I need to brush up on my bible reading. I guess I forgot that by opposing war I was showing my despise for Christ.

something about turning the other cheek? last i checked Christ didnt retaliate when they crucified him. He definitely didnt pre-empt his crucifiction by sending his disciples to kill the romans.

*shakes head*

this is why i refrain from referring to myself as a "christian" even though i am. I get grouped with the crazies.

hahahah. I think most Americans would rather Jesus had execute a preemptive strike.

its also ironic how a lot of these fundamentalist types so readily buy into the idea that bush "seek(s) the Lord daily" where as they said Bill Clinton was just using religion whenever he spoke of God.

I can just imagine Jesus looking defiantly at Pilate and saying "Bring it on!"

I've never understood how Christ's excellent examples of how we should treat one another in our daily lives get compared directly with issues of justice and foreign policy. They are just totally separate things. There are also many Biblical examples of the armies of God vanquishing the armies of evil.

I don't believe the Lord justifies war as a first option, but I also don't believe He condones total pacafism, when there are evil regimes and people that would take the opportunity in a second to eradicate faith in Christ (and western-style religious freedom) from the earth.

Some might point out that Jesus's message was peace.

Others will point out that the bible talks about God directing Israel to go into the "promised land" and kill everyone, just because they were pagans.

So either there is a contradiction here, or maybe there are different parts of the bible (old and new testament ?) that talk about different times.

If i recall correctly none of the rest of the new testament talks about Christians rising up to kill their oppressors. I could be wrong here, but im pretty sure no where in the new testament does it talk about Christians rising up to take revenge. I was always under the impression that God was going to do that at the end of times.

However id rather not get into a religious argument here. For every Christian out there there is a different way of interpreting the bible and Jesus. My point is that it sickens me how people are so easily duped because a leader claims to be religious, and then instead of being tolerant and peaceful essentially act like the Pharisees Christ so harshly criticized.

Ill be glad to discuss it offline, so feel free to email me, id just assume not everyone would be interested in reading the back and forth of a religious argument ;)

I'm always up for a good religious argument.

I posted this because I find it laughable to think of Bush as doing the work of Christ.

Neither Democracy nor Christ (or more importantly, religious freedom) can be delivered at the barrel of a gun.

I agree that both of these can be fought for righteously, however that fight must come from the people themselves. No one delivered Democracy and religious freedom to our doorstep. We took it upon ourselves to fight for it.

I really don't think Bush believes that by fighting the war on terror, he is necessarily "doing the work of Christ", but that's just my feeling.

"My point is that it sickens me how people are so easily duped because a leader claims to be religious"...

People don't think Bush seeks God daily just because he claims to. His faith, and his daily reliance on it for strength, is well documented from many others besides him. Once can certainly disagree with his foreign policy, and claim that Christ would somehow want us to let our enemies destroy us, but I don't think it's really fair to call his faith into question on that basis.

As far as a religious argument goes, we could go on forever...but I would just refer you to my church's website, where you can get a free Bible correspondence course sent to you if you feel like that is something you would want to do. That's the best way I can think of for someone to understand where I'm coming from with scripture. I study the scriptures so regularly...that an e-mail or board discussion would not allow me to really present my points of view within the context of ALL of scripture (which is the way I try to study it).

http://www.fourlakescoc.org/

At least check out the site. We are non-denominational.

Hey, remember seperation of church and state? Wasn't that awesome?

If people choose to be religious and go to church or temple or whatever they choose, more power to them. But to me, that's a private matter. I don't really feel the need to know how often my president goes to church. I feel like waving it around and calling attention to it cheapens what is supposed to be a meaningful relationship.

Emily: Agreed. Unfortunately it seems as though playing the religious card does well in the polls.

I was disappointed by how much I heard from both Bush and Kerry about their religious backgrounds during their campaigns. I want to be told where a candidate stands on the issues, not what religious denomination they draw that stance from.

"If people choose to be religious and go to church or temple or whatever they choose, more power to them. But to me, that's a private matter. I don't really feel the need to know how often my president goes to church. I feel like waving it around and calling attention to it cheapens what is supposed to be a meaningful relationship."

I don't think I can once remember Bush bringing up his faith without being asked about it by some ravenous reporterjust dying to exploit his faith and make some big issue out of it. Your fear of people of strong faith is glaringly evident.

By the way, bringing up his faith and simply mentioning God are two different things. Every President we've ever had had regularly invoked the name of the Lord, to varying degrees.

Actually
My fear of people with strong faith is one of the things I base my political choices on. Hypothetically, if I don't belive in God, and the leader of my country is making his choices based on his faith in God and the things God tells him to do... I worry about the voices in his head.

"His faith, and his daily reliance on it for strength, is well documented from many others besides him."

How can you document what a person relies on?

" I don't think it's really fair to call his faith into question on that basis."

Precisely my point. You cant question someones faith because only that person knows about their faith. Likewise, you cannot sit around blindly following "that kind of voice eagerly" since you dont know what that person really believes. As has been pointed out a lot of times it is advantageous (particularly for a rep. trying to keep the religious right with him) to beef up your religiousity

"Once can certainly disagree with his foreign policy, and claim that Christ would somehow want us to let our enemies destroy us"

That is certainly not what I was inferring, nor is it the argument of ANY person I have spoken with who made the point i did. Christ was very peaceful and stressed putting others before yourself, love, and patience. Like I said, from my understanding of the bible it seems that God is the one to take vengence, not man. Sure Jesus got angry (like overturning the money changing tables at the temple) but he never called for or authorized killing others. He seemed to stay out of politics all together. The only time i can remember Christ being asked about something political was regarding taxes, to which he said "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's"

You could argue, as some do, that "God's vengence" takes the form of the US military, but I definitely dont feel comfortable with that statement.

Honestly, this shouldnt even be an issue. As Emily pointed out church and state are separated, care of Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. So the religious views of the leaders of this nation should have absolutely nothing to do with how they govern

Jen - you rock!

"So the religious views of the leaders of this nation should have absolutely nothing to do with how they govern."

I don't know how else to scrutinize that comment but to say, "how communist"...and frightening. So if a person's faith is the core of their being, then that should disqualify them from holding public office? Should they just ignore those values? What you claim to be American in nature by virtue of a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote (that has nothing to do with public policy) is actually about as un-American as I can imagine. The only founding father liberals have to point to for these amazingly warped ideas that separation of church and state was somehow intended to impose an absense of any religion on the country and it's public officials is T.J. If any of you would bother actually studying his beliefs, or simply visiting the Jefferson Memorial, you would discover that T.J. would be horrified by your bastardizations of his ideals.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

-Thomas Jefferson (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

So if a person's faith is the core of their being, then that should disqualify them from holding public office? Should they just ignore those values?

Of course not. If your strong faith makes you a great leader of the people, wonderful. If your faith gives you guidance, I'm all for it.

But let me judge a candidates aptitude for leading this country on my perception of their values based on their actions and words. Don't throw out, "I was a Catholic alter boy" to try to snatch up some Catholic votes. Don't talk to be about your Christian values when you jump the gun and spread your bloodshed throughout the Middle East.

Anyone can say they are of a particular faith, but to actually live that life is a different story. Furthermore I believe that regardless of the faith you choose, the end result is a human who is respectful to life.

I'm going to vote for the candidate who best personifies my beliefs, not the candidate who tells me they belong to the same church.

Jefferson, who was a deist that rewrote the bible to remove references to miracles, including the weird virgin story, would be a bit more "horrified" by the thought of secular leaders bringing religion into the legislator.

Brette: I agree.

Since the election I have been trying to figure out what happened with the 11 states that voted for a gay marriage ban, trying to make sense of it. The only conclusion I can make of it is religion in legislature.

I can understand the Church's stance on homosexuality and marriage. I don't agree with the Church on this issue, but I understand why it is the Church's opinion. The fortunate thing about freedom of religion is that I can choose not to subscribe to the Church's beliefs.

A ban on gay marriage would force the people of this country to subscribe to a belief that has no merit outside of the realm of the Church. Not only would it take away the rights of homosexuals, but it would take away in some part my right of freedom of religion. The government cannot say, "You can practice whatever faith you wish... as long as you follow this one small detail in our Christian bible.."

What would be very helpful would be if you actually took time to understand what I wrote.

"So if a person's faith is the core of their being, then that should disqualify them from holding public office? "

Did i say that? no, I said "So the religious views of the leaders of this nation should have absolutely nothing to do with how they govern" meaning they absolutely can hold beliefs but must respect the freedom of the rest of us to hold our beliefs as well, thus not imposing them on us.

"What you claim to be American in nature by virtue of a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote (that has nothing to do with public policy) is actually about as un-American as I can imagine."

I am not claiming that separation of church and state is anything other than just that. I am not saying jefferson ever said we should not elect church going leaders or ignore their moral ideas. Furthermore I often quote this statement to prove to people that indeed separation of church and state is no policy and is not found in the constitution or the bill of rights, etc. I am not using it to infer that there is some legal boundary. Im on your side on that Dude!

For those that are unfamiliar with Jefferson's letter, it was in response to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association in Danbury Conn. They were concerned that a state religion was going to be established, some branch of Christianity that wasnt Baptist if i recal correctly. Jefferson assured them that because of the "wall of separation between church and state" the state would never be able to declare a statewide religion.

Dude, it might interest you to know I learned of this letter in sunday school at a very conservative presbyterian church. They also had such interesting titles in their library as "someone I love is a liberal"

"If any of you would bother actually studying his beliefs, or simply visiting the Jefferson Memorial, you would discover that T.J. would be horrified by your bastardizations of his ideals."

Your quote of Jefferson reflects that he obviously believed our rights came from God. It says nothing about allowing leaders to carry out what i would called "bastardizations" of the work of Christ.

Again, please point me to the source of your statement. I find it pretty incredible that someone today can know Jefferson's thoughts and opinions so well as to claim other are "bastardizing" his ideas. Your interpretation of my comments alone makes me suspicious of your assesment of those others have made. Besides, I wasnt aware of volumes of literature describing Jeffersons beliefs and thoughts. I would sincerely be interested in knowing more about him, since he is the only one who ever spoke of church and state.

There is ample evidence that many of the founding fathers were deists, and christians for the most part. Many state constitutions included church membership as a requirement for holding an office. George Washington also made a statement similiar to the Jeffersons regarding moving away from the foundations of a country, that he hoped america would not "run the course of nations" that he had seen others do.

Some say these foundations are Christianity, I would say these foundations are freedom from oppressive religion.. that is why people came here in the first place right?

" don't know how else to scrutinize that comment but to say, "how communist"...and frightening."

Well i guess it wouldnt be the first time youve referred to something here as communist ;) Isnt communism essentially the forcing of beliefs on a society? Dont communists force people to believe that they are all equal and deserve to be told what to do by the government? How is that unlike a leader making laws based on his interpertation of a book written more than 2000 years ago which some consider to be nothing more than myth in a land where all are supposed to be free to believe what they wish? Dont you think that is frightening?

What if we elected a pagan president? would you be frightened if he acted on his pagan beliefs and ideals?

I think i have tried to be as understanding in my case as possible. Again, if I have misunderstood you Dude please show me where. I would appreciate it if you would respond to my comments in the same fashion, instead of what appears to be a cursory reading of what I wrote and chastizing me for being communist or unamerican.

Jefferson was a God-fearing man, as evidenced by this quote and a plethera of others. He believed in the God of the old testament, and followed the teachings of Jesus, though he questioned whether Christ was deity. His beliefs would be similer to the modern-day Bahai. I'm done with this topic, it's so silly in the grand context of American history and not even debatable.

silly communists! freedom is for christians!

;)

Wow. Really. If I say anything else about Jefferson, you won't have to have the last word? That's crazy. Man, there are so many things to say about Jefferson I don't know where to begin. How about this quotation

"Jefferson contended that Jesus never claimed to be a deity"

from this site:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/alley_18_4.html

I'd be God-fearing too if I had illegitimate children with my slave.

Haha...nice Ryan.

Look, we are in such fundamental disagreement it's not worth going into (we could get to 100 posts or more).

My last word is...if you want to disagree with the basic tenants of our Republic which are government of the people, preferably a moral and religious people, is the only form of freedom that can ultimately bear fruit and preserve rights...then disagree. Call for a constitutional convention that frames the issue of church vs. state the way you would like to see it framed...more broadly then what it means which is ONLY that Congress (meaning the US Congress) is not allowed to make any laws that prohibit the free excercise of religion or establish one denomination as the official denomination of country. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise therof". The mythical "Seperation" you want to create (with the exception of gizmo who claims to agree with me) is actually a violation of the amendment (prohibiting free excercise) that you claim to want to enforce. If you want change, call for change, but don't pretend that our founding was based on some secular Godless philosophy and spread misinformation about the history of our people because it's simply false.

As far as communism goes, I would recommend the 1958 book "The Naked Communist". One of the basic tenants of Communism is Godlessness. Another is uniformity. In this case, a uniformity of religion being an absence of religion being imposed on the people in the guise of a seemingly harmless "church/state separation".

If you read these excerpts (http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/soc3.html) from the book, you will see the goals of the communist movement at the time for infilrating western culture from the inside. A glance at the short list reveals many of these goals have been acheived in 2004.

Last post on this topic for me. So feel free to steal the last word.