Politics and Religion
August 21st, 2008 at 05:55am Mark Noonan
Being interviewed by Hugh Hewitt, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver states clearly the need for injecting faith into politics:
HH: Now Archbishop, let’s dive into the book. Again, for the benefit of people tuning in, it’s Render Unto Caesar: Serving The Nation By Living Our Catholic Beliefs In Public Life. And I want to emphasize, it’s not just for Catholics, though that’s obviously the intent of this. I was trying to figure out your motive, and then I came across a quote from a Vietnamese bishop, later made a cardinal, which was, “The greatest failure in leadership is for the leader to be afraid to speak and act as leader.” Is that part of the motive, Archbishop?
CC: Well, I have a responsibility as a bishop to clearly proclaim the Gospel in its entirety, even when people don’t want me to do that, and even when it’s difficult. So I wouldn’t claim to be particularly courageous, but I feel responsible. And if I don’t speak on the issues that I think the Lord calls me to speak, I feel guilty about that. So for me to be quiet on these issues would have been a harder burden for me to carry, perhaps, than speaking about it. Actually, I mentioned two reasons why I wrote the book. One is some Catholic political folks asked me to, people who ran for office, and were having struggles because of that. But more importantly, I’ve grown tired of so many people in our culture saying to believers that they ought to be quiet, that there’s no place in the public square for the voice of faith. I wanted to make a distinction between separation of Church and state, and separating our faith from our politics. You can embrace the concept of separation of Church and state, but that’s not at all the same thing as separating our faith from our actions, from our political actions.
Bravo, Archbishop! All of the people must be allowed to bring their beliefs into the public square and be allowed argue that their worldview should be adopted, in whole or in part, in law and custom. What the secularists of today are trying to do - especially through such things as the ACLU’s war on Christmas - is to say that the believer, especially the Christian believer, must check his beliefs that door to politics. This attitude is unjust, un-American and, fundamentally, a fascist point of view, and it must be fought against tooth and nail.
I don’t have a right to insist that my fellow citizens worship in the Catholic Church or believe any of the dogmas of the Church. We are free in our consciences. But it is not an imposition of my religion if I convince a constitutional majority of my fellow citizens to enact into law some thing which also happens to be in accordance with Catholic teaching. If what I advocate seems good and true and appears to meet some need identified by the citizenry and the resultant law is enacted under whatever constitutional reguirements prove necessary, then all I’ve done is creat a law - not established a religion or imposed a particular religion on everyone.
Outside of that, I also argue that our secularists are not just wrong to attempt this separation of faith and politics, but are also foolish. The plain fact of the matter is that our way of life is built upon a Judeo-Christian base. The fundamental concept that we, as individuals, are valuable and have endowed rights is a Judeo-Christian concept - cut our politics off from its wellsprings and it will dry up and die. At bottom, if you wish to live your life as an agnostic secularist, you desperately need the cooperation of believers who sustain the concepts which allow you to live as you do.
In our faith we find our true political beliefs, and as long as our political beliefs are grounded in our faith, so they will be healthy and beneficial to the world. Seperate the two and faith will continue to thrive, but politics will die - and with it many of the liberties we cherish.
Entry Filed under: General Government, Popular Culture, Religion, Social Issues
70 Comments
1. Magnum Serpentine | August 21st, 2008 at 7:33 am
Yes
One more step toward Theocracy.
You should NEVER force your beliefs on others. And many people are offended if you bring your beliefs to the floor. What did Paul say now… if Eating beef offends your friend don’t do it in their presence. If practicing religion offends your neighbor don’t do it in their presence. That is what it means.
If beliefs are so important, why didn’t Jesus mention them while in the presence of Pilatel and the Romans?
2. CanadianObserver | August 21st, 2008 at 8:04 am
Mark…….All of the people must be allowed to bring their beliefs into the public square and be allowed argue that their worldview should be adopted, in whole or in part, in law and custom.
————————————
If that is your feeling, Mark, then why the hysteria over Obama bringing his supposed Islamic faith into the political ring? We know he will practice his Christian faith while in office but do you think he should have the freedom to practice his supposed Islamic faith while in office, also?
3. bagni | August 21st, 2008 at 8:05 am
markligion:
our orbital observation?
it appears when humanoids mix politics and religion
that’s when you get yourselves
into the deepest of predicaments
have virtue and values
been replaced by ritual and personal beliefs??
4. Greg-O | August 21st, 2008 at 8:08 am
1Corinthians 8:13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.
I think that’s the verse Magnum Serpentine was implying. Does my faith or my vote cause anyone else to fall into sin? Not that I’ve noticed. Indeed, secularists often say there’s no such thing as sin. And since when is expressing your views and voting in the privacy of a voting booth “forcing” beliefs onto others? You are in the same private voting booth “forcing” your secularism on the rest of us by the same logic.
“Theocracy” is one of those leftist myths that they claim is just around the corner, but isn’t even desired by their opponents.
5. Greg-O | August 21st, 2008 at 8:12 am
bagni, the 100 million or so humanoids killed by Stalin and Mao in an environment where religion was forced underground might disagree with your observations. Must have been before you began orbiting, eh?
6. '08ama | August 21st, 2008 at 8:12 am
[deleted, offensive]
7. uffy | August 21st, 2008 at 8:15 am
MS: Huh? Have you read the Bible? Your meat reference has to do with the foods offered to idols and the weakness of man. My suggestion is that you read 1 Corinthians 8 verses 1-13. Why do you suppose Jesus was crucified by Pilate? The Roman soldiers heard Jesus preach. They heard the disciples ask for the Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus replying “I am he”. Pilate was well aware that Jesus was the King and inscribed that on the cross.
I have no problem praying in a public park, a public library or a public school. Free speech is still protected in this country. The 1st Amendment is alive and well. If you are offended by that then you have more issues than you know.
I find it amusing that those who decry Christians have no problem celebrating the Christian holidays. I don’t see the ACLU waving a law suit at Congress when they open the sessions with a prayer.
I have every right to my religious beliefs. I have every right to practice my faith. Oh, and I have never been kicked out of a restaurant for saying grace over a plate of roast beef.
8. bongoman | August 21st, 2008 at 8:16 am
Before demonizing the ACLU, maybe you should consider the numerous legal actions fought by them on behalf of Christians.
9. \'08ama | August 21st, 2008 at 8:21 am
Funny, but reightwingers are the first ones to call Homeland Security at the site of 5 Muslim men saying a prayer at an airport.
10. Greg-O | August 21st, 2008 at 8:22 am
‘08ama has presented the paranoid leftist view that is so commonplace in 0bama’s base quite well. No further comment is necessary. It is one of those moments where you just sit back and wonder at the spectacle. Oh well, time for work.
11. Retired Spook | August 21st, 2008 at 8:40 am
I find one of the most interesting aspects of this whole issue is that the candidate that’s wearing his religion on his sleeve is Obama, not McCain.
12. extramedium | August 21st, 2008 at 8:54 am
Mark,
I agree with you up until the paragraph where you call secularists foolish. While I wouldn’t argue with your contention that the “concept that we, as individuals, are valuable and have endowed rights is a Judeo-Christian concept”, it’s not an exclusively Judeo-Christian concept. It’s not even an exclusively religious concept. Other religions and yes, even Humanism assert these values just as strongly.
It sounds like extreme hubris when you suggest that the country, or the world, would fall apart without your religion. Secular humanists don’t desperately need their Judeo-Christian neighbors any more than they need any of their other neighbors to sustain their way of life.
13. \'08ama | August 21st, 2008 at 9:57 am
Oh Greg:
paranoid you say ?
Paranoid is when someone asks you how many houses you own and you cannot answer because you have so many, like McCain did yesterday when he was asked about the number of homes he and his elitist wife own.
14. Retired Spook | August 21st, 2008 at 10:34 am
‘08ama, what’s interesting is that the company founded by McCain’s “elitist” wife’s father employs 630 people. How many people does Michelle Obama employ?
15. Robert | August 21st, 2008 at 10:37 am
Hmmm, Mark - I think my point point to you has already been addressed here. America is a nation of religious FREEDOM. THAT is what we were founded upon. The pilgrims moved here from England so they wopuld be alloweed to worship as they pleased without the INTERFERENCE of a State religion.
If you allow Judeo-Christian faith to be expoused as public law, you must allow those of other faiths to interject their beliefs into law. Period. This then makes the legal system even that much more complex. THAT is why seperation of church and state is so important. Because without it, everyone will fight to get their beliefs written into law, which might not be to the benefit of every American.
America was founded upon the principal of FREEDOM for all, Mark, even you. But that ALSO includes the freedom of athiests, Buddhists, Hindus, etc…
You really need to realize that YOUR relgion is NOT the only one of any importance to the people of this country. If you want Christian ideals expoused in the public square, then you must allow Islamic faith, Buddhist faith, Humanism, etc… to be allowed as well. Period. Otherwise YOU are violating the Constitution.
However, your arrogance always blinds you to these facts. YOU and YOUR religion are NOT the center of the Universe, Mark. I hope that one day you realize that and become HUMBLE to your fellow human being. One would think that with an autistic brother, you would have learned the value of humility before God, but ALSO before your fellow human being. Without other good people (probably some of them Liberals) your brother might not have had a chance to live a semi-normal life. Maybe you should be huimble to these fine people (many of whom might be Liberals or of another faith) and be thanking them AND God for their help and miraculous dedication. But you refuse to see these things because you are blinded by your arrogance. Mark, before it is too late, PLEASE grow up!!
16. js | August 21st, 2008 at 10:39 am
“You should NEVER force your beliefs on others”
you mean things like honor your mother and father…and you should not murder…commit adultury….or steal….or bear false witness against your neighbor?
do you think we should accept these things…and encourage this conduct?
sorry…you need to think a bit more about this issue before you go spouting off like an amatuer…
17. Rasmus | August 21st, 2008 at 11:09 am
“In our faith we find our true political beliefs, and as long as our political beliefs are grounded in our faith, so they will be healthy and beneficial to the world. Separate the two and faith will continue to thrive, but politics will die - and with it many of the liberties we cherish.”
Noonan,
I respect your beliefs but….Wow…..you must really pity all us “non-believers” for we have not seen the light! So, you can only have strong political believes if they are grounded in faith. Not just any faith of cause, but the one faith you were brought up in and therefore believe is true. I feel sorry for you Noonan, because you are not capable of being a good and moral person without your faith in God. The list of un-healthy and un-beneficial things done thought history in the name of religion (especially yours) is very long, so to claim that one’s political believes are only true if they are rooted in religion a contradiction in terms. Personally I think organized religions are idiotic and I can assure you It is perfectly doable to have moral values as a non-believer. The moral values that I have come from within myself and are not forced upon me by catholic priests (many of whom like little boys too much).
Let people worship whomever they want (I don’t care) but don’t let religion dictate politics. If you do, you would have to prepare yourself for the possibility that it might not be your religion setting the agenda Noonan, and somehow I don’t think you would be willing to accepted that.
Now, here are my “believes”:
13.5 billion years ago everything was in a singularity. We know this because everything in the universe moves away from everything else (so it must have come from the same point). This singularity was infinitely small and consisted of pure energy. It had a gravitational pull so massive, sucking in both time and space. There was nothing outside of the singularity because there was no space or time for anything to be in. Everything in our universe today was in that singularity including the energy you and I consist off Noonan. We were each other and everything else. All was one.
Then something cataclysmic happened and the singularity started expanding with incredible speed. Energy turned into gasses, gasses into dust, dust into lumps of matter, matter into starts and planets. single sell organisms. Biological revolution, consciousness, creation of societies, agricultural revolution, industrial revolution etc., and here I am writing you this message from thousands of miles away on a laptop.
Why did it happen? Why were we created? Not sure. Maybe the universe wanted to become aware of itself.
For me we are all universal energy that has temporarily manifested into matter for the briefest of moments. For you, we were all created by a God in 6 days. This God also gave us a bunch of rules to follow if we want to go to heaven in the afterlife. Don’t take the bible to seriously Noonan. It’s a bunch of very carefully selected stories who’s single most important aim is to preserve the power of the church.
Science is wonderful. They keep on finding out more and more things that are truly amazing. Science doesn’t really exclude the possibility of a creator of some sorts but if you believe in the bible, Koran, Torah or whatever word for word that makes you a fundamentalist and then you are no different from the “Islamic fundamentalists” who’s motives you despise so much.
If Jesus ever came back, here is what he would say: “damn, you guys got it all wrong”
Regards,
Rasmus
18. A Second Hand Conjecture &hellip | August 21st, 2008 at 11:16 am
[...] Blogs for Victory“I wanted to make a distinction between separation of Church and state, and separating our faith from our politics. You can embrace the concept of separation of Church and state, but that’s not at all the same thing as separating our faith from our actions, from our political actions.” addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fasecondhandconjecture.com%2Findex.php%2F2008%2F08%2F21%2Fclarifying-the-separation-of-church-and-state%2F’; addthis_title = ‘Clarifying+the+Separation+of+Church+and+State’; addthis_pub = ”; Sphere: Related Content [...]
19. '08ama | August 21st, 2008 at 11:53 am
Spook:
Do you feel the same way about John Kerry’s wife, who’s Heinz Family empire employs tens of thousands of people, or does that not count because she’s married to a liberal ?
The hypocrisy on the right makes calling you fools out on it waaaaaaay too easy. That’s what happens when your party’s polcies paint you into a rigid corner with no wiggle room.
20. Rana Quijotesca | August 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
If a person is qualified for an office, then what religion they subscribe to, what God they pray to shouldn’t matter. It’s as simple as that. The more time we talk about a candidate’s “faith” and religiosity, the more time we waste not talking about their qualifications, policy proposals, and other things that actually matter in the election. Blathering about faith is a waste of time… Instead of asking if someone is a Muslim, and basing your vote on that, look at their views and experience on foreign policy, the economy, Constitutional Powers, and the like.
The above comment was supposed to be ideology neutral and was not meant to de facto endorse any candidate. I just want people to actually focus on real issues this campaign season and leave the “values” tripe at home.
21. Retired Spook | August 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Spook: Do you feel the same way about John Kerry’s wife, who’s Heinz Family empire employs tens of thousands of people, or does that not count because she’s married to a liberal ?
No, I’d say that’s a fair comparison.
The hypocrisy on the right makes calling you fools out on it waaaaaaay too easy.
That’s about what I would have expected from you, ‘08ama. Accusing me of hypocrisy before I even answered your question. The interesting hypocrisy, IMHO, is your sides latching onto the number of houses the McCains own. It wasn’t something your side wanted to talk about during the 2004 campaign.
You’re right, this is waaaaaaay too easy.
Instead of asking if someone is a Muslim, and basing your vote on that, look at their views and experience on foreign policy, the economy, Constitutional Powers, and the like.
Rana, the bolded part is what scares me the most about Obama. I couldn’t care less about his religious beliefs.
22. Retired Spook | August 21st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I couldn’t care less about his religious beliefs.
Actually, I take that back. The fact that Obama bought into the kind of garbage spewed by Rev. Wright for 2 decades scares me every bit as much as his lack of experience, lack of wisdom, lack of judgement and lack of character.
23. \\\'08ama | August 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Spook:
No one’s ‘latching on’ to the number of houses McCain owns. Frankly, I dont care and it shouldn’t be anyone’s business. McCain and his wife have done well for themselves, I have no problem with them owning 10,000 super big mansions, the more the better. Good for them and for anyone in America who can work hard enough to be able to afford 4 , 5, 6 or 80 houses.
The problem McCain has is that he has tried to paint Obama as an elitist out of touch with middle class America. According to McCain’s OWN definition of middle class (anyone making less than $5 million/year) Obama IS middle class. He can call Obama a runaway liberal or inexperienced, those are all fair tags, but calling him an elitist from the cushy leather seat of your own private aircraft is a little disingenous dont you think ?
Sure Obama has tons of money….. compared to you and me that is.
Here’s a famous quote from the great Charles Barkley …..
“If Bill Gates woke up and realized he had “only” Michael Jordan money, he’d jump off the nearest bridge.”
24. '08ama | August 21st, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Spook:
You seem to be genuinely concerned about the next President’s policies when it comes to foreign policy, the economy and Constitutional Powers… and well you should be. America is also veeeeery concerned about these 3 things in particular and it is precisely the reason we’re looking for CHANGE and not the McSame ol’ same ol’ we have now.
25. Govitman | August 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Man…where to start. It is amazing how those on the left have inferred so much into Marks comments way beyond what was meant.
Robert –> 1) Where did Mark say that atheist, Buddhist, Hindus, or Muslims would not have any rights. 2) Where did Mark say ‘his’ religion was the only real one of importance. 3) Where did Mark say that non-believers could not be ‘good’ people.
It is like you are looking for things to argue about about. Not to speak for Mark, but I am sure he agrees with your point that the United States is a nation of religious Freedom…when did he say differently.
‘08ama –> You really are just a waste of time and bring no value to this blog.
I.e. 1) “A strict theocracy forcing religious views and customs onto all others, is their secret wet dream.” - WRONG…once again you liberals infer something that is not there.
2) “rightwingers are the first ones to call Homeland Security at the site of 5 Muslim men saying a prayer at an airport.” - When blonde hair blue eye men start blowing up buildings…when they flying in groups and praying in the back of the plane…I will start calling HLS for them as well.
Rasmus –> “you must really pity all us “non-believers” for we have not seen the light!” - Well, not sure if it is pity, but I will continue to pray for you and your family that you one day will come to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.
“so it must have come from the same point). This singularity was infinitely small and consisted of pure energy.” - Where did “it” or this “pure energy” come from. As someone who is basing his argument on science, then you must admit that it is scientifically impossible for something to be created from nothing. So even science must yield to the fact that there is a supreme power.
I could go on and on…
Govitman - One who prays for all non-believers who at the same time respects all religions and does not wish to “force” his view on any person.
Libs believe this is impossible - if one believes than his goal must be to “force” his views on all others.
26. Retired Spook | August 21st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Spook: No one’s ‘latching on’ to the number of houses McCain owns.
‘08ama, you don’t get out much, do you? Have you watched the news today?
27. \'08ama | August 21st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
2) ?rightwingers are the first ones to call Homeland Security at the site of 5 Muslim men saying a prayer at an airport.? - When blonde hair blue eye men start blowing up buildings….”
TIM MCVEIGH anyone ?
Spook:
did you read my entire post, or just the part that infuriated you ?
28. Magnum Serpentine | August 21st, 2008 at 1:47 pm
While being questioned by Pilate (I know I mis-spell but some days its hard to look up stuff) Jesus said not a word. I have spoken to pastors and others and they all say its because Jesus did not want to involve himself in Government. (funny how they then turn around and say there is no such thing as a separation of church and state)
Paul was talking about offending people. If prayer offends don’t say it when the person who is offended is around, wait till they are gone. If mixing politics and religion offends don’t do it.
Thank you all for looking that verse up for me
29. Retired Spook | August 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
TIM MCVEIGH anyone ?
You’re absolutely right, ‘08ama. McVeigh narrowed the gap considerably. Including his act of domestic terrorism in 1995 the number of worldwide Islamic terrorist acts since 1979 compared to those committed by blue-eyed blonds is only 37,893 to 1. Thanks for bringing that up.
did you read my entire post, or just the part that infuriated you?
There was nothing in that post that infuriated me. I was just pointing out the total and utter ignorance in your statement when Barry himself was shown on the news this morning berating McCain because I didn’t know how many houses he owned. Govitman hit the nail on the head when he said “‘08ama — You really are just a waste of time and bring no value to this blog.”
Your post that infuriated me was this one:
And if you don’t apologize to every Christian here, I will do everything within my power to see that you’re banned from this blog. Aside from a comment a while back that described the American military as a bunch of bloodthirsty murders, yours was the most offensive comment I’ve read here in the 4-1/2 years I’ve visited this site.
30. DM | August 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I second Spook’s motion for banning 08ama.
31. js | August 21st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“13.5 billion years ago everything was in a singularity. We know this because everything in the universe moves away from everything else (so it must have come from the same point).”
i GUESS that means that the atom is scientifically impossible so it doesnt exist….otherwise the protons and neutrons that form the nucleus of the atom would say bye bye to each other and the electrons could never be attracted to the protons because they “move away from everything else”, so everything we know of in existence really doesnt exist at all….
its just an illusion…you dont have a body…a body needs atoms to exist…what are you, crazy?
32. '08ama | August 21st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Apology for what ??!!
Where in my post (the one that infuriated you) do I even MENTION the word Christian
Mr Noonan has been running a tight ship on this blog for years. My post has been out there for a few hours now and he has not yet deleted it. I will play by whatever rules the administrator of this blog wishes, not by yours spook.
The question was asked … “When blonde hair blue-eyed men start blowing up buildings …”, not when a “certain number” of white haired blue-eyed men start blowing up buidlings.
I was simply answering the question.
33. \'08ama | August 21st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Mark Noonan:
Do you find any or all of my posts offensive enough to warrant banning me from this blog ?
If so, I will not post again using ‘08ama’ or any other handle name.
34. Jeremiah | August 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Magnum Serpentine,
What also did Jesus say to Pilate just before Pilate sentenced him, when Pilate told Him … “Man, don’t you realize I have the power to release you?” And Jesus replied, “You would have no power over if it had not been given you from Above”.
So that says one thing … God has Supreme Authority! His Word transcends the highest judges word in the land.
Our government will fall provided they do not rely on the only governance this world has, God’s holy and precious Word.
you may not like to hear what I have to say about it, but if I don’t speak out then I am held accountable for not speaking out … accountable for your sin. Jesus would say, “You say you love me … but your heart is far from Me.” And thus, I am a tree worthy of being cut down, because I am not producing desirable fruit. You see, in essence, I would be selfish in not speaking out. Jesus cared for me, and so, now He wants me to share that same love with others … You see, God did not send Jesus for Himself, but for all of us, and Jesus was continually preaching about the way to live a life holy and pleasing to the Father. For Heaven is more important that all that Gold and Silver can buy on this earth. This earth and all that is in it is going to be burned up. The elements will pass away with a ‘fervent heat’ the Bible says. So this earth is just preparation for eternity. If we love God then nothing at all can seperate us from His Love.
The only thing that can seperate us from God is sin or disobedience. And if a Nation’s laws and way of life are not according to what God desires of us, then God is not pleased and therefore will punish that Nation for so doing.
The proper definition for “Seperation of Church and State” is that the government cannot tell me what I can or cannot do, because God gives us the ultimate freedom to display our form of governance when it is in accordance with His Will, which is not to suppress us, but is what gives us the ultimate freedom to share God’s Love with each other.
The only people who would be offended by this love is those who are living in darkness, living worldly sinful lives or more commonly known as living satan’s lie … and believe me, there are on hundred lies that satan can deceive us with in order to try and snatch us from that hope and joy that God brings, and most importantly from God’s Saving grace, which, if abided by will give us eternal joy.
Just to list a few of the ways satan has used “Seperation of Church and State” to deceive people, all one has to do is look at school teaching … teaching children lies like … “sodomy is acceptable” when clearly it is not. Also, teaching evolution as a tactic to implant disbelief into the hearts of children, in turn, planting seeds of hatred toward Christians in the country. And also, taking away the freedom to lead prayers.
It goes on and on, but the point is, “Separation of Church and State” under liberal thinking is nothing more than a conveniet way to cause disvision and a doing away with the responsibility to God our Creator who commands us to do good, in order that we may be spared the suffering that comes with believing and implementing satan’s lies. BTW, the words “Separation of Church and State” are not in the Constitution.
Organized militant hate groups include the followig:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
American Atheists
ACLU (Anti-Christian-Lawyers-Union).
“American” Abortion Association.
Planned Parenthood.
GLBT\GLSEN
NAMBLA
And of course, there are others who wish to persecute the Christian community.
It is time for Christians to awake to this threat from within.
35. '08ama | August 21st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Jeremiah:
FYI..
There are MILLIONS of Christians across the world who DO believe in evolution and who believe that sexual orientation is not an excuse to deny anyone their God-given human rights.
As a Christian, I can tell you that you dont speak for ALL Christians. I pray for you.
36. Jeremiah | August 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
There are MILLIONS of Christians across the world who DO believe in evolution and who believe that sexual orientation is not an excuse to deny anyone their God-given human rights.
Then they are CINO’s.
They do not read and obey God’s Word.
So I pity them and you.
37. js | August 21st, 2008 at 3:16 pm
any one notice how the primal cause of terrorism has blond hair and blue eyes, yet the muslims have been terrorizing the world for 1500 years?
strange….did mohamaad have blond hair and blue eyes too?
38. js | August 21st, 2008 at 3:20 pm
“There are MILLIONS of Christians across the world who DO believe in evolution and who believe that sexual orientation is not an excuse to deny anyone their God-given human rights.”
show us where God gave anyone a “right” to sodomize another person…PLEASE
or are you the halfwit that i believe you to be? quote the bible dorftraddle, go on….prove that that noodle between your ears is something more than a wind chime…
39. \\\'08ama | August 21st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
js:
you’re a bit lost little boy.
God did not give anyone the “right” to sodomize. he gave everyone the “right” to CONSENT to being sodomized if they so wish.
Get them noodles out of your head so your brain can function correctly will ya.
Jeremiah:
Any Christian who disgrees with your beliefs is a CINO ?
Believe it or not, God will forgive you even AFTER you said that.
40. Dennis | August 21st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Mark says, “I don’t have a right to insist that my fellow citizens worship in the Catholic Church or believe any of the dogmas of the Church. We are free in our consciences.”
Here is a sampling of what Mark’s church teaches (emphasis is mine):
“It is not lawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, or speech, or writing, or religion, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man” (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas, 1903).
“The Roman Catholic Church must demand the right of freedom for herself alone.” (Civilta Cattolica, April, 1948).
“What is not in accord with truth [i.e. Roman Catholicism] has objectively no right of existence, propagation, or action.” (Pope Pius XII, 1953).
“The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God.” (Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica)
“We, moreover, proclaim, declare and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)
“Every cleric must obey the Pope, even if he commands what is wrong, for no one can judge him.” (Pope Innocent IV, Comment in Decretal)
“In Christ’s right I am a sovereign. I acknowledge no civil superior; I am the subject of no Prince, and I claim more than this – I claim to be the supreme judge on earth, the director of the consciences of men; of the peasant that tills the field and the Prince that sits on the throne; of the household that sits in the shade of privacy and the legislature that makes laws for the Kingdom. I am the last sole supreme judge on earth of what is right and wrong.” (Pope Pius IX, as reported in The Tablet, a Catholic weekly published in London, Sunday, Oct 9, 1864)
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium [teaching authority] of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown is such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964)
“Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth.” (Pope John XXIII, homily at his coronation on November 4, 1958)
NYT, July 10, 2007 — Pope Benedict XVI restated Tuesday what he said were the “defects” of Christian faiths other than Roman Catholicism, prompting anger from Protestants who questioned the Vatican’s respect for other beliefs. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/world/europe/11pope.html
NYT, May 18, 2002 — An influential canon lawyer at the Vatican has written an article to be published today in a Vatican-approved Jesuit journal saying that Roman Catholic bishops should not turn over allegations or records of sexual abuse by priests to the civil authorities.
The article in the magazine Civilta Cattolica by the Rev. Gianfranco Ghirlanda, dean of the canon law faculty at Gregorian University in Rome, is the second indication in recent weeks that inside the Vatican, influential church officials may disapprove of the response of American bishops to the abuse scandal. Last month, the head of a Vatican council, Archbishop Julián Herranz, also said that the bishops should not be required to turn over records on abusive priests to prosecutors… http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E0DD1738F93BA25756C0A9649C8B63
41. Dennis | August 21st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Correction - the 1864 quote cited above by Pope Pius IX was actually made by Cardinal Manning, speaking for Pius IX.
42. js | August 21st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
any moron can quote out of context to make the wrong point dennis
you are nothing special
43. js | August 21st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
“What is not in accord with truth has objectively no right of existence, propagation, or action.” (Pope Pius XII, 1953).
I guess this sums up your little tantrum, eh?
44. kmg | August 21st, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Since the topic is religion, does anyone care to reconcile McCain’s statement that human rights are granted at conception with his support for embryonic stem cell research?
45. Jeremiah | August 21st, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Any Christian who disgrees with your beliefs is a CINO ?
O8ama,
No, not exactly … but anybody who disagrees with the Bible, or proclaims to be a Christian and does not try to live by God’s Word.
So, if you say you’re a “Christian” and believe that homosexuality “isn’t” wrong, which is contrary to what I believe, which I believe the Bible to be the written Word of God, then you wouldn’t be disagreeing with me, but with the Bible.
So, if it doesn’t square with the Bible then you need to seriously consider accepting Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.
46. FmrMarine | August 21st, 2008 at 10:06 pm
dingdongdennis
try this….
http://ballyblog.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/terrorists-are-muslims-list-of-islamic-terrorist-attacks/
47. Dennis | August 21st, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Post 43 - whose truth, js? The biblical definition of blasphemy, in both the Old and New Testaments, is for a man to make himself as God. See Leviticus 24:16, John 10:33, Acts 12:21-23.
In Isaiah 45:5 God says, “I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.” In Hosea 13:4 he says “There is no saviour besides me.” The Bible is replete with similar declarations.
If any person “claim to be the supreme judge on earth, the director of the consciences of men” or any person is vaunted as “not mere man, but as it were God,” or say “only if they be united to him can men be saved,” either a.) they are blaspheming God, or b.) the Bible is lying. Or one might theoretically posit c.) - they both could be lying. It is not possible for them both to be telling the truth.
Mark Noonan casts the singular God of the Bible aside for the “supreme judge on earth,” while Jeremiah opposes “anybody who disagrees with the Bible,” yet supports Mark who acts loyal to the Bible God while reverencing the earthly pretender to His authority. Meanwhile Js and FmrMarine fibrillate, unable to commit to either side because they always have to demonize the liberals and occasionally a liberal comes down on the Bible’s side.
The cognitive dissonance is so thick here you can cut it with a knife.
48. Jeremiah | August 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 am
The cognitive dissonance is so thick here you can cut it with a knife.
Dennis,
Maybe it’s because you’re assuming, instead of going with actual, solid facts … Don’t you think?
I have stated here numerous times that I do not agree with loyalty to the pope … for there is only one Jesus. And He’s the One whom I have faith in.
You know, I was talking to a fellow a while back, after I had finished up doing some work, and it’s just like we discussed, we may live right according to the word this way, this way, and this way … but the devil can get us on something else.
But the point being, Jesus is the Vicar, and all who believe in Him are his disciples.
Now, I know there’s a lot of friction here on the subject as far as I and Mark’s beliefs are concerned … so I just leave it out. I don’t want to offend Mark, and he knows how I believe, so, as long as we know where we’re each coming from once, that’s good enough.
We have to stay as close to the Bible as we can!
:)
49. Mark Noonan | August 22nd, 2008 at 1:46 am
extra,
Ah, but you do, you know? The humanist concept of individual rights grows out of the Christian view of man - humanism, as such, is just another in a long line of heresies, once you understand what a heresy really is. To nutshell it, a heresy is when you take some part of Christianity and raise it up at the expense of all the others and/or speficially deny some part of Christianity which doesn’t fit into the heretical worldview. The Church isn’t called “catholic” for nothing - its universal in that it can contain everything, but no one thing can contain it…and a lot of the problems of the world revolve around some people, from time to time, trying to have only what they particularly like about Christianity.
And so Arians wanted to dispense with the divinity of Christ (and Mohammed succeeded where Arius failed); Albigensians wanted to dispense with the material world; humanists wanted to dispense with Authority; enlightenment philosophers wanted to dispense with organised religion; Marxists wanted to dispense with God…but each of them wanted to keep some part of Christianity….and so Arians wanted to keep one God; Albigensians wanted to keep spiritual belief; humanists wanted to keep the brotherhood of man; Marxists wanted to keep the life of the world to come. Each of them (and many, many others) have confronted Christianity and have failed utterly, while the Church goes on.
Things are different in 2008 - in some small ways we are wiser than our Christian forebearers in that we now understand that the heretic shall be suffered…but I point out to the heretic that he’s still living off the body of Christ, and it is in his best interest to ensure that said body thrives, lest he destroy himself.
50. Mark Noonan | August 22nd, 2008 at 1:54 am
Rasmus,
Your ignorance of me, history and the Church is entirely unsurprising - it is part of the sad tale of modern times that people are never taught what really happened but, instead, are treated to a series of “just so” stories which are designed to close off the mind from free inquiry.
I highly recommend that you dispense with everything you believe and go read, oh, “The Everlasting Man”…something, anything along those lines will start to shake you out of your mental complacency and at least get you thinking.
51. Mark Noonan | August 22nd, 2008 at 1:54 am
Dennis,
Been trolling the anti-Catholic websites?
52. Robert | August 22nd, 2008 at 2:14 am
Mark,
Leave Rasmus alone. You didn’t even address what he said, you just decided to act as if he was stupid and can’t think. Why? Because he actually said something that might make sense?
Oh, but he doesn’t agree with the great Mark Noonan. So instead of nicely saying ” Hey, why don’t you check out this book that might give you an understanding of why I believe what I believe”, you immediately insult him and say he can’t think. Why? Because he doesn’t agree with the great Mark Noonan’s worldview.
Mark, GROW UP!!!!
Stop making smug comments to people as if you know it all. My problem with what you say is NOT that you are Christian, NOT that you are Conservative, and NOT that we don’t agree on many issues.
My problem, which I have tried to patiently explain to you, is that you are ARROGANT! You put other people down and act as if you and your beliefs are superior. YOUR knowledge of Rasmus, me and oher people who post here and the ignorant know-it-all way you act is not suprisingly ignorant and devoid of thought.
As I have said, I do NOT believe that Conservatives are wrong about everything, all the time. On fact, I agree with many Conservative principles. But I also see the value in many Liberal ideals. Though I do not agree with the far left oir the far right, I feel that both sides through the middle have much to offer and are not “wrong all the time and about everything.”
Your statement of that over and over is just plain ARROGANT!!! Liberals do not treat you that way, Mark. At least not all Liberals.
Stop acting as if you are superior and have a resonable conversation, where you do not have to try to prove you are right about everything.
Mark, people can disagree with each other without saying that everything the other believes in has no value and no worth. You, hoiwever, seem to believe that Liberals have nothing good to offer and nothing they think or feel matters and has any value. That attitude is the height or arrogance, and you need to stop and think before you act. Be HUMBLE to your fellow man, Mark, you just might need him someday.
53. Blogs » Politics an&hellip | August 22nd, 2008 at 2:15 am
[...] Politics and ReligionI was trying to figure out your motive, and then I came across a quote from a Vietnamese bishop, later made a cardinal, which was, “The greatest failure in leadership is for the leader to be afraid to speak and act as leader. … [...]
54. Mark Noonan | August 22nd, 2008 at 2:31 am
Robert,
It appears I really get your goat - understanding that we do all want to be united in the by and by, don’t you think that your coming here with your current lack of love and charity for me is actually counter productive? For your own health and the sake of our eventually unity in Christ, it might be better for you to absent yourself from this blog until you are better able to deal with contrasting points of view.
55. Dennis | August 22nd, 2008 at 2:50 am
Jeremiah, I think you realize everything I said above was factual, easy to confirm and used within reasonable context. But in the main I can find no fault with what you said in post 48. For once I agree with you, and even though our convictions differ on many other matters I accept you as a brother in Christ.
I would encourage you to study the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, the true Master, to discover the heart and soul of liberal thinking. It’s right there in your Bible, and if you can extend the same courtesy to others that you extend to Mark, you’ll eventually find it isn’t all those terrible things you think it is.
Mark, this is subject matter I’ve studied for decades. I had most of those quotes long before there was an internet. Too many good Christian people have never studied the Protestant Reformation, do not know what it meant and all it accomplished for the advancement of the Gospel. A few of us have.
I respect your tenacity, but observe that only days ago you admitted “Sola Scriptura” isn’t adequate to your system of belief. I don’t remember your exact words or the context, but most of your readers will not understand the implications of that, or know that Sola Scriptura once was the very foundation of Christianity. Nowadays those who hew to the Bible only are placed on the defensive and made to appear as bigots. History does repeat.
As a footnote, I do not subscribe to verbal inspiration or biblical inerrancy (as many fundamentalists do) but to thought inspiration, wherein language and translation are weighed to find the intended meaning of biblical authors. It requires more critical thinking and contemplation, and certainly more and deeper exposure to the Bible.
Being spoonfed doctrine rather than studying the Scriptures tends to foster fanaticism and reliance upon human authority, rather than a personal appreciation for theological concepts such as Christ’s intercessory role and the completeness of His atonement. But I digress. You choose human authority, I choose the Bible. You end up an authoritarian and I end up a liberal. That alone speaks volumes.
56. Robert | August 22nd, 2008 at 3:41 am
Mark,
I do not have a lack of love and charity for you - I have difficulty in understanding where you come from when so much of what you say seems arrogant.
I also do not have issue with contrasting points of view. I do have an issue with people who speak arrogantly.
Mark, you have every right to speak your mind, but you should do it in such a way as to respect others. Saying that Liberals are “wrong all the time and about everything” is devaluing them as a person. You scream your head off all the time when people tromp on your values.
All I am saying is that you should treat others in the world as equals, instead of putting yourself above them.
I respect your faith. I respect your values. But, by you words, you do not respect the faith and values of any Liberal. You seem to deem Liberals as pariah, without the capability of thought. That is wrong, Mark - it is wrong. Other people have used their brains just as much as you claim to have, and they have come up with different answers.
You have every right to believe that your faith is correct. That is fine. But you need to understand that for other people, sometimes there are other things that make sense. To those people, they are NOT “wrong all the time and about everything.”
All I ask is that you think about things. Think about seeing the value in differing points of view yourself. Try to learn humility before your fellow man, even if they think differently from you. You say that you love all mankind. Then, please, for the sake of your own faith, act like it! Stop posting smug, know-it-all comments to posters and treat others as you wish to be treated. That also means looking at Liberals and saying this - “I do not agree with your point of view, but I do realize that to you it is important, perhaps just as important (to you) as my beliefs are to me. I might never agree with you, but it is up to you to decide what is right for you. I will decide what is right for me.”
This method of communication is much more mature than “Liberals are wrong all the time and about everything.”
So, my thoughts to you are to watch the Olympics, where people of all races and all cultures and all religions put political differences aside to compete with grace and honor and respect. As one of the Russian Olympians said about her rival Georgian - “If the world took lessons from what we do here, there would be no more wars.” And then she hugged the Georgian girl.
That, my friend Mark, is the way it is done.
I think that I might take a respite from this blog after all, to think of more positive things. Unfortunately, there are times when listening to people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and sometimes reading stuff from you, that I begin to lose my faith in humanity.
Not because of differing points of view, but because of man’s arrogance to other men.
Conservatives are not evil and Christians are not evil. Arrogant men, however, can find themselves very close to the edge of evil. That is why I beg you to try a different way. You never have to falter in your convictions, just so you realize that other people have values that are just as valid as yours.
Until then, for my own health, as you say (and, in truth and in the reality outside of this computer generated forum this also applies) I need to think more positively and stop letting overblown braggarts ruin my day.
I will continue to live the best way I know how, and I refuse to ever let myself become so taken with myself that I devalue someone else’s most devout beliefs.
I refuse to ever say that someone else is “wrong all the time and about everything.”
I hope that by these convictions, I will strive to always do good for EVERYONE in this world, regardless of their beliefs. I hope that one day you will learn to do the same.
Fare thee well, kind sir. I hope that the future sees you well. And don’t ever lose your faith. Simply open your mind to others and their faith as well.
57. What? | August 22nd, 2008 at 5:00 am
Noonan writes:
“For your own health and the sake of our eventually unity in Christ, it might be better for you to absent yourself from this blog until you are better able to deal with contrasting points of view.”
However, Noonan earlier wrote:
“I highly recommend that you dispense with everything you believe and go read, oh, “The Everlasting Man”…something, anything along those lines will start to shake you out of your mental complacency and at least get you thinking.”
Yeah, you are never smug, pretentious, or dismissive of other points of view. Noonan, give me a break. Doesn’t your religion encourage recognition of failings?
As for your post, I really can’t say anything about it. You have written so much but have not really said anything.
“As long as our politcal beliefs are grounded in our faith . . . ”
Whose politcal beliefs? Yours? Mine? If yours, why yours?
Whose faith? Yours? Mine? My Hindu neighbor’s?
Define grounded. Are we to take our laws directly from the Bible? Are we to try to divine what Jesus would do? Or are you talking about religious concepts more generally (the Ten Commandments) ?
Then there is this:
“If what I advocate seems good and true and appears to meet some need identified by the citizenry and the resultant law is enacted under whatever constitutional reguirements prove necessary, then all I’ve done is creat a law - not established a religion or imposed a particular religion on everyone.”
Well, that really depends on the law you are advocating, doesn’t it?
Say a school board required a teacher to say an Islamic prayer every morning to her students. Is that establishing a religion if students need not participate?
Also, I find the whole post, including some of the Archbishop’s statements, defying the reality of our political environment.
I mean, look at this:
“What the secularists of today are trying to do - especially through such things as the ACLU’s war on Christmas - is to say that the believer, especially the Christian believer, must check his beliefs that door to politics. ”
This is just not true.
You confuse two issues. It is one thing to develop one’s own politcal beliefs on faith. It is another to insist laws are passed which institutionize that faith. It is the latter which the ACLU fights against. If anything the ACLU fights for Christians to speak in the publlic square. You and Jeremiah suffer from the same misunderstanding about the ACLU’s purpose.
But more importantly, I think you and the Archbishop are wrongly playing the victims here.
Look around you, Mark. the vast majority of politicians and the public are saying faith should influence one’s politcal stances on moral issues. If fact, both candidates are feverishly talking about how their faith (their Christian Faith, mind you) influences their actions. What was Saddleback all about?
I guess, my question is: What are you bitchin’ about? Do you really think the faithful in this nation are not courted to enough by politicians?
58. sue | August 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
“It is another to insist laws are passed which institutionize that faith”
Whyever would that be wrong? After all liberals insist that laws are passed that institutionalize secular including liberal faith.
Faith is simply a belief in something. Why should I not advocate and even aggitate for laws that conform with Christian beliefs if you can advocate and aggitate laws that conform to secular and liberal beliefs?
If you are trying to say in a “cute” way that Christians want a theocracy then you are deluded as well as many of the other leftists. Wanting laws to conform to our Christian beliefs is no where close to wanting a “theorcacy”.
59. Dennis | August 22nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
What, the problem is that Mark’s particular brand of faith ultimately would demand submission from everyone - believers and unbelievers alike. Post 40 above lists but a fraction of the number of statements conveying this idea that have issued from the Vatican over decades and centuries.
These quotes have nothing to do with anti-Catholic bigotry, as Mark claims. They accurately portray a historic and virulent authoritarianism, an intolerance of free will, which if not resisted would grip society as it did during medieval times. The current Pope Benedict is a strong proponent of this authoritarian tradition. The dominionism of the evangelical right is but another strain of this hunger for wordly power, which is antithetical to what Jesus teaches in the Gospels.
Sue, nobody is being “cute” or delusional. Magnum Serpentine’s concern at the top of this thread is not imaginary. Antonin Scalia, in a 2002 seminar on the death penalty: “Government, however you want to limit that concept, derives its moral authority from God. It is the minister of God with powers to revenge, to execute wrath, including even wrath by the sword.” It is but a little reach to connect this opinion with enforcement of religious behavior. And make no mistake, if dominionists achieved their fondest goal that is exactly what would happen.
What? is correct in post 57 that the faithful in America are now pandered to by politicians, and it is not a healthy trend. Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion for those who choose it. Without the freedom to say “No” there is no freedom at all. Religion is not the business of government.
60. Mark Noonan | August 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Dennis,
Well, those quotes of yours seems to come from the this website, which is anti-Catholic, anti-Seventh Day Adventist, anti-Mormon, anti-Calvinist, anti-Jehova’s Witness and anti-Moslem - and for all I can tell, anti-Anyone Who Doesn’t Agree. To attempt to use the lies of bigots to accuse my faith of bigotry is a rather odd thing, don’t you think?
Ex ecclesia nulla sallust - outside the Church there is no salvation; but who is in the Church? Only God really knows. It is my firm conviction that the Pope in Rome is the successor of St. Peter, who was made head of the Church by Christ while he lived on Earth as a man - the Church pre-dates the scriptures, so sola scriptura is incorrect, and when it comes down to a conflict on the meaning of the Bible I will rely upon the organization which has carefully considered these matters for 2,000 years rather than the personal opinion of some person who has set himself up, in supreme arrogance, as better able to judge such matters than the collective wisdom of millions of people over thousands of years.
61. Jeremiah | August 22nd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Dennis,
I have to say that I agree with Judge Scalia’s interpretation of the Scripture as well as where government receives its Just powers…Yes, indeed, from Almighty God above.
God gives us our rights, and government is instituted in order to preserve those rights.
Any time those rights are breeched, through rebellion against an individual or as a group, in any form which would pose harm to an innocent person/persons, then it is the job of the government to avail their just powers in the public’s interest of their grievance.
Our system of law is derived from a Biblical base. As Antonin Scalia explained…it is in line with Roman’s chapter 13
Romans 13:1-4
‘Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, and agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.’
The Bible is clear on the government’s purpose, and whence God is the source of just law, we find the sixth commandment from the Ten Commandments to be one of the laws, which, if broken, the government will compensate for tha wrong…’Thou Shall Not Murder.’
To understand the purpose of the law … we go now to 1 Timothy … which says,
1 Timothy 1:8-10
‘We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is conrary to the sound doctrine tha conform to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.’
Who are the murderers? The abortionists.
Who are the perverts? I’ll let you figure that one out (Hint: It’s easy!).
Who are the irreligious? The Atheists.
So, you can see why society as a whole has deteriorated … because man has moved away from this sacred law which while it is strict, it commissions people to submit to the authority in order that society may continue to have the freedom to prosper.
Now, if you notice, all these other philosophies combined, but Socialism and Communism in particular do not allow for this freedom of law and order, but instead are oppressive in their law, as it is pre-dominantly Atheist in nature … China comes to mind here. Which would contradict Robert’s earlier statement, regarding the Olympics…it is an ourtright falsehood to claim that “everybody, of all walks of life get to come together” … it’s just not so … Christians are being persecuted by the millions, and are not allowed to participate in watching the Olympic games. So maybe Robert needs to take notice and quit his lying. To further illustrate China’s oppressive Atheist militant state…a few of the facts are that they have forced abortions, and they run over college kids with tanks, and so forth, just pure demonic hatred for Christians. This needs stopped, and we need to stop supporting China because of this fact. They have reaped Trillions upon untold trillions of dollars from America, and you can see what our money is supporting. I say shame on our goverment! We must demand some accountability from China or else we will not support one more dime to their corrupt empire!!!!! PERIOD!!!!
The same thing has been happening here in America for the past several decades, it is silently destroying America from within - Every college student is required, or better termed, forced, to take four years of Darwinism, and nothing is being done to immunize children who may students of these indoctrination centers, everybody else is pass’e or ‘relic’ but Darwinism continue to destroy the cognitive processes of our future Scientists and Doctoral degrees. Everything, the Media, academia, and intelligentsia in general is ruled by Darwin to some degree or another.
Most Bible-believing Christians are aware of this as it pertains to biology and geology. They are not aware, however, in the social sciences and humanities, yet, this is where Darwinism rules with and iron grip. But it doesn’t stop there, Darwinism, encompasses a wide variety of subjects all the way from those majors in history, psychology, education, economics, business, and sociology.
Just to give you an example…Anthropologists believe in primitive societies…Why? They supposedly existed “tens of thousands of years ago.” They were the first examples of “man’s social evolution”, so to speak. Thus, they were the “first” examples of man’s move upward … but it get’s even more interesting, as we point out the flawed conceptions of these supposed “scientists”. These same societies that the Anthropologists point to, still exist to this day. Why? They do not point out their (the tribes) rejection of Biblical Sciptures (after Noah) and so forth, as the cause of their backwardness and un-advancing, un-progressive ways. So, where do they get their synopsis from their environment, their surroundings.
This is pure un-adulterated Darwinism, and it takes away the inherent worth of human life, and is why it has killed more people than all philosophies combined. Combined with the other ideologies that are out there, they create this meme that if you are progressing, then you “aren’t worth anything”. So they are murdered in the name of “Science” … Darwinism is the most deadly philosphy on planet earth, and it needs to be squashed for the good of humanity.
And this is what I’ve been trying to explain to you guys on the Democratic side of the debate, is that, in liberalism, the Atheists and so called “enlightened progressives” have high-jacked everything about your party, and it is going to cause major problems with the coming generations…we are seeing the first fruits of those as we speak, in the form of Abortion, you call that “progressive”? In the form of sodomy, can you tryly call that “progressing”?
I think not!
So, all together, to better illustrate my point here, all you have to do is look at Rasmus’ post way back up top, and he explains what is wrong with your party…they claim the earth “evolved” and learned agriculture and first appeared in Mesopatamia, well, didn’t Cain offer up agriculture?
When it comes to the Bible, and folks who wrote it, and the people who were a part of it…You tell them, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John … Or even Jesus … they will say, Jesus? Who is Jesus? And then have the gall to say, “Oh that guy, he’s nothing more than a “myth”.
Anyhow, that gives you some idea of where we’re at right now, we could go the whole night…but I will say this, and for your sake … If you want to remain a free person, then you need to seriously reconsider your position on the liberal thinking, because I don’t foresee them changing anytimes soon. Why? There have been too many generations worth who have been under the sound of liberal Darwinism in our classrooms over the past half century.
Christians need to awaken, and awaken soon!
God bless!
62. Dennis | August 22nd, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Mark, I have never seen or heard of your web page reference before. As I said in post 55, these are topics I have studied as a Christian for decades - since before the advent of the Internet. My research came from sources like Encyclopedia Britannica, public libraries as well as mainstream news souces, both religious and secular. My preeminent source is the Bible itself.
Outside of Christ there is no salvation. No human institution can add to or nullify his atonement.
63. What? | August 22nd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Sue,
You misunderstood my post.
I have no problem with laws that are influenced by faith. Law is influenced by numerous personal beliefs concerning justice and fairness. Religion often is a source of one’s conception of justice and fairness.
However, I want a secular government. You do, too if you honestly say you do not want a theocracy.
A secular government is one that does not endorse or discourage one’s fundamental right to worship of a religion.
A theocracy is one that encourages a belief in a diety, usually a specific one.
I do not think the right wants a theocracy. No one will ever say they do, except perhaps Jeremiah.
However, the right wants prayer in schools and the ten commandments in courtrooms. These small incursion do not make a theocracy, but they are the seedlings of one because they demonstrate a state preferance for one religion over another. They must not be allowed.
Once a government subtly endorses one religion to the expense of others, the other religions can never regain the ground they lost. Their views are permanantly prejudiced as being of lesser value. A person who worships a religion not endorsed by the state becomes a second class citizen. This is woefully evident in Islamic countries.
Dennis,
First, I am no fan of Mark’s or Jeremiah’s understanding of Christianity or religion in general. They are the very people who call for a theocracy without even realizing it.
Second, I have to disagree with your statement politicians should not speak of their religion to the electorate. This goes too far.
A candidate’s faith is a reflection of his values. A candidate’s values are very much at issue in a campaign and voters are thus right to ask such questions. It is nice to say we should focus on the issues. Ultimately character is the most important issue of all since we are, by electing a person as president, granting a huge amount of power.
I do have a problem with pandering and outright false claims of faith. McCain is guilty of this. Obama is guilty of this. Several conservative talk show hosts are guilty as well. However, I have faith most Americans can see through such shameless pandering.
64. What? | August 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Jeremiah writes:
“I have to say that I agree with Judge Scalia’s interpretation of the Scripture as well as where government receives its Just powers…Yes, indeed, from Almighty God above. ”
So the government’s power comes from Jesus and not the American electorate? Hmm, are you sure this is what Scalia said?
Uh-oh, time to go to my Darwin Indoctrination Class. It is so much harder than my pre-marital sex and abortion class.
65. Dennis | August 22nd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
What - I never said “politicians should not speak of their religion to the electorate.” I do not even believe in such an idea. If I inadvertently said what you attributed to me please point me to it, but I believe you are citing someone else’s remark. Two things I did say in post 59 are that the faithful in America are now pandered to by politicians, and that religion is not the business of government. I stand by those statements.
Jeremiah, I accept the premise of Romans 13 - submission to legitimate authority. I would observe that here in the USA we are ruled not by persons, but by law - to wit, by the Constitution. When elected leaders break laws and exceed their Constitutional authority we are not being faithful to Romans 13 unless we hold them to account - whether by impeachment, war crimes tribunals or lesser reprimands.
I would go one further and observe that in the case of Iraq Mr. Bush overthrew an established ruler, one who was a terrible man by any standard, yet nobody can say he was not ordained by God to hold Iraq together. David refused to touch a hair on the head of wicked king Saul, who was pursuing him to take his life (1 Samuel 24). I daresay if Mr. Bush had followed scriptural principles in dealing with Iraq, liberty for Christians would have been preserved there, Saddam Hussein would have been eventually neutralized and we would not be facing greatly empowered enemies in Iran and radical Islam. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of lives saved.
I could go on, but my point is be careful how you wield Romans 13 or it will quickly bite you and your own politics very hard. The safest practice is to take biblical principles into your own heart, but not wave them around in other people’s faces. Which brings us full circle to keeping religion out of politics.
Mark, it is almost funny that you think I got my ideas from some website. I can only say you are a Roman Catholic, and I am a Christian who learned about the Protestant Reformation in grade school. Most evangelicals have forgotten that there was such an event, if they ever knew. I was taught about Wycliffe, Luther and Tyndale as a child. I remember reading from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs in the library, not understanding how human beings could do such things to others. Later in life I learned that ideology and lust for power, whether religous or secular, will cause people to do anything imaginable. I do not hate any group or person, but I see the danger inherent in certain ideologies, and will call a bad policy when I see it. And it is both bad policy and dangerous ideology for any person to set themselves up as ruler of the conscience of every other person.
You say the church predates Scripture - you are wrong. The Old Testament predates the Christian church and spells out the shape of the New Covenant, although it was not understood until the light of Christ’s life illuminated many of those old passages (see Luke 24:32). And the living Word predates all. You are free to worship as you will but remember that the Reformation emancipated western civilization and opened that right, and that Light, to every person.
66. Jeremiah | August 23rd, 2008 at 12:38 am
When elected leaders break laws and exceed their Constitutional authority we are not being faithful to Romans 13
Dennis,
You see, I gave you an opportunity to read and therefore give a response according to what the law is as it relates to the death penalty … yet, instead you go off an a tangint about how you hate President Bush and want to see him tried and convicted as a
war criminal“traitor”.I am proud to inform you, my friend, that that kind of hatred is not healthy for your soul!!
I could go on, but my point is be careful how you wield Romans 13 or it will quickly bite you
And the same goes for you, as well, with our prisons filled to capacity … we can see how your version of Romans 13 is working out, and if Obama becomes President, Romans 13 will not exist, and therefore, ushering in our doom!
To me, Romans 13 means exactly what it says, the government’s purpose is to maintain laws that will bring justice against the wrongdoers, such as the Murderers, Abortionists, etc, etc.
to wit, by the Constitution.
And the wit behind the Constitution, friend, is The Holy Written Word of The Living God!
67. Blogs » MV Bi Rain &hellip | August 23rd, 2008 at 2:15 am
[...] Politics and ReligionI was trying to figure out your motive, and then I came across a quote from a Vietnamese bishop, later made a cardinal, which was, “The greatest failure in leadership is for the leader to be afraid to speak and act as leader. … [...]
68. What? | August 23rd, 2008 at 2:44 am
Dennis,
Mea Culpa, I misread your earlier statement. I think we are pretty much in agreement.
69. Blogs » Vietnamese &hellip | August 24th, 2008 at 2:15 am
[...] Politics and ReligionI was trying to figure out your motive, and then I came across a quote from a Vietnamese bishop, later made a cardinal, which was, “The greatest failure in leadership is for the leader to be afraid to speak and act as leader. … [...]
70. Religion News, Blogs and &hellip | September 12th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
[...] Politics and Religion By Mark Noonan I don?t have a right to insist that my fellow citizens worship in the Catholic Church or believe any of the dogmas of the Church. We are free in our consciences. But it is not an imposition of my religion if I convince a constitutional … Blogs For Victory - http://blogsforvictory.com [...]