A Not So Subtle Message For Those Of The Christian Faith?
-
Razor187 — 16 years ago(October 28, 2009 09:43 PM)
A New Life is the episode.
The message of it was, well, I'll let The Controller answer that:
Beginning: Religious devotion can lead people away from temptation and evil, but is the path as clear if that devotion is blind?
Ending: When you blindly give up your free will to a higher authority, be sure you are not also giving up control of your ultimate destiny.
Ade due damballa, GIVE ME THE POWER I BEG OF YOU! -
misty233 — 16 years ago(January 11, 2010 12:06 AM)
Ending: When you blindly give up your free will to a higher authority, be sure you are not also giving up control of your ultimate destiny.
and you can also put the blind followers of obama in there buddha. im sure you just forgot. -
feather_jammed_gears — 14 years ago(September 19, 2011 08:24 PM)
Your confusing religion and politics. I know this happens more often than it should in the US nowadays. Wonderful couple of line in the Constitution were put there in an attempt to keep them separate.
-
JonBruno — 14 years ago(November 23, 2011 04:46 PM)
Actually, no such "separation" can be found or correctly implied. As is clear from the texts themselves, the arguments and discussions collected in the Federalist Papers, and subsequent historical events and texts, the Constitution was written to prevent interference with any speech or activity that was religious, and emphatically says so in the First Amendment. The nation's founding document, in fact, gives a theological justification for the nation: "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" Underscoring that NO "separation" was intended was Jefferson's second inaugural address, as well as other historical occurrences, speeches, and texts.
-
ObscureAuteur — 14 years ago(January 09, 2012 06:18 PM)
Another tiresome evangelical trying to read Jesus into a deist document? In any case the declaration is not the constitution, and its author, Jefferson, was no born again zealot. The first amendment and the sixth article taken together are sufficient even without the word "separation". I wish these back door theocrats could get it through their heads that the constitution was not written to protect the U.S. from the larger churches of that day in order to put it in trust for the evangelicals of this day. The erosion represented by the chaplains in congress and the military (both opposed by Madison), the motto, the 1954 rape of the pledge, and the real low tide, G.W. Bush giving executive orders allowing billions to be funneled into "faith based" programs (so long as they are Christian that is, although that could not be explicit) without accountability or the usual anti-discrimination rules with regard to employees and recipients of services (check that sixth article again), has been quite bad enough.
In 1797 Adams and a unanimous senate of founding fathers endorsed a document that states that the U.S. is NOT a Christian nation(1). That should be the end of it.
CB
"Good times, noodle salad"
(1) "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, " from the Treaty of Tripoli 1797
[Can you imagine such language even being drafted today in an official document?] -
russedav — 14 years ago(February 20, 2012 05:17 AM)
The usual tiresome, clever, but willfully ignorant, fascist antiChristian bigotry rewriting history with bogus, tiny, selective, anachronistic quotes easily refuted by the few today, surrounded by a sea of illiterates, who know true history (His story) versus the popular mode of reducing everything to the pursuit of deviant orgasm, like Darwinist Huxley, hating the true science like pious genius Sir Isaac Newton's and NASA's great Von Braun for today's fascist "global warming" delusion that's destroying true science for the sake of blind antiChristian bigotry. We've made up our minds; don't confuse us with the facts.
The typical, laughable "deism" canard is of course unsustainable when one actually studies the period and considers the various voluminous conflicts of the day, e.g. the pamphlet wars, when such alleged "deists" were often more devoutly "Christian" than many if not most of today's professing "Christians" and carefully avoids the reality of how many clergymen were involved in the establishment of the nation, including our state churches, where, unlike the jszigeti fraud, their concern in their establishing of a Christian nation was that it not be sectarian (e.g. Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.), and nothing in the jszigeti citations legitimately refutes that, unable to give substantiated historical citations proving otherwise that can't be easily refuted, only impressing the usual ignorant and the gullible, i.e. most today, more interested in laziness of mind and body, booze & the idiot/devil's box & per vert orgasm than reality. As Chesterton once said, Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting, it has been left untried, clearly the case with jszigeti in view of his blind and groundless clever but easily refuted assertions.
The true Presidents and Congresses and Supreme Courts (e.g. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States - 143 U.S. 457 (1892)) of course didn't buy this irrational antiChristian nonsense but of course, as in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union we're now following, when one's deluded fascist "mind" is made up it doesn't want to be confused with the facts. Ironically it's only safe for those devoted to antiChristian bigotry to live in a Christian nation since elsewhere there would be no compunctions about putting those like jszigeti to death, even if a fellow antitheist, having no "thou shalt not murder" about which to worry. God have mercy on his poor soul & ours. -
wlbennett — 14 years ago(February 29, 2012 09:01 AM)
Judging by the language you use, you are exactly the kind of person you are condemming. The phrase "true Presidents and Congresses Supreme Courts" implies a type of tunnel vision that only accepts opinions that agree with yours and automatically rejects any contradictory information. By resorting to comparisons to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Empire you're using useless rhetoric to inspire fear. It's comparable to claiming your goals are similar to Radical Islam or any other philosophy that supports a theocracy. It may not be valid but it inspires fear in a certain portion of the population. In short you babble in catch phrases but don't say much of value.
-
xfastfurious15 — 13 years ago(July 10, 2012 08:18 PM)
"The usual tiresome, clever, but willfully ignorant, fascist antiChristian bigotry rewriting history with bogus, tiny, selective, anachronistic quotes easily refuted by the few today, surrounded by a sea of illiterates, who know true history (His story) versus the popular mode of reducing everything to the pursuit of deviant orgasm".
Obviously russeday doesn't read the bible often. Apparently he forgot that "thou/thy should not judge", which he just did. And what about "loving thy neighbor"? it doesn't sound like your so loving.you sound kind of spiteful to me. bitter even,
but hey i guess you could just blame the internet for that. your people are good blaming other people/things for your actions, aren't you? -
ZAROVE — 10 years ago(November 05, 2015 04:24 AM)
DrSamba -
The only fascists here are the xtians themselves.
First off, its Xian. The X stands for Christ, so typing Xtian is just wrong.
That said, not all Christains are alike, and sating thign syou don't like on IMDb is not Facism. -
ZAROVE — 10 years ago(November 05, 2015 04:18 AM)
Calling peopel delusional or Facists isnt an arugment, its a ploy. Atheists do it too, I know, but tis still a ploy.
You also calld gim wrong but didnt explain why. Granted, I didnt cie myself, btu this post is five years odl and I will if needed. Jist sayign he;s wrong though isnt a real argument. -
JonBruno — 11 years ago(September 28, 2014 10:22 AM)
RE: "In 1797 Adams and a unanimous senate of founding fathers endorsed a document that states that the U.S. is NOT a Christian nation(1). That should be the end of it. "
Couldn't stop laughing when I read this,.
As the text preceding this statement shows, you clearly lack a sound grasp of western history. The thread of philosophical and theological thought that leads to John Locke's treatises, adopted by the Founding Fathers, was that our rights and freedom inhere as a grant from God, and may not be violated by governments. It was a development of thought originating in the Old Testament, expanded on by St. Augustine, and then through thinkers through to John Locke. As such, it is unique to Christian theology, thought, sensibilities and culture.
Your reliance on the sentence in the Treaty of Tripoli confirms your ignorance of history, and serves as a loud and emphatic exclamation point The phrase was penciled in the Arab version of the treaty so that Arab acquiescence could be obtained, and was NOT in the English language text the American signers signed off on. As anyone familiar with history knows, Muslims were an intolerant lot then, in their beginning, and now -
ZAROVE — 10 years ago(November 05, 2015 04:15 AM)
ObscureAuteur -
Another tiresome evangelical trying to read Jesus into a deist document?
Well, I'm not an Evangelical, though I'll no doubt be branded as one, or at leats osme form of Christian nationalist. This is odd becaue I'm oftne brnded as a God and Christian hatign Liberal when I contradict Historica yths told by the other side such as on the less-than-credible Wallbuilders.
Still, Myths exist on both sides.
The Declaration Of Independance is not a Deist Document.
Also, even if it wre, that alone woudl not make it non-Christian. There's this odd myth that peopel seem to clign to nowadays that many of America's Foudners wee Deists
instead of Christians
as if being a Deist mean syou could't have been a Christian. Deism is not an alternate Relgiion to Christianity, Though, its a Theolpgical position, and oen that many Christians adhered to in the 17th and 18th Centiry, It actulaly got started with a set of Calvinist Theologians. The idea that Deism is somehow incompatibel with Christianity is in itself absurd.
With that said, there is no hint in the Declaration that it was intended as a Deist Document at all.
In any case the declaration is not the constitution, and its author, Jefferson, was no born again zealot.
But he did say he was a Christian. His beleifs may have appauled many modern day Christian Natonalists who nonetheless use his name to advance their own causes, but that;s no excuse to allow others ot say he didn't se ehimself as a Christian to back their own political or social Ideals, either.
Jefferson wudl toay be branded a Liberal Christian, and woudk fit in with Borg, Crossin, and Spong.
Also, do you tink beig :Born Agaib" means "Zeaot"? Dn;'t you think our beign a bit condecnding?
The first amendment and the sixth article taken together are sufficient even without the word "separation". I wish these back door theocrats could get it through their heads that the constitution was not written to protect the U.S. from the larger churches of that day in order to put it in trust for the evangelicals of this day.
Actually, the Constitution wasn't written to protect the U. S. Government fromt he Churches at all.
Not only were the Amendments added laer owing to pressure from men liek Jefferson, who actually opposed the Constitution to begin with, but the First Amendment was not based on the idea that the Goverbment was threatened by beign taken over by CHurches. The idea that Govenrments were corrupted and conriled by Relgiion and had ot be sheilded form it came way later in American Thought.
In Reality, the provisions were there to protect the Churches from Government Interferance. i fyou read what America's Founes actually beleived, youd' see they feared the Government controling Relgiion, as well as the Press and Private Business, they di dnot ear those thigns controlign the Govenbrment, and certianlyd id not seek to protect the Govenrment frmt he larger Chruches of thier day.
The erosion represented by the chaplains in congress and the military (both opposed by Madison),
No, they were't opposed by Madison.
Congressional Chaplain were opposed, but nly because he did not wish a National Religion established. He did not, however, oppose Chaplains for the Military.
Also, Madison was not the only Fudner, and since Chaplains were oted into existence, tis a silly aruent unles syou go with the equally silly myth that all of America' Foudnes agees on everything.
the motto, the 1954 rape of the pledge,
Oh come on, "Rape"? Adding a fw words doenst constitute Rape and the Supreme Court ruled that God doenst belogn to a single Relgiion. our beign barmy here, and complainign about nothing.
The Motto is also a bit of fluffy nonsense. if America'ss own Foudners invoked God in public speeches, then its ridiculosu to asusme they wanted all mention fo God removed, as if Relgiion=God.
and the real low tide, G.W. Bush giving executive orders allowing billions to be funneled into "faith based" programs (so long as they are Christian that is, although that could not be explicit)
Actually the Faith Based Initiatives gave money to Charities and orinisatiosn run by Muslims, Jews, and even Buddhists. The figures ar foudn on Govenrment sies, and even date back to the Bush oresidency.
So no, it wa snot given exclusively to Christian orginisations.
without accountability or the usual anti-discrimination rules with regard to employees and recipients of services (check that sixth article again), has been quite bad enough.
Anti-Discimination Policies didnt exist in the 18th century, so invkign the 6th amendment is nonsensical.
Unless ou think SLavery was abolished in the Revolution and women coudl vote.
Oh and dont forgt the Irish beign msitreated, the Chinese msitreated ( and eventually barred form citzenship in the Chinese Exclusion Acts) and the Anti-Catholci hatred thats even in the Declaration of Indepndance itself.
Now comes the shoddy proof texts. This is exaclty what David Barton does. ots just as bad when his opponent -
ObscureAuteur — 11 years ago(September 28, 2014 09:36 AM)
President John Adams and a Senate full of founding fathers signed and ratified the Treaty of Tripoli (1) which states explicitly "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ". Such text could not possibly pass a vote in today's Idiocracy. That it did then I think clarifies the founders intentions as to the concept of "Christian Nation" quite clearly. There is no such thing. The "creator" usage is deistic in nature not explicitly Christian, again this is deliberate. The Declaration would even meet with the approval of Tom Paine along the lines of his
Age of Reason
. Between non-establishment (1st Amendment) and no religious test for office (Art 6) there is little legitimate room for church within the state. Jefferson actually used the words "separation of church and state" although that does not have the force of a constitutional amendment by any means, but perhaps it is not so incorrect to imply it. The founders set us off on a the right course and it has been compromised bit by bit ever since despite a few bright spots like limitation on school prayer and so far keeping creation "science" out of the science class. First the introduction of Chaplains in the Congress and Armed Forces (the latter with curious rationalization that it is necessary to insure the 1st Amendment rights of soldiers!), something that was explicitly opposed by James Madison. Then adoption of a national motto "In God we Trust" (with the clear implication that "God" is Jehovah) in 1864 (although not officially until 1956 in the heat of Cold War rhetoric about "Godless Communism"). The revision of the Pledge of Allegiance, first published in 1892, in 1954 to shoehorn in "under God" using a thin rationale based on Lincoln having used it as a rhetorical flourish in a late draft of the Gettysburg Address, a another bit of Cold War mischief.
I am sick and tired of our American Taliban in Waiting telling fantasy stories of American history(2) as if the real purpose of the first amendment was to protect Evangelicals from the dominant churches of the day in order to put the nation in trust for the day that Evangelicals could take over the theocracy that was clearly intended from the start. There is a reason that nowhere in any of the chief documents we see the name of God, Jesus, or a final flourish like "This we do in Jesus' name, Amen".
CB
There is no great oxymoron in the English language than "Gospel Truth".
(1)
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
(2) For example, Lincoln calling for all to kneel in prayer upon hearing the news from Appomattox in 1865. Pure fiction disclaimed by a person present at the time.