Lonewolf Diaries: Church, State, Jesus and Obama.
by Steven CrowderIt’s no secret that the term “Separation of Church and State” has been bastardized beyond recognition by today’s post-ACLU era. Of course the toolbags of Hollywood have always done their very best to warp its meaning into something more lop-sided than Gary Busy’s left eye-socket. If Thomas Jefferson had known that his private letter would have been the fulcrum to the arguments of liberal propagandists for centuries to come, I doubt that he would have written it.
Poll after poll, the United States ranks as the most “God-fearing” nation on the planet. Good on us! Whether you believe in God or not, it’s tough to deny the reality of Christian principles being an intricate part of our country’s historical fabric.
One has to ask themselves however, as arguably the last “Christian nation” around, why were our Founders so adamant about keeping the Feds grimy paws out of our churches?
Most of Europe upheld state religions, yet only 52 percent of its citizens maintain a belief in God.
My home province of Quebec force-fed its people their state-enforced brand of Catholicism for years, yet it now enjoys the title of being the single most un-churched population of the industrialized world. Compare these statistics to the well-over 80% of Americans who believe in God and one can’t help but notice a pattern there.
There’s no doubt that the Founding Fathers were deeply spiritual men (and when I say spiritual, I mean in the Judeo-Christian sense, not in the Disney/Pray-to-colors-of-the-wind type silliness). With that being said, could it be that they wanted to separate church and state, in order to PRESERVE the Christian principles that built this country?
Think about it. When has government successfully forced people to do ANYTHING that they didn’t already want to do? From forced “integration” in Detroit, to putting a tax on a morning breakfast beverage, the results have always been disastrous.
A freedom-saturated environment is conducive to the growth of faith in God. I’m guessing that might be why our Founding Fathers were much more “spirit” rather than “letter of the law” Christians like their English counterparts.
You know who else felt the same way… Jesus.
No, really. Jesus was forthright with his whole “I am the way, the truth and the light” deal (heck he was even crucified for it), but ultimately, the man left the decision up to us.
I guess what I’m wondering now is, if the Son of Man never felt the need to force anything down our throat… Where does our government get off thinking that they can?
Americans don’t want universal health care, we’re getting it. We don’t want Cap and Tax, we’re getting it. If freedom has generally bred positive choices, one would have to wonder what comes of statism. Historically, all signs point towards revolution. Hopefully it doesn’t come to that, even though the muskets would be fun to have.
As an even bigger point, I think that the systematic removal of our individual liberties is not only anti-American … it’s Anti-Christian. Ask yourself not only how the Founding Fathers would feel about the current administrations diametric opposition to their original intentions for our country, but what would Jesus think? It sounds gimmicky I’m sure, but when you get to pondering, it can be a real trip.
Of course, whenever I find myself still in doubt I ask: What would Sean Penn do?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
149 Comments
I find myself amused that your first and last sentence contain 'bastard' and 'Sean Penn'.
What would Sean Penn do? roflmao…. but if you actually *knew* what Sean Penn would do,
woudn't you find that a little disturbing?
I really think faith is like talent at sports, some people have it, some people don't. To force it upon anyone (along with forcing state irreligion like Albania) is awful.
Truth be told, I really don't care what you do, I've met plenty of non-religious people with good souls and according to my beliefs my judgment on anyone's soul is irrelevant at death.
It's all up to you in this country, and I would not want it any other way.
I just offer a bong hit to St. Spicoli and leave it at that. Doing what Sean Penn would do would kill more brain cells.
I’m guessing that might be why our Founding Fathers were much more “spirit” rather than “letter of the law” Christians like their English counterparts.
You know who else felt the same way… Jesus.
"Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law"
– JC
I’m guessing that might be why our Founding Fathers were much more “spirit” rather than “letter of the law” Christians like their English counterparts.
You know who else felt the same way… Jesus.
"Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law"
– JC
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Michelle Goodman. Michelle Goodman said: RT @bighollywood: Lonewolf Diaries: Church, State, Jesus and Obama. http://bit.ly/2oEmNF [...]
And yet again, the putrid stench passed off as "Law Enforcement" enables THIS swill as well. They are NOT your friends.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Steven Crowder, Craig M. Craig M said: RT @scrowder: New "Church, State, Jesus and Obama" column is up! http://tinyurl.com/yf9gwdm Go comment your thoughts! #TCOT [...]
Of course, whenever I find myself still in doubt I ask: What would Sean Penn do?
And do the exact opposite. Can't fail that way.
Separation of church and state is a Biblical concept. In the Old Testament, God instructed the nation of Israel to keep the church and state separate. The priests came from the tribe of Levi and the kings came from the tribe of Judah (and Benjamin). God explicitly forbade the king from performing the duties of the priest. Saul lost his kingdom for performing a sacrifice without Samuel and God struck Uzziah with leprosy for entering the forbidden areas of the temple. Jesus and Paul both continued the separation in the New Testament.
Modern liberals and leftist however are not interested in separating the church and the state. They want to separate the state (government) from God. Scripture is clear that, while the church and the state are distinct institutions with their own spheres of authority, each is still to submit to the headship of God. The state only fullfills its purpose and brings peace to the people when it recognizes and submits to God's vision of the state.
We fell asleep at the wheel, America. Raising our families, running our businesses paying our taxes, believing that we’re all Americans. We’ll leave politics to the politicians, and wa…la… we have a cluster of monumental proportions. When we begin to put things right in 2010, a constant vigilance will be required, and if need be, a little “tar-n-feathers,” might be in order?
And what, pray tell, was that supposed to mean?
i just love the pronouncement of a separation of church and state, can somebody point me to that in the constitution? it is so misrepresented. it says congress may not make a state religion, it never says there is a separation of church and state. schools were started to teach children how to read the bible, when do you think one of those will be in school today? president washington wanted thanksgiving to give our thanks to god for the plentiful bounty of the united states, no pilgrims, no indians, just praise and thanks to god. today reading from actual historic documents would be prevented in schools, most of them mention god.
I can tell you that there are many atheists in Europe. They get far too much attention in the United States as an extreme minority. Last time I checked our constitution said Freedom OF Religion not FROM Religion. Not all religions are created equal in a politically correct America. Muslims and Hindus are ok while Christians and Jews are ostracized. Some atheists would like In God We Trust ripped off of our money & even in our Congress. Our country was founded on these principles. Don't like it move to Europe
Great article, Steven, though I, like AlistZ previously, do have to take issue with that part of what you said. Christ did not abolish the letter of the law, he was the fulfillment of it. Everything he did was intrinsically intertwined with the letter of the law, which he came to fulfill and free mankind from. Then again, we could get into why this means that the Jews are not, in fact, the chosen people, but who needs the legal action?
Excellent article. Aside from the fact that "separation of church and state" is nowhere in the Constitution, I'm sick of the way liberals always misrepresent Jefferson as a full blown, anti-Christian Deist. They're very selective in their reading of Jefferson, as with most everything. Most liberals I know would rather stab their eyes out with a pencil than read the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalists or any supplement to our founding documents, possibly because it would bastardize their agenda or, at least, show them for the hypocritical fascists that they really are.
You are right, Christ is the Word of God, the perfection and fulfillment of everything. However, the Jews have covenant with God since Abraham and The Eternal keeps His covenants. We Christians are… adopted, for lack of a better word. The remnant, the branches will be grafted into one tree.
Exactly what it says. Nancy is not going to come after you with her nightstick. Harry won't Taser you. The Head Nanny What's In Charge won't blow your head off with his gun. They'll send "law Enforcement" to make you comply with their will. And "Law Enforcement" will bow and scrape before their Masters and then do whatever they're told. Just like the fine German police under the Nazis. They don't care about the Constitution, in spite of their oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." THAT'S why there are so few "Law Enforcement" members in the Oath Keepers. And also why an illegal alien is occupying the office of President. By his own words, he attended public school in Indonesia at a time when Indonesia did NOT allow non-citizens to do so, and did not recognize dual citizenship. In addition, he claims to have traveled to Pakistan in 1981, when a US passport was not accepted there. But "Law Enforcement" doesn't care,. because their Masters have told them it doesn't matter. And I put "Law Enforcement" in quotes because they REALLY are not "Law Enforcement" but are instead just Thugs with Guns who have even less honor that the Mafia enforcers who either complied with their oaths or were summarily removed. "Law Enforcement" is NOT your friend.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Fernando Colon and GreaterPolitics.com, Lillian Noble. Lillian Noble said: Lonewolf Diaries: Church, State, Jesus and Obama. http://is.gd/4ZhZk [...]
To sum up: Blah blah blah, off the pigs, blah blah.
Separation of Church and State is in a letter written by Jefferson back in the very early 1800s to assure a minister that the US would not declare a state religion.
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause – "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No mention of a separation of church and state in the Constitution. It's protection of religion.
What?
VERY AWESOME POST!
Great article!! (as usual) I never get tired of your very serious and right on points, peppered with unbelievable witticisms.
whatever floats your boat, man
Bravo! Awesome post. I would argue the main point of your second paragraph and say that the liberals want to tie their own brand of religion to the state and make it mandatory. Call it what you like: secular paganism, climatology, or my favorite Evangelical Atheism it's a religion that bows to the power of the left and is being forced on us through threat of law.
Or we can just kick the proverbial bucket right now, and Nuke England, Carpet Bomb Israel, Glass China, and turn turn India to Chicken Curry.
But Winning back congress might be a good idea in the short term…
Lol, Witticisms, I see you have picked up that word as well?
"Crowder says it louder", great lead in, what else needs to be said!!!!!!!!!! The youth of America need great informers, to help wake them up, to let them know "Common sense" is not extinct!!!!! Analyze your teachings, realize who profits from them, if you find they enslave you and reward empirical powers to those governing you, turn away from them!!!!!
Jesus also healed the sick for free
Obama's not Jesus, contrary to what you may have heard. His Church also healed the sick for the past 2000 years but since we are in the world but not of the world we have to find ways to pay. For us, Christ freely chose death but the debt we owe we can never repay.
one would have to wonder what comes of statism. Historically, all signs point towards revolution. Hopefully it doesn’t come to that,
Getting close my friend. If that idiot Reid forces through th death care bill it will be even closer. One of you writers should just get out and travel around the country and talk to people. I have been talking to many people of all walks of life and careers. They are armed up and ready. Just waiting for the spark. Those fools in DC are living in a bubble and have no idea what they are stirring up.
"Those fools in DC are living in a bubble and have no idea what they are stirring up."
Thats what I heard from the left during the Bush years.
I don't know, mayne, picture Obama with a little stubble and some extensions…
As long as we're fomenting armed rebellion, can guillotine a few rich people, too, for old time's sake? Maybe some of those AIGFP dudes at least?
Here's my idea of seperation of church and state and how to cut spending in EVERY state. Stop paying state and government workers to have Christmas holiday off. Since the states always deem it a religious holiday and refuse to let religious themes to be displayed on anything considered to be government, then Stop paying gov workers to have that day off. Think of the millions that would be saved every year
I think that Liberals have worked VERY hard over the years to re write history to fit their own agendas.
We need oversight committees to over see the oversight committees.
lol..That's a good place to start alright.
I just want to know when "Climate Change" officially becomes a religion so I can get that BS out of my government.
Remember when the fugliest star on Broadway (Penn) used to do us all a favor by wearing a bag over his head? And wouldn't talk to the press? Ah, sweet nostalgia!
Madonna. (by the way, awesome trick or treat video).
By seperation of church and state I think it's quite appropriate in the sense that religion is religion and law is laws. Law is much more detailed and heavier handed than the bible. I think the bible has some of the fundamental as well as basic statutes that govern human behaviour and human society as to what the norms should be, but let us not forget that the same moral teachings can be found in nearly all religions. Even in the Muslim religion, all of Christs fundamental teachings are found… so government and law is important. Unfortunately when money is involved, left or right, the process is long, inefficient and unsuccessful…
Same as the Church shouldn't be involved in the government, the government shouldn't be involved in religion either, unless laws are being broken.
As for the current US administration, I can't say much, but I do know personally several american friends who don't have one ounce of health care… and they work 40 hours a week. Some either have no option, while others simply can't afford it (not that they choose not to afford it… they really can't afford it).
So definitely needs to be healthcare reform.
Comparing anyone in congress to Jesus is wrong on so many levels to the point where it's not remotely funny. Besides, I can already think of plenty of people to compare Obama & Co. to already.
I think the Founders were so concerned about Church and State separation because they knew future generations would try to twist their words into supporting positions they didn't hold. They were very forward thinking.
The schools are government institutions. A private school would be the appropriate place for religious discussion (along with political discussion).
It's not only liberals who believe that, but many conservatives as well.
Judeo-Christian philosophy facilitates self-governance just as Conservatism facilitates self-governance. Even Ben Franklin, a non-religious Deist, wisely predicted that the fall of the Church would lead to the fall of the State due to the principles of self-governance vs. statism.
Limited government = Maximum Freedom / Maximum government = Limited Freedom. It really is that simple.
Thanks Steven! Wish more Canadians were more supportive of our founding principles. Glad you're here.
Faith itself is a personal issue. Religion, especially a state religion is an entirely different issue.
The fact is that your Founding Fathers had a particular meaning for separation of Church and State which is a lot narrower than the way in which it is now interpreted by your court system. A majority of the court decisions are extremely poor, and in fact the courts with their liberal judges have been attempting to oppress Christianity whilst upholding the religion of Atheism. (Atheism does in fact have its own belief subsets).
To grasp what is meant by the separation of church and state you have to look at the historical context, and it is within that context that we should see that the people who came to the Americas on the Mayflower and later did so to escape a state religion. Up until that time it was common for the state to determine the religion of the people. As an example, Caesar was the head of the pagan Roman religion. In fact Caesar was declared to be a god. The people worshipped Caesar as if he was a god. When the Christians (and the Jews did it too but got special treatment) refused to offer sacrifices to Caesar they were considered to be traitors to the state, and thus they were persecuted, tortured and put to death.
It was not until the Emperor Constantine that Christianity became the state religion that the persecution ceased for a while. It commenced again after the death of Constantine and continued for a very long time. The history of the persecution is itself a history of what happens when the State sets the religion of the people. When the Roman empire crumbled the Christian Church stepped into the breech. That in itself was not a good idea because in the end the Church itself became corrupted by the power of the State. This changed when there was a revolt that led to the period of the reformation…. (this is not verbatim history but gives the gist of the story)…. The upheavals brought about by the reformation were intense in Europe, and in the United Kingdom (especially England and Scotland). In England there was a battle to control the throne, which at one point led to the Puritans taking over the Parliament and imposing their own brand of Christianity. When they were turfed out, they in turn were persecuted, and they chose to flee to the New World and set sail on the Mayflower and a few other ships. Other immigrants came from Holland, France and Germany.
Once the colonials were freed from the British throne as a result of the American Revolution they wanted to avoid the battles and the persecutions from the Old World. Rather than declaring say the Anglican Church as the State religion, the founding fathers chose to keep government as secular. In that way no one sect would be dominant over another, and people from all religions would be welcome (sort of, because bigotry still existed, especially against Catholics in most of these 13 states).
It was never the intention of the Founding Fathers to have the present situation that exists in your country, and in my own for that matter – that is, a situation where Christians would not be allowed to read Bible in school, would not be allowed to display a nativity scene, etc. etc. In fact that kind of thing is not what the founding fathers envisioned, yet it is what has happened due to the liberal interpretation by the courts.
The most disturbing aspect is that Islam is based upon a theocracy where there is no separation of Church and state, yet the liberals seem to be working hand in hand with Islamists to overthrow both Christianity and Judaism.
Great post, but you have one thing wrong…. about Saul. He did not lose being king due to sacrificing… in fact David offered sacrifices as a priest-king. What Saul did was to consult a medium in an effort to summon the ghost of a prophet. For this he was punished.
I agree with your take. It is the same in my country. The Greens really do have their own religion and it is based in GAIA
well no, the original schools were not private. They are funded by government but that has nothing to do with the original meaning of separation of church and state, which ultimately is the prevention of imposing a state religion i.e. something like imposing Sharia law upon the people.
I am glad somebody understands the principle…. and hey I am not an American but I understand the meaning. What a pity that the justices in the Supreme Court do not understand and use this principle to stifle Christianity.
I think that the British have already declared it a religion. It was the outcome of a recent court case
God's covenant with Abraham is a single thread through human history and highlights the doctrine of "the just shall live by faith". In the Old Testament, this was faith in the Messiah (Jesus) to come. In the current age, it is faith in the Messiah (Jesus) who has come. Jesus is the focus of this faith (not fully understood in Old Testament times, of course). That is what Paul was talking about in his letter to the Romans (chapter 9) when he said that physical descent from Israel (the patriarch) did not necessarily convey membership in the true Israel of God. Rather one is a member of the covenant by faith in Jesus Christ, independent of one's ethnic background.
How do you define the separation of church and state, when the church's get a tax break from the GOVERNMENT??? No separation there…I have no health insurance, however, I absolutely am appalled by the idea of the 'rich' paying for health care that other people cannot afford!! If the government would BOTHER to fix the fraud in the programs that are already out there, the money would be there for people like me…but they would rather tax the rich than do the job they are paid to do!!!
Of course Hollywood is against religion…they wouldn't be able to put out their trashy movies (and call it art!) if they admitted that they have a belief system!!
Great Post Kipling!
I tend to agree strongly, except the LEFT has become a "faith based belief" and I feel that like scientology they are reaching for "religious" status. They want to be the state established religion.
Work sixty hours a week!
Jesus was (and probably still is) a conservative. Everything that He ever said will happen, has happened (or is about to happen). If it is evil (or just plain ignorant) then it has a (D) after its name. And He warned us that evil will always refer to good as "evil" (and it does).
Bottom line…..if you are B. Hussein Obama or you voted for B. Hussein Obama, chances are that your eternity will be spent in hell.
The Apostle Paul told us if we don't work, we don't eat….something else for the liberals to chew on.
no, there is no separation of church and state. the constitution prevents congress from establishing a state religion, but does not prevent god to be anywhere, and everywhere. last time i checked mentioning god, or the ten comandments does not mean a state religion was established. the old testament was written by jews, christians were not around yet. the new testament was a christian thing. but even so, there are different christian faiths that use the same bible. but just the mention of a bible, or god will set all the nuts to start yelling church and state. the church of england is the example the framers wanted to avoid. they didn't want to make one faith the religion that all laws were based, so they did the establishment clause. it prevented congress from making a specific faith the national faith, but it didn't prevent anybody from practicing their own personal faith. so when schools mention church and state, they are not congress, and therefore cannot establish a religion, the same goes for states, and municipalities. the nuts need to be explained the actual text of the constitution, and stop yelling church and state.
If the Christened Son of the Living God, through his obedience and sacrifice, freed us from the judgement of the law, how can He not be considered a libertarian in the contemporary sense of the word? Secular society is founded upon the principle of, "the rule of law," which it buries us under the weight of. This was the same situation in ancient Israel (Societies of men always rebuild The Tower of Babel). Well, it wasn't the Jews who killed Jesus, and it wasn't the Romans who killed Jesus, but it was the rule of law. The rule of law is the Tower of Babel.
Those who don't get this are among those who hear and see, but do not understand (IMHO).
That's why a society of free men must be based upon rules governed by reason, and not unreasoning laws: The rule of reason, and not the rule of law, IOW.
"The letter of the law killeth, but the spirit of the law bringeth life."
The problem with the rule of law is that there is no spirit in it, and that's why the founding fathers kept the laws off of the Church's backs: Where a state Church is subject to the law, all of the spirit is sucked out of it. It was an imperfect attempt, but it's the best solution anyone's come up with yet. The decline of the rest of Christendom compared with the United States is evidence enough for this.
I swear, this country doesn't need a second revolution. The first one did just fine. What we need is a re-evolution starting with those founding principles, but add to them the lessons we've learned from this federal monstrosity we now labor under.
OK, I'm beginning to rant. /rant
Exactly.
JESUS, HIMSELF, took His OWN resources and helped people. He didn't tell people where to go to sign up for Government benefits. He didn't advocate higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for Government run health care, food stamps, etc.
I've heard people say that Jesus must have been socialist because He advocated sharing. However, He advocated VOLUNTARY sharing:
2 Corinthians 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
He never advocated TAKING things from people to give to others.
I am afraid you might be wrong on this one- Read 1 Samuel 13:8-14. He was not suppose to give a sacrifice- this is a grave error on Sauls part because Sauls heart was wicked.
I would suggest a public hanging of EVERY member of congress, just like they did with pirates when they were caught!
I don't know what you are implying StanH…that I work 60 hrs a week?? I have had breast cancer twice and have other health problems…which, I'm sure has something to do with the fact that I cannot get insurance anymore…that said, I still DO NOT think that the rich people should be FORCED to pay for the health care of anyone other than themselves…I will take my chances..
I think we might have a misunderstanding here. Your point agrees with my point that Saul was not to offer a sacrifice bu to wait on Samuel. When Samuel did not show on schedule, Saul became nervous and took matters into his own hands and did what God had forbidden him to do in Samuel 10:8.
Agreed. The Left are the ones who would turn the state into a church and preach their own religion.
I was talking to Mike.
1 Samuel 13:13-14 makes it clear that Saul's disobedience in offering the sacrifice cost him his kingdom – "But now your kingdom shall not continue." Saul used a medium to consult Samuel toward the end of his reign but God had already passed judgement on Saul and Samuel had already annointed David as king.
Agreed. I especially like the term "evangelical atheism."
A huge flaw in your argument is that you take the obedience and sacrifice of Jesus and apply it to the entire population. While the atonement of Jesus is avaiable to all, it is not appropriated by all and thus only believers are set free (Romans 7:1-6). As Paul told Timothy, "the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate …." (1 Timothy 1:8-11). If all people were true Christians who followed the law of God written on their hearts, then their would be no need for the written law. However, since we live in a time where believer and non-believer live together, we must have law.
The execution of Jesus actually had no legal standing and violated not only Roman but Jewish law.
Reason is a fine thing but it can only take a person so far. Scripture never points a man to reason for two reasons. First, because men are created beings and thus are limited in their ability to understand the creator who is outside of the creation. Second, because men are fallen creatures and thus their reason is also fallen. Scripture points men toward wisdom and instruction. Reason plays a role but is not dominant. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Proverbs 14:12)
We don't need a revolution but a reformation – a reforming of government and society back to the principles of the Founding Fathers.
Steven was right on the money with this, but I have to take issue with the comparison he used citing the non-symmetry of Gary Busey's left orbital socket. If memory serves, that is due to Gary's not wearing a helmet in a motorcycle wreck the year after Steven was born, 1988, and very nearly dying from the severity of the injury. I think it's a little mean spirited to make reference to something like that to make a comedic point. What's next, a joke about not taking any blood donations from me because of my leukemia?
Steven, ever since discovering BH, I've gotten a kick out of your videos and admired your brass in going out into potentially hostile situations and asking people questions and letting their answers show them for what they are. But now, with what you've written about our Savior, you are my hero! :^)
Obama's not a member of Congress.I
Umm, actually I'm not seeing the awesomenes.
If it's true that the state should "submit to the headship of God," and the citizens of the state have many different religious beliefs, which God should take precedence and provide the "headship"? And is it really fair for those of us who accept Thor or the Christian God to live under the "headship" of, for instance, Allah?
"If Thomas Jefferson had known that his private letter would have been the fulcrum to the arguments of liberal propagandists for centuries to come, I doubt that he would have written it." – but he did, dork.
"why were our Founders so adamant about keeping the Feds grimy paws out of our churches?" – it's set up like this so that the churches (you know, the ones that don't pay any taxes at all) keep their bullshit to themselves.
"There’s no doubt that the Founding Fathers were deeply spiritual men (and when I say spiritual, I mean in the Judeo-Christian sense" – do whaaaa???? thomas jefferson, george washington, john adams, james madison and benjamin franklin were all DEEPLY SPIRITUAL MEN???
give me a break, bill o'reilly jr.
RUN THADDEUS MCCOTTER AND CHUCK DEVORE
YOU'RE OWN CRAZY PEOPLE ARE AFTER YOU!!!!
LOL
No doubt. It's crazy talk, but they persist in it.
Obama voters will go to Hell. Our country is a Christian nation. They never stop, jonathan.
You may not be a Conservative, but I sure as hell am. At the same time, I don't subscribe to BS like this.
I think if you stopped and thought about it, you could probably figure it out.
The ancient kingdom of Israel wasn't exactly a multi-cultural experience.
Culture used to be the preeminently defining concept of what a nation was.
The 'headship' is provided by the context.
Besides, if you are looking at the Bible for advice on how to run a country, and you are not a Christian, you are probably doing it wrong.
"Even in the Muslim religion, all of Christs fundamental teachings are found… "
Spoken like someone who's never read the Bible. I'm sure you'll disagree, but Christ's Fundamental teachings are that he is God, and that he is the way of salvation. This is heresy to the Muslim.
I stopped and thought about it, and I might've figured it out.
Right here, right now, in the United States of America, you want the "God" in the phrase, "headship of God" to be the Christian God. Those who think differently can suck wind.
Does that about sum it up?
And what is your point? For every one of these quote I can supply you with others from the same people in support of Christianity. None of these attack the premise that Christian principles played a role in the founding.
Right. We know this. They knew this. However, Paul remained a Jew fully observant under the law. Many of his battles were with Judaizers who insisted upon circumcision for new Christian converts (gentiles) along with full observance of the old covenant. Paul showed them that this wasn't necessary for salvation in the new covenant. We cannot condemn those who don't understand this and remain under the old covenant. They are not beyond the mercy of the Eternal One.
I tried to get me one of them there free faith-healings from Brother Oral Roberts (Did you know his son is name Dick?), and in the process, fell ass-over-teakettle off the chair upon which I stood. At the ER, they had to remove a 3-inch sliver of picture tube from the starboard side of my stern.
I plan to sue Oral Roberts. My intent is to OWN that there Oral Roberts University out there in Tulsa. I need me an honest citizen to testify for me in court, that he/she was there and witnessed the whole thing. I'll give that blessed person 10% of the blessed money. Think of it as a reverse tithe.
It was better in the good ol' days, when you could get a faith healing that really worked.
That is hilarious.
And these Christian principles came into being during the lifetime of Christ? And before Christ, the Jewish parts of the Judeo-Christian principles came into being?
Are you aware that no society, even the ones which predated Judaism AND Christianity, could survive without Christian principles? By that, I mean, these principles AREN'T CHRISTIAN. No society can survive if it permits murder, false swearings and fraudulent testimony in court, theft and other crimes. You don't need Christ to understand these simple points. You just need a brain. Please tell me any principles that are peculiar to Christianity that were employed in the U.S. Constitution. Please don't answer with "self-governance." European monarchs, before the New World was settled, claimed the Christian God imbued them with divine authority, without even a hint of self-governance to be found.
Understand the meaning behind "letter of the law" as a phrase, and you'll see that's not what Jesus was referring to, in the same way. What Jesus is saying there is that he doesn't invalidate the moral code of the Old Testament. However, it is clear by his life and message (as well as the rest of the New Testament – read Galations) that Christ replaces "follow the law" with "by grace through faith" as the way to enter into right relationship with God (and yes, go to Heaven).
However, the spirit vs law distinction he is drawing here relies on an Armenian interpretation of free will – Calvinists probably wouldn't agree, exactly. It's somewhat sloppy thinking, theologically. Still, an interesting comparison.
The present interpretation of the phrase 'separation of church and state' has been pretty twisted alright.
To understand the founding father's reasoning, you need to look at it in the context of the times. The founding fathers were not against government sponsored religion, at all. Matter of fact, they were all for it, just not at the federal level.
The delegates to the constitutional convention were not elected representatives of the states. They were the leaders of the their communities who realized the articles of confederation were not working and would lead to the US breaking up into regional nation states. They took it upon themselves to bring the leading statesmen from all the colonies to try and sort something out. Once completed, they all took it back to their communities and then had to sell it not only to the people but the state governments too. That's why senators were initially appointed by the state legislatures, so the state governments would have some say in the federal government.
They were not worried about state or local governments controlling religion, what they did worry about was several states in various regions ganging up on smaller factions and forcing their religion on the other states. They were concerned, for example, by the southern states primarily Baptists, from combining their votes in congress and forcing the puritan New England states to change their religion. So the reason for first amendment was to keep religion beyond the reach of federal legislatures. At the state level, government could do what ever it wanted. And in fact they did.
What got religion thrown out of schools initially was the influx of catholic immigrants from eastern Europe, Italy, Ireland, etc. Protestants were more than happy to have school prayer, as long as it was their prayers. They feared catholic teachers flooding schools and leading their children in catholic traditions.
Actually, it wasn't for Saul performing priestly (or as Samuel would be – "prophetic") duties, but for disobedience of God's decree to not take any of the plunder for any purpose after destroying that nation. So, it's not exactly an example of "separation of church and state".
However, the Levites as priests is a good point for that.
Interestingly, the Bible strongly advocates limited government. When you read Samuel's description of what "having a king like all the other nations" would mean, you can see the same concerns we would have today – the king will take your money and land and sons/daughters for his own purposes. That's why Samuel tried to convince the people they didn't need a king – obey God's law and God will raise up Judges when needed. But the people insisted on increased government, and that didn't go well (though God used it for ultimate good, as a picture of who Christ would be).
"Just like the fine German police under the Nazis." Too few people understand that Nazism is a German thing. Germans were socialized with the key word being "Obey". It took about two centuries for German skepticism and German rationalism Teutonic culture and the German social traditions to result in Nazi Germany.
American police will not act "just like…German police". We have a completely different heritage. American–even those in power will be horrified and relent a lot faster. Hitler learned from the American and British eugenicists, but we only came as far as Planned Parenthood and mandatory sterilization in this country.
Study German history from the rise of the Hohenzollerns to Nazi Germany–really study it and you'll see that it was a cultural thing. Realize that Fascism was first seen in Italy, but Italy does not show all the nightmare colors of the Nazis. That does not mean that things won't get bad.
I think it's a sickness picked up from the liberals weened on Stalinist propaganda (who blamed all things on "Fascism") that we think of Nazi-ism as UNIVERSAL rather than the singular event it has shown itself to be.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness…" Please name for me a society that believed all men were created equal prior to the Jews and the Christians.
To the list I would also add the idea that government was not supreme but had to submit to a higher authority, a higher morality, the concept of dominion and proper rebellion to unjust state authority, and self-government which can be traced directy back to the Protestant Reformation. I fail to see how the fradulent claim to divine authority invalidates the ideal of self-government.
But remember the man at the pool, and all those people trying to get into the pool to heal their illnesses–the Bible only talks about Jesus healing the lame man who couldn't get into the pool–not everyone there being entitled to the same care he gave to the lame man.
The quotes I supplied are a mild yet to-the-point rebuttal to the terminally unemployable Chowderhead's boilerplate sophistry; the ideological origins behind the foundation of the United States are not rooted in Christianity.
In case you need some brushing up on history:
Treaty with Tripoli, 1797- "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Any references to God, Christ or Christian principles in The Constitution / Bill of Rights? Thanks for playing.
That take is not correct.
If Congress allows the schools to teach children that Christianity is the correct religion, the crime is committed by Congress, not their agents (the schools).
The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," is a direct quote from Jefferson.
Well, yeah… if I was going to have a headship of God for my country. I would definitly pick a real one.
There is a difference between health CARE and health INSURANCE.
Anyone – legal or illegal – can get care for whatever at any hospital. Definitely not cost effective, but it is there.
My questions to people (and I have been on medicaid, myself, when unemployed) are:
do you have a cell phone? do you have cable? eating out a lot?
have you checked into your state programs to buy insurance? In NY you can buy insurance through the state plan with various major insurers for about $50 a week – if you make too much for medicaid.
Can they get catastrophic insurance in their state? Much cheaper than shelling out a few hundred a month just to get a 'free' doctor visit for your cold.
Then why did you reply to her?
And what about those of us who consider Thor to be the only, the real, the true, the absolute last word as far as God is concerned?
You wouldn't believe the wonderful things Thor has done in my life. He's also an artist, who co-wrote that hit tune, "If I Had a Hammer," by Peter, Paul and Mary (all Biblical names).
So you would have the national government to proclaim my God to be a lesser God than the Christian God? That hardly seems fair.
This isn't in exact context to what you said, but…
Would you rather put your primary belief in a religion the founding fathers believed in, and the study of and belief in that religion helped them write the constituion and found the country.
Or would you rather put your belief in a religion that created Sharia law?
Or would you rather put your belief in no deity? If so, do you really believe the entire world came together by chance? God is made self evident by His creations.
If you would believe in the gamble that earth could come together by chance and luck, then I don't understand why you aren't comfortable taking up the gamble that liberals wont ruin the country/world. Because I find the odds of that to be higher.
Just from a logical perspective, the people who saved and created this country and its original laws had their religion in common. And if you think they were smart and right in what they did, maybe they were right about their religion too.
I love it when we start throwing Bible verses back and forth at one another.
Luckily, only Christian Conservatives read these pages. I would hate for any eye-rolling pagan Liberals to see some of these comments.
Let me fix that for you:
Jesus healed the sick for free, and didn't take up a collection from the people in the area by force to make it happen.
Right. Muhammed never met a real Christian when he was putting his religion together. He borrowed some ideas from Arians (his brother in law was one) and Nestorians which denied the divinity of Christ.
And yet Jesus says to the people that they must follow the pharisees' teachings (just don't follow their example.) Jesus is not an anarchist or a near-anarchist.
Ignore this liberal troll pretending to be a conservative. They never post but to mock Christians, that I've ever seen. I don't understand the anti-Christian hate but this person is in the phase Voltaire went through where disproof of God was impossible so mockery became the only tool of his crusade.
Luckily, our Constitution doesn't require me to have a religion. Furthermore, if I choose to have a religion, the Constitution says I can choose any religion I want, or I can make my own.
How cool is that? Naturally, I think they were smart and right in what they did. In fact, I took them at their word and chose to have no religion at all.
As to defending my unbelief, there isn't space in these comment boxes to properly do that. But you've (at least partially) characterized my view correctly: It is a matter of luck that humans survived long enough to become sentient beings and form governments.
As to the origins of life itself, only religionists are capable of knowing exactly how that happened. By "knowing," I mean arrogant enough to imagine themselves smart enough to declare a "truth." Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? Suuuuure, that sounds right. I wonder how Cain and Seth found mates for themselves.
Once life was present, though, science does an excellent job of explaining how it evolved.
[...] already set for presumption, callousness, intellectual incuriosity, and wounded masculinity, his writing on religion never fails make my jaw drop. Poll after poll, the United States ranks as the most [...]
"Please name for me a society that believed all men were created equal prior to the Jews and the Christians."
Well done. But to expand on this, please name a strict rationale that can maintain such an idea. We are unequal in height, in IQ, in lifting strength, in almost every quantifiable way. Andre the Giant is almost two persons in volume and could be 3 Billy Bartys. The Humean tradition says that everything that is not quantifiable deserves to be thrown into the sea.
Thus we have a quick example of a skeptical tradition that cannot sustain the "equality" of men.
Sure societies survived without the Judeo-Christian tradition, but such an argument can be used to say that there is nothing special about the founders' idea (because society existed before and after) and that as a result there is nothing special about their "intended" separation of religion (because again societies existed before anti-clericism.) You're basically saying that ideas have no effect–and if that is the case, so does separation.
Thank you, Steven. That was an excellent article. I agree 100%.
I think it was equally chance and not chance. I believe in evolution, and also in intelligent design, an intelligent design that happened by chance. I've yet to really meet anyone with my exact metaphysical views, because they contain elements that are all contradictory. Glad the Founders thought it would be cool for me to be an American Citizen and still have my wacky Eastern-based philosophy.
Good afternoon to ya, rjcylon. I hope all is well with you and yours.
You too, HumanPersonJr
"I would hate for any eye-rolling pagan Liberals to see some of these comments. "
Then why are *you* here?
I went to atheism.about.com and it sources that "Madison" quote thusly:
[James Madison, 1803? Origin questionable] .
That is, no definite source.
I find a lot of apocryphal quotes in discussion about separation of Church and State. However, one quote from Madison that enlightens this is a sourced quote from his letter to Thomas Ritchie:
We ratified that Congress shall make no law to establish religion. However, not ratified is the insight of specialists/experts/judges that rule out anything they determine is an "excessive entanglement".
this page has a lot of links to Madison's known letters and a related page allows you to narrow down to 1803. None of them have this letter.
BTW, some of what the founders wrote as "freedom of conscience" would prohibit public compulsory funding of abortion AND teaching evolution, because no man should pay for what offends his conscience–which is why Catholics should not pay for Baptist causes and Baptists should not pay for Catholic causes.
We are going to put our faith into something. It is how we are made. The question is will it be the creator or the created. Just because libs argue that having prayer in school or a bible at your government office is a violation of separation of church and state (of which most here agree is an egregious misinterpretation). What they are saying is you can't worship the creator but its fine to worship the created so they have no problem with the government forcing us all to bow down to the church of Climate Change or worshipping government itself as god. So, like many of the liberal philosophies, its all about being tolerant and diverse enough to agree with them. Anything else violates their version of the Constitution.
You see the truth through their hypocrisy as well.
Great job, Steven!
The Bible makes it clear that The Law, and in fact the general principle of government, is ordained by God. Thus it is a pragmatic principle that people should be ordered about and directed by authority as a necessary evil. But it would always be a sort of imposition as a result of human obdurateness and sinfulness. The laws by which God rules are different–incredibly individualistic, nuanced, and internalized principles.
Yet, the separation of the ideal of God's final judgment and the practical imposition of obedience to powers of state are a good warning for anybody on purism of state-sponsored "perfection" or blind obedience to the state and tradition.
It is individual in focus. The revolution occurs within the individual as he turns and makes the world a "little more like" the Kingdom. It both creates willing servants to help the state but also undermines the state as the source of meaning or good. It inspires servants to be exemplary witnesses to their masters, but masters to set their slaves free, or at least avoid mistreatment.
After reading Aquinas, he still continued his mockery but mainly of the Catholic Church. Voltaire became a Deist and once said:
"What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."
I'm here because I find these two sites, BigHollywood and BigGovernment, enjoyable. The sites express politically Conservative views which I also hold, especially those about personal liberty and limited government.
Did someone send you to ask, or did you decide to do this all on your own, an executive decision, so to speak?
If the former, tell that person to ask his/her own questions. If the latter, I commend your sense of enterprise.
I think you are confusing two separate incidents in the life of Saul. There is the one I discussed and then there is a separate incident where he takes plunder and even spares the life of a king against the order of God. Samuel then shows up and lets Saul have it. He then goes to find David and annoints him.
As to Samuel and limited government, I think you hit the nail on the head there.
finally a little sense on here – you and paul D seem to be the only reasonable people reading this guy's junk. i'm pretty conservative, just wish folks would sprinkle a tiny bit of truth and reality into their otherwise delusional ideas about why we're alive on this earth.
here here human jr!
[...] Church, State, Jesus, and Obama [...]
You are welcome. I enjoy playing even when the leftists think they have stacked the deck with bland quotes that real do not reveal anything.
Rather than belabor the point, let me point you to some resources written by scholars on the subject: Robert Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause and Michael Novak's On Two Wings and Washington's God. Both are scholarly works, recognized in the historical community, and both speak to the role of Christianity in the founding.
Read these. Stop reading non-scholarly websites. Put your big boy pants on and then come back to the discussion.
Keep up the good work Axeman!
"Put your big boy pants on and then come back to the discussion. "
You must have worked with the clergy. Try taking history that's above high school level.
-And keep that gun barrel out of your mouth! Whooo!!
Oops, was thinking Politics, wrote congress.
Really? Do you have a link you can share? I would love to read about that.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The first half of this phrase prohibits congress from establishing a state sponsored religion, which was a radical concept at that time. Most of Europe and even the American colonies had state religions which were supported by government funds and whose leaders dictated laws.
The second half protects minority religions from harrassment and legal prohibitions, which was also common in Europe and America and a driving force behind the colonization of North America in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The two concepts together were intended to wrest secular control from the church by denying it the power to mandate itself onto the citizens, as well as the power to snuff out opponents.
Government has an obligation to be religiously indifferent. This means no "Ten Commandments" posted on the courthouse wall. It also means schoolchildren being allowed to pray unmolested in the classroom.
Three questions:
Christians – if your god is so powerful and triumphant, why are you so fearful of atheism?
Atheists – if god is a silly superstition, why are you so fearful of religion?
America – if free expression is the heart and soul of democracy, why are you all so fearful of letting the other side have its say?
Ah….then you are a liberal posing as a Libertarian. Just like my Dear Ex. Got it. ATTENTION EVERYONE: this person will continue to pose as a "fiscal conservative just like you" but in reality is an arrogant, condescending, I'm-so-much-more-enlightened-than-you liberal. Card carrying. In short, a troll.
Oh, great. TWO – count them TWO liberal trolls verbally high-fiving each other because they have "infiltrated the enemy camp!" Oh, brother. *rolling eyes*
Hmmm….
So, you're admitting to this room that you went around quoting Bible verses to your wife, instead of taking care of business. Then, she (unsurprisingly) left you to find someone a bit more, shall we say, masculine. After which, the experience left you so upset, shattered, actually, that you now find it necessary to attack anyone who doesn't think Bible verses really prove any political points.
I hope she's happy now (or at least happier).
I have decades of Conservative thought and study behind me. You have my permission to perform an anatomical improbability on yourself.
If you find another woman, take my advice: Try to soft-pedal the Bible verses. Women don't consider that kind of obsession healthy or fun.
If Bible verses are all that useful in discussing political principles, I wonder why the Founding Fathers forgot to include any Bible verses in the U.S. Constitution. Y'know, like all writers, they started off with a blank page, ready to accept whatever they thought worthy to imprint upon it.
So, Mr. Can't-Seem-To-Keep-A-Woman-Happy, Mr.-Don't-You-Dare-Impugn-My-Bible-Thumping-Buddies, why didn't they include any? It was their choice and they didn't include a single Bible verse in the Declaration of Independence or in the U.S. Constitution.
Now, why do you reckon that was, you mental giant you?
Ummm….no. Completely off the mark. If you had botherd to look at the picture associated with my handle you would realize that I am a woman. My Dear Ex, to whom I rarely, if ever, quoted Bible verses (where did THAT come from?), was a scoundrel whom I left after repeated affairs. In this particular thread I have not quote a single Bible verse to my recollection. As to your attempt a crude imagery made "better" by "sparkling prose", you can give me "permission' for anything you like. I'll take that as classic projectionism – you know, something you'd like to do to yourself. And, by the way, as a woman, I actually DO consider quoting from the Bible quite healthy AND fun. Little do you know.
Again, I'm a red-blooded, all-American female (really, do check out the profile picture). And again, I didn't say one single, solitary word about the Bible or quote any Bible verses. Are you being purposely obtuse or are you just confused?
Ah, well, my vision isn't all that it should be. Sorry for mistaking your gender. I also hate to hear that your ex-husband wasn't a good one. I beat myself up every day for my wrongdoings in my marriage. They are even more painful now, given that my wife died suddenly, just two weeks ago.
The first comment in this thread was from a Kipling (not to be confused with the original Kipling, who assumed room temperature many years ago). In that comment, he or she quoted a Bible verse.
Further down, I made a sarcastic remark about the Bible verses being flung back and forth. Just after that, Young Conservative quoted me, "I would hate for any eye-rolling pagan Liberals to see some of these comments," and then rhetorically asked, "Then why are *you* here?"
I responded with the remarks to which you eventually replied. That led me to think you were accusing me of being politically Liberal because of my remarks about Bible verses, further up in the thread. Continued….
On the original topic of this article: Mr. Crowder alleges that, had Thomas Jefferson known how much trouble "that letter" would cause, he probably wouldn't have written it. I disagree.
Jefferson actually re-wrote the Christian Bible, removing all mention of the Virgin Birth, as well as all the miracles described in it. He also said, "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
I believe it's a huge mistake to frame the Conservative point of view with Biblical references. We're best off to stick to political principles. The flinging of Bible verses makes us look unreliable and overly emotional. I want the Conservative side to win, and win big. I'm not politically Liberal, not in the least. I hate what is happening to our country.
The First Amendment prohibits any law respecting "establishment of religion," NOT establishment of A religion. This seems a lot closer to preventing the government from endorsing any religious matters rather than just prohibiting a state church.
"Christian principles" (there are actually a lot of them and very few people actually embrace them all) have had some negative effects on our country's history, with people using them to limit freedoms. The ones that have had positive effects, and there have been some, don't exclusively belong to Christianity.
I can only speak for myself. I am somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. There isn't a liberal bone in this body. I've studied Conservative political principles for many years, and I could take on (almost) any Liberal and win the debate hands-down. Conservatism, which involves capitalism as its economic system, is right because it follows natural law. It allows for the natural desires of humanity to emerge, and to be followed with (ideally) no harm to other humans.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/309...
Thanks!
I stand by my comment. "Law Enforcement" in THIS country cannot bother to honor their oath of office, and even considers it offensive for those who DO choose to honor that oath. Look at their response to Oath Keepers for proof. Or look at ACORNgate in California. In spite of the clear illegalities of ACORN in the video, California's Finest are bowing and scraping before their Master Moonbat and investigating the two journalists who exposed the sewage instead of investigating ACORN and their illegal dumping of records. The stench is overwhelming.
You believe in nonsense…there is no God. Once your over the age of 10, it's no longer cute to have an imaginary friend.
You must be logged in to post a comment.