Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Religion and Philosophy Is America a Christian Nation?

You answered the question I asked. I have no interest in criticizing your reply.

A testator is a person making a legal testament or a will. S/he speaks for no one but her/his own property distribution.

What you wrote was that the unborn could not inherit; you claimed that there were 200 years of laws saying so, yet you cannot cite any of them; and now you claim that you know what a testator is.

I don't think you can make a point effectively by misstating the rules of inheritence, and then misunderstanding what a testator is.

I don't believe that anyone here or elsewhere - other than you - has had a problem understanding where I stand on government interference in our private lives. The thread on smoking rights should have made my position unmistakeably clear.

I believe that I've made it clear that religion has no place insinuating itself into government anymore than government needs to insinuate itself into religious matters.

The Constitution makes only two references to religion: That no religious test may be required for any office of the United States, and that the First Amendment forbids Congress from either establishing an official national religion or of forbidding the free expression of religion. Faith-based grants are a snare and a violation of the FA. Attempting to create a "Christian" government is a violation of Christian principles, and does a grave disservice to our nation. I want neither Pat Robertson nor some iman telling me officially what God says is good for me and everone else.

Yes, I do. No, it isn't.

If you payed attention to something I have said many times there would not be a battle. I will repeat for you one more time, Sandy.

America is a nation of Christians. It is not a Christian nation.

What I find quite ironic is that I who is not a member of any religion, another thing I have said many times but it has been ignored, is the one who defends the religion, Christianity, that drove me to renounce my belief in all religions.

I gotta agree. I've never, ever visited a nation so full of Christians.

So this is how liberty dies....to thunderous applause.

Not really: It is a nation where a majority of people might claim to be Christians, but most of them really have little idea what that means. [My own step-mother is highly educated, claims she is a Christian because she believes that Jesus was sent to save us....and yet also believes we have all been reincarnated many times!!!!]

Maybe 5% of "Christians" who attend church at least once a week understand what their own sect believes, compared to what the other 12 "Christian" sects in town believe.

Even such a basic and unmistakably clear part of the creed as Matthew 25:31–46 is so incompatible with their lives, they would denounce it as socialist propaganda if it was paraphrased into modern English.

Our elections are being driven by Christian doctrines, not by moral values. At this point in time, pressure from our government states that if an American smokes, that American is evil. If an American is gay, that American in unequal in all respects.

I realize that the Senator has given up his Christian membership in any church but may denounce any effort to remove social legislation from the Congressional bills. He, like millions of others don't want to be under the title of any Christian doctrine but will never go so far as to help all Americans get out from under the power of the Federal Government.

I think I became offended by the GOP when I saw many of the debates when not a single candidate stood up for individual freedoms. Not one!! Ron Paul wants to give the prohibitions to the states to legislate and that is not good enough for those of us who feel that no one should stop the perverions and bad habits of Americans. They might try being models of their own perfection.

These moral hypocrites have redesigned our codes of behavior. But I was shocked to learn that Conservatives want this code set in cement as there is no other way to control Americans. I grew up believing that Republicans had no desire to get involved in the privates lives of America. That was before they destroyed the separation of church and state and now that is gone, there is nothing standing in their way to redefine American values.

It is always difficult for me to ascertain excactly where Ron G stands on issues because in the last 8 or 9 years, he has fought my opinions on several other forums. I was amazed at his stand on keeping the government out of our tobacco use. But then I realize he seldom discusses subjects and always discusses the writer of the subjects. I would bet that my subjects on the internet has burned a hole in his computer searching for anything to downgrade my posts. I'm used to this.

I also realize how few here at Reader Rant want a separation from the federal government. What should have been our ticket to freedom has turned into social laws on the brink of inquisition.

I'm not sorry I returned but it has shown me nothing has changed in the attitude of the voters. I'm beating a dead horse here. I spent some time with an old friend who is a psychologist and was stunned that I'm still trying for the individual freesoms that I worked so hard for in 1964. He made me aware that America is getting worse in their desire for a Big Daddy. He pointed me in a new direction that will jump over the silly notions of the voters and go for the meat of the problem.

Our political discussions are a reflection of our inner desires to be told what to do. Our candidates have lined up to fill that need. Every one of them (inluding Fred Thompson) has a desire to lead us into a total control from the White House.

We aren't ready to handle the freedoms that this nation was built on. We have been whipped into submission by heaven and the fear of hell. Only the government can save us.

The last election essentially demonstrated that the RR was either unable or unwilling to assert itself. In fact, I believe you have commented that they have lost influence.

While there is a general stigmatisization of smokers, I think to say that they are being officially labeled as evil is an absurdity. Our government continues to collect hefty tobacco taxes while discouraging tobacco use.

Just as poster Philadelphi Steve is in no position to say that he knows exactly how/why a conservative will react in a certain way, I do not think you are in any way capable of deciding what Senator Hatrack has or has not given up on in terms of political/religious philosophy.

To remind us of what the late George Wallace said, there ain't a dime's worth of difference. It's like two street gangs arguing about how to best rape and sodomize the cornered victim.

I believe that Dr. Paul has consistently argued that the federal government has for too long and too far inserted itself into matters traditionally left to the states; e. g., while he is pro-life, I believe he has said that abortion is a matter for the states, not the feds.

Genuine conservatives - paleos, traditional, old-style - such as I am want nothing to do with this neo-con/religious right attempt to nanny us.

The actual record is that you and I have exchanged broadsides for at most six years and in essence on only one other forum than this one. and on that forum, you are the only person who has had any difficulty at all understanding my core philosophy.

My position may have been novel to the posters here at RR; however, you should have been aware of it from my clear and uneqivocal positions stated on Patriots Forum/Faded Glory...the only place other than CHB/RR where we have squared off on various issues.

Our original exchanges arose over matters of fact - claims you made as to things I had said WRT the administration, but which were never able to document. The only thing I have called you on in this thread or the "Smoking Rights" thread is also matters of fact - i. e., your misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the chronological relationship of the Renaissance and the Reformation, and your statements as to the ability of the unborn to inherit and to what a testator does.

Your atheism and your gender have never been the subject of anything I have said; in all cases, I believe that the record shows you to have been the person who had first played those cards.

Nor have I ever suggested that persons of any religious confession should be barred from civic participation, that they should be confined to their churches and watched over.

Nor have I suggested the existence of a genetic component peculiar to the religious that causes brain damage.

RR contains considerably more liberal/lefy-leaners than does our common forum; however, you say the same thing of it despite the fact that the supermajority of those there are conservative/right-leaners.

While the positions of voters is often silly, the brutal fact remains that the voters are in charge.

While I'm sure there are some who no doubt believe that, I see here and elsewhere that there are people who adamantly resist such notions.

Speak for yourself only, please!

When someone refers to particular passage in the Bible I, not being an Bible thumper, get my Bible out and read the passage mentioned. Since Matthew 25:31-46 speaks of G*D on G*D's throne and G*D is upset because humans, individually not collectively, didn't help the poor to say that it would construed as socialist propaganda is stretching things a bit. Then when in verse 41 G*D condemns all who sit to G*D's left the religious right would spin that as G*D condemning leftwingers not themselves.

The freedoms this nation were built on all the Founding Fathers believed came from G*D. Some believed that Jesus was the son of G*D, some didn't but all of them had a belief in G*D.

Actually, they almost all believed in a Creator, not all referred to it as God. there was to some atleast, a significant difference