Obama Skips Church

Slightly off topic ... but the newspapers today carry the obituary of Dr. George Docherty, a Scot who was pastor of the New York Avenue Baptist Church in Washington back in the 50's. He preached that the pledge of allegiance should contain a phrase, "under God", and caught the attention of one of the church's worshippers, President Eisenhower. So the deed was done ... but Docherty is also quoted as having said that his intention was that "God" was equally applicable to Christians, Jews, and Muslims. A different era!

Docherty was 97 years old at his passing.

 

You're preaching to the choir, I was simply relaying the SCOTUS decisions who are legal experts and the ultimate interpreter of our constitution. You can disagree with them all you want but they do have the responsibility of interpreting the constitution for all the people and not just those who feel the constitution is exclusively theirs. Because of this decision I can no longer take the kids from the Church to see the nativity scene at the City Capitol. Not like I like it either.

It also doesn't endorse discrimination against those who are not Christian. Freedom of Religion means it's possible for an atheist to be POTUS.

You ever look at what religion the authors of the constitution were? How about TJ? What religion was he? How about any of our founding fathers?

Here is the problem. You are stereo typing. All Muslims are not from the radical branch that is our enemy. Some Muslims, like the governments and majority of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi share our disgust for the way the radicals are acting. As a matter of fact, the non-radical Muslims are more upset because of the bad name and reputation the radicals are giving every Muslim.

Because of this attitude we are discriminating against our own citizens who so happen to be Muslim. This is really sad when you're persecuted and out casted by your Government because of your religion yet they had the nerve and the audacity to put freedom of religion in their constitution. Is that freedom only if I choose yours?

I invite you to read Colin Powell endorsement of Obama. He tells a very eye opening story about a Muslim American who died for the flag you say is his enemy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-invokes-imag_n_135977.html

 

I had heard this about our founding fathers also, the Reference to our creator or God was not endorsing a specific religion but was an open statement so each citizen can apply it to their God.

 

Freedom of religion meant that the US Congress would not make any law that would set up a national church or get in the way of people exercising their religion. It means what it says and it applies to whom it applies. It doesn't mean it's "okay" to have an atheist or Muslim for President. If we do not make it clear we want a Christian then we will get something else. The law does not prevent it because it wants us to decide. We should not take that as choke hold on any and all expressions of or interest in religion in or around government. Comments like "we're not electing a national pastor" or "it's a secular matter" typify the concern I have. We're divorcing Christianity from our discussion and decision making process because of the "separation of church and state" lie.

Keep in mind that the US constitution did not put any boundaries on the church involvement in the state. Your friendly IRS, however, has taken the doctrine to that extreme. I personally don't want my church to be politically oriented - don't think otherwise - but I resent very much the government telling me we can't discuss politics, endorse a candidate, etc. and qualify as a church under the tax code. This "separation" is one of many that was never intended by the prohibition put open the US Congress.

Much has been written on this subject. It is clear that were not all Christians. It is also clear that the majority were and that God's hand was at work in what the entire body did in the founding the nation. We spend so much time trying to give attention to the everything else and all we do by that is heap more discredit to what was central to whole of it. It is very evident from historical record of the time that Christianity was central in the formation of our nation and making sure a national government didn't get in the way of it was critical to the delegates of the States sent to write the Constitution.

I went to war with people of different beliefs and of no beliefs. I know what they all can do for their country. I don't need to read anything - not that I don't or wouldn't - to fully understand that because I have experienced it.

How do we get from recognizing America as a nation based on Christian principles and considering Christianity and important quality for our leadership to discriminating against those who are not? By falling into the new thinking that we can't express ourselves in our society if in any way those expressions include beliefs that might conflict with another - that's how!

This is the problem with understanding the meaning of tolerance - live and let live - and the meaning of acceptance and inclusion - changing how we live. We've changed the rules to discriminate against ourselves so others can be comfortable and even make us feel uncomfortable! We've be duped into thinking we can't say or do anything Christian in public life because someone who's not Christian might be offended.

The object is not to offend or discriminate or persecute anyone! The object is to recognize where we came from and impact where we are going by making Christianity important in our daily lives including what we do in government. The object is to make sure we don't end up being persecuted!

Many Muslims may claim to, or actually desire to, live peacefully and co-exist with Christians. Those in my neighborhood seem to be doing so. I don't see their religion as having any particular impact on how they interact as neighbors. Perhaps that may even be "nicer" than some others. If so, they have accepted the meaning of tolerance - live and let live.

But, as a religion, the teachings are strongly slanted towards elimination of all non-Muslim beliefs through force if required. It condones violence. It's in their book. So, eventually, the non-violent Muslims will be face with a choice - revise their book or condone or join with the violent side. I don't trust the non-violence to prevail. We need to be alert to that.
Stereo-typing when based upon factual observations is not a bad thing. We'd best keep close watch on the Muslim movement in America before it's too late.

I will also note that we don't have problems going after a "crazy" sect in America that advocates violence? In fact, the state can come down real hard on people like that. Some things hide behind the diversity banner and others can not.

 

very interesting, applies no matter who a person calls god, is that right.

 

Not establishing a national religion left the door open to any belief, even non-belief to take any position in the land. It was thinking contrary to this that bought on civil rights amendments, anti-discrimination laws etc...

My mechanic doesn't attend Church. He spends most of his Sunday's at Bandimere speedway working on race cars. It was good I wasn't looking for a Pastor because I found a really good/honest mechanic and friend. It was almost divine how I found him.

The doctor who put rods in my daughters back was atheist yet he prayed with me before the surgery. He was the best in the field. Again, it was divine how we found him. We weren't comfortable with our original doctor when the clerk at the xray desk commented, "you know, Dr XXX is the best in the area". I knew when I shook his hand and looked him in the eye that he was the guy.

Expecting your Chief Politician to also be your religious equal says you may have to settle some on the political spectrum to have the religious requirement. I'd prefer a non-religious politician who listens and is the best we have to offer than a religious politician who thinks everything he does is the Will of God.

Separation of Church and state is why the government has no say so in how you worship. The trade off is Government doesn't Govern according to the Bible. If you want Government to Govern according to the Bible, then you would have to accept the laws and rules it would place on your Church. So the boundaries are you leave us a lone and we leave you alone. That is the separation.

The author of the Constitution, TJ, called Christianity a superstition. Government not getting in the way was a two way street, it meant Government didn't get in the way of religion and that religion didn't force itself on Government. You can't have it both ways.

I notice you refer to your fellow soldiers as THEY instead of US or WE.

The opposite of tolerance is intolerance. Intolerance is the root of confusion. I don't see how some advocate confusion under the disguise of the Will of God. God is not the author of confusion. I'm not saying we have to accept the others views, but we should at least listen so we can entertain civil discussion and perhaps get them to see the light.

You have me laughing for two reasons...

1. You advocate less government then suggest Government should have part in assuring Christianity is important in our daily lives.

2. When you say where WE came from, do you mean the Blacks who ancestors came from the slave fields? The Irish or the Germans who endured Ellis Island to find the promise of Freedom. Or perhaps the Mayflower riders or the border crossers who came seeking the same dream. All of those is America.

Correction, most Muslims DO live peaceably with Christians which is evident by your neighbors. Go over and ask them about the Radicals views then hang on because your going to get an ear load of hate...

I have to correct you again, this is the interpretation of the radical Muslims. This is not a traditional Muslim teaching. It's no different from the KKK who used Christianity and the Bible as their religious justification for terrorizing any non-white.

There will always be some who interpret any document to an extreme level. I think most of your interpretations of the constitution are extreme. However, it is just as evil to blame ALL because of how SOME interpret and express their religious views. No one blamed ALL whites because of the actions, beliefs and teachings of the KKK so why should we blame ALL Muslims because of the radical few?

 

That's what I read somewhere, you have to remember that not all of the founding fathers or authors of the constitution were religious.

I finally found this treaty. I've been looking for this for a couple of days now. This treaty was read and approved by the Senate on June 7, 1797. It contains an interesting paragraph. I have always been puzzled why this was approved.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

 

I think you've got it right. :thumbs:

They (the founders) considered the importance of 'religion' as it affects the moral behavior and the expression of conscience controlls the abuses that unlimited exercise of liberty could allow.

Article VI of the COUS last paragraph "........Officers, borh of the United States and of the Several States, shall be bound by Oath of Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

 

Where were you earlier, I knew this was in there... :thumbs:

 

and people claim we're a christian nation and the founding fathers were christians, and we're based on the bible. sure looks like it doesn't it.

 

doesn't mean christians should divorce themselves from scripture when they vote, we should support scripture with our votes. as christians our christianity should be a part of every area of our lives, even political. for a christian religion should be the litmus test when voting.

 

Those who advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders often publish information attempting to prove that the Founders were irreligious.5 One of the quotes they set forth is the following:

The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.GEORGE WASHINGTON



Read On

 

Interesting read... I never heard that quote was made by GW but knew it was in that treaty. This article explains this wording means we were not Christian like other Christian nations and would not undertake a religious war on Muslim's.

It's a fact not all the founders were Christians and those who were Christians were a combination of of groups like Anglican, Congregationalist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Quaker, Roman Catholic and Unitarian. There were also a couple of Deist. So one can argue the majority were Christian but Protestant is a different discussion.

So the question still remains to define the references of God and Creator.

 

Thanks to a member I would like to make a correction, "Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was mostly the work of James Madison."

My apologies for my error...

 

Only those who despise the fact that this country was founded by Biblical Principles as given by the one true and living God have a question.

 

Despise??? Kind of a harsh word... What if a person reads the documents as they are written without inserting a personal agenda?

This sounds like non-religious people were expected in those who would be making and executing law for this country. If the intentions were to maintain a Christian Government, it seems one of the requirements would be that Christians only would be in charge.

Now the reason it doesn't matter to me is because we have religious freedom in this country. The country goes as far as to acknowledge religion as a disqualifier of jury duty and combat. I don't believe in forcing religious values on any man. One needs to freely accept the Gospel or it isn't a saving relationship.

 

To reinterpret the mention of God in our founding documents to be generic is a personal agenda. There is no room for anything else.

Why?

And no one has suggested such.

 

What I wrote was "I went to war with people of different beliefs and of no beliefs. I know what they all can do for their country." What's the problem with using "they" in this sentence? I referred to those who I knew or suspected were non-Christian. They were non-Christian but we were all warriors working together. So what exactly was your point?

 

Only those who went to war in uniform will undertand the special comeraderie that exists despite the different religious beliefs. As a chaplain, I held the hands of dying men of various religious backgrounds and including so-called atheists.

Cheers,

Jim

 

... and the point of my comment was that tolerance is not the equivalent of acceptance. There is confusion in this! The confusion is when people believe they have to accept everything as being equally true else they are intolerant in a negative sense. That is wrong! We do need to be civil in our disagreements but we don't have to entertain those belief systems we know to be false when we're warned not to do so.