into The ‘Nation That God Wants It To Be’ | Right Wing Watch



Barton is also the longtime chairman of the Texas Republican Party

But most of all, Barton is vehemently anti-gay, claiming that schools are forcing students to be gay and that the government should regulate gay sex. Recently, he has been telling audiences that the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage will force all student athletes to share the same locker rooms and churches to hire pedophiles to run their nurseries while requiring the military to protect those who engage in bestiality.

Anti-Gay Psuedo-Historian David Barton Tapped To Run Ted Cruz’s Super PAC | Right Wing Watch

And guess who else is in bed with the Dominionists?

Donald Trump’s Amen Corner: Prosperity Preachers and Dominionists

It’s not really surprising that preachers who tout wealth as a sign of God’s favor would line up with a blustery billionaire like Trump, who says his riches are proof that he’s qualified to fix what’s wrong with the country. What is a bit more surprising is the support Trump is getting from a leading advocate of Seven Mountains dominionism, which teaches that government and other spheres of influence — “mountains” like media, entertainment, business — are meant to be run by the right kind of Christians.

Donald Trump’s Amen Corner: Prosperity Preachers and Dominionists | Right Wing Watch


Next question, sweetheart

"Christian Dominionism-The Real Threat to Our Secular Republic"


A threat to secularism???

I sure hope so.


Let's check the damage/slaughter secularism and its proponents have done in modern times:

First World War (1914–18): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
Russian Civil War (1917–22): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 million
Soviet Union, Stalin’s regime (1924–53): . . . . . . . . . 20 million
Second World War (1937–45): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 million
Chinese Civil War (1945–49): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 million
People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong’s
regime (1949–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 million
Tibet (1950 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600,000
Congo Free State (1886–1908): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 million
Mexico (1910–20): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Turkish massacres of Armenians (1915–23): . . . . . 1.5 million
China (1917–28): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800,000
China, Nationalist era (1928–37): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 million
Korean War (1950–53): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 million
North Korea (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 million
Rwanda and Burundi (1959–95): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 million
Second Indochina War (1960–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 million
Ethiopia (1962–92): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Nigeria (1966–70): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Bangladesh (1971): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.25 million
Cambodia, Khmer Rouge (1975–78): . . . . . . . . . . . 1.65 million
Mozambique (1975–92): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Afghanistan (1979–2001): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 million
Iran–Iraq War (1980–88): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Sudan (1983 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 million
Kinshasa, Congo (1998 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 million
Philippines Insurgency (1899–1902): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220,000
Brazil (1900 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Amazonia (1900–1912): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000
Portuguese colonies (1900–1925): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325,000
French colonies (1900–1940): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
Japanese War (1904–5): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000
German East Africa (1905–7): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,000
Libya (1911–31): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125,000
Balkan Wars (1912–13): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,000
Greco–Turkish War (1919–22): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000
Spanish Civil War (1936–39): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365,000
Franco Regime (1939–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000
Abyssinian Conquest (1935–41): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Finnish War (1939–40): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Greek Civil War (1943–49): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158,000
Yugoslavia, Tito’s regime (1944–80): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
First Indochina War (1945–54): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Colombia (1946–58): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
India (1947): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Romania (1948–89): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Burma/Myanmar (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000
Algeria (1954–62): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537,000
Sudan (1955–72): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Guatemala (1960–96): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
Indonesia (1965–66): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Uganda, Idi Amin’s regime (1972–79): . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Vietnam, postwar Communist regime
(1975 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430,000
Angola (1975–2002): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550,000
East Timor, conquest by Indonesia (1975–99): . . . . . 200,000
Lebanon (1975–90): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Cambodian Civil War (1978–91): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225,000
Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979–2003): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Uganda (1979–86): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Kurdistan (1980s, 1990s): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Liberia (1989–97): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Iraq (1990– ): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–95): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,000
Somalia (1991 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
From "The Devil's Delusion," Berlinski




Quite a record you guys have, huh?


Will you ever learn???

Give me a fucking break. That in no way deals with the fact that our secular Constitutional Republic is threatened . And if you celebrate that which you apparently do, you have no business calling yourself an American or a patriot. You are a subversive who hates the constitution. Yes secular governments -including this one have committed atrocities, and have many in the name of their god.

Re-post sans the juvenile vulgarity and I may award you a response.

If you can vote for a person using that language then you can respond to a poster using that language.

 

[RealDave]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

Businesses arent "government". Pharmacists arent "government". Businesses and pharmacies run most efficiently on GAAP and the APhA respectively. Not legislation. So how do you bring politicians into this? Well of course you have demanded government in everything havent you?

So the question isnt really whether politicians will legislate their beliefs. The fight is really over which beliefs they will legislate. And you want Marxist beliefs legislated in all facets of life.

A pharmacy is a business & thereby follows the rules the businesses must follow.

Laws should be void of religion.

You can't open a business & discriminate.

Well sure except that I do not have to bake a cake for when you marry Steve.

If you run a bakery business, then you do.

 

[JustAGuy1]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

Businesses arent "government". Pharmacists arent "government". Businesses and pharmacies run most efficiently on GAAP and the APhA respectively. Not legislation. So how do you bring politicians into this? Well of course you have demanded government in everything havent you?

So the question isnt really whether politicians will legislate their beliefs. The fight is really over which beliefs they will legislate. And you want Marxist beliefs legislated in all facets of life.

A pharmacy is a business & thereby follows the rules the businesses must follow.

Laws should be void of religion.

You can't open a business & discriminate.

Well sure except that I do not have to bake a cake for when you marry Steve.

If you run a bakery business, then you do.

No, I don't re-check Co faggot.

 

[JoeB131]

You're lying, and I think that you know you're lying. He was married to the best cook in the United States of America, and his home was a place of beauty and worship of God. He actually was very occupied with helping with the Get-the-Redcoats-off-our-backs Revolutionary War, followed by time with his wife and family, followed by taking charge of the Union to appease the founders who truly needed a winner to become a President and establish precedents for this nation at its foundling time.

Okay, did you miss my point entirely. He owned slaves. He owned other human beings and lived in a mansion off of their labor while HE lived in a big mansion. This is not something a decent human being does.

You should perhaps educate yourself on the life of one Oney Judge, a slave owned by the wonderful Washington family who fled to New York. Martha was going to give her as a gift to one of Granddaughters, a woman with an awful temper. The Washingtons made a whole lot of effort to regain their "property".

Fun fact.. the United Kingdom outlawed slavery in 1804 in England and the rest of the Empire by 1830.

You Demmies failed to make Thomas Jefferson into a rapist-atheist. What a sickening bunch you are with your evil brethren who play hoaxes on the nation at the drop of a hat and the loss of an election.

Oh, there is absolutely no doubt Thomas Jefferson was a rapist. Even the Monticello society admits he fathered children on Sally Hemmings. Since Sally was his property, there was no issue of "consent"... therefore rape.

As for atheism, its been established he was a Deist.. which isn't quite an Atheist... the Deist still needs a sky pixie.

Pooey on youey for your unprecedented attempt to destroy the United States' founders and replace freedoms with requirements that go against people's beliefs.

You're a legend in your own mind, Joe.

It isn't about me, Buttress... it's about realizing that our past has serious flaws in it. You can love someone or something and still recognize it's flaws. I love my country. I put on her uniform and was willing to die for it... but at the end of the day, there's a whole lot in our history we should be embarrassed about, and a whole lot we need to correct.

 

[JoeB131]

threat to secularism???

I sure hope so.


Let's check the damage/slaughter secularism and its proponents have done in modern times:

First World War (1914–18): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million

Okay- let's look at that.

The First World War was fought between the King of Great Britian, head of the Church of England and the Tsar of all the Russias, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, vs. the head of the Lutheran Church of Germany and the Caliph of Islam...

Seems like a whole lot of religion was going on in World War I...

The rest of your list is equally faulty...

So let's put a fine point on it. Human beings are generally terrible to each other. It's pretty easy to point out the flaws in the other guy's country while ignoring your own... but just as much blood has been spilled over Allah and Jesus as has been spilled over which form of economic system you want to follow.

 

[DOTR]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

Businesses arent "government". Pharmacists arent "government". Businesses and pharmacies run most efficiently on GAAP and the APhA respectively. Not legislation. So how do you bring politicians into this? Well of course you have demanded government in everything havent you?

So the question isnt really whether politicians will legislate their beliefs. The fight is really over which beliefs they will legislate. And you want Marxist beliefs legislated in all facets of life.

A pharmacy is a business & thereby follows the rules the businesses must follow.

Laws should be void of religion.

You can't open a business & discriminate.

Laws shouldn’t be void of religiously inspired ethics. There...i said it as matter of fact as you. Should be accepted as truth.

 

[DOTR]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

Businesses arent "government". Pharmacists arent "government". Businesses and pharmacies run most efficiently on GAAP and the APhA respectively. Not legislation. So how do you bring politicians into this? Well of course you have demanded government in everything havent you?

So the question isnt really whether politicians will legislate their beliefs. The fight is really over which beliefs they will legislate. And you want Marxist beliefs legislated in all facets of life.

A pharmacy is a business & thereby follows the rules the businesses must follow.

Laws should be void of religion.

You can't open a business & discriminate.

Well sure except that I do not have to bake a cake for when you marry Steve.

All citizens must participate in degeneracy.

Too bad they didn’t explain that before we legalized homosexual marriage. Oh wait...we didn’t.

 

[DOTR]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

Businesses arent "government". Pharmacists arent "government". Businesses and pharmacies run most efficiently on GAAP and the APhA respectively. Not legislation. So how do you bring politicians into this? Well of course you have demanded government in everything havent you?

So the question isnt really whether politicians will legislate their beliefs. The fight is really over which beliefs they will legislate. And you want Marxist beliefs legislated in all facets of life.

A pharmacy is a business & thereby follows the rules the businesses must follow.

Laws should be void of religion.

You can't open a business & discriminate.

Well sure except that I do not have to bake a cake for when you marry Steve.

If you run a bakery business, then you do.

They revel in using raw power to achieve what they couldn’t make a case for before the people.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, there are no politicians trying to legislate their religious beliefs?

Example. The right wants the ability for businesses to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. They want it to be OK for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if that prescription is against his "religion".

Businesses arent "government". Pharmacists arent "government". Businesses and pharmacies run most efficiently on GAAP and the APhA respectively. Not legislation. So how do you bring politicians into this? Well of course you have demanded government in everything havent you?

So the question isnt really whether politicians will legislate their beliefs. The fight is really over which beliefs they will legislate. And you want Marxist beliefs legislated in all facets of life.

A pharmacy is a business & thereby follows the rules the businesses must follow.

Laws should be void of religion.

You can't open a business & discriminate.

Well sure except that I do not have to bake a cake for when you marry Steve.

All citizens must participate in degeneracy.

Too bad they didn’t explain that before we legalized homosexual marriage. Oh wait...we didn’t.

What is your problem with marriage equality? How has it effected you personally ? How is it any of your business?

 

[miketx]

America needs to be saved from queers and politicians.

 

[beautress]

You're lying, and I think that you know you're lying. He was married to the best cook in the United States of America, and his home was a place of beauty and worship of God. He actually was very occupied with helping with the Get-the-Redcoats-off-our-backs Revolutionary War, followed by time with his wife and family, followed by taking charge of the Union to appease the founders who truly needed a winner to become a President and establish precedents for this nation at its foundling time.

Okay, did you miss my point entirely. He owned slaves. He owned other human beings and lived in a mansion off of their labor while HE lived in a big mansion. This is not something a decent human being does.

You should perhaps educate yourself on the life of one Oney Judge, a slave owned by the wonderful Washington family who fled to New York. Martha was going to give her as a gift to one of Granddaughters, a woman with an awful temper. The Washingtons made a whole lot of effort to regain their "property".

Fun fact.. the United Kingdom outlawed slavery in 1804 in England and the rest of the Empire by 1830.

You Demmies failed to make Thomas Jefferson into a rapist-atheist. What a sickening bunch you are with your evil brethren who play hoaxes on the nation at the drop of a hat and the loss of an election.

Oh, there is absolutely no doubt Thomas Jefferson was a rapist. Even the Monticello society admits he fathered children on Sally Hemmings. Since Sally was his property, there was no issue of "consent"... therefore rape.

As for atheism, its been established he was a Deist.. which isn't quite an Atheist... the Deist still needs a sky pixie.

Pooey on youey for your unprecedented attempt to destroy the United States' founders and replace freedoms with requirements that go against people's beliefs.

You're a legend in your own mind, Joe.

It isn't about me, Buttress... it's about realizing that our past has serious flaws in it. You can love someone or something and still recognize it's flaws. I love my country. I put on her uniform and was willing to die for it... but at the end of the day, there's a whole lot in our history we should be embarrassed about, and a whole lot we need to correct.

Thank you for fighting for America, JoeB. When I wanted to become a nurse during the Vietnam years, my mother refused her permission for me to join. So that ended that. Even so, I was very angry when years later a friend of mine in Wyoming said when he returned from 'Nam, he and his buds were expecting a parade, when they were screamed at and spit at as they descended the ship at FPO area. I knew a little bad news about people being unkind to our fighting men in restaurants and stuff, but his story, and the pain on his face told me my late husband's friend who served in Viet Nam wasn't lying. That's when I started looking through the library about the Viet Nam war and realized there was a large group that hated a war that was us trying to save the South Vietnamese from the Viet Cong. And I do not think I care to hear the saga of those who'd take it out on people who thought they were protecting people over here. It had a bad smell.

I took my military family's side of it without being told to. All the men in our family had been in WWII. And when they got home, people moved earth and mountains to see that they got jobs and educations if they wanted them.

All the Viet Nam guys got was a broken heart.

 

[Unkotare]

threat to secularism???

I sure hope so.


Let's check the damage/slaughter secularism and its proponents have done in modern times:

First World War (1914–18): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million

Okay- let's look at that.

The First World War was fought between the King of Great Britian, head of the Church of England and the Tsar of all the Russias, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, vs. the head of the Lutheran Church of Germany and the Caliph of Islam...

Seems like a whole lot of religion was going on in World War I...

The rest of your list is equally faulty...

So let's put a fine point on it. Human beings are generally terrible to each other. It's pretty easy to point out the flaws in the other guy's country while ignoring your own... but just as much blood has been spilled over Allah and Jesus as has been spilled over which form of economic system you want to follow.

WWI was not a war of religion, you ignorant buffoon.

 

[beautress]

threat to secularism???

I sure hope so.


Let's check the damage/slaughter secularism and its proponents have done in modern times:

First World War (1914–18): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million

Okay- let's look at that.

The First World War was fought between the King of Great Britian, head of the Church of England and the Tsar of all the Russias, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, vs. the head of the Lutheran Church of Germany and the Caliph of Islam...

Seems like a whole lot of religion was going on in World War I...

The rest of your list is equally faulty...

So let's put a fine point on it. Human beings are generally terrible to each other. It's pretty easy to point out the flaws in the other guy's country while ignoring your own... but just as much blood has been spilled over Allah and Jesus as has been spilled over which form of economic system you want to follow.

WWI was not a war of religion, you ignorant buffoon.

My grandfather received a silver star in WWI, Unkotare. His favorite saying about war was "Praise the Lord and Pass the ammunition!" He rescued 7 wounded soldiers under heavy enemy fire and brought them to safety without a scratch. It was a miracle, but he didn't dawdle. I bet those survivors' families are grateful their sons came home to recuperate, because God himself watched over my grandfather, and I loved him very much growing up, because he did fun stuff like make a couple of hundred wooden chairs for the Sunday School at church, and he praised God with a wonderful bass voice in the choir.

Religious men are often required to serve and know when God has intervened with mercy to bring them home in one piece. So I guess you could say some of us think yes and no about religion and war. God watched over many Americans in the Kaiser's World War, and when Grandpa got home, he married grandma.

Our nation was conceived by Pilgrims and Christians of many backgrounds and native tongues. But they adopted English, because the colonies were greatly populated by people from England, Scotland, and Holland. Many of them were children whose families sent them off with friends. Grandpas' ancestors came over on the Myflower but were Dutch, not English, but by the time they got here, they were fluent in English, especially Dutch children who were stowed away with friends. lol Don't worry. The Captains made the boys work hard to earn their passage when they were found out and nobody knew nothing. lol

The taskmasters were merciful Christians. It may be hard for you to understand, but many people who arrived to this part of the world were actually from sects the Brits and Dutchies wanted nothing to do with. Predestination? Unacceptable to some in the royalty. So they sent the dissenters here, and by the grace of God, they could worship in the way they saw fit to worship. Our land was built on religious principles.

And it was easy to take advantage of Christians, who didn't appreciate it much after 150 years, so we had the American Revolution, and the British finally got tired of getting killed by guerilla warfare which they considered uncouth, but the people who'd been taken advantage just got a little annoyed the last and final tax on even tea was levied, so they turned to coffee from North Africa and their guns handed down for generations.

 

[JoeB131]

Even so, I was very angry when years later a friend of mine in Wyoming said when he returned from 'Nam, he and his buds were expecting a parade, when they were screamed at and spit at as they descended the ship at FPO area. I knew a little bad news about people being unkind to our fighting men in restaurants and stuff, but his story, and the pain on his face told me my late husband's friend who served in Viet Nam wasn't lying. That's when I started looking through the library about the Viet Nam war and realized there was a large group that hated a war that was us trying to save the South Vietnamese from the Viet Cong. And I do not think I care to hear the saga of those who'd take it out on people who thought they were protecting people over here. It had a bad smell.

Okay. The stories of returning vets being spit on was a myth. It just plain old didn't happen.

In fact, these stories didn't start popping up until the 1980's. (The first Rambo movie helped popularize them.)

What you won't find is a story from the late 60's, early seventies with headlines "Soldier Spat upon by Hippy" or " Hippy in critical condition after spitting on battle-hardened Marine".

 

[JoeB131]

WWI was not a war of religion, you ignorant buffoon.

I think you miss the point, Dripping Poop. Up until WWI, the Church and the State were inseparable.

George V was the head of the Church of England.
Nicholas II was the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. (Russians referred to the Tsar as the Little Father, and God as the Great Father).
The Sultan of the Ottaman Empire was also the Caliph of Islam.
Kaiser Wilhelm was also the head of the German Lutheran Church.

So, um, yeah... these guys told all these peasants to go out and fight for their God. By the time the carnage was over, most of them were gone and people realized there probably wasn't a God.

 

[Unkotare]

threat to secularism???

I sure hope so.


Let's check the damage/slaughter secularism and its proponents have done in modern times:

First World War (1914–18): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million

Okay- let's look at that.

The First World War was fought between the King of Great Britian, head of the Church of England and the Tsar of all the Russias, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, vs. the head of the Lutheran Church of Germany and the Caliph of Islam...

Seems like a whole lot of religion was going on in World War I...

The rest of your list is equally faulty...

So let's put a fine point on it. Human beings are generally terrible to each other. It's pretty easy to point out the flaws in the other guy's country while ignoring your own... but just as much blood has been spilled over Allah and Jesus as has been spilled over which form of economic system you want to follow.

WWI was not a war of religion, you ignorant buffoon.

My grandfather received a silver star in WWI, Unkotare. His favorite saying about war was "Praise the Lord and Pass the ammunition!" He rescued 7 wounded soldiers under heavy enemy fire and brought them to safety without a scratch. It was a miracle, but he didn't dawdle. I bet those survivors' families are grateful their sons came home to recuperate, because God himself watched over my grandfather, and I loved him very much growing up, because he did fun stuff like make a couple of hundred wooden chairs for the Sunday School at church, and he praised God with a wonderful bass voice in the choir.

Religious men are often required to serve and know when God has intervened with mercy to bring them home in one piece. So I guess you could say some of us think yes and no about religion and war. God watched over many Americans in the Kaiser's World War, and when Grandpa got home, he married grandma.

Our nation was conceived by Pilgrims and Christians of many backgrounds and native tongues. But they adopted English, because the colonies were greatly populated by people from England, Scotland, and Holland. Many of them were children whose families sent them off with friends. Grandpas' ancestors came over on the Myflower but were Dutch, not English, but by the time they got here, they were fluent in English, especially Dutch children who were stowed away with friends. lol Don't worry. The Captains made the boys work hard to earn their passage when they were found out and nobody knew nothing. lol

The taskmasters were merciful Christians. It may be hard for you to understand, but many people who arrived to this part of the world were actually from sects the Brits and Dutchies wanted nothing to do with. Predestination? Unacceptable to some in the royalty. So they sent the dissenters here, and by the grace of God, they could worship in the way they saw fit to worship. Our land was built on religious principles.

And it was easy to take advantage of Christians, who didn't appreciate it much after 150 years, so we had the American Revolution, and the British finally got tired of getting killed by guerilla warfare which they considered uncouth, but the people who'd been taken advantage just got a little annoyed the last and final tax on even tea was levied, so they turned to coffee from North Africa and their guns handed down for generations.

Is there a reason any of that was in reply to my post?

????

 

[JoeB131]

Is there a reason any of that was in reply to my post?

????

She just does that... goes off on these weird tangents that have nothing to do with what she's replying to.

 

[fncceo]

Theocracy has its plus side ...

Room, board, and free d*ck!

 

[Unkotare]

WWI was not a war of religion, you ignorant buffoon.

I think you miss the point, Dripping Poop. Up until WWI, the Church and the State were inseparable.

George V was the head of the Church of England.
Nicholas II was the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. (Russians referred to the Tsar as the Little Father, and God as the Great Father).
The Sultan of the Ottaman Empire was also the Caliph of Islam.
Kaiser Wilhelm was also the head of the German Lutheran Church.

So, um, yeah... these guys told all these peasants to go out and fight for their God. By the time the carnage was over, most of them were gone and people realized there probably wasn't a God.

Disingenuous, empty nonsense.