Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: Obama Rips Bible, Praises Koran
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/national-s ... bama-rips-bible-praises-koran/
Published: Feb 7, 2015
Author: Ben Shapiro
Post Date: 2015-02-07 06:32:22 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 192638
Comments: 433
Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. So it is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a simple tendency that can pervert and distort our faith. This is historically and philosophically illiterate. Historically speaking, the Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression in Europe and the Middle East; the Inquisition, as Jonah Goldberg points out while quoting historian Thomas Madden, director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, was designed to regularize executions rather than leaving them to the will of the masses. Christians undoubtedly pursued horrible brutalities against people, including innocent Jews. However, as Goldberg points out, “Christianity, even in its most terrible days, even under the most corrupt popes, even during the most unjustifiable wars, was indisputably a force for the improvement of man.” Nowhere is that clearer than in Obama’s second example, slavery. Virtually all of the most ardent abolitionists were deeply religious Christians. Hundreds of thousands of American men marched to their deaths singing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”: “In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea / With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me / As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free / While God is marching on.” That was 150 years ago. It’s not exactly the modern Islamic slogan, “Death to the Jews.” Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., was, as his name suggests, a reverend. He quoted old black Christian spirituals and the Biblical story of the exodus from Egypt. Christians obliterated slavery. Christians obliterated Jim Crow. Modern slavery is largely perpetrated by Muslims. Modern Jim Crow is certainly perpetrated by Muslims under shariah law. There is a larger point, here, too: President Obama’s foolish argument suggests that because Christians were brutal a millennium ago, they should shut up about brutalities today. This is somewhat like saying that because someone’s great-great-grandfather held slaves in rural Alabama, that person should shut up about human trafficking in 2015. It’s asinine. But Obama has a history of insulting Christianity and Judaism while upholding Islam. In 2006, Obama bashed the Bible and religious Christians and Jews in particular: Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles. He then concluded that religious leaders should not speak out against publicly-funded contraception or gay marriage. We can get into President Obama’s pathetic Biblical commentary here – his interpretation of Leviticus on slavery is incorrect, Jews still avoid shellfish, the Talmud explains that no child has ever been stoned for rebelliousness, and the Sermon on the Mount is not a pacifist document. Obama’s not Biblically literate – he’s the same fellow who says, “I think the good book says don’t throw stones in glass houses.” He said in The Audacity of Hope that he would define Biblical values however he chose, stating that he is not willing “to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.” Both are, in fact, parts of the Bible. Citing the Sermon on the Mount to justify civil unions for homosexuals, as Obama has done, is not in fact Biblical. But more importantly, Obama’s scorn for the old-fashioned Bible is obvious. That became more obvious in 2008, when Obama told some of his buddies in San Francisco that unemployed idiots “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” The Obama administration has routinely attacked religious organizations and people who violate Obama’s personal political predilections. They’ve attacked all trappings of Christianity as well. Whether they’re using Obamacare to force religious individuals to pay for others’ contraception or toning down the National Day of Prayer instead of holding a public ceremony, whether they’re covering a monogram of Jesus at Georgetown University during a presidential speech or objecting to adding FDR’s D-Day prayer to the WWII memorial, the Obama administration clearly isn’t fond of Christianity. This contrasts strongly with President Obama’s romantic vision of Islam. He famously called the Muslim call to prayer “the sweetest sound I know.” He said in his first presidential interview, with Al-Arabiya, that his job was “to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.” Weeks later, he said in Turkey, “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.” A few months later, in a speech in Cairo to which he invited the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama said: I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. He added that Islam has a “proud tradition of tolerance,” explained, ‘Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace,” and said, “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” He said in his Ramadan message in 2009 that Islam has played a key “role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.” ISIS, Obama has said over and over again, is not Islamic. His administration maintains that America is not at war with radical Islam. He stated before the United Nations in 2012, just weeks after the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya at the hands of Muslim terrorists, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Hillary Clinton allegedly promised Charles Woods, father of one of the slain in Benghazi, that the administration would achieve the arrest of the YouTube filmmaker behind The Innocence of Muslims. The State Department issued taxpayer-funded commercials denouncing that YouTube video. President Obama variously called the video “crude and disgusting” and stated that “its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.” At the UN in 2014, Obama lauded a Muslim cleric who backs Hamas. And, of course, Obama uses Islamic theology to promote his vision of world peace: All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. All three religions do have access to holy sites now, in Jewish-run Jerusalem. They did not when Muslims ruled Jerusalem. But facts have no bearing in the fantasy world of the president. Perhaps one final contrast tells the tale. In 2012, according to the Washington Post. “U.S. troops tried to burn about 500 copies of the Koran as part of a badly bungled security sweep at an Afghan prison in February.” Two American soldiers were shot in the aftermath. This prompted President Obama to apologize profusely to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, writing him a letter stating, “We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, including holding accountable those responsible.” Three years earlier, members of the military burned Bibles printed in Pashto and Dari. CNN reported that they had been discarded “amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans.” The Bibles were burned rather than sent back to their source organization because the military worried they might be re-sent to another outlet in Afghanistan. There was no apology to the church that printed the Bibles, or to Christians more broadly. Sure, radical Muslims around the world, supported by millions of their compatriots and friendly governments, are murdering innocents. But it’s Christian aggression that forces Muslims to burn other Muslims alive in Muslim countries.
On Thursday, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., President Obama blithely informed his audience that Christians ought not get on their “high horse” about the problem of radical Islam:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 367.
#2. To: cranky (#0)
And yet another opportune moment for TAR AND FEATHERS slipped away! -jmho
He's a Constitutional scholar, doncha know?
He's a Constitutional scholar, doncha know? Obama's middle name is Hussein so there is that sympathy he may have for Islam and/or maybe he is trying to prevent war fever in the USA - like the sinking of the Lusitania type of fever. As long as we don't go to war - more than we are that is - there. The Arabs have armies - this ISIS is a rabble that functions in a war zone no man's land the USA helped create by supporting Syrian rebels. Back the Assad regime and this is all over in 3 months.
No, I don't think Obama is a secret Muslim. I am saying that he lived in Muslim countries, His 2 fathers were Muslim - the Indonesian step dad and the birth father and he lived in a Muslim country (Indonesia). So without being Muslim himself he has a sympathy for them. That is not the same thing as being a Muslim himself (he drinks beer for example - and no he is not doing that to throw us off the Muslim scent). Obama has not done one thing to make the USA more Islamic - if anything his policies like supporting abortion and gay rights is anti-Muslim.
I'd love to play a few rounds of poker with you, boy(?). LOL! I'm sorry, but there are just no more words left to define...STUPID!!!
LOL! I'm sorry, but there are just no more words left to define...STUPID!!! Perciles may by correct and then he may not. After you finish rolling on the floor, please get up and tell him, and everyone, what Obama has done to make the USA more Islamic.
"and tell him, and everyone, what Obama has done to make the USA more Islamic." Pericles, as long as you are watching obama's right hand, then you won't be bothered by what he's doing with his left~ No president, from the founding fathers of this nation, till today, has seen fit after Islamic barbarians committed savage, inhumane atrocities before the cameras of the world, Obama has. A sane person does not jump to the defense of evil doers, a sane person does not incourage them with praise for their KORAN, that leads them on to even more wholesale slaughter, while in the same breath, trash his own country, blame this country and our people for their acts of savagery in the name of their heathen god. These rabid animals have all the support and encouragement they need from the lips of Obama himself to continue, they don't need mine, and will never have it...NEVER! - jmho #1 “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” #2 “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer” #3 “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.” #4 “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.” #5 “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” #6 “Islam has always been part of America” #7 “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities” #8 “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.” #9 “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” #10 “I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.”
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 Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp So Obama is stating what the Founding Fathers stated.....
Did George Bush Lie About America Being Founded on Christian Principles? “The lesson the President has learned best—and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him—is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration’s current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.” Thus begins an article by Brooke Allen that was posted on the website of “The Nation” on February 3, 2005.1 It’s obvious that Allen has not done a thorough study of American history as it relates to its founding documents. There is much more to America’s founding than the Constitution. America was not born in 1877 or even in 1776. The Constitution did not create America, America created the Constitution. More specifically, the states created the national government. The states (colonial governments) were a reality long before the Constitution was conceived, and there is no question about their being founded on Christian principles. Here is Allen’s first assertion: “Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God.” “No mention whatever” is pretty absolute. Given this bold claim, then how does she explain that the Constitution ends with “DONE in the year of our Lord”? “Our Lord” is a reference to Jesus Christ. This phrase appears just above the signature of George Washington, the same George Washington who took the presidential oath of office with his hand on an open Bible, the same George Washington who was called upon by Congress, after the drafting of the First Amendment, to proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. The resolution read as follows: That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution for their safety and happiness. * Pennsylvania’s 1790 constitution declared, “That no person, who acknowledges the being of God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth.” * The Constitution of Massachusetts stated that “no person shall be eligible to this office, unless . . . he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.” The following oath was also required: “I do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.” * North Carolina’s 1868 stated that “all persons who shall deny the being of Almighty God” “shall be disqualified for office.”5 The 1776 constitution, that remained in effect until 1868, included the following (XXXII): “That no person, who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.”6 North Carolina describes itself as a “Christian State” in the 1868 constitution (Art. XI, sec. 7). If, as Allen maintains, “God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent,” how does she explain these state constitutional provisions? If the federal Constitution nullified these state constitutional mandates, then her point would be valid. The thing is, God was a major player in the founding of America for more than 150 years before the Constitution was drafted. The statement in question was to assure a radically religious (Muslim) government that America would not depose that government and impose Christianity by force. A single phrase ripped from its historical context does nothing to nullify the volumes of historical evidence that Christianity was foundational to the building and maintenance of this nation. The 1797 treaty constantly contrasts “Christian nations” (e.g., Article VI) and “Tripoli,” a Muslim stronghold that was used as a base of operations for Barbary pirates. Muslim nations were hostile to “Christian nations.” The Barbary pirates habitually preyed on ships from “Christian nations,” enslaving “Christian” seamen. “Barbary was Christendom’s Gulag Archipelago.”10 In Joseph Wheelan’s Jefferson’s War, detailing America’s first war on terror with radical Muslims, we learn that Thomas “Jefferson’s war pitted a modern republic with a free- trade, entrepreneurial creed against a medieval autocracy whose credo was piracy and terror. It matched an ostensibly Christian nation against an avowed Islamic one that professed to despise Christians.”11 Wheelan’s historical assessment of the time is on target: “Except for its Native American population and a small percentage of Jews, the United States was solidly Christian, while the North African regencies were just as solidly Muslim—openly hostile toward Christians.”12 In 1822, the United States, along with Great Britain and Ireland, ratified a “Convention for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814.” It begins with the same words found in the Preamble to the 1783 treaty: “In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.” Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of God. The 1848 Treaty with Mexico begins with “In the name of Almighty God.” The treaty also states that both countries are “under the protection of Almighty God, the author of peace. . . .” 1 Brooke Allen, “Our Godless Constitution,” The Nation website (February 3, 2005). www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221&c=1&s=allen
Did you plagerize the contents of your post? If not, how long did it take you to type all of that stuff? If so, where is the source weblink?
Instead of challenging his source, why can't you tell us what you agree with or disagree with in his post? Is anything included that is untrue?
There was no direct source to the material presented, other than some resources from the original author. Why is it that some posters don't summarize their thoughts and support their ideas with direct refernces so that any reader can evaluate the concepts in a more objective fashion? OOPPSS, I forgot (just briefly) that I posed a question to you, Gatlin aka spammin' man. Sure. I don't believe any of the "stuff" presented. It is basically hogwash.
It shouldn't be too hard for you to find the different treaties online, examine them, and see what is true.
Your research doesn't seem to have much impact, does it? Similarly like all the research of historical evidence about various Constutional Amendments attempting to redress grievances or nullify the process. Within any nation, once a document is signed and accepted it is cast as a permanent boat anchor around your neck.
One can believe the truth or believe a lie. There is more at stake in this than what appears on the surface, because once a man chooses to believe a lie he has departed from reality. He thinks he can contain the lie in a dark corner of his mind, but in reality it infects the totality of his being.
I am curious about your intent of the above post that I quote. Are you saying that "belief" is tied to "reality?" If so, how do you explain "animism" and the perpetual belief systems thereof? What about "luck" at a casino in Las Vegas?
What about "luck" at a casino in Las Vegas? I'd have fun answering those questions, but I'd be butting on a conversation between you and GarySpFc.
Feel free pal; I have a few hours this evening to watch and learn from you. I caution you to be careful, though. You could become bruised by my retorts.
(I WON'T CONTINUE WITH THE HEADERS.) Your question was directed to some comment that Gary made. I'm not sure about what that comment was, so I'll start by defusing the lead in - I'm not answering whatever issue you were debating with him. Rather, I am addressing the questions directly put: (1) "Is 'belief' tied to 'reality'? (2) "If so, how do you explain 'animism' and the perpetual belief systems thereof?" (3) "What about 'luck' at a casino in Las Vegas." I will answer the first and third questions directly in this missive. To answer the second question I will need you to define for me what you specifically mean by "animism". When I hear the word "animism", I think of the belief among various tribes that all things, be they animals or trees or rocks, have individual spirits that are perceptive and aware, and that have the power to interact with men and the world. That's what I think of what I think of "animism", and given my use of the word, I would find the second question a non-sequitur: what one thinks about beliefs and reality is unrelated to the question of whether rocks and trees have intelligent souls. Obviously you have something different in mind when you use the word "animism" here, such that the question flows logically from the answer to the first question. Please supply your definition of animism, so that I can see what your second question is aimed at, and I will happily answer (NO IRONY INTENDED). As it is, I can't answer because I'm not sure what you are asking. Now then, to return to the first question: "Is 'belief' tied to 'reality'?", to answer it I have to define three words: "belief", "tied" and "reality". These words have varied meanings in different people's mouths and minds, so I have to tell you what I mean by each word to be able to answer it. Depending on the precise meanings of each word, the answer could be "yes", "no", "yes and no", or "maybe". So let's get precision. "Belief" can mean a lot of things. When I use the word, it is a noun for of the verb "to believe", and refers to a mental state in which a person thinks that something is true. Whether or not the thing thought really IS true is dependent upon reality external to the mind of the individual, but belief, as I use the term, does not speak to the ultimate truth of the thing believed, only to the fact that the person doing the believing thinks that the thing is true, or is probably true. The third word "reality", I take to mean "objectively true", something that exists, that IS. The real key word, then, is "linked", because in this context it COULD mean many things. There is a philosophical link called "truth" between a thing that is believed and reality then the thing believes is externally, objectively true. If the thing believed is not objectively true, then the philosophical link between the belief and the reality is that the belief is untrue, or that there is a true belief in something that is unreal. I think that your use of the word enters a different realm of philosophy, and raises the question of subjectivism: does belief in a think CAUSE IT to be real. In such a case, the link would be causation. To that, I would answer that I do not believe it to be so that human beliefs, on their own, cause things to be real. To quote an old Irish proverb: "You don't plow a field by turning it over in your mind." That said, I do think that human beliefs can unleash events that brings a state of reality into being that did not exist before. But in these cases it is because the belief triggered a man to act in some way that changed external reality. Certain realities are themselves internal: for example, to enter into a state of hypnosis does result in a change in brainwave pattern on a monitor, and this is the result of an internal mental state. It is a case where a belief itself induces a change of state in the mechanism by which belief happens: the internal activity of the brain, bringing about a concrete reality. The same thing is true when a human thought causes an arm to reach out and do something. There, the link between the belief and the reality is direct, and it is caused by mental will, although that will is then mechanically translated down a system of nerves to cause the action to be. Simple thought initiates physical reality in such a case. Nevertheless, for humans a physical conveyance mechanism is required. For gods, such a conveyance mechanism may or may not be required. For God, as I use the word, mental will itself creates reality and there is no need for a mechanism. So, the link between belief and reality exists, but the nature of that link is dependent on who is doing the believing, and what the thing is that is believed. To move, then, to the Las Vegas question: Does a person really wanting to roll a 7 cause, in any way, to 7 to be rolled? Only to the extent that it causes the hands to throw the dice. But beyond that, what the dice DO is a matter of external reality, not the internal mental state of the believer, however fervent the desire. In the physical universe, if the dice are honest, how they turn up is a matter of randomness. There is a grand philosophical debate as to whether TRUE randomness exists, or whether if one had all information about all of the forces that impinged on the dice, one could demonstrate that the fall of the dice is an utterly foregone conclusion by the mechanism of physics. While the debate has raged, there is an apparent answer to the question, and it is that the fall of dice, while affected by many inputs, is truly random because there are chaotic elements among the forces that are themselves random and not predictable. Of course, all of this assumes that the dice are honest. Beyond the philosophical question of whether the dice are random (if they are honest, they are), there is the question that you're asking, which is whether mental state can cause the dice to fall a certain way. The answer to that is "no" when referring to human beings. But when speaking of God, the answer is "yes" - yes, God determines the outcome, or perhaps God CAN determine the outcome, if he chooses, but he may simple decide to leave the outcome to the function of the random elements that he has built into the universe. Then we come to the linking question: can a man's prayer and belief about God cause God to effect the outcome of a dice roll in Las Vegas. The answer to that is that it can, of course, logically, for God is God. However, the answer may be that the outcome effected may not be good. The next logical question is "How do you know there is God at all?" But the answer to any question like that should wait until we've first clarified your second question and answered it.
Man, that was one HELL of a windy post! I use the term "animism" because in real life, a number of more primative peoples around the world (and yes, some still exist) describe a "god" as imbued in the world around themselves. There is no real diametric opposing force of "good vs. "evil" other than what promotes one's life. There is no "god" as "god" is everything around us; however, there are great gods and those great gods are meaningful as they helped in some way promote the survival of someone. The boy rises up, confident that the "tree god" has saved his life. Of course, the boy reports the story to his family and the story is magnified as many times as the story is repeated and as often as the story is repeated, the story becomes reality. There is no correlation of an "intent" by any god to save the boy's life. Yet, there is a belief that the tree god (or simply "tree") has saved the boy's life. The idea of "luck" is all there is to say about belief systems. That is the reason for asking the questions earlier up the thread. People are prone to move towards a belief system they trust that will promote their own survival; if an earlier belief system is not supporting their survival they will change towards something else; it happens all throughout human history whether you want to agree or not. Belief systems are entirely based on "luck" to include modern religions.
That's Pantheism, which is just another form of atheism. In reality your god manifests himself in a mirror.
Gary - atheism is the belief there is no god or multiple gods. Pantheism is literally diametetrically opposed to atheism. I think you are trying to suggest that monotheism (a supreme god) is the only form of religion you may disscuss within your lexicon. Your pointed comment is true for every living, conscious, feeling being on this planet to include yourself as you cling to your 40 year dogma that must be right and divine within your own mind.
The scriptural account of God’s relation to his creation is also distinct from pantheism. The Greek word Àᾶ½(PAN) (from ÀᾶÂ, G4246) means “all” or “every,” and pantheism is the idea that everything, the whole universe, is God, or is part of God. Pantheism denies several essential aspects of God’s character. If the whole universe is God, then God has no distinct personality. God is no longer unchanging, because as the universe changes, God also changes. Moreover, God is no longer holy, because the evil in the universe is also part of God. Another difficulty is that ultimately most pantheistic systems (such as Buddhism and many other eastern religions) end up denying the importance of individual human personalities: since everything is God, the goal of an individual should be to blend in with the universe and become more and more united with it, thus losing his or her individual distinctiveness. If God himself (or itself) has no distinct personal identity separate from the universe, then we should certainly not strive to have one either. Thus, pantheism destroys not only the personal identity of God, but also, ultimately, of human beings as well. Quotes: Saisset, Pantheism, 148—“An imperfect God, yet perfection arising from imperfection.” Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 1:13—“Pantheism applies to God a principle of growth and imperfection, which belongs only to the finite.” Calderwood, Moral Philos., 245—“Its first requisite is moment, or movement, which it assumes, but does not account for.” Caro’s sarcasm applies here: “Your God is not yet made—he is in process of manufacture.” See H. B. Smith, Faith and Philosophy, 25. Pantheism is practical atheism, for impersonal spirit is only blind and necessary force. Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907), 101. Pantheism has become the inheritance of every nation on earth and has cursed the streams of human thought beyond all estimation. It assumes the eternity of matter and the absurdity that matter has power to originate life and spirit. In its idealistic form it contradicts human consciousness and destroys the very ground upon which reason is based and the fundamental method of its own procedure. It breaks down the most essential distinctions between existing things, by which alone they are identified. According to pantheism, the potter and the clay are one and the same thing—if they exist at all. The promoters of these notions of necessity contradict in their daily lives the very speculations they propound. They cannot state a theorem, or even commence to do so, without departing from their major idea. Every effort to build this theory assumes the principle that destroys it. Attempting to support it, they dig down its supposed foundations. The theory obliterates all distinctions. It levels all elements to one item. There is no recognition of the fact that God is infinite while creation is finite; that God is omnipotent while creation is impotent; that God is immutable while creation is mutable; that God is eternal while creation experiences both birth and death. Error is incidental to other minds, but unavoidable and essential to the pantheistic teachers. Though it recognizes a god such as human speculation conceives, pantheism is the mother of atheism and the grossest idolatry. It is promoting the notion that matter is God and God is matter and it is a short step from this to the assertion of the fool that there is no God. It is but a step, likewise, to the worship of any inanimate or animate thing, since the theory contends that it is all a part of God. The system leads to blasphemy and licentiousness. The basis of every moral distinction is obliterated by it. If all nature is God, then human action is not distinct from God but is the very action of God. The whole category of human crime becomes as worthy as virtue itself. The terms by which evil is described are only conventional ideas. Reason is assassinated and virtue defamed. Such is the fruit of modern pantheistic philosophy current in educational centers today. The student of doctrine may well ponder the following utterance which is a normal offspring of pantheistic philosophy: “The belief in a personal living God is the chief foundation and origin of our worm- eaten social state; and further, that so long as mankind shall hang by a single hair to the idea of heaven, there is no happiness to be looked for on earth. Man himself is the religion of futurity. God stands in need of man, but man has no need of God” (cited by Cooke, ibid., p. 186). These revolting assertions are the very creed of atheism and communism, which are clutching the throat of the social interests of the world and which hate the things of God with a perfect hatred. Cousin says, “For the Ionic school in both its stages, there was no other God than nature. Pantheism is inherent in its system. What is Pantheism? It is the conception of the universe, Äὸ À±½, as alone existing, as self-sufficient, and having its explanation in itself. All nascent philosophy is a philosophy of nature, and thus is inclined to Pantheism. The sensationalism of the Ionians of necessity took that form; and, to speak honestly, Pantheism is nothing but atheism.”38 4. It is no extravagance to say that Pantheism is the worst form of atheism. For mere atheism is negative. It neither deifies man nor evil. But Pantheism teaches that man, the human soul, is the highest form in which God exists; and that evil is as much a manifestation of God as good; Satan as the ever-blessed and adorable Redeemer. Beyond this it is impossible for the insanity of wickedness to go.
The revolting assertions also give us hedonism and greed. Which are clear subsets of atheism and communism as well.
There are no replies to Comment # 367. End Trace Mode for Comment # 367.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear".
#3. To: Murron (#2)
"And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear"
#7. To: cranky (#3)
"And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear"
#10. To: Pericles (#7)
Obama's middle name is Hussein so there is that sympathy he may have for Islam
#11. To: cranky (#10)
#15. To: Pericles, cranky (#11)
Obama has not done one thing to make the USA more Islamic - if anything his policies like supporting abortion and gay rights is anti-Muslim.
#19. To: Murron, Pericles, cranky (#15)
Obama has not done one thing to make the USA more Islamic - if anything his policies like supporting abortion and gay rights is anti-Muslim. I'd love to play a few rounds of poker with you, boy(?).
#44. To: Gatlin, Pericles, cranky, All (#19)
(Edited)
"if anything his policies like supporting abortion and gay rights is anti-Muslim".
#63. To: Murron, Gatlin, cranky (#44)
(Edited)
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli
#74. To: Pericles, ALL (#63)
(Edited)
By Gary DeMar
Allen’s article is filled with so many half truths that it would take a book to deal with them adequately. For those of you who are new to the work of American Vision, there are numerous books on the subject that easily refute Allen’s assertions.
* America’s Christian History: The Untold Story by Gary DeMar (1995).
* America’s Christian Heritage by Gary DeMar (2003).
* The United States: A Christian Nation by Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer (1905).
* The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic by B. F. Morris (1864).
* Christianity and the American Commonwealth by Charles B. Galloway (1898).2
It seems rather odd that the constitutional framers would thank God for allowing them to draft a Constitution that excluded Him from the Constitution and the civil affairs of government.
Allen is correct that there were a number of Enlightenment principles floating around the colonies in the late eighteenth century as well as anti-clericalism. And there is no doubt that some of these principles made their way into the Constitution, although it’s hard to tell where when compared to the obvious Enlightenment principles inherent in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789). But we should be reminded of Allen’s absolutist claim of a complete dissolution of religion from political considerations in the Constitution. She has set the evaluative standard. If she is correct, then why didn’t the framers presage the French revolutionaries by starting the national calendar with a new Year One? Why did the Constitutional framers set aside Sunday—the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue—as a day of rest for the President (Art. 1, sec. 7) if it was their desire to secularize the nation as Allen suggests? The French revolutionaries reconstructed the seven-day biblical week and turned it into a ten-day metric week in hopes of ridding the nation of every vestige of Christianity. Nothing like this was done in America.
Then there’s the issue of the state constitutions. One of the reasons some give for the absence of a more explicit declaration of God in the Constitution was the fact that the state constitutions made numerous references to God. The issue of religion was the domain of the states. Since the Federal Constitution was a document of enumerated powers, to mention religion in a more specific way would have given the national government jurisdiction over religious issues. The framers believed that such issues were best left to the states.
Constitutional scholar and First Amendment specialist, Daniel Dreisbach, writes: The U. S. Constitution’s lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer’s personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as “godless” or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God.3
Keep in mind that the national Constitution did not nullify the religious pronouncements of the state constitutions, and neither did it separate religion from civil government. The First Amendment is a direct prohibition on Congress, not the states, to stay out of religious issues: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This is a good indication that the states were to be unmolested on their religious requirements. As I’ve noted elsewhere,4 even today every state constitution makes reference to God. Here’s a sample of some of the state constitutions and their religious language during the time the Constitution was drafted:
The Constitutions says nothing about morality or values. There are no prohibitions against murder, theft, or rape. The word “law” is used numerous times, but it is never defined. The author of an 1838 tract entitled, An Inquiry into the Moral and religious Character of the American Government, makes an important observation: “The object of the Constitution [is to] distribute power, not favour; to frame a government, and not to forestall and clog the administration of it by words of preconceived partiality for this or that possible subject of its future action.”7 This is especially true when religion was an issue reserved to the states. States wrote educational provisions into their constitutions, while the Federal Constitution remained silent on the subject. The 1876 constitution of North Carolina includes 15 sections on education.
In attempt to drive a stake in the belief that America had “been founded on Christian principles,” she resurrects the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli and its statement that “the Government of the United States . . . is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”8 I’ve dealt with this treaty elsewhere,9 but let me summarize the argument here.
In drafting the treaty, the United States had to assure the ruler of Tripoli that in its struggle with the pirates “it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,” that “the said states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Muslim] nation” due to religious considerations.
A survey of the state constitutions, charters, national pronouncements, and official declarations of the thirteen state governments would convince any representative from Tripoli that America was a Christian nation by law. The Constitution itself states that it was drafted, as noted above, “In the year of our Lord.” The American consul in Algiers had to construct a treaty that would assure the ruler of Tripoli that troops would not be used to impose Christianity on a Muslim people. A study of later treaties with Muslim nations seems to support this conclusion. The 1816 “Treaty of Peace and Amity with Algiers” is a case in point: “It is declared by the contracting parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two nations; and the Consuls and the Agents of both nations shall have liberty to celebrate the rights of their prospective religions in their own houses.”13
Piracy, kidnapping, and enslaving Christian seamen remained a problem despite the 1797 Treaty. In addition, Tripoli demanded increased tribute payments in 1801. When President Jefferson refused to increase the tribute, Tripoli declared war on the United States. A United States navy squadron, under Commander Edward Preble, blockaded Tripoli from 1803 to 1805. After rebel soldiers from Tripoli, led by United States Marines, captured the city of Derna, the Pasha of Tripoli signed a treaty promising to exact no more tribute.
It is important to note that the 1805 treaty with Tripoli differs from the 1797 Treaty in that the phrase “as the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” is conspicuously absent. Article 14 of the new treaty corresponds to Article 11 of the first treaty. It reads in part: “[T]he government of the United States of America has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen.” Assurances are still offered that the United States will not interfere with Tripoli’s religion or laws.
It’s obvious that by 1805 the United States had greater bargaining power and did not have to bow to the demands of this Muslim stronghold. A strong navy and a contingent of Marines also helped. But it wasn’t until Madison’s presidency that hostilities finally stopped when he declared war against Algiers.14
Those who use the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli as a defense against the Christian America thesis are silent on the 1805 treaty. For example, Alan Dershowitz cites the 1797 Treaty as “the best contemporaneous evidence” against claims that the United States was founded as a Christian nation,15 but he makes no mention of the 1805 treaty and other treaties that are specifically Trinitarian.
If treaties are going to be used to establish the religious foundation of America, then it’s essential that we look at more than one treaty. In 1783, at the close of the war with Great Britain, a peace treaty was ratified that began with these words: “In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain. . . .”16 The treaty was signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay. Keep in mind that it was Adams who signed the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli.
If one line in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli turns America into a secular State (which it does not), then how does Allen deal with the treaties of 1783, 1822, 1805, and 1848 and the state constitutions? She doesn’t, because she can’t. Allen needs to go back and do a bit more research and look at resources beyond the typical college professor’s bag of tricks and sleight of hand.
2 To be republished by American Vision in 2005.
3 Daniel L. Dreisbach, “A Godless Constitution?: A Response to Kramnick and Moore” (1997): www.leaderu.com/common/godlessconstitution.html. Dreisbach is a Professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Society at American University, Washington, D.C.
4 Gary DeMar, The Christian Foundation of America (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2005), 14–19.
5 Francis Newton Thorpe, The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies, 7 vols. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), 5:2815.
6 Thorpe, The Federal and State Constitutions, 5:2793. The same 1776 constitution stated that “no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function” (5:2793). This provision demonstrates the true meaning of “separation of church and state.”
7 Quoted in Daniel L. Dreisbach, “God and the Constitution: Reflections on Selected Nineteenth Century Commentaries on References to the Deity and the Christian Religion in the United States Constitution” (1993), 24, note 85.
8 The entire treaty can be found in William M. Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1776–1909, 4 vols. (New York: Greenwood Press, [1910] 1968), 2:1786.
9 Gary DeMar, America’s Christian History: The Untold Story (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1995), chap. 8.
10 Stephen Clissold, The Barbary Slaves (New York: Barnes & Noble, [1977] 1992), 4. The 1815 Treaty of Peace and Amity with Algiers includes the following in Article XV: “On a vessel or vessels of war belonging to the United States anchoring before the city of Algiers, the Consul is to inform the Dey of her arrival, when she shall receive the salutes which are, by treat or custom, given to the ships of war of the most favored nations on similar occasions, and which shall be returned gun for gun; and if, after such arrival, so announced, any Christians whatsoever, captives in Algiers, make their escape and take refuge on board any of the ships of war, they shall not be required back again, nor shall the Consul of the United States or commanders of said ships be required to pay anything for the said Christians.” (Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1:7).
11 Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801-1805 (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003), xxiii.
12 Wheelan, Jefferson’s War, 7
13 Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements Between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1:15.
14 Lewis Lord, “Pirates!,” U.S. News & World Report (February 25/March 4, 2002), 50.
15 Alan Dershowitz, America Declares Independence (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003), 64.
16 Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1776–1909, 1:586.
#75. To: GarySpFC (#74)
#77. To: Pridie.Nones, GarySpFC (#75)
Did you plagerize the contents of your post? If not, how long did it take you to type all of that stuff? If so, where is the source weblink?
#78. To: Gatlin, GarySpFC (#77)
Instead of challenging his source, why can't you tell us what you agree with or disagree with in his post?
Is anything included that is untrue?
#82. To: Pridie.Nones (#78)
Sure. I don't believe any of the "stuff" presented. It is basically hogwash.
#86. To: GarySpFC (#82)
It shouldn't be too hard for you to find the different treaties online, examine them, and see what is true.
#99. To: Pridie.Nones (#86)
Your research doesn't seem to have much impact, does it? Similarly like all the research of historical evidence about various Constutional Amendments attempting to redress grievances or nullify the process.
#104. To: GarySpFC (#99)
There is more at stake in this than what appears on the surface, because once a man chooses to believe a lie he has departed from reality. He thinks he can contain the lie in a dark corner of his mind, but in reality it infects the totality of his being.
#113. To: Pridie.Nones (#104)
I am curious about your intent of the above post that I quote. Are you saying that "belief" is tied to "reality?" If so, how do you explain "animism" and the perpetual belief systems thereof?
#117. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#113)
I'd have fun answering those questions, but I'd be butting on a conversation between you and GarySpFc.
#169. To: Pridie.Nones (#117)
#207. To: Vicomte13 (#169)
An example is a young boy about to cross a stream and is sighted by an approaching bear. The bear exhibits aggressive behavior towards the boy and the boy cowers in fear not knowing how to handle his panic. Simultaneously, but nevertheless apparent, the weather has turned very nasty and ligthening has struck a nearby tree, shearing off a heavy limb scaring the bear away.
#265. To: Pridie.Nones (#207)
There is no "god" as "god" is everything around us; however, there are great gods and those great gods are meaningful as they helped in some way promote the survival of someone.
#352. To: GarySpFC (#265)
That's Pantheism, which is just another form of atheism.
In reality your god manifests himself in a mirror.
#364. To: Pridie.Nones, Redleghunter, Liberator, ALL (#352)
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (vol. 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993), 174–175.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (vol. 1; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 319.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (vol. 1; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 333–334.
#367. To: GarySpFC (#364)
The student of doctrine may well ponder the following utterance which is a normal offspring of pantheistic philosophy: “The belief in a personal living God is the chief foundation and origin of our worm- eaten social state; and further, that so long as mankind shall hang by a single hair to the idea of heaven, there is no happiness to be looked for on earth. Man himself is the religion of futurity. God stands in need of man, but man has no need of God” (cited by Cooke, ibid., p. 186). These revolting assertions are the very creed of atheism and communism, which are clutching the throat of the social interests of the world and which hate the things of God with a perfect hatred.
Replies to Comment # 367.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]