Political Party? II

If I could find an Independent that could whoop a Democrat, I'd vote for him. Hence I must vote Republican because God may not be a Republican, but the devil is definitely a Demoncrat.

 

Oh My! I have to agree with Maverick!

Whoop-pee!!!

Sherrie

 

What, no Anarchists Party? No Flat Earth Society?



Eric

 

So does this mean a Christian cannot be a Democrat?

 

Johnv,

Thats the thing about the USA, you can be Democratic too! Tee-hee!

Sherrie

 

A Christian be anything, but not necessarily right.

How do you support a party that is anti-God? Like I said, Republicans are not without sin, but the agenda of the Dems is clearly anti anything a Christian would hold as biblical.

I once lived in a Northern, Polish, Catholic, Democratic neighborhood. When I went to the polls there were benches outside with the Dems on the Left (appropriately) and the Repubs on the right.

I asked the left bench if they were Catholics and they wholeheartedly affirmed that they were. I then asked how they could vote for a party that was definitely anti-Catholic in that it supported free and easy abortions, welfare for those who will not work, and does not allow God in school or government. They gave no answer as the repubs cheered.

I knew why they voted because the Dems are perceived as the party of labor and these guys were all union men. It really is the party of the rich Left, but the poor labor guy thinks that they care about him all the while they support things that rob them of taxes and drives corporations away from the country creating more unemployment while allowing unbridled immigration because the poor will vote for the guy giving out the goodies which as history shows ripens the nation for a depression. Check the immigration from 1890-1930. Historians consider that to be one of the prime causes of the Great Depression. I just saw that show on PBS.

Yes, you can be a Christian and be a Democrat. All things are lwaful, but not all things profitable. Being a Dem is certainly not profitable. But, then again, each time you put in an abortion candidate are you not then condoning it and thus part of the problem and accountable for their deaths? When those children rise up in the last judgment as witnesses against their murderers will they not also be there to accuse you of being an accomplice because you chose your pocket book or some social program over morality and life?

When Christianity becomes a religio illicita at the hands of the Left and persecution begins how will you answer God considering you helped bring it in by supporting the Left?

How will you answer Him when you allowed God to be kicked out of school and then did not work to provide good Christian education for all our children and even left your kids in the schools to be indoctrinated by the anti-God propaganda?

By all means, be a Dem if you want to be. It is a free country, for now. Use your free will,but also seek some wisdom from God.

 

Supporting a secular state (aka non-theocracy) is not the same as being anti-god.

 

This state is only secular because the Christians fell down on the job a few decades back and have continued to drop the ball. Only Israel had a theocracy. All nations in a sense are secular, but then again God establishes goverment. Rome was as secular as they come, but Christ paid taxes and neither He nor any of the Apostles ever taught overthrow of the government nor non-involvement. We ought to obey God rather than men, but we are also to submit to authority. We live in a country where we can be involved and was started to be as close to a theocracy as one can get. We are allowing Nikita's prophecy to come true. We are being taken over from within because we cannot be overpowered from without. Christians slept in security as it happened and now it is close to too late to stop it without a great revival and God's intervention.

 

I'm afraid most of the founding fathers would disagree with you.

”It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely.”
- From Jefferson's Notes on Virginia

”Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?”
- From a Speech by Madison to the Virginia General Assembly

"Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
-From a personal letter of Madison's

“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”
- A letter Washington sent to a synagogue

 

Maverick, please consider:

"…By today's standards, the men who died at the Alamo must seem rather foolish. After all, they had no chance of winning - none! And isn't winning all that counts? That's what good Republicans have been telling us for the past year. That's why Trent Lott and the Senate leadership decided to let Bill Clinton stay in office. That's why millions of Christian conservatives voted for G.W. Bush instead of Alan Keyes in the Republican primaries. And that's why they ignored Pat Buchanan and Howard Phillips in the general election.

…I pray that one day my conservative brethren will come to understand that our only duty is to stand for truth and right. In standing for right, some prevail; others don't. The eternal rewards are the same for each.

I need to add that it is devotion to duty that often prompts Heaven's assistance. On the other hand, to cling to this humanistic "must win" attitude is to cling to a rope of sand. And for those who continue to embrace the damnable belief that "principle without power is useless," I would only respond by saying, power without principle is dangerous…"

From: http://covenantnews.com/baldwin010306.htm

"What is worse is the utter silence of our nation's spiritual leaders to this reproach. Quick to pounce on the democrat, Bill Clinton, Christian leaders are virtually deaf and dumb when the Republican, G.W. Bush, is the culprit. It seems to me that today's Christians have traded "in God we trust" for "in Republicans we trust."

However, no political party can save us now. Republicans and Democrats alike are mired in political correctness and moral relativism. They can offer no deliverance. Instead, they seem content to dig the grave deeper.

Why do Christians swear loyalty to such parties? Do we not see that Bush's embrace of homosexuality (and many other policies) is helping to incur the judgment of God upon our land? Do we really believe that God will only judge a nation when a Democrat is in the White House? One gets the impression that all the devil would have to do is register as a Republican, and he could capture the soul of every religious conservative in the country."

From: http://covenantnews.com/baldwin011030.htm

Also see: http://covenantnews.com/baldwin010313.htm

 

You also have to remember that when they spoke of religion the only true religion they recognized was Christianity. The others were heathen religions. They were willing to allow them to have their faith and not tax them, but I don't think they thought that they would ever have any real influence because they were few and by evangelism would probably never grew and even cease to exist.

They also based the entire judicial system around the Bible, so while they did not establish Christianity as the state religion they did come fairly close to it and they also made statements in other places that the Republic could not make it without God. Our system was a grand experiment and if they were here today they probably would have had some second thoughts about some things. They did not exclude other religions per se, but neither did they consult them. They only consulted the Bible. That they might have been torn between the new concept of this country and a theocracy seems reflected in what they said in your quotes and what they did in precept and law. Such a conflict is not surprising since what they were doing had never been done before. Remember, they came here because of religious persecution and they wanted no laws that could force a Presbyterian to support a Baptist state religion. That was their main objective and they achieved it, but I don't think that they were really thinking about Islamic headdress becoming law either.

All government is influenced by the faith of the politicians and I would imagine they felt that those folks would always be Christian. They would have never take the Bible and prayer out of schools and since we still have the Congressional chaplains they instituted they never intended for anything like the church and state separation we hear chanted today.

 

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity." - John Adams

"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.. This is genuine Christianity and to this we oweour free consitutions of government." Noah Webster

"Before any man can be considered as a member of a civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift [Jams 1:17] we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land." James Madison

You can go to www.wallbuilders.com and find more such quotes.

It is tough trying to be a Christian and a politician. They did not believe that the country could endure if Christ and the Bible were taken out of it. That concept is basically a Christian theocracy regardless of what they may have been trying to do as a politicians.

"Let the children...be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [removing] Christianity from the world than by persauding mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools." James Wilson - signer of the Consitution

It took nearly 200 years for them to do it, but they finally did.

 

As to the Republicans, no they will not save us, but as with any house you start to clean it one room at a time. Before an Alan Keyes or anyone can have a reasonable chance you must throw out the Democratic trash. First we need to start with the churches since we are the cause of the woes of this country. However, we can do two rooms at once since one room just requires a vote. Throw every Dem out of office from local to national and then bring in the ones to challenge the Repubs. When they see "the gay party" gone they will rethink that embracing. Besides which is more important innocent lives being lost or whether we silence gays who have been around for centuries? Again, one room at a time. The way we are going now we are trying to clean every room inthe house at once and in essence we are shoveling all the dirt into the one room of the Dems and the stink is filling the whole house. A vote against a Repub is a vote for a Dem. They are the worse of the two evils so we get rid of them first and then either clean up the Repubs or replace them as well. What we are doing now accomplishes very little. It is better to fight a war with one enemy and win then to face two and lose. Conquer one and then go for the other.

 

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity." - John Adams

I am having difficulty finding the complete letter in which this was written. Wallbuilders are notorious for taking quotes out of context (or merely finding quotes without finding the primary source). Do you know where this letter can be found?

"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.. This is genuine Christianity and to this we oweour free consitutions of government." Noah Webster

I fail to see how the opinions of Noah Webster are relevant to this discussion. I can provide you with many quotes in context from Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Paine that support my position. If you have to go as far as Noah Webster to back up your position, then perhaps your position needs to be reexamined. He was hardly a founding father in any significant sense. He created a dictionary and founded some newspapers. Whoop!

"Before any man can be considered as a member of a civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift [Jams 1:17] we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land." James Madison

This quotation comes from Memorial and Remonstrance, which is highly ironic. Its a work that supports the separation of church and state. Let us examine your quote...

This is one of the many quotes that Barton twists. In fact, this quote is essentially invented.

Here is the source:
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/remon.html

"Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority."

Notice how Barton abridges the part that says no man's religion should be abridged! And further, government should play no role in any individuals thinking on religious matters. The majority is known to oppress the minority in these matters and Madison wanted to prevent that. The part above is in Section 1 of this 15 Section document.

Ok, let us find the rest of the quote. Hmm, the rest of the quote does not appear in this document. Barton combined two documents into one to create this quote.

The remainder of the quote is said to come from a Proclamation from 1815, and yet I cannot find it. Can you?

Since you brought up a quote partially from Memorial and Remonstrance, I suggest you read it. It's not that long, and it supports my position.

You can go to www.wallbuilders.com and find more such quotes.

I suggest you find another source for your information. Wallbuilders are notorious benders of the truth. Just type in the word "Wallbuilders" in a search and you'll see many of the inaccuracies they report. The Madison quote is just one.

It is tough trying to be a Christian and a politician. They did not believe that the country could endure if Christ and the Bible were taken out of it. That concept is basically a Christian theocracy regardless of what they may have been trying to do as a politicians.

Nonsense. They were escaping the years of religious turmoil that embattled Europe for centuries. A secular state is not an unChristian state, it is merely a non-Christian state.

”…if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail. A father's right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put, by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom. The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.”
- Jefferson "Notes on Virginia"

"Let the children...be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [removing] Christianity from the world than by persauding mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools." James Wilson - signer of the Consitution

It's hard enough finding sources for the more well-known founding fathers. I cannot find this quote from Wilson. It may be accurate. It may not be. That is rather irrelevant. He may very well have hold such personal opinions, but they were not the law.

It took nearly 200 years for them to do it, but they finally did.

The fact that Madison and Jefferson's dream was not reached until somewhat recently doesn't mean their dream fits the model of the oppressors.

 

Actually, you are the first one I know to ever criticize Barton. He comes very highly praised from most circles. I will have to do some more research on him since he supplies many of the quotes that a lot of pastors use. We do not have the time to do that kind of research, so when a person comes to us that is considered to be a man of integrity, we rely on his expertise and literally the time to do it.

 

Candide, Do you know that fears and therefore the paradigm of the founders concerning the separation of church and state was very different from ours? To them, the church-state union had long been a means of suppressing rights and liberties. The establishment clause was a separation of powers as surely as the establishment of Federal branches was. Considering their ideal of very limited government and encouragement of religion, I think it is clear who they thought could be trusted with the most power and influence amongst the populace.

If you really sincere about restoring their ideas of separation of church and state then I will support you 10000%. But remember, in their days churches were responsible for the poor... provided almost all of the education... were expected to establish moral standards that bound society... etc.

In fact, I think it was Jefferson that opposed public education on the premise that government might use it to indoctrinate the people and thus enslave them.

If I attribute this idea correctly then he was not only a great man but a prophet as well.