Wait a minute. This video complains about being lied to, yet Catholicism preys on children by lying to them. lol you get no sympathy from me! All you get from me is a thumbs down and animosity.
nah man obama sees thru lies for once Barack acting very well ...hmmmm idk Barry watever man not important whats important is that russia is communist still...okay...these poor communists have lied and said they are a christian nation now...COMPLETE MYTH..because you see these communists are morons, they think that cia is youtube, and facebook, and twitter...now they want to get rid of youtube and facebook, that's communism...lets put a true cia investigation on that nation.
My American pride grows anytime someone refuses superstitious lobby groups to have their way. Believe in fairy tales all you like, but don't complain when other adults don't take you seriously.
@SubconsciousGatherer your pride must not grow to often sense evolutionists still believe in their fairy tale that everything came from nothing, and are even tax supported!
@SnowBroProductions your right everything came from nothing, and nothing came from everything. The truth is we're still trying to figure out who, what, when, where, how, and why nothing last forever and yet it is still a waste.
@SnowBroProductions Actually it is the people who believe in the fairy tale of "gods" that believe we came from nothing. They think a gods just spoke everything into existence, POOF. Would you like to explain how THAT happens?
@SubconsciousGatherer God speaking is quite something my friend, like you said everything came into existence just form His word. I cannot explain how, because if I were to "explain" that means physically explain. God is not physical and sense I as a human being know nothing but physical, I definitely cannot explain.
Can you explain how nothing exploded and became everything? I didn't think so...
At the end of the day we all BELIEVE in something!
@SnowBroProductions You: "I definitely cannot explain." Me: Exactly, so what on earth makes you think you know what the heck you're talking about? You're giving me the whole, "God is too big to understand" nonsense, yet claiming you know something about it all. Rubbish, man. Be honest. What you have is a belief, not an understanding. You don't know any more about how this all started than I do, but unlike you I don't make up stories and lie to myself.
barack obama is an atheist lol, and ilove him for it, its a shame how in america a president has to lie about his religion and tell eveyrone he's a christian in order to get elected. Fail
@Freethinker12341 No actually he is a Christian, he is simply living up to what the standard use to be, where the Seperation of Church and State was not an imaginary line. For example, that BS about protecting federal workers from doing something they 'object to on moral or religious grounds', would be used and abused in ways you couldnt imagine. This will open the door for, I will not help this gay person, or I will not help this atheist. Catholics need to focus on their PEDOFILIA PROBLEM!
@SnowBroProductions lol, I know, thats why America is messed up as FUCK! Like Bill Maher says "most americans are dumb and uneducated", its so true.
I'm so glad I live in Canada... if Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams were around to see the current state of America, (and how Christian it is) they would be very very very unhappy and disappointed that this beautiful country they founded turned into a big Christian mess.
@Freethinker12341 lol you got the uneducated part right, that's for sure! Some people write comments on YouTube that are completely opposite of reality, its got bad here.
the founding fathers would be shocked because America today is atheist, nothing to do with Christianity. It was founded by Christians as a beautiful Christian country, but now its a big corrupt mess (thanks to people like you). They would be shocked, the Bible removed from schools, no more prayer, your right its a mess.
@SnowBroProductions the truth is the tea party likes to spread propaganda about america being founded on christian values when it wasn't.
Do me a favor, read Thomas Paine's book, "The Age of Reason", and read Thomas Jefferson's book called "Notes on the State of Virginia".
Both men were deists who advocated for a sharp separation of church and state. Jefferson especially was very against state funding for churches. Religion has mostly been on the rise in America within the past century
@Freethinker12341 I can't imagine anyone wanting to end the Freedom of Religion here. It'd mean "the free country" I used to know would dissappear. :'(
@MikeBostoneMusic because the United States has become a messed up theocracy essentially. there is no more church state separation....but that doesn't mean thats the way the founding fathers wanted it. they WERE secularists believe it or not. Most of them were Deists.
I wonder if it had anything to do with Catholic Sean Hannity calling him a “terrorist-sympathizer” a thousand and one times?
Or the 60+ Catholic prelates who publicly criticized Notre Dame for hosting Obama and giving him an honorary degree in 2009. Notre Dame had done the same for Bush – who supported torture, and seven other sitting presidents before. What was different about Obama? Sad, to deny him the same goodwill that had been extended to every other president prior.
You are nutbags inflicting your magical beliefs on the rest of us. If Catholics and Christians stopped having abortions, the whole thing would collapse.
The pope sent out over 200 curses against American style government and conspired with the monarchs of Europe to usurp republican style government around the world in what is known as the "treaty of verona". The American government responded to this threat with the "Monroe Doctrine".
Rev:18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
God is calling people out of the Roman Church in the last days.
constitution does say "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." so it's a bit dishonest to say it's a "godless document" i mean if it said "the year of our Lord satan" it would be satanic right? The "Lord" there is obviously Jesus, Him being the centerpiece of all human history and all.
@therealjonpaw Many of the Founding Fathers were Protestant Christians, yes, as were most European colonial settlers at the time, and the Constitution would naturally be written in language and terminology relevant to their time. Based on the majority of early documentation regarding churches and the state however, it's clear that most came to vote in support of the separation.
Oh boo hoo. Is the Catholic Church not powerful enough? Are its tentacles no longer in every facet of society? Well that's too damn bad for you.
People who know their history know what you guys were like when you had all the power. And we're not likely to ever give it back. Get used to your new, diminished status.
Freedom of religion does not mean religion should be above the law. If your religious practices conflict with the law, you still have to obey it like everyone else. I am against abortions for humanist reasons and I believe they should be apposed honestly. I do not think killing sperm cells is wrong though. Please mention that in another video. I want a good laugh.
@toSTONEiGO You my ignorant friend said "many of the founding fathers were aethiests", not sure what an "aethiest" is but I am assuming you meant "athiest". That statement just shows your complete and utter ignorance as NONE of the founding fathers were athiests nor did they trust the oath of an athiest as an athiest has no "higher power" but himself thus his oath and word is worthless.
@WorshipInTruth That is, only assuming that you need to believe in a God to have morality. Honestly, I think it takes more civility to be accepting than to try and convert others. The First Amendment is what stands as the justification for a clear separation of church from state.
@Ahuazusu I do not doubt that an athiest can have a sense of morality but it is a twisted and perverted sense of morality if he does not base it on some higher principle. I ask what would be the basis for an athiests sense of morality, the athiest just decides willy nilly what is "moral" and what isnt based on whatever he chooses to believe at the moment.
@Ahuazusu You need to realize that the first amendment was never intended to seperate religion from the state but to make sure that the state stays out of the affairs of the churches. The idea of seperation of church and state finds its origin in an address which Jefferson made to a group of Bible believing Baptists assuring them that the state would stay out of their affairs. It was only intended to make sure that INSTITUTIONS like the catholic church did not gain control of the government.
@WorshipInTruth The First Amendment regards the right to freedom of speech, and correspondingly, belief. "Prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion." This makes good sense in the U.S. where minority rights are to be held constitutionally equal to the hegemony's.
Simply, not everyone in the States is Christian or even practices religious worship, so it is unfair to adopt or enforce legislation based upon belief coming only from, say, Christian doctrine.
@Ahuazusu Laugh, "respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion", by establishment it is referring to a particular religious INSTITUTION such as say the catholic church or the anglican church, it is merely saying that the state is not allowed to make a law which effects a particular institution of religion, it is not saying that the state can't make laws based on Christian principles. I really cannot believe they did not teach you kids this stuff in school.
@Ahuazusu I am so sorry for your ignorance and inability to read.
"Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government."- James Madison
"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." - James Madison
"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage...Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe." - James Madison
@Ahuazusu "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison
@WorshipInTruth "Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." - Madison
"In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts." (From a letter to Jasper Adams) - Madison Obviously spoke for his personal belief, not what was to govern all.
@Ahuazusu That quote that you sent me jibs perfectly with what I was telling you, that the founders were concerned about ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATIONS (i.e the catholic and anglican "churches") gaining control of the government. If you know European history you know why they were concerned about this. The founders were Protestant Christians who were deeply distrustful of the papal organization and they wanted to ensure that it would never gain power in the U.S. but they advocted Christian ETHICS.
@Ahuazusu They at no point wanted Christian principles and ethics seperated from government, by todays standards they would have been considered "fundamentalist Christians" but they wanted to ensure that the wicked pope and his minions could not take over the government as it was widely known that the jesuits (the counter-reformation arm of the papacy) constantly plotted against governments and wished to set up a world wide tyranny.
@WorshipInTruth Ah, but that is effectively what's been established then. Does that not show the importance of secularism for the sake of fair legislation? By ensuring that no particular church be favored, and by creating a method to amend the Constitution, we see that nobody in the U.S. has to practice anything against their belief. Again, certainly the United States is a different nation today, and it'd be unfair to base laws for everyone of off Christian values.
@Ahuazusu Our founders understood that a constitutionally restrained limited republic would be impossible unless the citizens followed Christian values and principles, they would also be terrified at the idea of divorcing the Christian faith from government and that seems to be proposition of most modern secularists. Secularists also seem to forget that the idea of "seperation of church and state" was more to protect the Churches from state intervention (taxation etc.) then anything else.
@Ahuazusu The founders were greatly opposed to theocracy but, as I said, would be terrified if they thought this implied a seperation of government from Christian ethics. This conversation is about the original intent of the founders, not about how "the United States is a different nation today", with that type of logic one could suggest that we get rid of the Bill of Rights altogether because "the United States is different". The degeneracy of modern culture was unthinkable to the founders.
@WorshipInTruth 1) We could certainly get rid of or change the bill of rights if we thought they no longer fit with America. In change or add to them all the time. They're called Amendments
2) You might want to read up on some of the quotes key founding fathers had to say about how much they hated Christianity and thought it was morally reprehensible. Thomas Jefferson and James Adams have some particularly good quotes here.
@Stairc "we could certainly get rid of or change the bill of rights". WOW, just wow, you are a very dangerous individual, that is treasonous talk and you could technically be charged with sedition for that statement. The idea of whether or not the Constitution is a "living document" is actually an extremely debated question which even the founders argued over. But James Madison, the primary author of the constitution, had this to say....
@Stairc Before an amendment can even take effect it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states. And nowhere is there constitutional authority to "get rid of the Bill of Rights" or anything ridiculous like that. Now please explain to me what would be the constitutional procedure of getting rid of the constitution? LAUGH.
@Stairc Boy you are dumb, you cannot legally repeal the amendments in the Bill of rights because the amendments themselves forbid it as they were created to limit what the government is authorized to do. The very use of language such as "Congress shall make no law" and "Shall not be infringed" proves this point.
@WorshipInTruth So, thus far we have examples of how we can add amendments to the bill of rights and also how we can repeal amendments from the bill of rights. Just take a look at Prohibition. The amendment was added, then it was removed later.
Looks a lot like we can change or get rid of them after all.
@WorshipInTruth You've claimed the bill of rights, which is a series of several original amendments, can't be changed or gotten rid of. And yet, we have clear historical examples of amendments being added (abolishing slavery, prohibition, women's suffrage) and even repealed (ending prohibition). Despite how much you insist this can't be so, it's been done. History is clear on this. The bill of rights has been legally altered. You'll just have to live with that.
@Stairc Wow, just wow, have you even been reading my comments?? If you did you would understand why it is that the "Bill of Rights" is far different from the rest of the constitution. Furthermore, the whole reason the 12th amendment was repeled to begin with is that it was found to be unconstitutional, good luck in trying to prove that the Bill of Rights is unconstitutional. "The Bill of Rights has been legally altered".. ummm no it hasn't, it has been unlawfully disregarded but never altered.
@WorshipInTruth 1) I just explained we were using different terms by bill of rights, the historical versus the colloquial. This was simple confusion based on different definitions. For clarity's sake, we can simply talk about the constitution and its amendments... Which are changes and additions to the constitution.
2) The constitution has been changed. Amendments have been added and they have been taken away. The original ten amendments are not immune to this.
@Stairc If you read back in my comments I explain why it is that the original ten amendments ARE immune to being repealed or changed. I will not repeat myself, I spent too much time debating dolts on youtube as it is.
@WorshipInTruth Cool. Except that they're not immune. The constitution itself can be amended.
Originally, the Bill of Rights included legal protection for land-owning white men only,excluding African Americans and women. It took additional Constitutional Amendments and numerous Supreme Court cases to extend the same rights to all U.S. citizens.
History headshot. Unless you're planning to charge all the politicians and supreme court justices with sedition too.
@Stairc You are hopeless, just read back on my comment about INALIENABLE rights please. The Bill of Rights says nothing about race or gender, stop grasping at straws. Ahhh the good old days when at least land owning white men had "legal protection", now none of us do. Yes most modern politicians and supreme court justices should be tried and prosecuted for treason. They, like yourself, care nothing for "original intent" of the framers, they are sold and bought by various interests groups.
@WorshipInTruth Ah, so you're ignoring history and procedure which clearly disproves your hilariously narrow interpretation of a single word, everyone must be treasonous because they disagree with you and finally you're starting to sound like a nice, cozy racist.
Congratulations, you are officially no longer worth talking to. Enjoy your day. I will be immediately deleting your comments from now on without reading.
@Stairc Laugh, what a cop out. What have I said that is racist? A typical response from idiots when they are being defeated intellectually is to try to invalidate their opponent with absurd claims of "bigotry".
@WorshipInTruth You can add an amendment to the bill of rights the same way you can add a member to the member list of a club. The bill of rights is a collection of amendments to the constitution among other things. When another amendment is added to the constitution, it can be said to be 'added' to the list.
Regardless of how you want to interpret my grammar, it doesn't change the clear position of history. Amendments are added and taken away. The constitution is changed.
@Stairc Umm you cannot add an amendment to the Bill of Rights as the "Bill of Rights" is by definition the historical first ten amendments to the constitution.
@WorshipInTruth Ah, you're referring to the historical name - the original ten amendments. You're right, you can't add an amendment to that list, because by definition it would not be part of the original 10 - just as you can't add a state to the "original 13 colonies". Some people use "bill of rights" as short hand for "amendments to the constitution". I apologize for the confusion.
@Stairc Nobody refers to all constitutional amendments as the "Bill of Rights". The confusion was the result of you not even knowing what the "Bill of Rights" is.
@WorshipInTruth 1) If you want to argue about what I've heard people say and discuss, feel free. I don't think it'll get you anywhere.
2) My point is that we could change or get rid of any amendment, including the bill of rights, legally by simply amending the constitution. Other amendments have been added, and we've seen its possible to have an amendment removed. The original 10 are not immune to this. And no one can be charged with treason for suggesting amendments can be changed or removed.
@Stairc Secondly, The Bill of Rights Does NOT grant any right to an individual. It was added over the objections of some of the founders so as to enumerate several, but not all, of the NATURAL RIGHTS of individuals. The Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights (and others) exist as a function of "being" for each citizen. They are not Granted by any act of government and they can not be Taken Away; they just exist, they are understood as God granted or INALIENABLE rights.
@Stairc Perhaps you should reintroduce yourself with the word "inalienable" as it refers to something which is "not capable of being taken away or given away". The Bill of Rights is actually redundant as congress is not supposed to be authorized to infringe upon individual rights to begin with.
So, thus far we have examples of how we can add amendments to the bill of rights and also how we can repeal amendments from the bill of rights. Just take a look at Prohibition. The amendment was added, then it was removed later.
Looks a lot like we can change or get rid of them after all.
@Stairc "I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers..... What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense."- James Madison
@Stairc As for Jefferson and Adams, their feelings towards Christianity are often greatly misconstrued, it was never the true Biblical faith which they opposed but what they considered the various perversions that had been heaped onto it, namely, they were talking about the perversions of the catholic church. Adams was actually a Christian and would be considered a "fundamentalist" by todays standards.
@Stairc "[Religion is] Deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support."- Thomas Jefferson "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson
"The only foundation for useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion."- Thomas Jefferson
@Stairc "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..."- Thomas Jefferson
The corruptions which Jefferson is speaking of is catholicism.
@Stairc "I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invented..."- Thomas Jefferson
@Stairc ""I have thought proper to recommend, and I hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the twenty-fifth day of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God" - John Adams
@WorshipInTruth By definition, a government based on Christian ethics is a theocracy. Law based on religion. By "different today": I mean there are a much greater number of marginalized or minority religious groups in the country as a whole now. You don't need to throw out the Bill of Rights because those are, today, still interpreted by the Supreme Court and Congress as inalienable human rights. Really with minorities and women being able to vote without paying, I'd say we've moved forward.
@Ahuazusu "a government based on Christian ethics is a theocracy". WRONG, theocracy is a form of organization in which the official policy is to be governed by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, that would include states like the vatican and the current state of Iran. Theocracy is distinguished from other, secular, forms of government that have a state religion or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts.
@Ahuazusu Are you suggesting that the founders intended on a theocratic form of government merely because they wished the nation to be guided by Christian ethics??
@WorshipInTruth No, the majority of the first Continental Congresses found in favor of Madison and other's proposals of secularism. Most, but not all, of the Founding Fathers were Protestant Christian; why does that mean they were determined to make the still developing nation follow their personal belief in God and in moral code precisely?
Still, it also comes down to considering that just because of the views of some of the Founding Fathers, are we to base our laws around them alone.
@Ahuazusu I could show you many quotes from ALL of the founding fathers which show that they unanimously felt that the nation should be built on Christian principles and ethics, even the infidels Jefferson and Franklin openly stated that they thought Christianity was important for the strength and morality of the nation. It is called "original intent" of the founders and it is very important when talking about constitutional law.
@WorshipInTruth And Congress and the Supreme Court are constitutionally granted the Power of Interpretation i.e. they get to convene to decide what they and the American voters want the law to mean based on the majority decision. It's also interesting to me that one the greatest original law makers and the most renowned diplomat of time, Jefferson and Franklin, are just infidels even after their service.
@Ahuazusu The congress (legislative branch) is not given powers of interpretation but yes the judicial branch is given loose powers of interpretation. The problem is that the Supreme Court has abused these powers to the point where they are practically acting as law makers instead of just interpreters of the law, this is called "judicial activism" and is opposed by strict constitutionalists such as myself who favor "judicial restraint".
@Ahuazusu As far as religious faith is concerned Jefferson and Franklin were most certainly infidels by the very definition of the word. I disagree with Jeffersons personal religious beliefs and some of the policies he instituted but as far as political theory goes you can basically consider me a "Jeffersonian Democrat" aka a "libertarian". Franklin was only a "renowned diplomat" because he was friendly with the wicked tyrants of Europe and was a member of all their demonic secret societies.
@Ahuazusu Also, keep in mind that they never determined to "make" the majority of the nation follow a belief in God, it just WAS that way, they never set out to MAKE it that way because it was commonly understood that it already WAS that way. I would also like to know where do you get this strange impression that a secular form of government must somehow be devoid of all theological morals and ethics??
@WorshipInTruth Again, during the establishment of the Bill of Rights it was, in fact, determined or decided that people would have freedom of speech and religion. Right after that, they did not just go ahead and decide that base laws be drawn from Christianity solely because they were. Most likely, after witnessing the religious reformation in England, they realized the turmoil caused by forcing one religion into the institutions that every citizen submits to.
@Ahuazusu Yeah you are. Cause if you weren't you wouldn't be arguing with me at all as I have said nothing against freedom of religion, you are the one trying to trample upon the altar of religion by acting as if religious morals have no place in government. It is obvious to me that you think "freedom OF religion" means "freedom FROM religion" and that was NEVER the intention of the founders.
@WorshipInTruth I'm not saying a moral is bad just because it's written in the Bible, I'm saying it shouldn't be written into law just because it's in the Bible.
@Ahuazusu So you are saying that we shouldn't ever legislate with Christian ethics in mind?? That my friend is a fanatically anti-faith stance, like I said "freedom OF religion" is not "freedom FROM religion".
@WorshipInTruth No, believe what you like, but don't use the Bible or your relationship with Jesus as justification to pass a law or to intrude into the lives and equal rights of others.
@Ahuazusu There are also citizens all over the U.S. whom do not want their lives or their childrens lives governed by the precepts of godless materialism, how come it is you believe athiestical creeds and ideas are okay to foist upon the nation but that the Christian creed is somehow off limits? I am trying to get you to see your own hypocrisy. America is a blending pot of ideas and there was a time when private communities and individual states were allowed to govern themselves as they saw fit.
@WorshipInTruth Yes it is, so why allow a single religion to become incorporated based out of nothing more than a spiritual concept? Christian faith has done most of the "foisting" in recent decades, you'll clearly find.
I notice that creationism was dropped in place of evolution in many schools because creationism doesn't solve anything. If you don't understand how it works, just say God made it and forget it, right? Otherwise, parents can still raise their kids as religious as they please.
@Ahuazusu "Christian faith has done most of the foisting in recent decades". That is nuts, it goes to show your level of indoctrination and ignorance that you even made a statement like that. I suppose that is why Christian leaders are no longer allowed to preach from the Bible without the fear of being charged with "hate speech". I am sorry that you see God's will as "unfair", your will may oppose that of the Almighty but I assure you that "His will be done".
@WorshipInTruth When they stand in public squares and trespass onto campuses to scream that the gays are going to hell- that is intolerant and hateful. I'm not sure when police decide they can arrest an open protester, but it doesn't just happen to them.
@Ahuazusu Laugh, Christians never "trespass unto campuses" or anywhere while screaming "gays are going to hell". It just doesn't happen, there is ONE friggin family in the country that holds hateful anti-sodomite protests (the phelps family of "Westboro Bapist Church") and the media and the government spokes-stooges act like it is a friggin national emergency. Either way, they are just exercising their freedom of speech, if you don't like it then don't listen.
@WorshipInTruth Oh yeah? You can find videos of it here on Youtube. Probably just search "angry screaming pastor on college campus" or "you don't have no pancake mix". Who doesn't know about the infamous Westboro jackasses? Interestingly, even though they'll make dead soldiers' mothers weep, they are also opposed to racism. Everyone knows to ignore them.
@Ahuazusu So....? There are also all sorts of athiests protestors, communist protestors etc. you name it. Just look at the occupy wall street nuts who are raping each other, destroying property etc. So goes a country that allows freedom of speech.
@WorshipInTruth Well, on the opposite hand we could be China who imprisons you for your speech and where subservient people are helpless to change their living conditions through protest.
@Ahuazusu Chinese style government is the direction in which we are heading and the U.S. is constantly forfeiting its soverignty to internationalist organizations like the United Nations which state that China has the favored style of governance. Lawlessness and immorality of the populace only gives the government legitimate excuse to exercise force, that is the primary reason why the founders thought that Christian ethics in the population were important if we were to preserve the republic.
@WorshipInTruth Oh, excuse me! It was Genesis wherein Jacob took cane stalks and cut different patterns into them. He then stood them around his livestock and the young animals born had the matching patterns of the stalks the parent animals had bred in front of. I'll still have to find the verse number for a quote.
@Ahuazusu If the Almighty Creator of the universe can raise men from the dead it certainly would not be far fetched to assume that it would be within his power to perform a miracle along the lines of "animal fur patterns". Laugh, modern science can perform "miracles" more astounding then that even.
@WorshipInTruth Genesis 30: verses 37 through 42. That is one of many errors in the Bible, though in all fairness the ancient Hebrews didn't know how genetics worked.
And anyway, regarding China once more, I think that is why continued fervor in protesting illegal government practice is vital. People will take a lot before they snap and cause revolutions, I hope we don't fall so far before we remedy it.
@Ahuazusu LAUGH, there is no scientific error in those verses, it is simply telling you what happened, not saying that it is something which would always happen, if you read the whole thing in context it is clear that it was special circumstances, keep in mind that the prophets of the Lord could do great things, Jesus himself said that you can move multitudes with even a speck of faith. It was the result in Jacob trusting upon the Lord. I will send the verse to you in private chat.
The time isnt ripe for revolution it is rotten. It is perhaps too late as the vast majority of Americans have no concept of the principles of liberty, they are only concerned with their own stomachs, their only complaint is that the government is not providing them with certain goods and services as if it was ever supposed to be the role of American government to "provide" for the people in the first place. And the nanny "big brother, big sister" state rolls on.
@WorshipInTruth I didn't say we needed a revolution now, I just think it's important to exercise rights and try and prevent freedoms from degrading further.
Regarding the Genesis verses down to their end at Genesis 31, what is implied is that Jacob uses the patterned stalks to influence the patterns of the animals born before them, so that he can make it seem that weaker or unfit animals belong to La'ban's flocks. God does not "speak" to Jacob, he just goes and tries it.
@Ahuazusu I never said that God spoke to him and told him to do it, only that God was with him and blessing him which is obvious if you read the whole verse in context, I sent it to you in private message. Don't make it seem as if Jacob was trying to trick La'ban because it is obvious if you read it that they had agreed to it and that La'ban was indebted to Jacob because the LORD was blessing all their work and flocks for Jacob's sake.
@WorshipInTruth If God had not told him, and Jacob went into the field knowing that somehow it would work, then that implies, as some speculate, it was a common belief to the Hebrews that the patterns of surrounding objects took affect on unborn livestock. Thus, it is not supposed to be a one-time miracle, and I wonder why it doesn't work today.
@Ahuazusu You apparently have a very shallow understanding of the Bible or else you would know that an incident like that is extremely commonplace throughout the Bible. Oftentimes the men of God would just do seemingly impossible things with the mindset that God is on their side thus the miracle will come to pass. This is the power of blind FAITH which is constantly displayed all throughout the Bible.
@WorshipInTruth To take a leaf from your book: Laugh. You do have me though. Like some others I'm still just waiting for a documentable modern example, it's still strange that these happenings vanish, not just in Biblical terms, but in world mythology and legend as we progress from antiquity.
Oh, and to back track, it was actually the King James Bible that first had the fourteen books of the Apocrypha removed during the English Reformation under Henry VIII *after* he renounced the Papacy.
@Ahuazusu The reason we see a decrease in things like supernatural miracles is because we are in a different "dispensation". For example, the time of pentecost was wrought with miracles and God working greatly amongst the nations but there were other time periods "such as the time period in which the apocryphal books were written" where the spirit of God was not working mightly amongst his people.
@Ahuazusu "the King James Bible that first had the fourteen books of Apocrypha removed". You are clearly ignorant of these things so I will explain it to you. My King James Bible actually has all of the apocryphal works in it, they are just placed in the "Apocrypha" section (between the Old Testament and New Testament) as it is understood that they are not divinely inspired.
@Ahuazusu The jews NEVER thought of the apocryphal works as Holy Scripture in fact the first time the apocryphal works were ever recognized as being Holy Scripture by anyone was during the "Council of Trent" in the 16th century and the jesuits did it simply as a way of counter-acting the Reformation. Furthermore, the apocrypha were never considered Holy Scripture in any reformation Bible. Martin Luther did have them in his German language Bible and that was long before the creation of the KJV.
@Ahuazusu Furthermore, King Henry VIII had nothing at all to do with the King James Bible, it was King James I who commissioned its creation many years after King Henry VIII. King Henry VIII was not even a Protestant, he broke from the papacy strictly for political reasons, we Protestants HATE Henry as he executed many blessed Protestant martyrs such as Anne Boleyn and William Tyndale (the creation of the King James Bible being copied almost exclusively from Tyndales works).
@Ahuazusu For example (there are so many examples I don't know where to begin) Joshua commanded the sun to stop and it did, does this mean that the Hebrews thought it was typical for a man to be able to command the sun to stop? Of course it doesn't, the point is that these men of God had absolute faith that God was on their side and he was. The verse we are talking about in Genesis even basically says that the LORD was blessing Jacob in all he did.
@Ahuazusu The Apostles went around performing all sorts of miracles and wonders, it wasn't as if God had told them to do each specific miracle or that they had asked him if they could do it beforehand they just did it because they had faith that they were within God's will.
@Ahuazusu "The angel of the LORD said to me in the dream, 'Jacob.' I answered, 'Here I am'. And He said, 'Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to Me." - Genesis 31:11-13 Clearly we see that the Holy Ghost was working within Jacob and that God was with Jacob to bless his actions.
@WorshipInTruth Oh, and 'freedom from religion' is just what some want and deserve. Nobody can be forced to believe anything. Again, argue the intentions of the Founding Fathers, but there are many here now that do not want a Christian fundamentalism.
@Ahuazusu "freedom of religion is just what some want and deserve". Ahhh so now you admit to it. That is fine as your personal opinion but do not try to associate that opinion with the founding fathers or the constitution because that was never the intent of the first amendment. People in this country are allowed (per the first amendment) to disbelieve or believe as they wish but to say that Christians are not allowed to advocate, in government, for their beliefs and worldview is tyrannical.
@WorshipInTruth I said it was irrational and unfair to others to say you cannot do this or that because my thousand year old book says such and such. There's a reason right and left wingers need things like educational and medical statistics and evidence to support a ban or promotion of something.
@Ahuazusu So it is irrational to look to Holy Writ as the source of your morality but it is okay to force your own personal preferences and morality unto others?? Ahhh I see, so the often faulty and fabricated "educational and medical statistics" are your god. I am sorry that you are so trusting of human authority and organizations.
@WorshipInTruth That's why we vote in the U.S. I just said that using something like God's will as evidence of why a law that restricts other's actions should be passed is 'unfair'.
@WorshipInTruth And while I do trust science to find helpful answers and information, it's interesting that you don't realize that the Bible (work of men) has been revised and edited multiple times. During the papacy's rule of Europe they threw out whole books of the Bible which are now lost forever. It too isn't without fault and contradiction.
@Ahuazusu First of all, it is a basic tenent of the Christian faith that the Bible is not merely the work of men but that the prophets were inspired of God. The very fact that it is a collection of many books, with different, authors over many centuries yet appears to be written in the same "spirit" goes to prove that fact, not to mention all the historical prophecies which came true. "During the papacy's rule they threw out books of the Bible", that is just a straight out LIE.
@WorshipInTruth So, could I say the yuletide spirit of Christmas carols from the past centuries proves Santa's existence? Feel free to look it up, though the Bible does still have a few mistakes in it. Having animals breed in front of different patterned cane stalks will make their young be born with the same pattern or so says Matthew.
@Ahuazusu Laugh, comparing santa to God is like comparing George Washington to Uncle Sam, it is just ridiculous and stupid. "Having animals breed in front of different patterned cane stalks.... etc." what in the world are you talking about????
@WorshipInTruth Presumptuous. I enjoy freedom of speech, and I would use it to question why the Bible should have authority over the whole of the nation. Churches can provide valuable service to their community, and door to door Bible thumpers are just a minor annoyance to most. However, many use Christianity to "intrude" into personal matters that they already have a right to choose not to indulge in.
@Ahuazusu How has the government, in America, been used by Christians to "intrude" on personal matters?? Seems to me that you libertines are given a lot of liberty to do whatever filthy and dispicable thing you see fit. Your use of hate speech such as "Bible thumpers" is unappealing and goes to show the level of your hateful bigotry towards Christians. Just please keep in mind that the battle cry of the American revolution and the crux of healthy government is "Christ, not man, is King".
@WorshipInTruth Bible thumpers is hate speech now? That's just the term for the practice of open picketing where they spout any verse they please. In earlier comments I saw others were quick to accuse of racism, so since you denied that, why not extend the same courtesy regarding bigotry based on terminology? There's also the Republican reasoning that allowing gay marriage will somehow intrude into their marriages as well; it uses a blatantly religious reasoning.
@Ahuazusu "Bible thumpers" is extremely derogatory so your hateful bigotry is blatant. Marriage itself is a construct of religion so the very idea that a homosexual marriage could even ever be legitimate at all is just silly. If the wicked state governments of this nation wish to recognize a homosexual marriage as legitimate that is their perogative but do not expect the true Church of God to ever recognize them. Government never should of gotten involved with marriage in the first place.
@WorshipInTruth Oh, that is an interesting idea of isolating marriage from the government, but marriage still brings financial, legal, and medical benefits to both partners (which government agencies monitor), so that's also one reason why many really push for it to be allowed to all regardless of gender.
@Ahuazusu "but marriage still brings financial, legal, and medical benefits to both partners". Exactly, and government should have never given those benefits in the first place. Marriage is a covenant before God and thus is the jurisdiction of the individual churchs and not the government, as far as I am concerned government intrusion into marriage is a violation of seperation of church and state.
@Ahuazusu Oversight of divorce proceedings should be the extent of government involvement and even that would probably be better handled by the church. But of course "seperation of church and state" only really applies to the Federal government and not the states, so letting the individual states handle marriage as they see fit is probably the best course, it is just unfortunate that some states are so depraved as to accept homosexual marriage as legitimate. The Feds wanna butt their head in.
@therealjonpaw "So hehe"? What mature stance to take, but regardless, the site I was referencing does have both the complete Madisonian documents and letters in print, and quoted examples within the relevant context of search for secularism results.
So, as you yourself said, it's seemingly some of the Christian faith that are taking it out of context.
@toSTONEiGO A racist?? I never even mentioned race, now I know you are confused in the head. Also I suggest you learn what the word IGNORANT means, it refers to NOT HAVING ALL THE FACTS, has nothing to do with bigotry.
How can you protect some one who keeps trying to take the "moral" high ground and tells you you are living "wrong". A agree to disagree and "right" and "wrong" are relative constructs based on belief-dependent realism.
So...Obama calls for people to be tolerant of the beliefs and opinons of others, and that means he should repeal reproductive rights laws??? It never ceases to amaze me how right wingers will spin crap!
@rocas511 JFK refused to serve Rome. They killed him. Obama will be whatever they tell him to be. He should practice what he preaches as the military might of NATO stomps out Muslim country after Muslim country. Tolerance? Or a continuation of the Crusades?
Actually they were smart enough to explicitly state that no religious test could be applied to a federal office. Yes. some states did enact discriminatory clauses like that, but not all of them, and it wasn't the Founding Fathers that wrote the state constitutions. Plus, one of our best presidents, Thomas Jefferson, was non-Christian.
@fearlessfred14 Almost all of the original 13 states had clauses in their state constitutions prohibiting athiests and catholics from office, and it is from the states that we get our federal statesmen. The same people who were involved with the writings of the state constitutions were involved with the creation of the federal constitution, Jefferson for example was Governor of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson was a non-Christian but he was NOT an athiest or a catholic.
@WorshipInTruth you are an idiot. many of the founding fathers were aetheists. by saying that you only further extend the idea that only lutherans can make office since this country is so grossly biased.
@toSTONEiGO Nope you are the idiot my ill informed friend because NONE of the founding fathers were athiests. They were all Bible believeing Christians with the exception of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin who were DEISTS. Athiesm and deism being two completely different things. Read a book you ignorant twat. "you only further extend the idea that only lutherans can make office"..... What in the world are you talking about?? You sound like a silly school-child.
religious liberty is almost an oxymoron
ryaman01 3 months ago
@ryaman01 gay rights is an oxymoron
SnowBroProductions 3 months ago
Wait a minute. This video complains about being lied to, yet Catholicism preys on children by lying to them. lol you get no sympathy from me! All you get from me is a thumbs down and animosity.
streetmagicstyle 3 months ago
nah man obama sees thru lies for once Barack acting very well ...hmmmm idk Barry watever man not important whats important is that russia is communist still...okay...these poor communists have lied and said they are a christian nation now...COMPLETE MYTH..because you see these communists are morons, they think that cia is youtube, and facebook, and twitter...now they want to get rid of youtube and facebook, that's communism...lets put a true cia investigation on that nation.
TwincVanilaSpilla 3 months ago
My American pride grows anytime someone refuses superstitious lobby groups to have their way. Believe in fairy tales all you like, but don't complain when other adults don't take you seriously.
SubconsciousGatherer 3 months ago
@SubconsciousGatherer your pride must not grow to often sense evolutionists still believe in their fairy tale that everything came from nothing, and are even tax supported!
SnowBroProductions 3 months ago
@SnowBroProductions your right everything came from nothing, and nothing came from everything. The truth is we're still trying to figure out who, what, when, where, how, and why nothing last forever and yet it is still a waste.
sethre64 3 months ago
@SnowBroProductions Actually it is the people who believe in the fairy tale of "gods" that believe we came from nothing. They think a gods just spoke everything into existence, POOF. Would you like to explain how THAT happens?
SubconsciousGatherer 3 months ago
@SubconsciousGatherer God speaking is quite something my friend, like you said everything came into existence just form His word. I cannot explain how, because if I were to "explain" that means physically explain. God is not physical and sense I as a human being know nothing but physical, I definitely cannot explain.
Can you explain how nothing exploded and became everything? I didn't think so...
At the end of the day we all BELIEVE in something!
SnowBroProductions 3 months ago
@SnowBroProductions You: "I definitely cannot explain." Me: Exactly, so what on earth makes you think you know what the heck you're talking about? You're giving me the whole, "God is too big to understand" nonsense, yet claiming you know something about it all. Rubbish, man. Be honest. What you have is a belief, not an understanding. You don't know any more about how this all started than I do, but unlike you I don't make up stories and lie to myself.
SubconsciousGatherer 3 months ago
barack obama is an atheist lol, and ilove him for it, its a shame how in america a president has to lie about his religion and tell eveyrone he's a christian in order to get elected. Fail
Freethinker12341 3 months ago
@Freethinker12341 No actually he is a Christian, he is simply living up to what the standard use to be, where the Seperation of Church and State was not an imaginary line. For example, that BS about protecting federal workers from doing something they 'object to on moral or religious grounds', would be used and abused in ways you couldnt imagine. This will open the door for, I will not help this gay person, or I will not help this atheist. Catholics need to focus on their PEDOFILIA PROBLEM!
xinecallaw 3 months ago
@Freethinker12341 its pride of America not shame! You my friend are shame to Americans!
SnowBroProductions 3 months ago
@SnowBroProductions lol, I know, thats why America is messed up as FUCK! Like Bill Maher says "most americans are dumb and uneducated", its so true.
I'm so glad I live in Canada... if Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams were around to see the current state of America, (and how Christian it is) they would be very very very unhappy and disappointed that this beautiful country they founded turned into a big Christian mess.
Freethinker12341 3 months ago
@Freethinker12341 lol you got the uneducated part right, that's for sure! Some people write comments on YouTube that are completely opposite of reality, its got bad here.
the founding fathers would be shocked because America today is atheist, nothing to do with Christianity. It was founded by Christians as a beautiful Christian country, but now its a big corrupt mess (thanks to people like you). They would be shocked, the Bible removed from schools, no more prayer, your right its a mess.
SnowBroProductions 3 months ago
@SnowBroProductions the truth is the tea party likes to spread propaganda about america being founded on christian values when it wasn't.
Do me a favor, read Thomas Paine's book, "The Age of Reason", and read Thomas Jefferson's book called "Notes on the State of Virginia".
Both men were deists who advocated for a sharp separation of church and state. Jefferson especially was very against state funding for churches. Religion has mostly been on the rise in America within the past century
Freethinker12341 3 months ago
@Freethinker12341 I can't imagine anyone wanting to end the Freedom of Religion here. It'd mean "the free country" I used to know would dissappear. :'(
GranfaloonIncarnate 3 months ago
Comment removed
Freethinker12341 3 months ago
@GranfaloonIncarnate i dont remember ever saying anything about taking people's religious freedom away......
When did I say that? Separation of church and state is not the same as outlawing religion altogether.
Freethinker12341 3 months ago
@Freethinker12341 Then why does all of our money say In God We Trust?
MikeBostoneMusic 2 months ago
@MikeBostoneMusic because the United States has become a messed up theocracy essentially. there is no more church state separation....but that doesn't mean thats the way the founding fathers wanted it. they WERE secularists believe it or not. Most of them were Deists.
Freethinker12341 2 months ago
I wonder if it had anything to do with Catholic Sean Hannity calling him a “terrorist-sympathizer” a thousand and one times?
Or the 60+ Catholic prelates who publicly criticized Notre Dame for hosting Obama and giving him an honorary degree in 2009. Notre Dame had done the same for Bush – who supported torture, and seven other sitting presidents before. What was different about Obama? Sad, to deny him the same goodwill that had been extended to every other president prior.
demmmmm1 3 months ago
Thank you obama, atleast you understand its an anti-progressive cult.
TheAtheistHominid 3 months ago
You are nutbags inflicting your magical beliefs on the rest of us. If Catholics and Christians stopped having abortions, the whole thing would collapse.
beadlejl 3 months ago
The pope sent out over 200 curses against American style government and conspired with the monarchs of Europe to usurp republican style government around the world in what is known as the "treaty of verona". The American government responded to this threat with the "Monroe Doctrine".
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
!!!GO MR. PRESIDENT!!!
Tell those religitards to suck a lemon!
!!!GO MR. PRESIDENT!!!
Tell those religitards to suck a lemon!
!!!GO MR. PRESIDENT!!!
Tell those religitards to suck a lemon!
!!!GO MR. PRESIDENT!!!
Tell those religitards to suck a lemon!
wakeupfist 3 months ago
Protect Catholic Tyranny?
Rev:18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
God is calling people out of the Roman Church in the last days.
Warpath1337 3 months ago
constitution does say "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." so it's a bit dishonest to say it's a "godless document" i mean if it said "the year of our Lord satan" it would be satanic right? The "Lord" there is obviously Jesus, Him being the centerpiece of all human history and all.
therealjonpaw 3 months ago
@therealjonpaw Many of the Founding Fathers were Protestant Christians, yes, as were most European colonial settlers at the time, and the Constitution would naturally be written in language and terminology relevant to their time. Based on the majority of early documentation regarding churches and the state however, it's clear that most came to vote in support of the separation.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
Oh boo hoo. Is the Catholic Church not powerful enough? Are its tentacles no longer in every facet of society? Well that's too damn bad for you.
People who know their history know what you guys were like when you had all the power. And we're not likely to ever give it back. Get used to your new, diminished status.
jussts 3 months ago
Freedom of religion does not mean religion should be above the law. If your religious practices conflict with the law, you still have to obey it like everyone else. I am against abortions for humanist reasons and I believe they should be apposed honestly. I do not think killing sperm cells is wrong though. Please mention that in another video. I want a good laugh.
thecraziestkyle 3 months ago
He is a fake and a LIAR. If he gets re-elected America will be ruined.
TheDixieDarlen 3 months ago
@toSTONEiGO You my ignorant friend said "many of the founding fathers were aethiests", not sure what an "aethiest" is but I am assuming you meant "athiest". That statement just shows your complete and utter ignorance as NONE of the founding fathers were athiests nor did they trust the oath of an athiest as an athiest has no "higher power" but himself thus his oath and word is worthless.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth That is, only assuming that you need to believe in a God to have morality. Honestly, I think it takes more civility to be accepting than to try and convert others. The First Amendment is what stands as the justification for a clear separation of church from state.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu I do not doubt that an athiest can have a sense of morality but it is a twisted and perverted sense of morality if he does not base it on some higher principle. I ask what would be the basis for an athiests sense of morality, the athiest just decides willy nilly what is "moral" and what isnt based on whatever he chooses to believe at the moment.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu You need to realize that the first amendment was never intended to seperate religion from the state but to make sure that the state stays out of the affairs of the churches. The idea of seperation of church and state finds its origin in an address which Jefferson made to a group of Bible believing Baptists assuring them that the state would stay out of their affairs. It was only intended to make sure that INSTITUTIONS like the catholic church did not gain control of the government.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth The First Amendment regards the right to freedom of speech, and correspondingly, belief. "Prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion." This makes good sense in the U.S. where minority rights are to be held constitutionally equal to the hegemony's.
Simply, not everyone in the States is Christian or even practices religious worship, so it is unfair to adopt or enforce legislation based upon belief coming only from, say, Christian doctrine.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu Laugh, "respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion", by establishment it is referring to a particular religious INSTITUTION such as say the catholic church or the anglican church, it is merely saying that the state is not allowed to make a law which effects a particular institution of religion, it is not saying that the state can't make laws based on Christian principles. I really cannot believe they did not teach you kids this stuff in school.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu I am so sorry for your ignorance and inability to read.
"Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government."- James Madison
"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." - James Madison
"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage...Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe." - James Madison
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth "Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." - Madison
"In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts." (From a letter to Jasper Adams) - Madison Obviously spoke for his personal belief, not what was to govern all.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu That quote that you sent me jibs perfectly with what I was telling you, that the founders were concerned about ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATIONS (i.e the catholic and anglican "churches") gaining control of the government. If you know European history you know why they were concerned about this. The founders were Protestant Christians who were deeply distrustful of the papal organization and they wanted to ensure that it would never gain power in the U.S. but they advocted Christian ETHICS.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu They at no point wanted Christian principles and ethics seperated from government, by todays standards they would have been considered "fundamentalist Christians" but they wanted to ensure that the wicked pope and his minions could not take over the government as it was widely known that the jesuits (the counter-reformation arm of the papacy) constantly plotted against governments and wished to set up a world wide tyranny.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Ah, but that is effectively what's been established then. Does that not show the importance of secularism for the sake of fair legislation? By ensuring that no particular church be favored, and by creating a method to amend the Constitution, we see that nobody in the U.S. has to practice anything against their belief. Again, certainly the United States is a different nation today, and it'd be unfair to base laws for everyone of off Christian values.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu Our founders understood that a constitutionally restrained limited republic would be impossible unless the citizens followed Christian values and principles, they would also be terrified at the idea of divorcing the Christian faith from government and that seems to be proposition of most modern secularists. Secularists also seem to forget that the idea of "seperation of church and state" was more to protect the Churches from state intervention (taxation etc.) then anything else.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu The founders were greatly opposed to theocracy but, as I said, would be terrified if they thought this implied a seperation of government from Christian ethics. This conversation is about the original intent of the founders, not about how "the United States is a different nation today", with that type of logic one could suggest that we get rid of the Bill of Rights altogether because "the United States is different". The degeneracy of modern culture was unthinkable to the founders.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth 1) We could certainly get rid of or change the bill of rights if we thought they no longer fit with America. In change or add to them all the time. They're called Amendments
2) You might want to read up on some of the quotes key founding fathers had to say about how much they hated Christianity and thought it was morally reprehensible. Thomas Jefferson and James Adams have some particularly good quotes here.
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc "we could certainly get rid of or change the bill of rights". WOW, just wow, you are a very dangerous individual, that is treasonous talk and you could technically be charged with sedition for that statement. The idea of whether or not the Constitution is a "living document" is actually an extremely debated question which even the founders argued over. But James Madison, the primary author of the constitution, had this to say....
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Do you know what an amendment is? Like the one that abolished slavery?
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc Before an amendment can even take effect it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states. And nowhere is there constitutional authority to "get rid of the Bill of Rights" or anything ridiculous like that. Now please explain to me what would be the constitutional procedure of getting rid of the constitution? LAUGH.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth So, you agree that we can change the bill of rights then?
Good.
Now look up how the 18th Amendment was repealed please.
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc Boy you are dumb, you cannot legally repeal the amendments in the Bill of rights because the amendments themselves forbid it as they were created to limit what the government is authorized to do. The very use of language such as "Congress shall make no law" and "Shall not be infringed" proves this point.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth So, thus far we have examples of how we can add amendments to the bill of rights and also how we can repeal amendments from the bill of rights. Just take a look at Prohibition. The amendment was added, then it was removed later.
Looks a lot like we can change or get rid of them after all.
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc Oh boy, did you even read what I was just trying to teach you about the Bill of Rights??
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth You've claimed the bill of rights, which is a series of several original amendments, can't be changed or gotten rid of. And yet, we have clear historical examples of amendments being added (abolishing slavery, prohibition, women's suffrage) and even repealed (ending prohibition). Despite how much you insist this can't be so, it's been done. History is clear on this. The bill of rights has been legally altered. You'll just have to live with that.
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc Wow, just wow, have you even been reading my comments?? If you did you would understand why it is that the "Bill of Rights" is far different from the rest of the constitution. Furthermore, the whole reason the 12th amendment was repeled to begin with is that it was found to be unconstitutional, good luck in trying to prove that the Bill of Rights is unconstitutional. "The Bill of Rights has been legally altered".. ummm no it hasn't, it has been unlawfully disregarded but never altered.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth 1) I just explained we were using different terms by bill of rights, the historical versus the colloquial. This was simple confusion based on different definitions. For clarity's sake, we can simply talk about the constitution and its amendments... Which are changes and additions to the constitution.
2) The constitution has been changed. Amendments have been added and they have been taken away. The original ten amendments are not immune to this.
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc If you read back in my comments I explain why it is that the original ten amendments ARE immune to being repealed or changed. I will not repeat myself, I spent too much time debating dolts on youtube as it is.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Cool. Except that they're not immune. The constitution itself can be amended.
Originally, the Bill of Rights included legal protection for land-owning white men only,excluding African Americans and women. It took additional Constitutional Amendments and numerous Supreme Court cases to extend the same rights to all U.S. citizens.
History headshot. Unless you're planning to charge all the politicians and supreme court justices with sedition too.
You can't wriggle out of that.
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc You are hopeless, just read back on my comment about INALIENABLE rights please. The Bill of Rights says nothing about race or gender, stop grasping at straws. Ahhh the good old days when at least land owning white men had "legal protection", now none of us do. Yes most modern politicians and supreme court justices should be tried and prosecuted for treason. They, like yourself, care nothing for "original intent" of the framers, they are sold and bought by various interests groups.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Ah, so you're ignoring history and procedure which clearly disproves your hilariously narrow interpretation of a single word, everyone must be treasonous because they disagree with you and finally you're starting to sound like a nice, cozy racist.
Congratulations, you are officially no longer worth talking to. Enjoy your day. I will be immediately deleting your comments from now on without reading.
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc Laugh, what a cop out. What have I said that is racist? A typical response from idiots when they are being defeated intellectually is to try to invalidate their opponent with absurd claims of "bigotry".
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Stairc How can you "add an amendment to the Bill of Rights"?? You mean add an amendment to the constitution??
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth You can add an amendment to the bill of rights the same way you can add a member to the member list of a club. The bill of rights is a collection of amendments to the constitution among other things. When another amendment is added to the constitution, it can be said to be 'added' to the list.
Regardless of how you want to interpret my grammar, it doesn't change the clear position of history. Amendments are added and taken away. The constitution is changed.
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc Umm you cannot add an amendment to the Bill of Rights as the "Bill of Rights" is by definition the historical first ten amendments to the constitution.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Ah, you're referring to the historical name - the original ten amendments. You're right, you can't add an amendment to that list, because by definition it would not be part of the original 10 - just as you can't add a state to the "original 13 colonies". Some people use "bill of rights" as short hand for "amendments to the constitution". I apologize for the confusion.
Regardless, it doesn't change my point. ;)
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc Nobody refers to all constitutional amendments as the "Bill of Rights". The confusion was the result of you not even knowing what the "Bill of Rights" is.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth 1) If you want to argue about what I've heard people say and discuss, feel free. I don't think it'll get you anywhere.
2) My point is that we could change or get rid of any amendment, including the bill of rights, legally by simply amending the constitution. Other amendments have been added, and we've seen its possible to have an amendment removed. The original 10 are not immune to this. And no one can be charged with treason for suggesting amendments can be changed or removed.
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc Secondly, The Bill of Rights Does NOT grant any right to an individual. It was added over the objections of some of the founders so as to enumerate several, but not all, of the NATURAL RIGHTS of individuals. The Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights (and others) exist as a function of "being" for each citizen. They are not Granted by any act of government and they can not be Taken Away; they just exist, they are understood as God granted or INALIENABLE rights.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Stairc Perhaps you should reintroduce yourself with the word "inalienable" as it refers to something which is "not capable of being taken away or given away". The Bill of Rights is actually redundant as congress is not supposed to be authorized to infringe upon individual rights to begin with.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Again...
So, thus far we have examples of how we can add amendments to the bill of rights and also how we can repeal amendments from the bill of rights. Just take a look at Prohibition. The amendment was added, then it was removed later.
Looks a lot like we can change or get rid of them after all.
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc "I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers..... What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense."- James Madison
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Stairc As for Jefferson and Adams, their feelings towards Christianity are often greatly misconstrued, it was never the true Biblical faith which they opposed but what they considered the various perversions that had been heaped onto it, namely, they were talking about the perversions of the catholic church. Adams was actually a Christian and would be considered a "fundamentalist" by todays standards.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Stairc "[Religion is] Deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support."- Thomas Jefferson "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson
"The only foundation for useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion."- Thomas Jefferson
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Stairc "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..."- Thomas Jefferson
The corruptions which Jefferson is speaking of is catholicism.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Stairc "I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invented..."- Thomas Jefferson
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth I'll answer the barrage of 'quotes' later. For now, how about you answer my simple question.
Do you know what an amendment is? Like the one that abolished slavery?
Stairc 3 months ago
@Stairc ""I have thought proper to recommend, and I hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the twenty-fifth day of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God" - John Adams
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth By definition, a government based on Christian ethics is a theocracy. Law based on religion. By "different today": I mean there are a much greater number of marginalized or minority religious groups in the country as a whole now. You don't need to throw out the Bill of Rights because those are, today, still interpreted by the Supreme Court and Congress as inalienable human rights. Really with minorities and women being able to vote without paying, I'd say we've moved forward.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu "a government based on Christian ethics is a theocracy". WRONG, theocracy is a form of organization in which the official policy is to be governed by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, that would include states like the vatican and the current state of Iran. Theocracy is distinguished from other, secular, forms of government that have a state religion or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu Are you suggesting that the founders intended on a theocratic form of government merely because they wished the nation to be guided by Christian ethics??
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth No, the majority of the first Continental Congresses found in favor of Madison and other's proposals of secularism. Most, but not all, of the Founding Fathers were Protestant Christian; why does that mean they were determined to make the still developing nation follow their personal belief in God and in moral code precisely?
Still, it also comes down to considering that just because of the views of some of the Founding Fathers, are we to base our laws around them alone.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu I could show you many quotes from ALL of the founding fathers which show that they unanimously felt that the nation should be built on Christian principles and ethics, even the infidels Jefferson and Franklin openly stated that they thought Christianity was important for the strength and morality of the nation. It is called "original intent" of the founders and it is very important when talking about constitutional law.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth And Congress and the Supreme Court are constitutionally granted the Power of Interpretation i.e. they get to convene to decide what they and the American voters want the law to mean based on the majority decision. It's also interesting to me that one the greatest original law makers and the most renowned diplomat of time, Jefferson and Franklin, are just infidels even after their service.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu of the* time.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu The congress (legislative branch) is not given powers of interpretation but yes the judicial branch is given loose powers of interpretation. The problem is that the Supreme Court has abused these powers to the point where they are practically acting as law makers instead of just interpreters of the law, this is called "judicial activism" and is opposed by strict constitutionalists such as myself who favor "judicial restraint".
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu As far as religious faith is concerned Jefferson and Franklin were most certainly infidels by the very definition of the word. I disagree with Jeffersons personal religious beliefs and some of the policies he instituted but as far as political theory goes you can basically consider me a "Jeffersonian Democrat" aka a "libertarian". Franklin was only a "renowned diplomat" because he was friendly with the wicked tyrants of Europe and was a member of all their demonic secret societies.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu Also, keep in mind that they never determined to "make" the majority of the nation follow a belief in God, it just WAS that way, they never set out to MAKE it that way because it was commonly understood that it already WAS that way. I would also like to know where do you get this strange impression that a secular form of government must somehow be devoid of all theological morals and ethics??
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Again, during the establishment of the Bill of Rights it was, in fact, determined or decided that people would have freedom of speech and religion. Right after that, they did not just go ahead and decide that base laws be drawn from Christianity solely because they were. Most likely, after witnessing the religious reformation in England, they realized the turmoil caused by forcing one religion into the institutions that every citizen submits to.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu You seem to be confused in thinking that "freedom of religion" means "freedom FROM religion".
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Hm, nope.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu Yeah you are. Cause if you weren't you wouldn't be arguing with me at all as I have said nothing against freedom of religion, you are the one trying to trample upon the altar of religion by acting as if religious morals have no place in government. It is obvious to me that you think "freedom OF religion" means "freedom FROM religion" and that was NEVER the intention of the founders.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth I'm not saying a moral is bad just because it's written in the Bible, I'm saying it shouldn't be written into law just because it's in the Bible.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu So you are saying that we shouldn't ever legislate with Christian ethics in mind?? That my friend is a fanatically anti-faith stance, like I said "freedom OF religion" is not "freedom FROM religion".
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth No, believe what you like, but don't use the Bible or your relationship with Jesus as justification to pass a law or to intrude into the lives and equal rights of others.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth What's more, I'd say you're a tad confused to say that freedom of religion means you have to choose a theistic religion.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu May I ask, what is it about Christian ethics and principles that worries and troubles you so?
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Why Christian when there are citizens in the U.S. from all over the world whom would not want their lives governed by one religion?
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu There are also citizens all over the U.S. whom do not want their lives or their childrens lives governed by the precepts of godless materialism, how come it is you believe athiestical creeds and ideas are okay to foist upon the nation but that the Christian creed is somehow off limits? I am trying to get you to see your own hypocrisy. America is a blending pot of ideas and there was a time when private communities and individual states were allowed to govern themselves as they saw fit.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Yes it is, so why allow a single religion to become incorporated based out of nothing more than a spiritual concept? Christian faith has done most of the "foisting" in recent decades, you'll clearly find.
I notice that creationism was dropped in place of evolution in many schools because creationism doesn't solve anything. If you don't understand how it works, just say God made it and forget it, right? Otherwise, parents can still raise their kids as religious as they please.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu "Christian faith has done most of the foisting in recent decades". That is nuts, it goes to show your level of indoctrination and ignorance that you even made a statement like that. I suppose that is why Christian leaders are no longer allowed to preach from the Bible without the fear of being charged with "hate speech". I am sorry that you see God's will as "unfair", your will may oppose that of the Almighty but I assure you that "His will be done".
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth When they stand in public squares and trespass onto campuses to scream that the gays are going to hell- that is intolerant and hateful. I'm not sure when police decide they can arrest an open protester, but it doesn't just happen to them.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu Laugh, Christians never "trespass unto campuses" or anywhere while screaming "gays are going to hell". It just doesn't happen, there is ONE friggin family in the country that holds hateful anti-sodomite protests (the phelps family of "Westboro Bapist Church") and the media and the government spokes-stooges act like it is a friggin national emergency. Either way, they are just exercising their freedom of speech, if you don't like it then don't listen.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Oh yeah? You can find videos of it here on Youtube. Probably just search "angry screaming pastor on college campus" or "you don't have no pancake mix". Who doesn't know about the infamous Westboro jackasses? Interestingly, even though they'll make dead soldiers' mothers weep, they are also opposed to racism. Everyone knows to ignore them.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu So....? There are also all sorts of athiests protestors, communist protestors etc. you name it. Just look at the occupy wall street nuts who are raping each other, destroying property etc. So goes a country that allows freedom of speech.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Well, on the opposite hand we could be China who imprisons you for your speech and where subservient people are helpless to change their living conditions through protest.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu Chinese style government is the direction in which we are heading and the U.S. is constantly forfeiting its soverignty to internationalist organizations like the United Nations which state that China has the favored style of governance. Lawlessness and immorality of the populace only gives the government legitimate excuse to exercise force, that is the primary reason why the founders thought that Christian ethics in the population were important if we were to preserve the republic.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Oh, excuse me! It was Genesis wherein Jacob took cane stalks and cut different patterns into them. He then stood them around his livestock and the young animals born had the matching patterns of the stalks the parent animals had bred in front of. I'll still have to find the verse number for a quote.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu If the Almighty Creator of the universe can raise men from the dead it certainly would not be far fetched to assume that it would be within his power to perform a miracle along the lines of "animal fur patterns". Laugh, modern science can perform "miracles" more astounding then that even.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Doesn't say God did it, Jacob thought, like the other Hebrews did, that it would work and it did, according to those verses.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Genesis 30: verses 37 through 42. That is one of many errors in the Bible, though in all fairness the ancient Hebrews didn't know how genetics worked.
And anyway, regarding China once more, I think that is why continued fervor in protesting illegal government practice is vital. People will take a lot before they snap and cause revolutions, I hope we don't fall so far before we remedy it.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu LAUGH, there is no scientific error in those verses, it is simply telling you what happened, not saying that it is something which would always happen, if you read the whole thing in context it is clear that it was special circumstances, keep in mind that the prophets of the Lord could do great things, Jesus himself said that you can move multitudes with even a speck of faith. It was the result in Jacob trusting upon the Lord. I will send the verse to you in private chat.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
The time isnt ripe for revolution it is rotten. It is perhaps too late as the vast majority of Americans have no concept of the principles of liberty, they are only concerned with their own stomachs, their only complaint is that the government is not providing them with certain goods and services as if it was ever supposed to be the role of American government to "provide" for the people in the first place. And the nanny "big brother, big sister" state rolls on.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth I didn't say we needed a revolution now, I just think it's important to exercise rights and try and prevent freedoms from degrading further.
Regarding the Genesis verses down to their end at Genesis 31, what is implied is that Jacob uses the patterned stalks to influence the patterns of the animals born before them, so that he can make it seem that weaker or unfit animals belong to La'ban's flocks. God does not "speak" to Jacob, he just goes and tries it.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu I never said that God spoke to him and told him to do it, only that God was with him and blessing him which is obvious if you read the whole verse in context, I sent it to you in private message. Don't make it seem as if Jacob was trying to trick La'ban because it is obvious if you read it that they had agreed to it and that La'ban was indebted to Jacob because the LORD was blessing all their work and flocks for Jacob's sake.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth If God had not told him, and Jacob went into the field knowing that somehow it would work, then that implies, as some speculate, it was a common belief to the Hebrews that the patterns of surrounding objects took affect on unborn livestock. Thus, it is not supposed to be a one-time miracle, and I wonder why it doesn't work today.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu You apparently have a very shallow understanding of the Bible or else you would know that an incident like that is extremely commonplace throughout the Bible. Oftentimes the men of God would just do seemingly impossible things with the mindset that God is on their side thus the miracle will come to pass. This is the power of blind FAITH which is constantly displayed all throughout the Bible.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth To take a leaf from your book: Laugh. You do have me though. Like some others I'm still just waiting for a documentable modern example, it's still strange that these happenings vanish, not just in Biblical terms, but in world mythology and legend as we progress from antiquity.
Oh, and to back track, it was actually the King James Bible that first had the fourteen books of the Apocrypha removed during the English Reformation under Henry VIII *after* he renounced the Papacy.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu The reason we see a decrease in things like supernatural miracles is because we are in a different "dispensation". For example, the time of pentecost was wrought with miracles and God working greatly amongst the nations but there were other time periods "such as the time period in which the apocryphal books were written" where the spirit of God was not working mightly amongst his people.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu "the King James Bible that first had the fourteen books of Apocrypha removed". You are clearly ignorant of these things so I will explain it to you. My King James Bible actually has all of the apocryphal works in it, they are just placed in the "Apocrypha" section (between the Old Testament and New Testament) as it is understood that they are not divinely inspired.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu The jews NEVER thought of the apocryphal works as Holy Scripture in fact the first time the apocryphal works were ever recognized as being Holy Scripture by anyone was during the "Council of Trent" in the 16th century and the jesuits did it simply as a way of counter-acting the Reformation. Furthermore, the apocrypha were never considered Holy Scripture in any reformation Bible. Martin Luther did have them in his German language Bible and that was long before the creation of the KJV.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth *Martin Luther did NOT haver them in his German language Bible.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu Furthermore, King Henry VIII had nothing at all to do with the King James Bible, it was King James I who commissioned its creation many years after King Henry VIII. King Henry VIII was not even a Protestant, he broke from the papacy strictly for political reasons, we Protestants HATE Henry as he executed many blessed Protestant martyrs such as Anne Boleyn and William Tyndale (the creation of the King James Bible being copied almost exclusively from Tyndales works).
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu For example (there are so many examples I don't know where to begin) Joshua commanded the sun to stop and it did, does this mean that the Hebrews thought it was typical for a man to be able to command the sun to stop? Of course it doesn't, the point is that these men of God had absolute faith that God was on their side and he was. The verse we are talking about in Genesis even basically says that the LORD was blessing Jacob in all he did.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu The Apostles went around performing all sorts of miracles and wonders, it wasn't as if God had told them to do each specific miracle or that they had asked him if they could do it beforehand they just did it because they had faith that they were within God's will.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu "The angel of the LORD said to me in the dream, 'Jacob.' I answered, 'Here I am'. And He said, 'Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to Me." - Genesis 31:11-13 Clearly we see that the Holy Ghost was working within Jacob and that God was with Jacob to bless his actions.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Oh, and 'freedom from religion' is just what some want and deserve. Nobody can be forced to believe anything. Again, argue the intentions of the Founding Fathers, but there are many here now that do not want a Christian fundamentalism.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu "freedom of religion is just what some want and deserve". Ahhh so now you admit to it. That is fine as your personal opinion but do not try to associate that opinion with the founding fathers or the constitution because that was never the intent of the first amendment. People in this country are allowed (per the first amendment) to disbelieve or believe as they wish but to say that Christians are not allowed to advocate, in government, for their beliefs and worldview is tyrannical.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth I said it was irrational and unfair to others to say you cannot do this or that because my thousand year old book says such and such. There's a reason right and left wingers need things like educational and medical statistics and evidence to support a ban or promotion of something.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu So it is irrational to look to Holy Writ as the source of your morality but it is okay to force your own personal preferences and morality unto others?? Ahhh I see, so the often faulty and fabricated "educational and medical statistics" are your god. I am sorry that you are so trusting of human authority and organizations.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth That's why we vote in the U.S. I just said that using something like God's will as evidence of why a law that restricts other's actions should be passed is 'unfair'.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth And while I do trust science to find helpful answers and information, it's interesting that you don't realize that the Bible (work of men) has been revised and edited multiple times. During the papacy's rule of Europe they threw out whole books of the Bible which are now lost forever. It too isn't without fault and contradiction.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu First of all, it is a basic tenent of the Christian faith that the Bible is not merely the work of men but that the prophets were inspired of God. The very fact that it is a collection of many books, with different, authors over many centuries yet appears to be written in the same "spirit" goes to prove that fact, not to mention all the historical prophecies which came true. "During the papacy's rule they threw out books of the Bible", that is just a straight out LIE.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth So, could I say the yuletide spirit of Christmas carols from the past centuries proves Santa's existence? Feel free to look it up, though the Bible does still have a few mistakes in it. Having animals breed in front of different patterned cane stalks will make their young be born with the same pattern or so says Matthew.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu Laugh, comparing santa to God is like comparing George Washington to Uncle Sam, it is just ridiculous and stupid. "Having animals breed in front of different patterned cane stalks.... etc." what in the world are you talking about????
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Why? There's the same amount of tangible evidence and they both seem to operate mysteriously and magically.
It is in the Bible, indeed, Book of Matthew. Give me a moment to find the verse, though I know it's in the 20s.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu Perhaps you would much prefer some marxist nation where Christians are not allowed to openly act as advocates for Christ.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Presumptuous. I enjoy freedom of speech, and I would use it to question why the Bible should have authority over the whole of the nation. Churches can provide valuable service to their community, and door to door Bible thumpers are just a minor annoyance to most. However, many use Christianity to "intrude" into personal matters that they already have a right to choose not to indulge in.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu How has the government, in America, been used by Christians to "intrude" on personal matters?? Seems to me that you libertines are given a lot of liberty to do whatever filthy and dispicable thing you see fit. Your use of hate speech such as "Bible thumpers" is unappealing and goes to show the level of your hateful bigotry towards Christians. Just please keep in mind that the battle cry of the American revolution and the crux of healthy government is "Christ, not man, is King".
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Bible thumpers is hate speech now? That's just the term for the practice of open picketing where they spout any verse they please. In earlier comments I saw others were quick to accuse of racism, so since you denied that, why not extend the same courtesy regarding bigotry based on terminology? There's also the Republican reasoning that allowing gay marriage will somehow intrude into their marriages as well; it uses a blatantly religious reasoning.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu "Bible thumpers" is extremely derogatory so your hateful bigotry is blatant. Marriage itself is a construct of religion so the very idea that a homosexual marriage could even ever be legitimate at all is just silly. If the wicked state governments of this nation wish to recognize a homosexual marriage as legitimate that is their perogative but do not expect the true Church of God to ever recognize them. Government never should of gotten involved with marriage in the first place.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Oh, that is an interesting idea of isolating marriage from the government, but marriage still brings financial, legal, and medical benefits to both partners (which government agencies monitor), so that's also one reason why many really push for it to be allowed to all regardless of gender.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu "but marriage still brings financial, legal, and medical benefits to both partners". Exactly, and government should have never given those benefits in the first place. Marriage is a covenant before God and thus is the jurisdiction of the individual churchs and not the government, as far as I am concerned government intrusion into marriage is a violation of seperation of church and state.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu Oversight of divorce proceedings should be the extent of government involvement and even that would probably be better handled by the church. But of course "seperation of church and state" only really applies to the Federal government and not the states, so letting the individual states handle marriage as they see fit is probably the best course, it is just unfortunate that some states are so depraved as to accept homosexual marriage as legitimate. The Feds wanna butt their head in.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth Candst.tripod.com was the source for the quotes I took, and there were many more examples there, too.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@Ahuazusu your examples are out of context in the opinion of every Christian in america and there are a lot so hehe
therealjonpaw 3 months ago
@therealjonpaw "So hehe"? What mature stance to take, but regardless, the site I was referencing does have both the complete Madisonian documents and letters in print, and quoted examples within the relevant context of search for secularism results.
So, as you yourself said, it's seemingly some of the Christian faith that are taking it out of context.
Ahuazusu 3 months ago
@toSTONEiGO A racist?? I never even mentioned race, now I know you are confused in the head. Also I suggest you learn what the word IGNORANT means, it refers to NOT HAVING ALL THE FACTS, has nothing to do with bigotry.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
How can you protect some one who keeps trying to take the "moral" high ground and tells you you are living "wrong". A agree to disagree and "right" and "wrong" are relative constructs based on belief-dependent realism.
regreg88 3 months ago
Obama keeping a promise? HA!
JonathanShelton1 3 months ago
@JonathanShelton1 unheard of....
toSTONEiGO 3 months ago
This guy is such a phony!
gilfyam 3 months ago
So...Obama calls for people to be tolerant of the beliefs and opinons of others, and that means he should repeal reproductive rights laws??? It never ceases to amaze me how right wingers will spin crap!
rocas511 3 months ago
@rocas511 JFK refused to serve Rome. They killed him. Obama will be whatever they tell him to be. He should practice what he preaches as the military might of NATO stomps out Muslim country after Muslim country. Tolerance? Or a continuation of the Crusades?
izzysykopth 3 months ago
Ban catholics and athiests from public office, our founding fathers were smart enough to do that, read the state constitutions.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth
Actually they were smart enough to explicitly state that no religious test could be applied to a federal office. Yes. some states did enact discriminatory clauses like that, but not all of them, and it wasn't the Founding Fathers that wrote the state constitutions. Plus, one of our best presidents, Thomas Jefferson, was non-Christian.
fearlessfred14 3 months ago
@fearlessfred14 Almost all of the original 13 states had clauses in their state constitutions prohibiting athiests and catholics from office, and it is from the states that we get our federal statesmen. The same people who were involved with the writings of the state constitutions were involved with the creation of the federal constitution, Jefferson for example was Governor of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson was a non-Christian but he was NOT an athiest or a catholic.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
@WorshipInTruth you are an idiot. many of the founding fathers were aetheists. by saying that you only further extend the idea that only lutherans can make office since this country is so grossly biased.
toSTONEiGO 3 months ago
@toSTONEiGO Nope you are the idiot my ill informed friend because NONE of the founding fathers were athiests. They were all Bible believeing Christians with the exception of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin who were DEISTS. Athiesm and deism being two completely different things. Read a book you ignorant twat. "you only further extend the idea that only lutherans can make office"..... What in the world are you talking about?? You sound like a silly school-child.
WorshipInTruth 3 months ago
bho doesn't want common ground. he only wants people to follow him so he can be a tryannical dictator. (yes, I know that's redundant)
wykkydtruth 3 months ago