All Comments (87)

.
-
-
-
-
.
.
.

{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
< ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +)
< ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
< ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +)
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
< ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +)
< ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
< ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +) < ?: +)
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
,평화, 和平:

-
-
.
.
.
-

Ryan -

Late breaking news flash. The Bush administration comes out in defense of waterboarding today in the news and something they've refused to comment on until now. Guess who weighs in on their side??

Yep, Antonin Scalia, our favorite biblically informed Supreme Court justice. Now that all of this has finally seen the light of day, it will likely be more difficult to pull off covert torture of prisoners, although sending suspects off to less 'squeamish' countries (CIA renditions) where torture is de rigor will always be an option.

Current Attorney General Mukasey doesn't see a problem with it - and stipulates that it can't be prosecuted. Remember when this was a big issue during his nomination hearings to replace Gonzalez?? As I recall, he took a rather 'neutral' position regarding this practice at the time. Thus torture practitioners are protected under (the Bush) interpretation of the law.

One of the very issues under discussion here in this thread........

Ryan -

First of all, just because you'd like to draw a distinction between the concepts of church and religion in the context of this discussion doesn't mean such a distinction exists and I maintain it does not. These words are perfectly interchangeable in this sense. In the mind of the Founders, do you think they sensed a difference in kind between 'church' and 'religion' in civil matters or matters of government?? I seriously doubt it.

Your quite right - I'd like government to be free of religious influence of any kind. On the other hand, that isn't possible and never has been. The bulk of our population claims to be affiliated with a religion or religious denomination of one kind or another - there's more than enough religion to go around, so no worries.

The issue at hand as you're very well aware is the danger of a government (the one we currently have for example) being infiltrated with a certain brand of Christian fundamentalist thinking that would quite literally bend the functions of government to it's religiously informed will, based on biblical beliefs - while Catholics are not necessarily big bible readers in the same vein as their protestant evangelical brothers and sisters (having been a Catholic and having known many) they can be quite conservative in their thinking, and can closely adhere to church doctrine in a variety of contexts. Still, I have no real fear of Catholics, since most will take a drink, even on Sunday (living in the South, I can tell you that most Baptists will too, but they have to buy it on Saturday).

Personally, I like the liberal-minded Catholics that I know (they never read the bible, but do listen to the gospel in church). Now putting them on the Supreme Court I could live with!! But I don't cotton to the idea that conservative Supreme Court judges are (quite possibly) following the strict dictates of either the pope or church doctrine when they make decisions affecting 300 million people. I believe you're a personality type first and a religionist second, so one clearly informs the other in thought, word, and deed.

Ultimately I like liberals in government because they have almost infinitely less capacity to infringe on the rights of others based on religiously/biblically inspired beliefs (when compared to right-wing fundamentalists). Now, conservative in the libertarian sense is a different animal altogether, and maybe we need a few of them on the Supreme Court - in fact, I'd say definitely. They deserve their day in the sun. Although not a POTUS - us liberals and you fellow conservatives still need social security, medicare, and who knows, maybe even national healthcare??! So long, Ron Paul, it's been good to know ya.

As to the Supreme Court, we are talking specifically about reproductive matters here, as the prime example - but this may include matters of religion in the civil or public arena, or matters concerning corporate vs individual rights. The power of religion is significant enough, without throwing tons of money into the mix - well, that's politics, right?

In the sense that they (or any sitting judge) are thus influenced (by religious belief) in their judicial decisions, they are doing the work of the protestant evangelicals on the right..... a certain percentage of which have joyous apocalyptic visions of Armageddon - Huckabee is a perfect example of everything I'd like to keep out of government so look to him as an exemplary symbol of what and who we're talking about (remember his bit about re-writing the Constitution to reflect a more biblically based set of rules?).

I'm not too worried about religion or religious people in general - I'm a 'live and let live' kind of guy. I am concerned about the fundamentalist interpretation of (any) religion and the doctrinaire, authoritarian adherence to theocratic principles that are based on religious doctrines, dogma, & randomly collected writings & compilations such as the Bible and the Quran....and how beliefs based on any of the above may influence life in the world we all must live in.

To the extent that fundamentalism supports ideologically driven governments, the vast majority of us are likely to come out losers.

"My standard reference for debunking GKC's claims is here: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#10"

This says it all!

What an unbelievably misleading source to use for biblical and non-biblical dating. Wow. That's pretty bad. No wonder you think I'm nuts!

Regarding non-canonical sources for references to Jesus, you left out the Babylonian Talmud. And holy cow, did you think that I didn't know that one of Josephus's references to Jesus has been tainted?

Later...

Ryan Haber
The Separation of Church and State is a real and living legal doctrinal principle on which our government and society rest. Everything that we live by is not in the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court can invalidate laws, but it does. The alternative is rioting and war, which we already did once, in the 1860's. Is that what you want? Is that better?

I do not think it was ever the intention of George Washington, nor Thomas Jefferson, nor anyone else up until the present day to exclude "religiously-informed" views from public discussion. The intent was to put an end to religious warfare, torture, and brutality. It is sort of like the adults telling the misbehaving kids to separate: get it? SEPARATE!

Ryan Haber, please tell me how living in the United States, today, that you cannot practice your religion in exactly the way that want, with all of the embellishments that you want, with all of the piety that you want or feel is necessary, with all of the preaching and or good works that you might like to indulge in? How does our current sytem restrict or inhibit you? How does the government prevent you from holding whatever relgious beliefs and practices that you want? Be specific.

Terry,

Church and religion are different things. Religiously-informed views are still a different thing. State and governance are different things, and politics is yet a third.

To agree with you that the structures of a church and the structures of our State should not intermingle is one thing. It is quite a different thing to hold that religion has no role in politics and that the religiously-inclined haven't a role either.

You assume, for instance, that the Catholic members of the US Supreme Court are incapable of interpreting the US Constitution; presumably because they would not, and will not, uphold such fabrications as the putative right to an abortion. If you will examine the documents, however, you will find that the putative right is goes unmentioned in the US Constitution, which does explicitly say (in its 10th Amendment), "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." You can almost make a sure bet that is what the Supreme Court will next decide on the abortion question - to reserve it to the various states, in accordance with the US Constitution's explicit instructions. Of course, this jurisprudence will certainly be lambasted by NARRAL and NOW and the rest, and all the anticatholic bigotries will be hauled out again, and the decision will be hailed as the beginning of the end of the US Constitution, and attempts to float an amendment will be made. All to protect a "right" not included in the US Constitution, in the name of constitutional rights.

From "separation of Church and State" (a phrase not found in the US Constitution) you have in your own mind legitimated the exclusion of religiously-informed views from political discourse, and their holders with them.

And you are worried about the affect RELIGION will have on our democracy?

GKC writes:

"The posts that claim that Jesus never existed come to mind even though there are five ancient non-canonical references to Jesus' existance."

You keep saying that, and I (and others) keep pointing out that you are quite wrong about that.

Short story: the most famous (infamous?) of these references are two found in Josephus, and they are most probably 4th century forgeries inserted into his writings by "helpful" Xian scribes.

The other "non-canonical references" (Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonis) don't add a shred of non-canonical evidence to the Jesus story, but discuss Xians, who were - obviously - real live people, and offer third-hand reports along the lines of "the Xians believe that Christ existed."

You call it evidence, I call it repeating a superstition to provide a point of reference.

My standard reference for debunking GKC's claims is here: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#10

Cited debunking was good a month ago, and it's good now. :)

John Stephens,

No, one does not have to wait a thousand more years! We know the "flaws of it all" and secularists, NT exegetes and the likes of Salman Rusdie and Hirsi Ali are now "deflawing it all".

"Where you been, Neal? That’s called “Lying for Jesus” and from what I’ve seen on this forum over the past year, it’s a perfectly acceptable means for certain types of Christians to spread the good news."

E Favorite,

While I agree with you that there are Christians on these boards who have posted some off the wall stuff, it is definitely a two-way street!

The posts that claim that Jesus never existed come to mind even though there are five ancient non-canonical references to Jesus' existance. Of course, this doesn't prove the theological meaning of Jesus' unique identity as fully human and fully divine but it is pretty ridiculous to say that Jesus is just a made-up figure.

The BGone hoax website also comes to mind which is a shame since there are several atheists on this board who develop well thought out critiques of Christianity and religion in general. Even though I disagree with you personally, I appreciate your posts, E Favorite.

Thank you for not placing all Christians on this board in the category of "Lying for Jesus."

Respectfully,

GK

Neal: "...not even the footnote mentions "secularism", as Patrick so deceitfully states."

Where you been, Neal? That’s called “Lying for Jesus” and from what I’ve seen on this forum over the past year, it’s a perfectly acceptable means for certain types of Christians to spread the good news.

What I don’t understand is why Jesus needs the help of people like this. Couldn’t He, in His wisdom, teach His messengers how to be more effective liars? At the very least He could telepathically teach them academic research skills (which I learned in high school) and how Google works, so they wouldn’t make such fools of themselves.

Here’s the full text of the case http://supreme.justia.com/us/367/488/case.html. I found it in less than a minute, by googling “Torcaso v. Watkins.”

N. THOMAS WRIGHT:

Thought-provoking and succinct.

Perhaps, sir, you British have simply been around long enough to have become civilized, sophisticated, and rational.

God knows you have had a terrible go of religion through the centuries, from tribal times to present.

We colonialists have only been at it a couple of hundred years. Give us the thousand years you've had and we'll match you at the game.

TERRY:

Your post about your father seeing flying saucers, presumably not thrown at him by your mother, reminds me of something I've been wanting to suggest or ask.

All this banter about religion, blah blah blah.

Religious or secular, whomever, how about some comments on the other-worldly things that do occur with or without rational explanation. Like flying saucers, ghosts, Edgar Cayce, etc.

I've seen some of these phenomenon. Sometimes, I was sober.

TJ:

So sorry about your experience in Alabama. I went on the internet and became an ordained clergyman for $14 so I could marry my buddy's son to his betrothed.

It worked out swell. Nobody asked anyone any annoying questions, i.e. everybody minded his or her own business.

I recommend this approach to others. There is no way the government can discern between "real" preachers and "pretend" preachers like yours truly. It's already gone to the Supreme Court. The Supremes determined that the government has no business interfering in religion.

Now, if only the reverse were true...

Please note also that not even the footnote mentions "secularism", as Patrick so deceitfully states.

Patrick@at_some_bs_site.com: wrote:

--"TORCASO V. WATKINS, October 1961, US Supreme Court: 'Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.'

--"Secularism, Secular Humanism, is a religion, as ruled by the Supreme Court."

This was *not* the ruling of the Supreme Court in this case. It is a *footnote* in a case dealing with religious tests for holding public office.

--"The fact that Evolutionists just came up with "another solution" shows clearly their common tactic. Lie and then tell a different one when the lie is exposed."

So, what's your story going to be now?

(Props to Mr. Mark for originally exposing this lie when it was first offered several months ago in another thread.)

Christopher Hitchens has something to say about Rowan Williams:

TO HELL WITH THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

"In December 1931, George Orwell got himself arrested in the slums of East London in order to find out about conditions "inside," and then he wrote an essay about the people he met while in detention. One of them was a buyer for a kosher butcher who had embezzled some of his boss's money. To Orwell's surprise, the man told him that "his employer would probably get into trouble at the synagogue for prosecuting him. It appears that the Jews have arbitration courts of their own, and a Jew is not supposed to prosecute another Jew, at least in a breach-of-trust case like this, without first submitting it to the arbitration court."

You might think that such relics of the medieval ghetto, and of the rabbinical control that was part of ghetto life, had more or less disappeared in England in the 21st century. And you would largely be right. There exists a "Beth Din," or religious court, in the prosperous North London suburb of Finchley to which the ultra-Orthodox submit some of their more arcane disputes. (This little world is very amusingly described by Naomi Alderman in her lovely novel Disobedience.) But to speak in general, Jews in Britain consider themselves, and are considered, to be answerable to the same laws as everybody else. Should I mention any of the numerous reasons why it would be extremely nerve-racking if this were not true?

But now the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has cited the Beth Din as one of his reasons for believing that sharia, or Islamic law, can and should become a part of what he called "plural jurisdiction" in Britain. His reasoning, if one may call it that, is clear: Other faiths already have their own legal authorities, so why not the Muslims, too? What could be more tolerant and diverse? This same argument has been used already, and will be used again, to demand that laws governing "blasphemy," originally written to protect only Christians from being upset, should now, in a nondiscriminatory way, be amended to cover Muslims as well. The alternative—don't have any blasphemy laws and let religious people's feelings be hurt, just as the feelings of the secular are regularly offended by religion—doesn't occur to the archbishop and people who think like him."

PS Ryan Haber:

I know, you know and anyone with just a piece of a brain knows that if that was not God in the burning bush then the Bible is a literary hoax. Brits are big on cracking literary hoaxes ya know...hint hint.

Ryan Haber, asks:

Bgone,

How much of your money do you use to relieve poverty?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What a silly question. But of course, 100%. And it's working too.

God helps those who help themselves.

Devil helps those who help themselves to money intended to relieve poverty.

Now which one is helping Pat Robertson as an easy example of a charitable organization -on the public tithe -don't pay no stinkin' taxes. So I must lower the amount of my money used to fight poverty by the amount of taxes I pay that charitable organizations don't pay collected as such and used for stained glass etc.

Religions should get the same tax deduction for the amount of the collection used for charity that I get. Huh? Why don't they? The Devil don't pay no stinkin' taxes and neither do those who call Him God.

Review http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

Then let's hear you say the being in the burning bush was God. Blasphemy!!!

"BTW, how much of the money collected by those charities known as churches is used to relieve poverty? How much goes into lavish lifestyle for ministers? How much into ivory towers -Crystal Cathedral -Vatican -Westminster Abby....?"

Since I already answered you on this question on another thread, I'll let you look that one up for yourself.

Also, you don't have an orthodox Christian understanding of heaven. But you do have a good pop culture understanding of it which the good Bishop doesn't share.

Ryan -

Just a couple of things....it's very clear when we say 'separation of church and state' church clearly signifies all religions, so then how are the two different in this context??

On the other hand, our current campaign has been anything but free of religious opinion and nobody has been jailed (at least none of the candidates) so freedom of speech is intact.

On the other hand, when folks try and bend the laws of the land based on religous 'opinion' or theology rather than on demonstrated and (secular) empirical facts, that's a big problem. We've seen alot of this type of thing in the Bush administration. So who exactly will that law serve, if based on religious opinion?? Well, probably the holders of that opinion and their kindred, but rarely if ever the majority of the general electorate (that's my presumption anyway). Thus, separation of Church (read Religion) and State continues to be a good thing.

So no, you can't keep religion out of politics, but you can strive to keep religion out of the legislative process, the judicial process, and maybe even the executive process. Clearly we have not been entirely successful in our efforts these last few years.......

So we apparently agree on a simple observation concerning the purpose behind the 'separation of church and state' concept - that freedom from religion or religious influence prevents 'the coersive strength of government from being brought to bear on behalf of one religion....' in your own words.

Now, when the Supreme Court is stacked with your fellow Catholics, how in fact will laws be interpreted in the future? Within the narrow definition of the law, or tempered by informed Catholic beliefs and opinions?? Can we lay our bets down right now?

I get a kick out of the GOP hollering about activist judges (when it comes to democrats) but when our Supreme Court seems to be well-stacked with their own activist judges & with the beliefs and opinions that suit the standards of the conservative right and their coterie of Protestant evangelicals , then that's a good thing.

And per your question on who does the enforcing when it comes to matters of church and state - it starts right here with the Supreme Court and their interpretations.

And by the way, when exactly did I accuse Christians of building on fascism - I think you have me confused with someone else. But here is the grand finale & my maximum solution for righting all wrongs and restoring balance where none exists. To whit: We need term limits for everyone in government and that includes the Supremes (not the singers).

Beyond this point I think we're just splitting hairs.

best wishes -

Bgone,

How much of your money do you use to relieve poverty?

GK Chesterton:

Here in the colonies we have a sever case of undocumented immigration -sorta like the London Company promoted, (Sir Walter Raleigh). That's caused by poverty of course.

Is the Bishop now giving their, the immigrants from Latin America's gold to other countries? Would I like to get in on it? No thanks even though it will be lonely in heaven with only atheists.

Charity begins at home so I hear. Mexico is one looted 'in the name of Jesus Christ' nation that's just across the border. Why not simply return their wealth? Then maybe they would go home and loan us some 'real' money. Seems like we need it.

Justice is not nonsense. Failure to right past wrongs does not qualify one to speak for God but it does make Devil happy -to be sure.

The bishop is in the God vs Devil business. Which side he's on, God or Devil should be determined by those following him. Don't you think?

BTW, how much of the money collected by those charities known as churches is used to relieve poverty? How much goes into lavish lifestyle for ministers? How much into ivory towers -Crystal Cathedral -Vatican -Westminster Abby....?

Let me simplify the question. Are religions actually charitable? Devil surely isn't charitable but He does forgive sins especially the one deadly sin, blasphemy. Does God forgive blasphemy?

See http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul for the 'official' answer.

"You surely disagree with that practice. With that thought in mind let me ask a question. Are you aware that you too may well be doing the same thing? Sir Francis Drake added the blood of Spanish looters to that already on the gold from Native Americans."

BGone,

Dr. Wright really doesn't have the time for this nonsense. He's presently campaigning to eliminate Third World Debt which is directly responsible for the extreme poverty in our world.

I know of a church which has recently donated a million dollars to the humanitarian relief efforts in Sudan. Would you like to participate in these causes for justice or continue to talk about Francis Drake instead?

Dear Bishop:

I'm sure that a moral leader like yourself is in favor of returning stolen merchandise to it's rightful owners. There's a campaign of a sorts to get the gold looted from Latin America by the Spanish that is now in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church returned to it's rightful owners.

The general consensus of opinions is that the Vatican is ignoring request for the gold now used in sacred ceremonies. Specifically, the gold chalices holding the precious body and blood of the Savior are also dripping with the blood of Native Americans.

You surely disagree with that practice. With that thought in mind let me ask a question. Are you aware that you too may well be doing the same thing? Sir Francis Drake added the blood of Spanish looters to that already on the gold from Native Americans.

Drake brought that bloody gold to the Queen, the head of your church. It is suspected that you too may be an unknowing participant in the "blood already on the chalice" syndrome. When you sacrifice of the son of God in the mass do you feel any heat from the sacred vessels?

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul explains the source of that heat.

Thought you'd like to know. There's righteous and therefore there must be wrongeous. When wrongeous is identified it must be made righteous. Don't you think?

You don't suppose the Queen would be up to returning gold to Mexico, Peru and other looted nations do you? Have you asked, in your capacity as a representative of God of course? They aren't beheading people any more at the Tower are they?

TO THURSDAY'S CHILD:

You wrote, " while believing that God's number one focus is the acknowledgment and adoration of Himself, throughout the history of the Bible we see how important interpersonal relations are for him as well".

God has His reasons for the first part of that which is in quotation marks that you wrote.

I can tell you for a fact that none of the reasons, are that God is some sort of egomaniac, that some people, by their words, seem to think that He is.

The second part in quotation marks about interpersonal relations; as it alludes to in John, "God so loved us that He became One of us", seems that you can't get much more interpersonal than that, does it?

Take care and don't forget God has a Plan and God's Plan will come to Fruition.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO GARYD:

You wrote, "Thomas if one does not love god more than his fellow man one cannot possibly love his fellow man well enough to do what he ought to do.", first off I am not God and neither are you.

It seems to me Jesus said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged", here you have judged quite a portion of humanity, those that don't believe in God, when it is not your's to judge.

Seems to me, in the Beatitudes, Jesus, God-Incarnate blessed quite a few people and did not say anything about that blessing being contingent on a belief in God, doesn't it?

Jesus said lots of things, if you wish to slice and dice the bible to fit your conception of God, go right ahead, you have free will but I have met God and He is a Being of Pure Love and He is a Trinity.

As I have also said, God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition in His Time.

Take care, be ready, night is coming but the dawning of the seventh day will also come, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Terry,

"Egalitarian in this setting means fair and equal treatment and as applied to religion, this means that all religions and religious beliefs are in fact equal under the law, and should be treated as such. And furthermore, in a democratic and secular society a lack of religious beliefs should receive the same respect & should have exactly the same weight under the same laws..."

Fair enough. So why are Prayer Breakfasts at the White House a bad idea? Should only Non-Prayer Breakfasts be allowed there?

"Since we have a representative form of government, this means that every citizen's interests will be equally and fairly represented and protected, just as everyone is entitled to a fair jury trial by their peers. This means controlling for religion."

By 'controlling for religion' I assume you mean "filtering out" as one filters out variables in a science experiment. I don't see how it follows, logically, from having a representative form of government, where every citizen gets to voice (through his representatives) his various interests, that no citizen may voice their concerns if those concerns are religious. Could you explain that to me, please?

"Religious beliefs should have a very limited impact on the laws of the land and the legislative process..."

If 85% of Americans profess to be religious, as you say, it seems very undemocratic of you to refuse them entree into the legislative process with their views.

"And since humans don't act fairly in real life of their own accord, separation of church and state is necessary in order to impose equality and fairness on the process of governance."

I agree. It would be atrocious if the considerable coercive strength of the US Government were brought to bear on behalf of one religious organization or another against the rest.

"Religion and government need to be protected from the cross-fertiizing influences of one another's presence as far as possible (in a democracy)."

Before you said church and state. I just want to point out that "Church" and "religion" are different things.

"of course religion and politics will inevitably mix -and in raw numbers, this will usually be some brand or denomination of Christianity. All the more reason for a strictly enforced separation of church and state policy - in the spirit of fairness to all."

Now, "government" and "politics" are also different things. Before, you advocated separation of church and state, and I was with you. Now you are saying, "separation of religion from politics" and I just can't follow any more. Moreover, in advocating a "strictly enforced separation" you are also implicitly advocating a "strict enforcer". Who, pray tell, will do that enforcing?

Secular humanists begin, as you did you most recent post, by advocating that their view is one of many protected by the First Amendment. Then they assume, because of irreligiosity, a position of neutrality with respect to religion, from which to assume a position as moderator of some sort. This move is hypocritical and false, precisely because, if secular humanism is one view among many protected by the First Amendment, then it hasn't any special position from which to referee among the others. Then, the argument continues that for the sake fairness, all religious views ought to be excluded from it. Because of their unique position as an unreligious religious group, the secular humanists wrap things up by offering to oversee the process of exclusion.

Well, that isn't likely to seem fair to many people, I'm sure - except perhaps to the secular humanists. It's funny how that worked out.

"Mr. Mark reiterates what Bertrand Russell so succinctly stated - 'theology is opinion' and will never be anything else. And this is exactly why theology and politics don't mix."

Because politics has so little opinion involved in it? Or maybe you figure that politics already has so many opinions in it, that one or two more would be just too many. Perhaps all those opinions pass muster in the secular humanists' memorandum, "Whose Voice Gets to Count?" and so they are allowed, but the views 85% of the country should be excluded.

"You know what they say about opinions ......"

No, I don't. I thought we were supposed to listen civilly to each other's opinions. That's what my mother always taught me.

But then, she was a Christian and a housewife, so what would she know? Moreover, she really proved her idiocy by expecting her children to wait until they were married to have sexual relations. Her opinions should definitely be excluded from public discourse. She didn't even have any advanced degrees!

I can't believe you write seriously about the exclusion of opinions from democracy in the same post that you lament Christians' supposed role in building a fascism. Seriously!

TO ARMINIUS:

You wrote, "But I must add that there are many of other faiths, and also many who do not believe, that I trust.", you know if people would actually take to heart what Jesus said, not just the parts that suit them, they would see that 'how we treat others' is of the upmost importance.

Jesus is Who He said that He is but as I have said before, it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

Also when I write even tho I sometimes address it to one person it is also to the entire world.

I am really glad that God is not even close to being like what some people that know His Name think that He is.

Take care, thanks for the post, see you [humanity] in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

For those following the Shari'ah in Britain (is a recipe for social chaos) mess:

"A deafening silence echoed through the upper reaches of the Church of England yesterday leaving the beleaguered Archbishop of Canterbury dangerously isolated.

The Daily Mail contacted a number of senior bishops and not one was willing to publicly voice support for Dr Rowan Williams following his call for sharia law to be recognised in Britain. Here are their responses:

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, DR JOHN SENTAMU: The CofE's second highest clergyman, Dr Sentamu was not available for comment because he is busy in Kenya, said his spokesman. "He was on a plane last night and hasn't read the speech," said Arun Arora.

When confronted by a BBC camera crew in Nairobi yesterday the archbishop said: "No comment."

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, MICHAEL SCOTT-JOYNT: The office of the bishop said: "Unfortunately, the bishop is not available for comment."

THE BISHOP OF LONDON, RICHARD CHARTRES: The bishop's spokesman said: "He's actually out of the diocese in Oxford. He's not made any comment on the situation at the moment."

THE BISHOP OF CHESTER, DR PETER FORSTER: He too was unavailable for comment. "He is in a meeting all day that is likely to go on into the early evening," said his spokesman.

THE BISHOP OF DURHAM, DR TOM WRIGHT: "No, we can't help you this time," said the office of the bishop.

THE BISHOP OF LIVERPOOL, THE RT RVE JAMES JONES: He issued a brief statement: "Writing in an academic context, the archbishop raises serious issues that need careful consideration because of their sensitivity and potential to disrupt rather than enhance social cohesion."

AND

Archbishop To Defend Sharia Comments-

The Archbishop of Canterbury is expected to defend his remarks about Sharia law when he addresses the governing body of the Church of England.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams is likely to mention the row over his comments during his presidential address to the General Synod in London.

He has been at the centre of controversy since he claimed that the adoption of elements of Islamic law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

At least two Synod members have called for Dr Williams to resign and he has faced criticism from leading bishops, secular groups and Government figures.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1304868,00.html

Check out the video a the above link:

'A Classic British Row'

Former Chancellor Kenneth Clarke told Sky's Adam Boulton the furore that has erupted over the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments on accomodating sharia law in Britain was an 'absolutely classic British row' and described Dr Rowan Williams as 'unworldly'.

Mia -

Right you are - Sharia law is an abomination to civilized society. It deserves no quarter. If in fact the Archbishop supports such a medieval concept, he should be displaced immediately (but probably not possible). Such weakness in the face of a barbarous practice is unconscionable. Oh, how loathsome political correctness....either people will assimilate to our concept of juris prudence, or they will remain geographically where they are. That's my take on the matter. Let us not import such a primitive and atavistic concept of social order under any circumstances.

Even as a liberal, I will not subborn primitive barbarism in whatever form. Islam will either reform and divest itself of Sharia law, or will cease to exist and I will support that aim wherever possible. If the Islamic fundamentalists will not see the light, then it's our task to take the light to them. In the West,I feel that we need to express our feelings concerning the primitive, authoritarian and de-humanizing features of Sharia law. This has no place in a modern world. In it's place we need to instill the democratic concept of equality for all......this is the natural law.

And this can be an unpleasant task..........

You touch on a very valid point, Thomas Baum, when you talk about this site having a lot of talk about "loving God and not loving God." In fact, that seems to be the subject that everyone wants to get to in such a hurry with their posts, and why I addressed earlier on not acknowledging Bishop Wright's original post. I believe we can get to these issues within the contexts of these posts, but I also think we might be doing it a great disservice to jump right in with the very first post from a reader, rather than addressing the topic of discussion from the panelist's (regardless of which panelist and which post)initial post and allowing a dialogue to develop from it.

OK, I've admittedly gotten a bit long-winded on that subject, but in getting back to your point about God valuing human interaction as well as dealing with each other justly, while believing that God's number one focus is the acknowledgment and adoration of Himself, throughout the history of the Bible we see how important interpersonal relations are for him as well. In fact the two relationships are generally all but intertwined.

In looking at the Hebrew tradition in general, and in the Old Covenant or Testament in particular at the giving of the Ten Commandments, we see this illustrated. The first three commandments deal with how the nation of Israel relates to God, and the clear establishment of Him being a single, sovereign deity--in fact THE one and only God. A clear message to His people, Israel, who were coming out of approximately 400 years of living in a pantheistic culture.

The next seven commandments, however, deal with interpersonal relations, and how they should be handled. Further stated in the Law of Moses, an idea that keeps being stated is how foreign peoples are to be treated in the nation which is to be established, in that they should not be mistreated or dealt with unjustly. The Israelites are currently reminded that they were foreigners in a foreign land and that they should remember how they would want to be treated, and how they were most recently not treated well (an admitted understatement, there).

In the New Covenant, or Testament, Jesus sums up the Ten Commandments with two commandments to an inquisitive scribe in Mark 12:28-34, by saying that the foremost commandment is, to "Love the Lord Your God with all your soul, and with all you mind, and with all your strength," followed by the second of, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus has summarized the first three of the Ten Commandments with his foremost commandment, and has summarized the final seven commandments with his second commandment.

Jesus' ministry is tied up with other people and cannot be separated from his relationships with others. He is associating with tax collectors (cronies of the Roman occupational government in Hebrew eyes), Samaritans (a 2nd class people of Semitic origin), prostitutes, the lame and the sick (which could be perceived as a sure sign that they or their parents had angered God to the people of the time). Jesus would even go so far as to heal the sick (which was seen as a violation of not performing work on the Sabbath to the religious authorities--typically Pharisees--of the nation of Israel)on the days he was not supposed to "work". Jesus reserved his harshest criticisms for these men, and reserved condemnation on those who needed his presence, including Roman soldiers, in addition to the people listed above.

It's too late for brevity in this post, but I will sign off at this point, other than to say, thanks for your post from a couple of days ago to GK Chesterton. I hope the weekend has treated you well.

Amiably yours,

TC

MIA,

I will agree that I have some reading to do. Somehow that does not sound like the Archbishop - but apparently he said it. Here in America, we certainly have differing laws, but they are state by state, and the differences are not major and, hopefully, not religious. And... we have our Constitution. One framework to guide and mold all our laws. It must be preserved.

Arminius

Thomas if one does not love god more than his fellow man one cannot possibly love his fellow man well enough to do what he ought to do.

Arminius please read-

"In an interview on Radio 4 last Thursday, Rowan Williams said that the introduction of parts of Islamic law here would help to maintain social cohesion and seems unavoidable. Sharia courts exist already, he pointed out. We should “face up to the fact” that some British citizens do not relate to the British legal system, he said, and that Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

What he went on to say was more astonishing. He explained to the interviewer, in his gentle, wordy way, that a lot of what is written on this confusing subject suggests “the ideal situation is one in which there is one law and only one law for everybody”. He went on: “That principle is an important pillar of our social identity as a western liberal democracy.” How true.

However, he continued: “It’s a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people don’t have other affiliations, other loyalties, which shape and dictate how they behave in society, and the law needs to take some account of that.”

Stuff like this is bad for the blood pressure, but I listened on. “An approach to law which simply said there is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said . . . I think that’s a bit of a danger.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article3341738.ece

MIA:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, so far as I can tell, did in no way embrace Shari'ah, or say it should be incorporated into British law, or treated separately. He said that some aspects of it could be accommodated, in the same way that some aspects of Jewish laws have already been accommodated. No part of British law would be threatened, and safeguards would have to be put in place. This issue is overblown.

Arminius

For those interested in the current upset over the Archbishop of Canterbury's Sharia law comments:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

How do you solve a Problem like Shari'ah?

He must resign..

Thomas Baum,

Thank you for telling it like it is. Contrary to what benighted Patrick claims, the people to be trusted certainly include those who love God, Who IS love. There is no fear involved at all.

But I must add that there are many of other faiths, and also many who do not believe, that I trust.

Patrick and his kind I will never trust. Not with anything.

Arminius

There is so much talk on here about believing in God and not believing in God.

Do any of you that believe in God think that He is such an egomaniac that believing in Him is more important to Him than how we treat each other?

Not much of a God, if He is.

From some of the things that I have read on here, it sure does seem that some think that way.

God is Love, Pure Love.

Something to think about.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum

Atheism take away theism equals a. And 'a' as I'm sure we all know is a prefix usually meaning without. Prefixes do not stand by themselves ergot Atheism means literally without belief in God.

If no one had ever believed in God the terms theism and atheism would not exist. To argue that not believing in God is a sort of neutral position is as pointlessly silly as believing that Karl Marx is the political center and all the rest of us are right wingers. It also makes atheists as fanatical and fundamentalist as the most rabid Christian alive today.

Patrick - What you post above in unequivocal terms is really your opinion - in my opinion.

I'm saying goodbye to you now. Perhaps someone else wants to comment on your pronouncements and biblical verses.

E Favorite said , "...when I was a Christian.'
That my friend is an impossibility. Either you are or you are not a Christian. Once you are a new creation you cannot be made corrupted again.
So I would ask, "Did you know the Lord?"
For if you claimed you did and knew His mercy you would not ever reject so great a Salvation as to deliver you from the sentence of Hell you so justly deserved.
Those who come to Jesus without repentance leave without compunction.
BTW: there is no such thing as a moderate, think "luke warm", Christian.
Just like pregnancy, either you are or you are not. There is no shade of grey in pregnancy and there is no such thing as a partial, or moderate, Christian.
being Born Again is like when you jump from a cliff. -there's no return after that. When you have tasted and seen that Yahweh is good you will say like Peter:
John 6:68 (ESV)
Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,"

Indeed this is true here, today, as it was then...

"You have wearied Yahweh with your words. Yet you say, ‘How have we wearied him?’
In that you say, ‘Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of Yahweh, and he delights in them;’ or ‘Where is the God of justice?’

Patrick - scary website you've got, especially this: "Bless God America, only Jesus can save us. And only men who fear Yahweh can be trusted."

I wonder what moderate Christians breezing through here think when people like you represent Christianity. It certainly would have creeped me out when I was a Christian.

Bishop Wright - you're a moderate Christian, wonder what you think about what's come of your religion.

PATRICK@ONLYJESUSSAVES.COM writes:
"Evolution is clearly a fairy tale."

The abject stupidity of that statement calls for a response, but as the person being responded to doesn't know the difference between knowledge and belief, responding would be a waste of time.

Nevertheless, Patrick, rest assured that your statement is stupidity personified.

Be happy in your delusion, but you'd best leave the adult discussions to others.

The fact that Evolutionists just came up with "another solution" shows clearly their common tactic. Lie and then tell a different one when the lie is exposed.
I did note you completely ignored the Micro-biology point. Again, dissembling tactics...

I happen not to accept that it debunks anything but Secularist ideology. Evolution is clearly a fairy tale. The point was that Evolutionists made the claim, not creationists.

Patrick: C'mon man, the moon dust thing was debunked years and years ago. Even most young-earth creationsists have finally given it up. Get current, Dude.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

(sorry, forgot to put in my ID)
"Patrick
Secular Humanism is not a religion. And faith is not religion, either. Faith means trust. If you are religious, you should say that I am a religious man, not I am a man of faith.
If you know that your belief in God is true, then you do not have faith, you have knowledge.
In fact, I do not know of any religious people who call themselves people of faith; that is a political and media term; think about it; I am right, aren't I?"

The Supreme Court's determination in 1962 was that Secular Humanism is indeed a religion. They made this determination by the accepted classification that religion is a cohesive system of beliefs that define one's world view. This typically includes views on the creation of the Earth, the creation of man, and man's place in the universe.

Now of course I do mean we have to understand what is reality, sorry if I did not make that understood. Christianity is indeed what "reality" is, that is what the Bible says. But, for those who have not yet fully understood this, I am saying they need to look carefully and see that this is indeed so.

Faith, however, is to trust in what is not yet confirmed, that is it's definition. We have faith each time our brakes work that we will stop again. We do not yet "know" this until we stop safely but we have circumstantial evidence (proof that it happened before) to gauge our trust in our brakes.
Much in Christianity requires faith. Abraham Lincoln said that: "Take all you can of this Book upon reason, and the balance on faith, and you will live and die a happier man."

And secularism is indeed a faith as well, as they also trust in what is not seen. But, what is different about Christianity from Secularism, is the evidence of what is seen points to Christianity as the explanation. We see design we understand there is a Designer. Anyone in Micro-Biology would tell you the design is so clear in nature as to be idiocy to deny it.

Look at, as another example, when Neil Armstrong stepped off of the Lunar Module footpad of Apollo 11. Neil Armstrong did not step into AEONS of dust which swallowed him up, as Evolution scientists (secularists) had claimed "might" happen. No. NASA only found a few inches of dust on the Moon of Earth, once again justifying the claim of Creation Science:

[http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11v_1092338.mpg]

Neil even described the dust just to be sure everyone understood there was not hundreds of feet of dust but only "a couple inches." This example of what is seen providing evidence that points to a Creator, design described in the Bible, is one of the evidences for Christianity. Secularists have no such evidence, no clear and obvious proofs. Indeed the Bible describes secular humanism as a depraved mind!

But what Bishop Wright was trying to claim was that both Christianity ("fundamentalism" - there is no other kind of Christianity per the Bible) and Secularism are products of modern thinking, both statements being false. Self centered behavior to the consummate degree of the self-worship of secular humanism is the description of the heart of man in the Bible! Hardly a new thought there! And Christianity has been around for centuries and centuries -not that age or primacy holds the claim for accuracy.
To think (or rethink) the understanding of what is plainly seen and written clearly in the Bible is only a chasing after the wind, again described in the Bible.
So what the Bishop of Durham should be doing, however, is not advocating more of the lie of the false religion of secular humanism but he should be proclaiming the truth that God IS and there is no other; that what Yahweh says is what is true. Indeed, Bishop Wright should be proclaiming, just as the Bible records, to, "Let God be true and every man a liar."

To trust in what you have not confirmed for yourself requires faith. And that faith is tested over and over again in our lives. So "Daniel in the Lion's Den" the answer is "Yes, I do mean we must have faith in God." For our trust in Him is tested to be so. And we, as we do our brakes, have faith, as we hope God is once more proven trustworthy each and every time the test of our trust in Him comes. There IS a once and for all entrusting of our souls to Him. That is not faith once we have placed our souls in His care - we do not take our soul back. When you jump from an airplane as the plane is going down we have faith in the parachute but we put action to our faith and trust, as we jump, that we were wise in doing so. We can trust in the circumstantial evidence of others who have gone before us that what Yahweh says is so but it is by Faith we entrust our souls to His keeping. Once done, God, by His Spirit, takes us past the hope and into the knowing He IS trustworthy as He makes us new and gives us hope that surpasses any comprehension or explanation; His Son's Hope in His own Father given to us.
That is why the Gospel writer wrote, "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, that no one would boast." [Eph 2:8-9 WEB]

What is true is what must be entrusted. And that must begin and end with faith in Yahweh...