Redstate

... is because the emphasis stands not on being a good person, but on being a Christian.

That is the heart of my opposition to the Religious Right.  If you believe in Jesus and accept him as your savior, you can do no wrong.  Past, present, and future crimes are all aquited regardless of their heniousness in the eyes of the zealot, so long as you pay lip service and high dollar amounts to the right ministry.

Meanwhile, living a good moral secular life remains 'sinful' in the eyes of the deeply devoted, if you profane the works and deeds of a 'true' Christian.  The message of Jesus has been lost in the image of Christ.  The question WWJD seems to be answered with "Vote Republican", "Obey the Establishment", and "Crush the Opposition".  The shepherds have become lost in their own rhetoric.  The masses are drowning in a sea of foolish debates.  And the Gospel has never sounded so off-key - or maybe it has and I've just never listened closely until now.

I've read the Bible and as a book I like it.  It's smart, it's funny, and most importantly it's meaningful.  I've gone to church and talked to priests and pastors and evangelicals and on a whole they're a bunch of sane, intelligent, and inspiring people.  But then I go out into the world of politics and I can't find the Bible anymore.  I can't find the holy men either.  Instead I find shysters and con-artists, rabble-rousers, and hatemongers and mobs of men and women, young and old, who don't listen to their own words anymore.  I see people hating and sinning and defiling our country, and then finding the Bible passage that can justify their actions.  And this disturbs me deeply.

And regardless of whether its moral and ethical to emphasize "christian spirit" just to get votes, strategically it only makes sense to court the 4 million evangelicals during a very close race, assuming that they become the main focus (which is what last election sure seemed like).  I'm sure that the over-the-top courting of the religious voters has turned people away too (it has for me - among many other things of course).

I heard a stat today on the radio news that bush's current approval rating among independents is 16%.  Since independents amount to 60-100 million americans, that's a pretty significant stat.  Of course the election is over, but if the electorate applies their feelings about bush to the next candidate, it won't be pretty for the GOP.

I'm a Republican and the Religous Right has always bothered me, Religion shouldnt have a place in politics or government...

Patick Henery College has been drug through the dirt by liberals sinces its inception.  Liberals are scared of smart young people who are involved on the Right side of politics.  By the way, its Purcellville, but that's ok, those of us who live there are used to the name being butchered.  

so the Christian believes they are a sinner just as much as the believe the secularist is a sinner.

There are shysters from every religious belief.  There are fakes from every walk of life.

Why should those who are religious be excluded from government?  Where in the constitution does it say that having a religion makes you unfit to be involved in politics.

What is special about secularism, that it should have a place in politics, but Christianity or others of religious belief shouldn't?

correction.  I've found a history of the town, and it was named for a fellow named Valentine Vernon Purcell, not the English baroque composer Henry Purcell.

I don't think conservatives should have any reason to fear the school.  It represents a point of view and way of life which is central to American culture.

I will admit, though, that the description brings up some shame concerning my own collegiate activities -- which is probably a euphemism.

This isn't to say a minister or a pastor shouldn't be involved in politics, nor is it to say that being a Christian should make you ineligable to be a Senator.

Culling the Christianity from the politics means culling the Moses from the Ten Commandments.  You can still make laws against stealing and lying and even sleeping around if you so chose, but your reasoning cannot exist purely on the grounds that "God said so."  Murder makes for a chaotic and unstable society.  You don't need a priest to tell you its wrong.  Tax evasion is a problem in government not simply because Jesus said "Give onto Caeser what is Caeser's."  

Trumpeting your Religion and stating that "all unbelievers will go to Hell" as a political ideology is divisive and deceptive.  That is the problem with religion in politics.  Religion has a great number of positive messages to bring to the people and I'll never deny that.  But God does not live in a Democracy.  We do.  Our nation must be guided by wisdom, courage, compassion that engages all walks of life.  Regardless of whether it is the right road to follow, Christianity is merely one among many roads that people of our nation travel.  A nation must be accomidating of all roads, all walks of life.  To hold one above others makes those outside the belief a second class.

Secularism in politics does not (or at least should not) take one's faith into question when creating policy, enforcing law, or metting out justice.  That is why secularism must prevail.

if you believe in universalism?

So only Christians who believe in Jesus Christ as the only source of salvation need not apply?

Honestly who are you to determine whether somebody's faith is good enough for participation?  Who are you to decide that somebody's faith can't inform their values and beliefs?  Why should secularists have the only say in moral issues that pertain to government?

me as a moderate is that I don't want people telling me how to live my life. Its none of your business. Obviously the political aspirations of groups like this is to gain influence for their religious views and not some blanket conservative agenda, e.g., what does tax cuts and fiscal responsiblity have to do with religion? - zip..  School prayer? - a lot.

If I think that the Republicans are being used to further an anti-privacy agenda by the religious right then I am going to have a harder time voting for them...

I'm not so good a judge of character to determine who may or may not apply.  I merely ask that when you step into the arena of public discourse, you leave your religious denomination at the door.  Likewise, when you enter the house of God, I don't want to hear if you're a Republican or a Democrat.

And in a society that governs Christians and Jews, Muslims and Buddists, you cannot have a single faction decreeing what is morally right for the whole.  Any law, especially one passed on moral grounds (like underaged drinking or prostitution) must stem for a desire to promote the general good and not merely the religious ideology of the majority.  We have laws to protect not to domineer.  Because the true secularist refuses to acknowledge religious identity, it makes the secularist ideal for formulating laws - laws that will treat all religious denominations equally.  If a religious man can behave as a secularist and not favor his religion over any other, then he is welcome to join in the development of the society.  If a religious man cannot, he will not serve the general public good, merely the good of his own private sect.  That's descrimination.  That's bad.  That's why.

Without getting in to my perspective on Zifnab's response to the diary, I think that your response indicates a misreading of what s/he said.  The very first line of the entry reads:

This isn't to say a minister or a pastor shouldn't be involved in politics, nor is it to say that being a Christian should make you ineligable to be a Senator.

somebody who is religious?  Why are their morals more valuable than a religious persons?  You are making a value judgement when you say that the person whose values are formed in faith is lesser than the person whose values are formed because whatever it is they form their values by isn't God?

To grant secularism the high ground is just as bad as granting religion the high ground.

I merely ask that when you step into the arena of public discourse, you leave your religious denomination at the door.

So just where in the constitution does it require this?  Is there some amendment that says religious folks must pretend like they aren't religious, when having anything to do with politics?  

And in a society that governs Christians and Jews, Muslims and Buddists, you cannot have a single faction decreeing what is morally right for the whole.

Um and just what faction is secularism?  I bet I have as much moral common ground among those groups as a secularist.  Why should secularists be the only ones whose morals inform our laws?  What is more special about secularism?

Any law, especially one passed on moral grounds (like underaged drinking or prostitution) must stem for a desire to promote the general good and not merely the religious ideology of the majority.

I wouldn't disagree with this, but still what is it that makes a secularists morals superior to mine?

 We have laws to protect not to domineer.

So it is your position that secularists ideals could never domineer?  That's a hoot, I am sure there are some people who live(d) in communists countries who would disagree.  Secularist morals are no more superior or less likely to dominate than the religoius persons.  YOu are making a value judgement here.

If a religious man can behave as a secularist and not favor his religion over any other, then he is welcome to join in the development of the society.

And just what amendment is this doozy found in?

If a religious man cannot, he will not serve the general public good, merely the good of his own private sect.

Give me an example of this.  It is really your position that a religoius person can't serve the public good?  Are you serious?  I can argue pretty easily that a secularist can serve his own purposes just as easily.  Just because one persons morals are informed by a God and another's is informed by whatever they want to define it, that doesn't make one superior to the other or one less likely to oppress than the other.  

Basically you have set up a litmus test for religion, religious belief must be ditched in order to serve adequately enough for you-do you realize how arrogant that is?  

Frankly as a religious person, pretty much all my values and beliefs are founded in my faith and my religious tradition, I don't believe in imposing my religious views on society, but I sure enough believe the values are good for society, and if those values inform my opinion on legislation then my opinion counts just as much as the person whose values are based in secularism.

expectation that the belief in an exlusive salvation is wrong.

Also, I don't disagree that laws shouldn't be based on biblical stance along, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this idea that somehow the faith must be shed, when determining laws.

Sorry, but a Christian should not be expected to shed their faith or pretend that they do not have it, they should not be required to pretend as if their faith does not inform their values.

On matters politic, there are a lot of issues on which my faith informs me-and I argue those without bringing God or the Bible into it.  But honestly, if a religious politician is elected by the majority of his constituents, and his positions are based solely in his religious faith, he shouldn't have any less of a right to vote the way he does as the secularist-if his constituents do not like how or why he votes the way he votes, then they may feel free to vote against him, but this requirement that religion be hidden and shed, when engaging in politics is to elevate secularism above religious belief, and frankly I don't think a secularists moral values are any better or worse than mine, and the secularists has no more special a place in politics as mine do.

The belief that <<Hell is a place where "all who die outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity.">> would have been seen as a bit extreme. The old doctrine was that virtuous pagans (and unbaptized infants) would end up in Limbo, where they would suffer no torments, but would also be outside of Heaven's bliss.

but what makes you say this:

Obviously the political aspirations of groups like this is to gain influence for their religious views and not some blanket conservative agenda, e.g., what does tax cuts and fiscal responsiblity have to do with religion? - zip..  School prayer? - a lot.

Have you taken a poll of every student there, and asked them their position on this issue?

So do you think the religious should just stay home, because you disagree with some of the things they support?  Do you think the religious should leave the party?  Do you think that the things you have in common aren't enough things that you would rather they just head off into the wild blue yonder?  Or is it only Christians who support certain things?  Should we boot them out of the party?  Marginalize them?  What?

So is there no place for the religious person in politics?  Do you think that is a constitutional position?  

This idea that somehow religoius people are unfit for politics is scary to me-there are of course some religious people I myself don't care for, but frankly Jerry Falwell doesn't scare me any more than Michael Moore does-and I think it is wrong to deny either person a voice or a vote, or even the right to run for office if they so choose.

But, just to pretend for  a while:

Why this bothers me is because the emphasis stands not on being a good person, but on being a Christian.

What is the difference?

If you believe in Jesus and accept him as your savior, you can do no wrong.

This is not the teaching.

Past, present, and future crimes are all aquited regardless of their heniousness in the eyes of the zealot, so long as you pay lip service and high dollar amounts to the right ministry.

This is not the teaching.

I've read the Bible and as a book I like it.  It's smart, it's funny, and most importantly it's meaningful.  I've gone to church and talked to priests and pastors and evangelicals and on a whole they're a bunch of sane, intelligent, and inspiring people.  But then I go out into the world of politics and I can't find the Bible anymore.  I can't find the holy men either.  Instead I find shysters and con-artists, rabble-rousers, and hatemongers and mobs of men and women, young and old, who don't listen to their own words anymore.  I see people hating and sinning and defiling our country, and then finding the Bible passage that can justify their actions.  And this disturbs me deeply.

Golly, welcome to your own sense of others' actions in the world.  You are entitled to your own opinions, of course, but they seem at least un-informed.

Christian churches are full of imperfect people.  The one perfect Christian was executed some time ago in the name of religious toleration.

Tax cuts and fiscal responsablity are Christian ideals.

The religious right is not anti-privacy by any meaningful definition.

The 'old' doctrine wasn't current in the middle ages.  It was during the middle ages that the suffering of hell was popularized.

Will McCain and Hagel et. al. split from this Christian/Republican movement to keep the Republican Party whole? Will Democrats Progressives Liberals decide who they are? Will Nader defer to someone who dresses a little bit better? Stay tuned Americans.....Same Channel(Fox or NPR) same time (Between paying the morgage and credit card). I get really tired of folks putting a " I have more morals than you" spin on issues. Don't pull religion like a gun.

  I personally don't belong to any organized religion, because they might ask me to kill somebody. 200 years ago, you might have been hanged if you weren't a Protestant living in New Jersy, cut me some huge slack here. Don't shove your party into the Dark Ages. I say this as a well meaning Democrat.

secularists (granted they were the communist variety, but secularists all the same) murdered more people in the last 100 years than Christians have in 2000.

So I think I will stick with my little cult (where believe it or not, nobody has ever asked me to commit a murder), thank you very much.

I had to sign up.  I have been an observer for some time.

The future of conservatism is being fashioned, in part, at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Virginia -- a non-denominational Christian college -- and it gets an Ann Wilson treatment in the current New Yorker. Its purpose is to educate the next generation of Christian politicians, and the connections and internships for the undergrads are great

The future of conservatives is Christian?  You blatently put Christianity before all others in a free country and assert that you have all the answers to what is right in the name of politics.  

Believe in whatever you want, and vote because of moral values as you wish.  But the conservative political movement is not a vehicle to religious power.  Our freedoms, systems of law, and our democracy do not exist to serve only Christianity.  The very strength of this nation is our right to freedom of religion.

I have been more than a little worried about the intentions of the religious movement in this country.   Freedom above all else.  I respect your right to believe how you want.  I respect that your opinions have conviction.  But what I don't respect is the self-veneration I see in some aspects of this movement and in this post.

Under federal law, churches risk losing their tax-exempt status if clergy endorse a particular political candidate from the pulpit. Republican leaders in the House of Representatives are pushing legislation to remove that limitation before Congress adjourns, possibly by attaching it to another measure.

I am glad your beliefs can fit into a political party, but it somehow feels that politics is slowly being replaced with rhetoric and almost a demanding that Christians be recognized as superior and the ultimate voice of conservatism.  America is a free country with freedom of religion, for both the sake of the country, and the sake of the religion.

Trying to turn our government into a religious institution is a very serious concern.  It violates our freedom and privacy.

... is because the emphasis stands not on being a good person, but on being a Christian.

It has to be said.

I'm I really a Communist? How do change THAT voting staus?

I didnt say religous ppl should be excluded from government i'm saying religon shouldnt be the basis of laws etc. Like with the 10 comms. at the AL courthouse, i'm catholic those arent my commandmants just over 50% of the Nation is Protestant and uses them, and if they are displayed at the courthouse like that how can i expect a fair trial, after knowing about Catholic-Protestant tensions in Northern Ireland and elsewear...

How come Secularism in Iraq is good but not in US politics?

but you seem to think that secularism is better than religion, my point is that secularism doesn't make a person any more or less likely to murder than anyone else.

I am tired of the posts about how horrible religious people are, and how they should just sit on the back of hte bus and shut up, because hey, all their morals are about religion and the only morals that count are the secular ones.

Secularism is in reality just another religious belief.  There is nothing that makes a secularist's values intrinsicly better than a religious person's.

The future of conservatives is Christian?

The title says "the future of a conservative movement" not "the conservative movment"

You blatently put Christianity before all others in a free country and assert that you have all the answers to what is right in the name of politics.  

Who is the you?

Our freedoms, systems of law, and our democracy do not exist to serve only Christianity.

Who exactly said it did, and did you get that from the OP, the linked article, or somewhere else?

The very strength of this nation is our right to freedom of religion.

I don't disagree, that means that Christians have the right to be active in politics and to have an active voice in politics just as much as anyone else.  Faith does not preclude us from participating anymore than a lack of faith precludes a secularist from participating.

I have been more than a little worried about the intentions of the religious movement in this country.

What specifically worries you?  

But what I don't respect is the self-veneration I see in some aspects of this movement and in this post.

Were we reading the same post?  I didn't exactly get this impression from the post.

Under federal law, churches risk losing their tax-exempt status if clergy endorse a particular political candidate from the pulpit.

I am all for this law.  No arguments from this scary Christian.  

Republican leaders in the House of Representatives are pushing legislation to remove that limitation before Congress adjourns, possibly by attaching it to another measure.

Could you give me a link to this?  I didn't realize this was a proposal, and if it is, is it a serious one?

I am glad your beliefs can fit into a political party, but it somehow feels that politics is slowly being replaced with rhetoric and almost a demanding that Christians be recognized as superior and the ultimate voice of conservatism.

That's funny, the main impression I get from this thread is that I am the one who should sit down, shut up, and not have an opinion or allow my faith to inform my politics.  There have been several posters in this thread that seem to think that secularism is superior to religion, would you care to tell me why my faith should take a back seat to secularism?  

Trying to turn our government into a religious institution is a very serious concern.

Just who is trying to do this?  Did you get this from the OP, the link, some other source (if so please provide a link)?  I don't know a single mainstream Christian who thinks the government should be a religious institution.

It violates our freedom and privacy.

Huh?

btw in the linked article I thought this paragraph was pretty interesting.  Maybe some of you guys who think that Christians are the biggest threat to our nation should read this part.

Stacey, who has a Ph.D. in government from the University of Virginia, told me that he loved Patrick Henry, because the students "really want to be here, which is very satisfying for a professor." He is an evangelical Christian, but he worries that his students sometimes revert to jargon they picked up from their parents, "that the nation's founders just fell out of Heaven, that America is a Christian Nation, capital `C' capital `N.' I want them to understand that these are myths, that the claims they're making are superficial." When he asks his students to defend a position, Stacey said, " `The Bible says so' is never the answer."

I don't think secularism is good or bad, it is neutral.  What I get from this thread is that religion is bad (okay it isn't bad as long as you pretend like you aren't religious when you vote, and if you can't do that, well then just stay away from politics because you  know you are a very scary person that wants to murder people-and yes that is all sarcasm, and it melds together several statements from this thread).

I am all about the 1st amendment you know that one that protects us from having the state establish a religion, and you know that other part that also says we have the right to free excercize-you know that one.

I think an amendment like that would be great for Iraq.  

you is you?

Mark Kilmer apperantly

Who exactly said it did, and did you get that from the OP, the linked article, or somewhere else?

linked article,



Some prominent Christians go even further. Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson said earlier this year that "George Bush is going to win in a walk. ... the Lord's just blessing him."

For Wallis, that is going too far. "There's a difference between endorsing a candidate, which is fine, and ordaining him by saying that good Christians can vote only for him. That's a line we've crossed this year," he said.

Worries:

Signing laws in a Christian school

Wars being declared to have God's blessing

Preaching religious rhetoric from the pulpit rather than policy driven speech (Justice Sunday)

Religious rhetoric over Terry Schiavo

Pat Robertson (praying for the end of time), Jerry Falwell (God is pro-war)

Could you give me a link to this?  I didn't realize this was a proposal, and if it is, is it a serious one?

That was taken from the link by the poster.  This was again raised this year when the southern baptist preacher expelled all dems from his church.  I don't know if it went anywhere.

That's funny, the main impression I get from this thread is that I am the one who should sit down, shut up, and not have an opinion or allow my faith to inform my politics.  There have been several posters in this thread that seem to think that secularism is superior to religion, would you care to tell me why my faith should take a back seat to secularism?

First of all, your definition of secularism is off.  By definition, secularism is religious neutrality. The only hostility in secularism is towards efforts to use the power of the government to advance one religion or certain religious beliefs over others.

You are entitled to your beliefs and freedoms.  If you do not wish to unduely enforce your beliefs on others, good for you.  If you do wish to restrict others from practicing their rights to believe as they wish, I will say perhaps you should find a country more inclined to theocratic rule.  This being a democracy, we must remain religiously nuetral (secular).  Otherwise, we are, by definition, a theocracy.

I know nothing about you and will make no assumptions either way.  But to say that people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson wish for religious freedom, I would consider niave.  Thus the basis for my concern.

Trying to turn our government into a religious institution is a very serious concern.

Jerry Falwell

Christianity can be a great gift.  I never said otherwise.  And to say some powerful Christians in this country aren't corrupt and dangerous to our freedom would be a lie.  To base the politics of all people in this nation on Christian beliefs is a very bad thing to do.  The article touts Christian politics for the conservative movement. Like mentioned above, the overiding quality being Christianity, not policy.  That is not representative of America.

When reading again, I realize a part can be misinterpreted.

I Said:

This being a democracy, we must remain religiously nuetral (secular).  Otherwise, we are, by definition, a theocracy

I meant:

This being a democracy, State and federal government policies and enforcement must remain religiously nuetral (secular).  Otherwise, we are, by definition, a theocracy.

Support your religion as you would like.  You voice does belong.  However, In America, yours being Christian does not entitle you to any advantage and cannot be used to silence the voice of others.  That is what I meant.

and he doesn't really even have that much influence.

Also, from the article that was linked mostly what I got from it, was that the college was teaching college students how to be good leaders in a faith based environment-they weren't teaching them to take over the world and make it a theocracy.

I think some of you guys are overly worred about religious folks.  I am tired of the left demonizing my faith, and I am becoming more and more troubled as I see it among members of my own party.

And to say that a religious person must shed their religious beliefs before they can make a political decision is pretty much declaring that secularism is superior to religion.  The constitution doesn't require me to shed my religious beliefs to participate in politics, it doesn't preclude me from running for office, and it doesn't even preclude me from supporting laws based on the moral beliefs that spring from my faith.  You may disagree with me on matters of faith, and we may disagree on some matters of morality, but the truth is that all law is based in someone's moral beliefs-and frankly I don't think a secularists moral beliefs are any better than mine.

As to what moral policies should be set-well I would argue that if the only appeal for support of it is solely religious, then it likely is not a good policy to set, but the religious beliefs that inform and shape my values are not forbidden in the realm of politics.

and i am a practicing Roman Catholic.

one reason: i would not be able to sign that 10 point pledge.

as far as I know, my church doesn't damn everone who isn't a christian to hell.  As I understand (after 12 years of catholic schooling, plus independent study on the philosophy behind the theology) the Roman Catholic church, the single largest christian denomination in the world, does not believe that all non believers will go to hell, instead we leave the path open to those who live good lives but have never been exposed to the Catholic faith (and i don't believe we condemn all other christian denominations to hell either)

I would also have a problem taking western civ, taught from a christian perspective... or science where it is taught that God created the world in 7 days...

I don't believe that God created the world in 7 days, and it is perfectly OK for Roman Catholics to believe as I do.  I believe in the theory of evolution.  Again, the Roman Cathlic faith acknowledges the theory of evolution and that it is consistent with Roman Catholic Theology.

Could you provide the chapter and verse that supports tax cuts?

Just curious, only because nobody is forcing you to attend the college.  As for the courses you don't like-well I am pretty certain that anyone who attends the college pretty much knows what kind of curriculum they are getting, and like I said, nobody is making you attend.

People should be able to attend college wherever they want, and so waht if you don't like how it is structured, you don't have to give them any money.  HOpefully it will have some accreditation, but it isn't my money they are spending.

If these kids turn out to be good leaders and get hired as interns, what is that to you, who are you to judge who they are, because they attended a college you wouldn't choose to attend.  

Once again, you're treating secularism like its not a democratic principle.  It is.  It is what seperates us from Iran.

I'm just saying that if you seek to limit the freedoms of others because you believe in a particular religion, you are a theocrat, which is not what America is or ever should be.  And by your posts, thats what I am starting to believe.

As to what moral policies should be set-well I would argue that if the only appeal for support of it is solely religious, then it likely is not a good policy to set, but the religious beliefs that inform and shape my values are not forbidden in the realm of politics.  

I agree, unless those latter beliefs are in the best interests of removing the freedom for others to believe, which you haven't specified to be false.

I think some of you guys are overly worred about religious folks.  I am tired of the left demonizing my faith, and I am becoming more and more troubled as I see it among members of my own party.

You Guys?

Guess what, I am a Baptist, born and raised.  As soon as I saw politicians standing up saying that "God was speaking through them", and implying that they know God's will, I felt my religion was under attack.  Yes, by both sides.  I share liberal fears and am appaled by such blashpemy that takes place today among some on the right.  I just want to believe what I was taught.  I refuse to compromise my religious beliefs because a politically charged statement tells me I should.  I am even put off by the sentiment that good Christians vote republican.  Some on the right say I don't believe enough, or fail to fall in line with them, some from the left group me with the lunatic fringe that is Falwell and Robertson.  What is the only clear answer?  Secularism.  It protects all involved and preserves democracy and preserves the integrity of religion from those that use it for pandering purposes.

Demonizing your faith? no.  Scared as hell about both the far right and far left? yes.  We all should be.  The far right is using political power to limit freedom.  The far left, they bitch alot.  They don't really have the power to attack.   Would they? yes.

Make decisions based on your religious convictions, but do not limit others from excersing theirs.

It appears some cannot respect differences and feel it is their duty to convert you.

but I don't have the faith that secularism is the answer, and I actually fear the desire for secularism will in the end lead to religious oppression (maybe not intentionally), but the result of telling the religious to sit down and shut up, is that you are telling them they shouldn't have a voice.

I really don't care if religion informs your positions on politics, if you believe firmly that a certain issue is the moral one, who is a secularist to tell you that you can't believe it or choose to vote that conscience?  That is where the worship of secularism is a problem.  In the end, the desire for neutrality tells some to sit down and shut up.

Politically, I personally do not favor policy that I can't argue without an appeal to God, but I don't find it to be in the right to tell somebody who does appeal soley to God, that they shouldn't have  a voice, or the right to voice their position on that policy.

I guess what I find scary is the idea that there are some people out there who want secularism to the exclusion of religion, and at that point you aren't talking neutrality.

You don't worship secularity.  Look up secular, then come back and argue.  Secular means you do not want a government endorsed religion.  If you do, you wish for America to be theocratic and no longer a free country.  How many times are you going to rehash this?

I'll help:

Secularism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

    This article concerns secularism, the rational social existence in which religion and supernatural beliefs are irrelevant to understanding the world and segregated from matters of governance. For other forms of being secular, and perspective on the terminology underlying the word "secularism", see secularity.

In studies of religion, modern Western societies are generally recognized as secular:

    * There is near-complete freedom of religion (one may believe in any religion or none at all, with little legal or social sanction);

Get the idea of secular yet?  Its not a religion, it isn't atheism, it is freedom.  YOU don't have to be nuetral.  GOVERNMENT does.  If you can't go along with that, you are promoting theocratic regime, not a democratic free country.

you are promoting government control over our personal lives.  To get back to policy issues and off religion.

non-response to the theocrat arguement.  Do you wish for government endorsed/enforced religion, or do you wish for a free country?

You have to be one of the most thoughtful, expressive, articulate individuals I have read here. You shy away from rhetoric and engage in real thoughtful process thinking. I am truly impressed, if that actually means anything.

Propagandizing agenda's of the few is not your thing and a genuine open hearted viewpiont emerges nearly every time you write.

But, for those who have not dismissed out of hand the history of the church find things that always need to be controlled. I have read rhetoric in the form of humor once here that stated something to the effect of; By: streiff  

"people who study history are doomed to think it will repeat itself".

I offer you this, not an in your face or "I told you so sort of thing," but a real rationale that takes place because of these things. This is what is remembered by so many of the Protestant's that formed this country from it's get go.

Please review what it is that places this type of theology in jeapardy from the past and into the present. Those that fear this see it into the future as well, this is a problem.

Exorcism in Romania ends in death

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8347530/

This is just continuing bad press for the Republican party and quite frankly, this secular and specific religious agenda is not part of the Republican doctrine and would like to see it take it's rightful place under the guidelines of the constitution and the party.

Secular from dictionary.com

sec·u·lar·ism    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sky-l-rzm)

n.

1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
   
   
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

Secularism isn't something you worship, but it certainly does involve an opinion on religion.

And in what way exactly am I wanting the government to control your life?  Just curious, since it isn't apparant you know or understand what my political opinions are, or how my faith relates to those opinions.

If your argument is that there are some Christians who want to control your life, fine, there are some other political positions that want to control mine, but is their opinion better or more worthwhile or more allowed by you, because they aren't religious?

My point is that everyone, no matter what their beliefs has the right to their opinions, no matter what they are based on, and they even have the right to vote based on those opinions-whether you or I like them or not.  Neither one of us may agree with how they reached that opinion, but religious belief shouldn't be discouraged or encouraged in that regard.

If you don't want to vote or participate in politics with your faith informing your positions, that is your perogative, and you have every right to vote for and elect those who are like minded, but don't tell somebody else that they can't do the same, because they choose to let their faith guide them.

I disagree with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Dobson on a lot of things as they relate to politics and religion, but I am not going to tell them they don't have the right to their opinions, or the right to vote how they please, or even the right to run for office, if they so choose, just because they are religious-I would be unlikely to vote for any of them personally, but by God they have just as much a right in the US to their opinions as Howard Dean or Michael Moore.

Can you explain what it is you are getting at.

Maybe I can explain something of where I come from here:

#1 I am a protestant Christian.

#2 I do not shed my faith, my faith is who I am, it is part of me, it is what informs my values, my core beliefs and my worldview.  I do not have this secular half and this religious half, and only use the religious half on Sundays.

#3 I am very conservative in both my religious beliefs, and in my political beliefs, but I also have a few libertarian leanings.

#4 I do not vote for policy, because "God said so" although ultimately what I think in believe does eventually hit that simple statement.  When I choose to vote or hold a position on something, I usually consider whether a case can be made for that position without having to appeal to God or the Bible.  For instance my faith strongly informs my position on abortion, and I am staunchly pro life, but you won't ever see me appeal to God or the Bible in a discussion on abortion (unless the Bible is germaine to the discussion), and I think Sunday Liquer sales laws are ridiculous-without any real rational basis for them (I can't hardly think up a Biblical support for this one either).

#5 that said, I get almost as scared, when I start hearing praises to secularism, as those praising secularism say they are scared of religion.  I believe strongly that our constitution not only has an establishment clause in it, but also that other half we tend to forget, but is at least as equally important the expression clause.  When I hear people start talking about how scary religious people are, or how awful conservative Christians are, and how they have no place in politics, or how they should "shed their religious beliefs" I get worried.  We should never worship the secular to the point that we forget about the other half of that lovely first amendment.  Raising the secular to the point that you would say that the religious have no voice, vote or opinion on politics or that the only time they shoud, is when they forget that religious part of them, is just as awful and just as oppressive as Pat Robertson saying he wants to write laws according to Biblical principles.  

Honestly everyone reaches opinions on political positions from different perspectives, and being truly neutral means that the perspective and how they reached a conclusion shouldn't matter-the constitution grants them an equal right and an equal voice.

This is just continuing bad press for the Republican party and quite frankly, this secular and specific religious agenda is not part of the Republican doctrine and would like to see it take it's rightful place under the guidelines of the constitution and the party.

We are not a theocratic country.  We are secular.  I don't find the proposed removal of freedom of religion so minor.  America cannot have a state sponsored or enforced religion.  Why pander to the idea?  It cannot happen unless we forfeit democracy.

And in what way exactly am I wanting the government to control your life?  Just curious, since it isn't apparant you know or understand what my political opinions are, or how my faith relates to those opinions.

You argue against being secular, therefor I assume you want a state controlled religion.  But then you pretend like you didn't argue for that.

So the question:

State sponsored religion or not?  Easy answer.  

You refute using the term secular, the argue partly for it.  I cannot tell if you are a theocrat or not.  And please do not write off my religious beliefs.  Secular has nothing to do with being religious or not.  

by any means, and if it were we would not be having these discussions. As I stated before, there are few, and few things that I admire more than you and your comments.

Understanding that you and many others as well as myself have beliefs that can be conflicting to the process of government and the fairness that we attempt to establish between ourselves is what can be so decerning to me. Because some believe that home hospitalization is better the real thing, because God will take care of the disease, is a real problem to me. That God will make available next week the rent is a problem to me for people to think. This is where theology comes into conflict with government and the process of governing as well as so many other instances. I can totally understand that your view and beliefs are much like mine, yet I understand the history of abuse from the physchological standpoint and I cannot support that type of influence into government on that level. I want the influence, but not on the level that jeapordizes the Republic and it's true convocations of rule and moral value. It's being mixed to the point where it is no longer the Republican party, but evangelical theology. I am upset about this for the party.

It's late, And I'm a bit frustrated.  Obviously we attach different meanings to the secular label.  On some points we agree, on others, we do not.  totally disagree, I'm not sure.  If you wish to abandon democracy in favor of enforced religion, we have no common ground.  I am still confused as to what your position is.  It's bed time for me.  I leave you once again with the question state sponsored religion or not.

I continue to ask because I cannot figure out your position.  Being we have a flap over what secular is, I ask to circumvent that discussion and get down to the most important position of a free country or theocratic rule.  Do we enforce a state sanctioned religion, or do we allow people to believe as they see fit?

Good Night.

Matthew 22:17-21

Mark 12:15-17

Luke 20:24-26

We are told to render unto Caesar a penny, not a dollar.

Luke 20:24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's. 25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's,

I have not and do not advocate for a theocracy, what I have and do advocate for is for anyone to vote, believe, and act on those beliefs anyway they choose.

I oppose this notion that a religious person must shed their beliefs to participate in government or to affect or create policy. This is not the desire to create a theocracy, but a desire to make sure the secular does not elevate itself above the religious.

Why does a religoius person have to shed their beliefs at the statehouse door?  What constitutional requirement is there that they do?

If you do not like religious people, then by all means do not vote for them, when they run for office.  If you do not like the stance religious people take, then by all means convince them of why they are wrong, but do not tell them they have to "shed" their beliefs in order to have a voice or a place in politics.

Honestly loony liberals scare more than Jerry Falwell does, but I don't suggest that Michael Moore shed his political beliefs when advocating policy-I believe you should use words to convince people you believe are wrong, that they are wrong, not some idea that they can't be who they are, because you don't like what they stand for.

I happen to like the fact that our country does not have a state religion, I think that it has allowed for the growth and strength of religious belief in our country.  But this idea that somehow religious people shouldn't be religious in public life, or that their moral beliefs are inferior to the secular simply because they are informed by faith is wrongheaded, and isn't even constitutional.  

Our first amendment, pretty much prevents the creation of a theocracy-but the hositility to religion is something people need to get over, religious people are not the problem in this country.

Because some believe that home hospitalization is better the real thing, because God will take care of the disease, is a real problem to me. That God will make available next week the rent is a problem to me for people to think. This is where theology comes into conflict with government and the process of governing as well as so many other instances.

Huh?  what are you getting at here?

What does rent have to do with religious belief and the government?  What does hospitalization have to do with religious belief and the government and the government?

What do any of those things have to do with the religioius participating in the government proccess?

whether it "In Go we Trust" on the money, prayers at graduation and the like I have a hard time seeing where the harm is. The fuss raised about these things is way out of proportion to the matter, and any political busybody who can't find some other cause far more urgent is not looking very far.

which means that we need to get rid of this "shed your religious belief" when you have any opinion on politics or participate in the proccess crap.

The facts are that everyone has different beliefs, and those beliefs are all informed by different things.  To say that those whose beliefs are informed by faith should have to shed those beliefs to participate isn't anymore constitutional than a theocracy is.

If you do not like what a religious person has to say on a subject do not vote for them, if they are running for office, or seek to persuade them that they are wrong, but do not seek to silence them, because you do not like the path by which they reached their opinion.

If you don't like religious people in the GOP then seek to lessen their voice through the political proccess, but don't tell them they have to sit down and shut up.

or Aquinas for that matter. Certainly medieval Christians conceived of Hell as place of very gaudy torments-- but for the wicked who deserved them. Those who were not Christians but had lived virtuous lives were seen as abiding in a sort of lobby to hell where they were not tormented, but lived on in a gray afterlife with the Presence of the Lord.

They sought to suppress religion not simply stay neutral about it.

I get the impression from this thread that there is a lot of discomfort with religion-based thoughts and ideas in the political discourse. Those of you that don't feel comfortable actually STATING that God and Christianity motivate your thoughts and ideas about how a government should govern defend this by either decrying that if you're Christian you must, by definition, exclude all other religious persuasions or by saying Christianity has some hidden agenda that is bad for the masses.

Those of you who actually invoke the G-word or the J-word defend yourselfves by saying it's what your religion has taught you...and that your mission is to convert convert convert.

As a confessed rube living in the rural "sticks" of Texas, I am very comfortable in my belief that there is a higher power than us and that there is some purpose and meaning behind our existence that we don't know or fully understand.  For us crazy right wing christian conservatives out here in rural America, we want to see our politicians act as though they are humbled by a deity of at least SOME sort, and that they are here to serve our greater good...not their own.

We're fine with not having the government insist that we MUST pray on a rug, or on our knees at mass, or in some other specific way...but we want a government that sees prayer and faith and humility as fundamental elements of a society that is tolerant, loving, and compassionate for ALL of its members.

Whatever your religion, you know it has a structure, and a process, and some sort of balance that provides that all its members have an equal standing in the eyes of your fill-in-the-blank deity. You can try all you want to remove those philosophies from the mix, but the believers are not going to turn their beliefs off at the door of the House or Senate or White House or the Supreme Court building(s). Get past it.

Those of you that hold no religious beliefs are, by definition of tolerant religion, allowed to participate as you wish, but those of us that believe in something greater than ourselves are going to always WANT you to see the error of your ways...it's how us so-called zealots are wired.

I don't care whether W is Evangelical, Catholic, Jewish...whatever, but he knows AND REGULARLY SAYS that he believes in something, and that gets him in the door for me. Whatever he does once he gets there BETTER be driven, at least in part, by the greater good of fill-in-the-blank-deity's children. If we all held our political heroes to that standard, there would be a whole lot less self-serving drivel and a whole lot more legislation that improves our quality of life, or at least makes it bearable for all of our fellow citizens.

secular means it isn't spiritual.

So if communists aren't secularists and they aren't religious then what do you call them?

That's not an answer at all.  Those verses don't support tax cuts.  They say you should render unto God what is his and render on to Caesar what is his.

How do you think those verses support tax cuts?  Its not like those verses say that the government must impose a flat tax or cut taxes for its citizens.

And will say it again. I believe no one posting here means to suppress anyones religious beliefs. I certainly don't. The point you fail to get is that the separation of Church and State is basic to our Republic.

Senator Byrd of West Virginia carrys a Bible to the floor of the Senate when he speaks. My hero and nomer Harry Truman was a very devote Christian. But they are/were very aware of the danger of melding Church into government. Can a politicians religious beliefs guide them in decisions? I certainly hope so. Does it automatically give them the moral high ground? No.

"Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination."- Harry Truman

in that these people are being spotlighted as "the future of the conservative movement"

the pledge that they take implies a very close-minded world view.

while conservatives may not always embrace new ideas, we should be open to them.  

why would anyone who takes a pledge stating that they believe someone is going to hell because they are not christian take any advice from that person?  

how is a public official,like the president, or a member of congress who has taken an oath stating that non-Christians are going to hell, going to have an ounce of acceptance by leaders/people in other areas of the world where Islam is the predominant religion?

The Roman Catholic Church has one of the most conservative theologies on the planet, and yet, I would not want someone who has publicly taken an oath that says he/she believes all non-Christians are going to hell representing me to the nation/world.

I am a conservative.  I am a Christian.  Conservatism and Christianity can work together well, but not in a close-minded situation.  Christianity is about compassion for all, after all the apostles went and preached to the Gentiles as well as the Jews.  Taking an oath saying that someone is going to hell because they were raised in a different religion, Islam for instance, isn't very compassionate in my mind.  It is close minded.  

That these people, who have taken this oath, which i see as very close minded, are being touted as the future of conservatism, scares me.  

America was founded on religious tolerance, the oath these people take does not embrace that tolerance.

besides all this, it is entirely possible to be a conservative and not be christian.  conservativism doesn't demand christianity.  In fact, some of the most conservative nations in the world are in the middle east, where the majority practice Islam.  I don't see that extreme developing here, but if conservatism develops along lines similar to those countries, and colleges like this one and the touting of these people as the future of conservativism is a step in that chain, i forsee a huge bloom in the number of liberals.  

now tell me again how the school exactly is doint this?  The program they use is a classic education system that teaches critical thinking skills over pure indoctrination-something that our public school systems seem to have failed at.  I would much rather have a bunch of Christians in politics who have been taught critical thinking, and how to argue a point without appealing to "god says so" over somebody who just believes something, because somebody else said so.

Did you read the link?

to Christianity, but apparantly you seem to think that certain Christian viewpoints shouldn't be permitted to serve in public office.

Look at what you wrote:

how is a public official,like the president, or a member of congress who has taken an oath stating that non-Christians are going to hell, going to have an ounce of acceptance by leaders/people in other areas of the world where Islam is the predominant religion?

You have essentially just said-conservative Christians need not apply, and shouldn't be allowed to apply.

My point is that if a conservative Christian wants to run, and you disagree with them, then do not vote for them, but do not tell them that becasue their religious beliefs do not meld with yours, that they are unfit for office.

The Roman Catholic Church has one of the most conservative theologies on the planet, and yet, I would not want someone who has publicly taken an oath that says he/she believes all non-Christians are going to hell representing me to the nation/world.

That is fine, you are not obligated to vote for them, but you are free to find for me in the constitution where it says they may not have a voice or a place in government.

isn't uncommon for many Protestant Christian colleges.  In reality the exclusivity of salvation to believers in Christ is part of the doctrine of most Christian sects.  This is a private school, not a public one, and it doesn't even appear that it receives public funding.  What is it to you, what they teach, don't teach, require their students to sigh, or don't sign?  Shall we have the congress write a law that graduates of colleges and universities that require a signature on a statement of faith be forever excluded from political organizations?  What about the students who joined the FBI-is it okay for them to be in the FBI?  What about the girl who was going to be a dancer-is it okay for her occupation?

were aggressive aethiests.  And they were just as fanatically about their lack of religion as any American Evangelical or Middle Eastern Jyhadist.

The idea behind secularism is that you don't weigh so heavily on the spiritual side of life.  Realism, practicality, and logic are the guiding forces.  But there is nothing in secularism that promotes conversion.

Communists supressed religion has a threat to the state.  The idea was that Buddists, Muslims, and Christians were listening to an ideology outside the party line and therefore were more likely to rebel.  But Communism was about aggressive propoganda.  Propoganda has nothing to do with a secularist mindset.

what they teach, or don't teach.

what i do care about the the impression by the article that these people are the future of the conservative movement. - the idea that all conservatives will be like them in 10 years.

that is what i care about.

So if ur teacher made you pray to Vishnu in school u wouldnt have a problem? People's rights stop when someone elses begin, Government should have nothing to do with religon.

and the examples I placed in front of you are reflective of what typically begins to happen when religious theology begins to intertwine with government and governing policies.

Inevitably, and slowly but surely, more and more public, personal and private rights of the individual become abused and then surpressed, sometimes even abolished over time, and not much time at that. That is the history of abuse with this type of influence. It is not the exception, but the norm.

When Rehnquist first introduced the philosophical ideal, based on his religious beliefs ( Member of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America/ educated at Kenyon College, a Episcopal church school where he wrote his very first ideas on how to weaken the lines that were the seperation clause, he was successful for his time).that the restrictions and meaning of the concept of seperation of church and state was invalid in it's present form and that there was a possible second explaination of the phrase "seperation of church and state" and what it really meant. I do not and have never agreed with him on that. It stretches into the unknown. Nothing he believes is referenced in any way in the Consitution, it's an extremely lose interpretation, that will by the way, go the way of the dinosaurs once he resigns as he is the only one on the court that actually believes his interpretation. The remainded have clearly written thier opinions about that interpretation and it won't be supported once he is gone. The idea that seperation of church and state is a myth of some sort or not concieved properly is an abortion, a mutation of the original concept.

I refer you to some earlier history. Most of the reading should give a clearer idea.

http://eserver.org/thoreau/thoreau.html

As many in the Republican party attempt to blur the line that is the seperation, I intend to make that line black and white again, this is what is best for the party, not adhering to the extreme right and the mostly evangelical theology. It's not right for the party or the country.

My examples of the abuse above, is why I will change it. Most on the far right will never ever feel any differently, I understand that. But the true base, the middle voter, the undecided, the moderates is where the power is anyway, and it is those I intend to convince.

teacher led prayers at graduations, but the student led student initiated kind.

I am not exactly convinced that a student praying at their graduation equals congress writing law to establish a religion the prayer suits don't strike me as completely frivolous.

All the suits to get nativity scenes out off public property at Xmas, and things like "in God we Trust" are pretty ridiculous.

I also think the pendulum is swinging to the "let's be tolerant of everyone but Christians" point.   Think it was in New York where they had a menorrah, a star and crescent in the school, but probibited anything that had to do with Jesus as Xmas.  Now some would argue that absolutely nothing should be hung up, I am of the opposite opinion, I figure let anyone hang it up, if I don't agree, so what it isn't going to bite me or anything.

what do you get?

Secularism taken to an extreme does result in the excessive restriction of a person's ability to express their religious belief.  Just look at what is happening in some schools, where the desire to avoid religion has led to excessive restriction on religion (there was a diary here a few weeks ago that reported the case of a child at a school who was told they could not read their Bible at reccess).  So, essentially secularism isn't all neutral and perfect, there is a nasty side to the coin, and secularism elevated above religious belief will reveal that side of the coin.

For instance some in this thread have all but intimated that at least Christians of the evangelical sort are unfit for public office.  Now let's take that intimation and make it reality, and what do you have?  

How can you not think those verses don't support tax cuts?  

You asked a silly question, so you got a silly answer.

We should only pay taxes to the Imperial Roman Government and not the US government.  It says "Caesar" not "Uncle Sam".

Or could it possibly be that just because some specific point of pocily is not specifically addressed that the over-all message of Christianity and its resulting moral philosophy could reasonably lead a reasoning person to conclude that tax monies spent on immoral activity are unjustly taken no matter how much is taken?  [No.  It can't be that.  Christianity can only teach what is explicitly written, nothing else.]

Spell out your words please.

If you can't be bothered to write, why should we read?

If "ur" Y and O keys are broken I will have someone from Belkin call  you at home.

been black and white.

the founding fathers believed that God was the source of the inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independece.

God was referenced again and again during the Civil War in congress in arguments both for and against slavery.

religious beliefs have always played a part in the politics of this country.

The nation as a whole has grown much more secular than it was at the founding however, as so the influence of religion seems to have been magnified.

shouldn't be melded together, but I do think our culture has often fallen so in love with the separation clause of the 1st amendment, that we forget about the expression clause.  Government should not be able to impose their will on me, and in some ways neutral doesn't always mean neutral.

My issue is that I see a developing hostility to religious belief, and that isn't a good thing for our country either.  I think the Schiavo matter revealed a lot of this, I saw a lot of comments made about religious people that was unfair, but also seemed to have the desire to deny them their right to pariticipate in a free government.

I think it is a mistake to worship the secular to the point that we become hostile to the religious, and sometimes neutrality can come across as condemnation.  For instance there was the case where children were asked to choose a book from home and bring it in to read to the class.  A student brought a Bible Story (can't remember now which, but it was a Bible story).  The teacher told the student they could not share that book, because it was religious.  When this happened there were people who defended the teacher and defended the child, so there was not equal agreement on whether this was right or wrong.

Now the message that the secular school has sent to the child is that religion, or at least their religion is bad and is something they should hide.  This kind of secularism I can do without.  I am troubled by a culture that seems to think that my family and my children should hide their faith, and that their faith makes them somehow unfit.

That is what I am seeing, and I don't think tha is good for our country anymore than I want to see the country turned into a theocracy.

a grey place where the soul is made ready for heaven, but is not ready to enter heaven right away.

hell is reserved for those whose souls were too bad for purgatory.. i.e. bad people.

most people probably are neither bad enough for hell, nor good enough for immediate entrance to heaven.  the church, being unwilling to say that 90% of all people were going to hell made use of the idea of purgatory.

I had thought of the middle ages as ending in about 1100, but I have since discovered I am mistken.  Sorry.  You are certainly right about Dante putting people in the 'lobby', although (and I could be really wrong here so think of this as a question not a claim!)

I thought the virtuous pagans were not in the Presence of the Lord, but not in the icey tormenting parts ??

but I didn't get the impression from the article that it was saying this was the future of conservatives, or even the GOP.

Towards the end it talked about how the Alumni didn't advertise their connections to the college.

The main question was how the GOP would receive them, and whether or not they would have any affect on the party-they may or they may not, at this point who knows.

I just don't see Christians as the scary monster that everyone seems to think they are, maybe it is because I am one, and know a lot, and I just don't see evil people.  But I admit the hostility towards Christians scares me far more than what if any affect the kids in this article.

Satan exists as a personal, malevolent being who acts as tempter and accuser, for whom Hell, the place of eternal punishment, was prepared, where all who die outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity.

While a baptist or evangelical would say that all those who fail to explicitly invite Christ to be their personal saviour would 'die outside of Christ', that is not the Catholic meaning of 'die outside of Christ'.

Non-believers who have not been exposed to the teachings of Christ yet who live lives of Christian virtue receive Grace at the moment of death and are not "outside".

Catholics needn't believe the world was created in 7 days of 24 hours, but lack of that belief does not keep one from believing the Bible to be inerrant.  There is no evidence within Genesis that a 'day' is meant to be sidereal day as currently measured.  As an example we are not told Adam did thus-and-such during the ninth day, slept, then did this on the tenth day, as might tell us 24 hour days were meant.  We are merely given the 'days' as seven distinct periods of creation's process.  And we see that the means we use to measure day and night currently were not created until the fourth day.

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, [5] and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Personal salvation comes to mankind by grace through faith.

This article particularly does not say "exclusively by grace through faith" which is a protestant teaching.  As a Catholic we know that salvation may come by grace through faith as well as by grace through devotion and actions.

This oath is fairly ecumenical.

a couple of really virtuous Pagans into Heaven. If my memory is correct, he had the Emperor Trajan there and Plato.

I don't care (well I "care", let's say It doesn't change how I deal with someone) if someone is going to heaven or to perdition-- a man is treated as a man regardless of his faith.  Salvation is between man and God, not for me to judge, and not for me to use as a basis of just treatment.

I mayn't believe all muslims are damned for Islam's sake or I may-- that doesn't mean they can't vote or go to public school.  My Baptist neighbor definitely believes they are damned, he doesn't think they should be treated less well while they live either.

not a Protestant belief.

lol, sorry i'm 18 and i type like that on AIM and sorry...

are more prevalent than even you describe all throughout the conception, drafting, discussing and ultimate constructing of the Republic and on until today. There has never been a time when faith did not play a part in American history or politics.

Yet your interpretation of what exactly was discussed, how it ended up like it did and what the final results of all these interactions were about is incorrect in my view, no offense intended.

The answer to the greatest human question of all of time, "Where did we come from, why are we here?" has always influenced us, and the remainded of most of the globe as well and how we do things every single day of our lives. This is not a new theory. It was widely understood exactly like this as the discussions occured way back when. It was because of this acknowledgement by those who first began these ideals and discussions about the vast and great influence that faith did in fact have on the populace of the entire globe, that sought to place a new understanding and check system that would limit that influence. You simple read it backward.

it is a Roman Catholic Belief. (although i think the Anglican church/Episcopal church hold it too, since they are basicly "Catholic Light" to use a phrase i've heard several of their members say.

The Future of a Conservative Political Movement

No one ever said that.  And I am sick of you saying I'm scared of faith.  I'm scared to lose my freedom to worship as I see fit.  Since I do not worship the same as many of lunatic mouthpeices, I worry that their goal is to silence my beliefs.  And that people who don't hold the seperation of church and state in highest regard will allow them to do that just because they are not the target of the lunatics.

What I am saying is that under no circumstances do you take aways others right to believe as they see fit as well.  Unless that belief is hurting others.  Of course you cannot practice in sacrifices or Biblical stoning, and things of that nature.  Beyond what hurts others, you have to hold that right in highest regard in this country.

If you would quit twisting my words, quit attacking my faith perhaps this wouldn't be so difficult.  Not once did I say to shed your beliefs.  And never did I come close to saying that I am afraid of people of faith.  I find it dissapointing you have to repeatedly try to make those points.

I am just saying the right that allows you to believe as you do is important to all people in this country, not just Christians.  If your goal is a Christian government promoting only Christian, it is unfortunate.

that makes me think that is "A" conservative poltical movement, not the conservative political movement.

I don't know if you realized this but there are a variaty of conservatives out there, we have several things in common, but we have somethings not so much in common-Pat Buchanan and Fred Barnes agree on several conservative principles, but they disagree on a lot too.  

Pretty much the various conservatives coalesce together and make up a large portion of the GOP.  Part of that coalescing are those who are religiously/socially conservative.

From Miker-I'm a Republican and the Religous Right has always bothered me, Religion shouldnt have a place in politics or government...

from zifnab-I merely ask that when you step into the arena of public discourse, you leave your religious denomination at the door.

Not a comment on politics, but will include it from Harry Trueman-I personally don't belong to any organized religion, because they might ask me to kill somebody.

From Daetien-this scares me

it scares me in that these people are being spotlighted as "the future of the conservative movement"

So not all my comments were about you.  I think I said earlier that I didn't think were really that much in agreement, but apparantly you would rather read hostility into my comments then note where we agree.

I just don't have this huge fear that the Christians are secretly going to take over the US, and destroy life as we know it.  MOst :Christians are in fact reasonable people, whose main difference between them and others is that their faith is the main force that informs their values and poltical beliefs.  I can't say that I know a single Christian who is out to create a theocracy or gut the first amendment.  

This reminds me of how the Canadian's liberal party demonizes so effectively the conservatives-instead of really looking at what the reasonable among them says about policy, they just accuse the conservatives of having this hidden secret agenda.  They have no evidence really, they just play on the fears and misunderstandings of the people.

I have seen some comments on this thread that indicate a real misunderstaning of Christianity, and protestant/evangelical belief.  

I think this quote by Hastack also gets that same sense:

I get the impression from this thread that there is a lot of discomfort with religion-based thoughts and ideas in the political discourse. Those of you that don't feel comfortable actually STATING that God and Christianity motivate your thoughts and ideas about how a government should govern defend this by either decrying that if you're Christian you must, by definition, exclude all other religious persuasions or by saying Christianity has some hidden agenda that is bad for the masses.

You want me to treat you as an individual not associated with far right loons.  Yet in your replies to what I said, you insert the words of all others, grouping me as some kind of atheistic Christian hater.

You have not once said that you do not wish to take rights from others.  Which is all I am wondering.  This would seperate normal, American democracy Christians from the lunatic theocrats.  The far right has the position of making this a theocratic nation, and I'll be damned if we let that happen.  And to say they (Falwell, Dobson, Robertson) are not actively involved in politics and not doing everything they can to control policy is also wrong.  They throw massive amounts of money around and are attempting to hijack the conservative movement.  Which stands for political policies, not religion.

You immediatly jump to the liberal demonizing bs and once again say I fear all Christians.  I still don't appreciate being stereotyped, and wish you would reply to what I say and not others on this thread.

The last word is yours, I'm going golfing, and after that, returning to the shadows of quite observation.  Religion dominating government should not even be a topic we have to discuss in a free nation.  It's sad that some under the disguise of conservative politics are pushing an agenda to that end.

actually i did misread it.  i read the "a" as a "the"

comments weren't all about you.  Did you read the comments that I quoted?

You have not once said that you do not wish to take rights from others.

Explain what you mean by this?  I admit there are certain positions I hold that some would view as "taking rights away from others" but given the fact that every position I hold, I debate and support without an appeal to my religoius belief, I would assume I pass your religious test-but then maybe I don't.

and I know that some of us are Democrats, some are Republicans and some are Independents.  Personally I don't care what faith or no faith the person is who is in office.  It's how they conduct themselves, what their political views are for the betterment of our country.  The students at PHC are learning to be disciplined about their lives.  In politics they will bring that discipline into office.  I don't expect them to push their religion.  One thing I do know that they would be less likely to trash their lives and the country along with it.

Those of you who don't like religious conservatives in the GOP, is it that you want all the religious people to leave, just some of them, which ones?  Does this mean you don't really think the tent is big enough for religius conservatives.

If you tell all the religious conservatives to go take a hike, do you think this makes the GOP stronger or weaker?  

I am starting to get the feeling that some think the tent should be smaller, and the religious conservatives should get the boot, or do you want to keep us around to help elect your candidates, but don't think we should have any influence at all in party platform.  

So are religious people now persona non grata in the GOP, or do you think the tent is still big enough?

My comment was a sacastic one meant to belign the horror now occuring in the Middle East. In further postings you may have noticed my respect for those of Christian faith or any other faith for that matter.

My personal feelings, as a member of the libertarian wing of the party, is that the tent should be big enough to include many Christian conservatives, but not those that through away political conservatism in the name of social conservatism.

Take abortion, a Christian conservative who supported overturning Roe V. Wade and leaving the issue up to the state legislatures to regulate would be perfectly acceptable to me. One who wanted to impose a constitutional amendment banning abortion on a federal level would not fit my general "against big government/pro-federalism" test for conservatives.

The problem is of course, that this happens to be the conservative agenda that matters to me, and not the agenda that matters to many conservatives. I think the real problem for those who take issue with the level of involvement of Christian/social conservatives in the Republican party is that they are currently the sole focus of the party's activity.

Conservatism in recent memory has been very concerned with abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage and not as concerned with issues of the size and scope of government(although the blogosphere outrage over Kleo makes me feel a little better in that regard) In the final analysis, what I am looking for is some progress on the issues that matter to me and my wing of the party, not merely the social conservatives.

One who wanted to impose a constitutional amendment banning abortion on a federal level would not fit my general "against big government/pro-federalism" test for conservatives.

Okay, now I am first and foremost a federalits, so my main position on Roe is that it is a horrible decision (pretty much comparable to Dredd Scott and Plessy), but I think it is a matter to be left to the states to decide not the federal government, and I don't believe that the US constitution ever granted people the right to murder their unborn children in the womb-the consitution is silent on that issue, therefore it is a matter for the state.

However there is a libertarian case to be made (generally libertarians have the whatever you want is fine as long as it doesn't impose on anyone else) for the pro life position, from the point of view of when life begins.  A huge issue of course with abortion is exactly when life begins and when that life deserves to have a protected status.  But you can easily argue a case for a fetus' right to life, and write a plausible constitutional amendment supporting such.  The case can be made without an appeal to religion and in fact I know several pro life atheists-some of them just as if not more so pro life than me or Jerry Falwell.

So would you see this as imposing religious beliefs?  Why or why not?

I think the real problem for those who take issue with the level of involvement of Christian/social conservatives in the Republican party is that they are currently the sole focus of the party's activity.

See the funny thing is that I often feel like my vote is taken for granted in the party.  Just look at Stem Cells (which I am opposed to the federal funding of, and since you are a libertarian, I am kind of surprised you would support it, most libertarians I know are fairly opposed to federal funding for almost anything, I even know some who don't even think public schools should receive public funding)-the house and senate both are likely to pass federal funding for the issue.  Bush is likely to veto that, but contrary to those who think Bush is sucking up to the social conservatives, I actually think Bush is probably a pro life true believer, and not playing politics on the issue, but the fact that the house and senate are likely to pass it, indicates that the opinion of social conservatives isn't the one that matters most.

For the most part, I don't see much of the social conservative agenda being pushed, shoot for the most part all I see is the compassionate conservative agenda being pushed, which is not social conservatism, libertarian wing, and most definitely not the more fiscal conservatives.  At this momsent in time I think the party is still too bogged down in trying to make the democrats like them better, that they haven't much pushed the agenda of any of the conservative groups in congress.

My position on abortion is that it too complicated an issue to

impose any sort of national standard. I myself am pro-life,

and fairly strongly so. I would fight hard for pro-life laws

at a state level, but I would not want to impose my beliefs on

the people of states where the people are pro-choice. I might

try to convince them to see the errors of their ways, but I

want the issue left up to their elected representatives.

I agree with your general characterizations of the actual

policy issues at play. I don't want stem cell funding, for

exactly the reasons you described. I think libertarians,

fiscal conservatives and Christian conservatives can agree

that very little of importance to any of us is happening, at

least a federal level.

My point was mainly about rhetoric and, to a certain degree,

policy at the state level. At the state level, gay marriage

seems to be the policy priority of a lot of Republicans, and

meaningful limitations on state power are not really on the

table. In terms of rhetoric, I feel that the Bush

administration is very concerned with making rhetorical

appeals to religious conservatives, even if they aren't really

trying to do anything to push their issues.

It's mainly that when I turn on my television set, or pick up

a newspaper, the stories focus on the place of religious

conservatives in the Republican party, and there's no talk of

small government types. Regardless of what the reality is, on

a policy level, the impression is that social conservatives

are driving the party.

cover and the realities are two different things.

Also, the religious right is a favorite boogie man of the media, so I think their coverage is often colored in that direction-and I think the media often demonizes religious conservatives, and also misunderstands/mischaractarizes much of what they stand for.

For instance-the church in NC that tried to kick out the democrats-Al Mohler (and outspoken, religious conservative Southern Baptist) condemned what happened, Richard Land also condmened what happened, but that didn't get much media play.  Honestly when the far right Christians do something loony like that, often some of the most conservative Christians are there to rhetorically smack them around a bit.

My guess is that the GOP hasn't done anything at all on the more libertarian front, so perhaps the fact that none of your ideals is being promoted or addressed, you see the religious folks as getting all the attention, but frankly all I see is ear tickling, and not much of substance being done.  Mostly all I see is a spend happy congress that pays lip service the conservative agenda in general.

That was offensive.  You have no business making comments about what I pray to God about.

I read the verse and it says you should render unto Caesar what is his, and unto him what is him.  It does not say you should only X% of your income.

From the Book of Luke, chapter 20:

24"Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"  25"Caesar's," they replied.  He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Look at your dollar bill, whose portrait and inscription are on it?  The U.S. government.  Give unto what is theirs and give unto God what is his.

Their is reasoning for fiscal responsibility, which may indirectly be thought of today as tax cuts, but God did not say that tax cuts are always best.

As a perfectionist: correct "their" to "there".

didn't address.

This is basically where biblical principles come in.  Not everythig is addressed.  For instance there isn't a single place in the Bible where it says "thou shalt not see pornagraphic movies" but you can get an idea of whether it is biblically acceptable by considering what the Bible says about lust, covetousness, marriage commitments and adultery.

Also, Romans does a pretty good job of getting into how Christians should deal with the gray areas and deal with each other, when they disagree on those gray areas.

I don't think the Bible speaks specifically to tax cuts, but I think it does speak to fiscal responsibility, strong work ethic, and the like.  Those biblical principles are something that an effective government can and should excersize.  So a government that values a good work ethic and fiscal responsibility would recognize that they are to be wise stewards of the money they are given, and that part of being wise stewards is to not overly burden their constituents with taxes.

So my point is that asking for chapter and verse for some issues, may not work-and it doesn't always have to, and two very committed Christians can consider the same issue from one of those gray areas, and reach different conclusion.

Based on their Christian principles they very well may see tax cuts as something that is good, somebody else may not-doesn't mean they are wrong or right.

So is there no place for the religious person in politics?  Do you think that is a constitutional position?

I never claimed this...  Religious groups have just as much right to the political process as the next.  I just said that it bothers me because in my opinion these groups exist to push their religious agenda - including breaking down the separation of church and state - and when Republicans align themselves with those groups in order to "win" it makes it much harder for me to connsider voting for them.

Secular does not always mean neutral.  It means aspiritual.  Communists were most definitely secular.  That doesn't mean all seculars are evil, but it should debunk the secular=peaceful and tolerant concept.

Christians were the founding fathers and it will take christians to overcome the current persecution being imposed by the left. Nearly all the founding fathers were taught at christian schools. Christians can look at Deuteronomy chpt 4, 1-2;  1-"Now therefore hearken, O israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgements, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and posses the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you.

2-Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

Our founding fathers would not violate Gods instructions.  

If you need a history lesson get the DVD titled "The Role of Pastors & Christians in Civil government from Wallbuilders.com.  It was a large group of Christians that created the constitution.

If your looking for the perfect christian to make politics ok in your eyes it will never happen. The flesh is weak but if christians stay focussed on the written word then one cannot get lost.

Another passage to look at is Mt.13.43 "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." Also GA.7-8 "Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8- For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption"

We cannot survive without being tied to his word.

The reason why people on the far left(and some on the right) are concerned about Patrick Henry College is that a classical education enables students to survive in a world that has long since stopped embracing the Western tradition. In addition, a classical 'Christian' education produces students who are intelligent, thoughtful, and competent in their chosen field. This education also instills in them the Christian values that will serve them well for the rest of their lives.

I for one am glad that PHC exists.

The founders allowed slavery and we had a rather nasty war over it. Would any Christian allow slaveholding today? It is certainly justified in the bible.

What are we to make of the millions of Americans who are not Christian?

tells students that the earth was created in one week...  okaayyy.. that says it all..

"The idea behind secularism is that you don't weigh so heavily on the spiritual side of life" is a little bit of an understatement, seeing that secularism is devoid of the spiritual in essence. Therefore, it's unfair to portray secularism as the median and atheism and religions as extremes, as atheism is just a branch (or is) secularism, but in differnt contexts.

I hope you realize that you offend a lot of people when you assert that it is  JUST religion that seperates us from Iran...

So tell me, what is it that seperates us from Nazis?

I love how you talk about how extreme religion, such as in the Spanish Inquisition, is dangerous for society, but you fail to mention that communism, the extreme part of secularism, has killed more people in it's name than any other cause in world history...

to get into an evolution/creation debate, but just to brush off someone's beliefs just because you yourself dont agree, i think, shows a lot about you and most liberals in general.

I am very much pro-life, but i completely understand why someone would be pro-choice...does that say that all Republicans are accepting and Dems are not?

No, it just so happens that i am responding to someone who isn't

Should be required reading at PHC.

The Godless Constitution, Kramnick and Moore

If the Republicans  let the fundamentalists and pentacostals take over their Party, they are fools and deserve to lose.  No political organization  has exclusive rights to any religious faith.  Most Christians, Catholic or Protestant, are not fanatics. They don't believe that their religion is limited to a few "political football" issues designed to gain voters.  I believe that my religious beliefs

are ABOVE  politics.  It appears that the neo-Christians are against separation of church and state, like the neo-conservatives want to use government to make the rich get richer, and blow hundreds of billions overseas.   What ever happened to the type of traditional conservatisim expounded by Goldwater, etc.?

they demonstrated they couldn't win elections? Just a guess.

I thought Reagan won twice.

Dante was a writer, not a Catholic theologian.  But, he speculated that all good men could go to Heaven.  Since the ancient Greeks and Romans did not know Christianity, they would not be excluded. If Plato was a virtuous man, why not give him the benefit of the doubt!

 It has NOT been part of Catholic theology for  500 years that a person has to be a Christian to go to Heaven.  

However, it has been a belief for centuries that

all human beings are subject to Purgatory (Eastern Orthodoxy calls it the "foretaste" or "purification")  unless they are saints. It is derived from ancient Jewish beliefs and belief in man's fallen nature.  Everybody in Purgatory will eventually go to Heaven.

Limbo means that "innocents" who have not known Christ are not punished, but must  await the Final Judgment to attain Heaven.  

Basically, Christians didn't believe that anybody went straight to Heaven  (unless they were saints), until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th & 17th Centuries.  

I do not believe that it is the  position of the Catholic Church that anybody can be excluded from Salvation based only upon their religious affiliation or non-affiliation.  However, there are some Protestant denominations that condemn all non-Christians to hell.  

Catholic and Orthodox are supposed to believe that man is saved based upon  both "faith and good works."   Secularists can do good works.  Their faith is often something that cannot be easily determined, and can change up to the moment of death.

Some  Republicans fear that it is not Christianity, but

a specific and narrow version of Protestantism, that Republicans want to promote.

"i'm catholic those arent my commandmants just over 50% of the Nation is Protestant and uses them, and if they are displayed at the courthouse like that how can i expect a fair trial, after knowing about Catholic-Protestant tensions in Northern Ireland and elsewear... "

Your Catholic education is very lacking.  THOSE ARE OUR TEN COMMANDMENTS TOO!

telling university students that the world was created in 7 days is akin to telling them the world is flat.  You can belive the world is flat and call it religion if you like.  I suggest you leave the rest of the educated world out of it..