Election 2012

[dugby]

That is as scary as it is sad.

whats really scary is that with 120 votes on this site supposedly full of constitutionall supporters and gun supporters that Obumm would 20 votes

I guess the koolaid comes in a lot of different flavors

 

[justanotherpatriot]

My views on Religion in government is that a CHURCH has no business attempting to further its own ends through legistlation or coercion any more than any other entity. The church has far to lofty a goal to stoop to politics anyway. That being said, a civilization without morality is dead already. A civilization that wishes to thrive past the first couple of generations MUST teach and pass on morals.

Several have posted in response to this comment and in some ways have been very enlightening. I appreciate the candid responses, however I do not think that the answer to my question has been satisfied.
I have several friends/coworkers who are not religious and I am aquainted with others who are not religious yet are very moral, upstanding citizens and in some cases I would even consider them patriots. Conversely I know of others, both friends and aquaintances, who claim to be religious and are moral only to a degree. It would be foolish for me or anyone to make a blanket statement about any group of people numbering more than 1.

Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong).
In life, differences in morality is more often than not determined by the number of people involved in the relationship.
For example, in a familial group, you may have one set of morals or code of conduct within the group and another for relationships outside the group.
That same example can be extrapolated to a fraternity, a city, club, organization, region, nationality, sports club etc. The list goes on and on.
The obvious problem with that is when you have 2 distinctly different ideas about morality. What then determines acceptable behavior and unacceptable?
My premise is that in most religions, there exists at the core, common sense principles which have been used to promote interdependent relationships.
I cannot think of one civilization in history to ever go beyond day to day existence which did not have some form of religion and a well defined code of conduct.
I dont for one minute condone state sponsored religion or churches. Although several of the original charters for the various states did have a sponsored religion, that mindset did not last and by the time these united States became united, it was decidedly important to the majority of the founders and representatives that there be no favored or sponsored religion. Rather, that these newly united States would be a safe haven for citizens of any and all and no faiths. Giving preference to none and providing protection for all. Those founding fathers (athiest and religious alike) saw benefit in men who had religious faith because of the moral codes represented by those faiths.

The following is an excerpt from www.WallBuilders.com

 

[justanotherpatriot]

An obvious example of the secularization of history occurs each year around the Fourth of July. Americans are taught that "taxation without representation" was the reason America separated from Great Britain; yet "taxation without representation" was only reason number seventeen out of the twenty-seven reasons given in the Declaration of Independence - it was not even in the top half, yet it's all that most ever hear. Never mentioned today are the numerous grievances condemning judicial activism - or those addressing moral or religious or other issues.

What religious issues? In 1762, the king vetoed the charter for America's first missionary society; he also suppressed other religious freedoms and even prevented Americans from printing an English language Bible. How did Americans respond? They took action; and almost unknown today is the fact that Declaration signers such as Samuel Adams and Charles Carroll cited religious freedom as the reason they became involved in the American Revolution. And significantly, even though Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin (two of the least religious signers) are typically the only signers studied today, almost half of the signers of the Declaration (24 of 56) held what today would be considered seminary or Bible school degrees. Clearly, for many Founders, religious issues were an important motivation behind their separation from Great Britain; but that motivation is largely ignored today.

 

[justanotherpatriot]

Bottom line, like it or not, if you had removed the issue of religion from the causes leading to the War for Independence, we'd all be Limeys!!!!

 

[JB Books]

What if the muslims got a majority in a state?

You'd sing a different tune.

 

[3inSlugger]

What if the muslims got a majority in a state?

You'd sing a different tune.

Exactly..or even...heaven forbid....the atheists got a majority.

 

[justanotherpatriot]

What if the muslims got a majority in a state?

You'd sing a different tune.

Not so!!! As long as they upheld the Constitution and the Rule of Law I wouldn't have anything to worry about. Totally due in fact to the way our founding fathers organized the principles of this country. By the way, as I heard it, they already have a majority in the Detroit area or the suburbs. That is exactly why a comprehensive understanding of our country's founding principles are so critical and why erosion of those principles are to be avoided at all costs.
Also why the current actions by our sitting President are so untennable. His job description carries 2 mandates as conditions of the job. #1 Uphold the Rule of Law. #2 Provide for the common defense of the Country. His actions this last week in publicly proclaiming that there were provisions of the law that he was deliberately not going to enforce blatantly violates his oath of office. His actions or policy with F&F (whether he was personally involved at the time or he is aiding and abetting in the cover up that is following) are in direct contention with the 2nd mandate. For anyone who claims to be a 2a supporter not to recognize the blatant back door attempt that this was at gun control---in the words of certain poster--- well, well, well.

 

[1fast8]

patriot I know you are very wise , and I know you mean well but you could be doing a lot more good in the world than trying to some sense into many here on this forum

 

[3inSlugger]

Muslims, like some other religious folk...ahem, like to try to impose their particular beliefs upon others.
No doubt there are Muslim exceptions, just like there are some Christian exceptions.
But Muslims wanting to order Muslim women to wear hijabs is no different than Christians wanting to ban gay marriage IMO.

 

[1fast8]

Muslims, like some other religious folk...ahem, like to try to impose their particular beliefs upon others.
No doubt there are Muslim exceptions, just like there are some Christian exceptions.
But Muslims wanting to order Muslim women to wear hijabs is no different than Christians wanting to ban gay marriage IMO.

there is a big difference between forcing some one to do something rather than asking some one if they would like to know how to receive Jesus Christ as there personal savior.If a christain has ever forced you to do something or ridiculed you then he has some repenting to do himself.The bible I read tells me I have to let other poeple hear the good news,offer kindness , and offer help, but does not give me permission to condemn others or judge others for I myself have sinned also. I wish you knew a little more about the Christ I serve.