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: 205545
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
Comments (1-77) not displayed.
.
.
.
#78. To: Gatlin, GarySpFC (#77)
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.
I have ministered in the field of apologetics for over 40 years. I have a doctorate in theology, and those who know me on this and other sites are acquainted with my long posts.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Despite your extensive "ministry," at the end of the day, all you can ever perform is to defend your belief system. I remain unconvinced about any of your belief system when all you can ever truthfully suggest is: it is mystery and a wonder.
United States Congress (June 4, 1805), during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, drafted a Treaty of Peace and Amity with Tripoli, ratified April 12, 1806, in order to prevent the pirates of the North African Barbary Coast from seizing American ships, confiscating their cargo, and selling the crews and passengers as slaves. The United States had made a previous treaty with Tripoli and paid large sums of extortion money, but it failed when war broke out in 1801. Lieutenant Stephen Decatur (1779–1820) won famed by stealing into the Tripoli harbor on the small vessel Intrepid, February 16, 1804, burning a captured ship and escaping unharmed amidst fierce enemy fire. British Admiral Horatio Nelson called it the “most bold and daring act of the age.” In April of 1805, the U.S. Marines seized the Barbary harbor of Derne, Tripoli, the daring act of which is remembered in the Marine Hymn “From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli.” The June 4, 1805, Treaty of Tripoli, did not include a phrase that had been questionably inserted into the previous Treaty with Tripoli, June 7, 1797, that the United States “is not, in any sense founded on the Christian Religion …,”2207 (an insertion intended to clarify that the American government was not like the Mohammedan, Buddhist, or Hindu governments which controlled the religious life of its citizens and “that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”) This phrase was not in the Arabic version of the 1797 treaty,2208 and appears to have been an insertion by Joel Barlow (1754–1812), the American consul at Algiers who oversaw the translation process from Arabic to English. ,(Joel Barlow’s position as American consul to Algiers was originally intended for the naval hero John Paul Jones, but he died before he could fill the appointment.) The original Arabic translation of the 1797 treaty stated: Glory be to God! Declaration of the third article. We have agreed that if American Christians are traveling with a nation that is at war with the well- preserved Tripoli, and [the Tripolitan] takes [prisoners] from the Christian enemies and from the American Christians with whom we are at peace, then sets them free; neither he nor his goods shall be taken.… Praise be to God! Declaration of the twelfth article. If there arises a disturbance between us both sides, and it becomes a serious dispute, and the American Consul is not able to make clear his affair, and the affair shall remain suspended between them both, between the Pashna of Tripoli, may God strengthen him, and the Americans, until Lord Hassan Pashna, may God strengthen him, in the well-protected Algiers, has taken cognizance of the matter. We shall accept whatever decision he enjoins on us, and we shall agree with his condition and his seal; May God make it all permanent love and a good conclusion between us in the beginning and in the end, by His grace and favor, amen!2209 William J. Federer, Great Quotations: A Collection of Passages, Phrases, and Quotations Influencing Early and Modern World History Referenced according to Their Sources in Literature, Memoirs, Letters, Governmental Documents, Speeches, Charters, Court Decisions and Constitutions (St. Louis, MO: AmeriSearch, 2001).
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
It shouldn't be too hard for you to find the different treaties online, examine them, and see what is true.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Reflecting on The Skeptics Demand for Proof by Gary Butner, Th.D. One day it occurred to me how to answer a skeptic's mocking demand for proof of the Life and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christians cannot present a mountain of evidence for every fact in the Bible they are certain is true. Additionally, they cannot prove to a closed mind the Gospel is true, and that is due to the distinction between proof and evidence. Proof is subjective, whereas evidence is objective. The skeptic has to decide if the evidence he has been presented with rises to a level he considers proof. Christians have already made that decision and walk by faith in Jesus Christ based on the preponderance of evidence they have examined and found to be true. Yes, at times Christians entertain doubts, and there are areas of the Bible of which they are ignorant; however as their faith grows based on accumulating more and more evidence; doubts fade and their faith transforms from ideas and opinions into beliefs, and finally into certitudes. The gatekeeper guarding the skeptic's mind blocks them from honestly examining the very same evidence Christians are certain is true, and that is why the skeptic remains blind, sitting in deep darkness, and shackled by his sins for lack of faith.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
For many of the nation's founders, they practiced Christianity not because of their convictions but because it was a method of communication to local towns folk; basically, attendance at a church was conveyance to say, "we are together." So, local politics were stimulated by not necessarily deep convictions of or about religious faith but nothing more than a sales card for political office. Don't get all enthused about TJ being mentioned in your article because it was offered on a Christian CD which you seem to enjoy.
And how are you so certain of the Founding Fathers motives?
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
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.
Most of the founders were Deists. They could give a "hoot" about Christianity primarily because of the many wars in Europe over the Catholicism/Protestant debate, which still rage, albeit not so violently. The founders probably enjoyed a Sunday church chicken dinner, though. And an apple pie desert besides finding a pretty young girl to enjoy a private moment with behind closed doors.
Is that true? Are you certain about that or is it rhetoric you have chosen to believe? http://www.evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/christian-nation/declaration-of- independence-signers.htm There is more. http://www.evidenceforjesuschrist.org/Pages/christian-nation/america-menu.htm
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Well, Obama was stupid in mentioning the past. he should have mentioned the Christian Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), in Africa that is as brutal as Boko Haram and are fighting for religious reasons. But Obama has to dumb stuff down for Americans to get a point across and that is Obama's weakness because while Clinton was good at dumbing down his points so the yokels could get his message, Obama never understood Joe Blow Americans and how to talk to them.
Well, let us say that the American nation is imbued in Christianity. Yet, the founders made no direct excerpt about those same convictions forming the US Constitution or otherwise. You have to realize that Christianity in America was fairly strict about the human spirit, especially about the sexual nature of mankind. There were many kinds of codes for proper behavior. But, the founders (at that time) realized that the real issue were principles not beliefs that formed the US. In many cases, those principles were in alignment of Christian dogma no matter the local chusrch content.
To Dr. Thomas Cooper Monticello, February 10, 1814 For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. .............. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
It does not matter if it was in the original Arabic or not (I can't verify since this claim is found only in Fundie sources who are clearly freaked out this passage exists) because the Senate ratified and was read the English language version and the English language version is the law of the land. No one from that era of our Founding Fathers found any problem with the wording or concept either - it was unremarkable to them to consider the USA was NOT a founded on Christian principals. Including President Thomas Jefferson who in a private letter also stated he did not consider English Common Law was based on Christian principals either.
Substitute the word "religion" in the argument with the word "politics". Look at how many people have been murdered over the course of modern history for POLITICAL reasons! My goodness, this thing, politics, must be incredibly evil in and of itself, for it causes men to become mass murderers. Why any rational human being would want to believe in, support or participate in POLITICS, given the incredible record of evil and death that politics has caused is a real question: look at the body count! We cannot overlook it. Politics has driven virtually all of the genocides and all of the slavery of the past century. Rational, educated men should not become involved in violent superstitions such as politics. Politics in ever age have led to nothing but destruction. People need to move past politics and become apolitical, for whoever is devoted to a political cause may become a fanatic, and the next thing you know, the storm troopers are goose-stepping down the Champs- Elysees! Politics: just say no. The parallel is perfect.
You mistake Carter's Cubans for Bush's Muslims.
Until it's thrown off.
Vicomte13: Until it's thrown off. It is rare to have any outrage of or by the American People in the USA. Today, all the People do is watch TV, pay their taxes and thank God that they don't have to pay more. They are silly, spineless, docile idiots that vote for the same thing everytime.
Yes. That is the strangly absurd meme that's been promoted. Has anybody ever been able to discern an iota of documentation from the Kenyan's writings or evidence that supports "constitutional scholar"? Maybe Brian Williams has seen it.
They are silly, spineless, docile idiots that vote for the same thing everytime. Perhaps they are rationally apathetic. There are only so many things that people can worry about, and sensible people focus on those things they can change. Large numbers of Americans have observed over their lifetimes that the parties rotate, leaders come and go, but the song remains the same. Therefore, they have rationally concluded that the political system is broken, corrupt and a waste of time to engage with. In this, they may well be right. From their perspective, those people who take the time to become politically active, who study the issues and become passionate about things they cannot change, and who then become whipped into a frenzy of emotion over the outcome of rigged elections - those people are the fools. The ones who don't waste their time studying politics because they know that it's as real as Professional Wrestling: far from being silly, may be the wisest of all.
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.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Where? Will you be performing next at the Big Top? (Don't forget your clown shoes) You're welcome, Hambone. But then you should thank A K A Stone for lending you a temporary platform from which to launch/spam your propaganda, red herrings and strawmen. (you get 2 red stars for your work here thus far. And a cookie.)
Yes. He has written at least one document that you should be able to identify: It is admired by all scholars and US Constitional lawers and governance as a whole.
By Christ Jesus: Matthew 25: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17)
LOL. THAT is precious. Thought the above line from the forum-spamming Carnival Barker ought to be isolated -- just for further S&G.
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?
(BOGUS BC) HA! Well then -- that's enough "scholarship" for me. Make 'em the Chief Justice of SCOTUS. Or Generalissimo. OR Burger KING.
Thanks. Another portion of world history Obola has no clue of.
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17)
So you deny your own post that I quipped earlier. In the real world, you are a scoundrel, a "flip-flopper" a fish out of water. You have subdued your own argument by intent!
The person to whom you first addressed Matthew 25:23-46 is not so much interested in the actual definition of "Christian" as per Jesus' own quotes, but in cloaking His truth in the rags any counterfeit religion that bears His name. One may of course ask why Gatlin feels compelled to indirectly slander the Christianity of Jesus Christ. However, I'm afraid we know the answer.
Of course, the man is backed by his wife Michelle. I understand she actually wrote his community organizer leaflets that he handed out at Church on Sunday.
The only finger Gatlin is pointing is his middle finger. To EVERY poster and lurker here who knows the truth of the matter, and the carnival games Gatlin plays in defense of Islam which are in defense of the Great Pretender's warring words.
Sir William Blackstone, (born July 10, 1723, London, England—died February 14, 1780, Wallingford, Oxfordshire), English jurist, whose Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vol. (1765–69), is the best-known description of the doctrines of English law. The work became the basis of university legal education in England and North America. He was knighted in 1770.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Too bad Gatlin wasn't there; He have run those leaflets all over DC in his all-weather golf cart. "Neither snow nor rain..." Btw, I wonder if the First Wookie's hoof wuz affected by writer's cramp?
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.
Ah, I feel much better!!! What a stud!!
I have been reading some of the many threads Gatlin has posted upon. Wasn't his original monicker "tater?" Why in the world would anyone choose that monicker?
Be my guest. I tire when arguing with brick walls.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
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.
Comments (118 - 433) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestInstead 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?
#79. To: Pridie.Nones (#78)
#80. To: GarySpFC (#79)
I have ministered in the field of apologetics for over 40 years. I have a doctorate in theology, and those who know me on this and other sites are acquainted with my long posts.
#81. To: Pridie.Nones (#78)
#82. To: Pridie.Nones (#78)
Sure. I don't believe any of the "stuff" presented. It is basically hogwash.
#83. To: Pridie.Nones (#80)
(Edited)
#84. To: GarySpFC (#81)
#85. To: Pridie.Nones (#84)
So, local politics were stimulated by not necessarily deep convictions of or about religious faith but nothing more than a sales card for political office.
#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.
#87. To: GarySpFC (#85)
And how are you so certain of the Founding Fathers motives?
#88. To: Pridie.Nones (#87)
(Edited)
Most of the founders were Deists. They could give a "hoot" about Christianity primarily because of the many wars in Europe over the Catholicism/Protestant debate, which still rage, albeit not so violently.
#89. To: Gatlin (#71)
(Edited)
#90. To: GarySpFC (#88)
#91. To: GarySpFC (#74)
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl227.php
#92. To: GarySpFC, Pridie.Nones (#81)
(Edited)
This phrase was not in the Arabic version of the 1797 treaty,2208 and appears to have been an insertion by Joel Barlow (1754– 1812), the American consul at Algiers who oversaw the translation process from Arabic to English.
#93. To: Gatlin (#59)
#94. To: CZ82 (#73)
You mistake Bush for Carter.
#95. To: Pridie.Nones (#86)
Within any nation, once a document is signed and accepted it is cast as a permanent boat anchor around your neck.
#96. To: Vicomte13 (#95)
Pridie.Nones: Within any nation, once a document is signed and accepted it is cast as a permanent boat anchor around your neck.
#97. To: cranky (#3)
He's [the Muzzie President] a Constitutional scholar, doncha know?
#98. To: Pridie.Nones (#96)
It is rare to have any outrage of or by the American People in the USA. Today, all the People do is watch TV, pay their taxes and thank God that they don't have to pay more.
#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.
#100. To: Gatlin, Carnival Barker, A K A Stone (#34)
Get lost, Punk.
"thanks for providing me a platform from which to launch articles you have not disputed as inaccurate."
#101. To: Liberator (#97)
Has anybody ever been able to discern an iota of documentation from the Kenyan's writings or evidence that supports "constitutional scholar"?
#102. To: Gatlin (#59)
So those who called themselves “Christians” and committed atrocities that solely occurred on “command of church authorities” or were committed in the name of “Christianity” were deemed NOT to be “Christians....by whom?
#103. To: Gatlin, Deckard, Pridie.Nones, The Big Top (#34)
You are doing nothing here except trying to cause disruption.
#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.
#105. To: Pridie.Nones (#101)
Yes. He has written at least one document that you should be able to identify:
#106. To: GarySpFC (#62)
#107. To: Vicomte13 (#98)
#108. To: redleghunter, Gatlin (#102)
#109. To: Liberator (#105)
#110. To: Pridie.Nones, Gatlin, Carnival Barker (#35)
To Gatlin:
"You should take a few moments of your precious time and reflect upon yourself before pointing fingers."
#111. To: Pericles (#91)
#112. To: Pridie.Nones (#109)
I understand she [Bigfoot] actually wrote his community organizer leaflets that he handed out at Church on Sunday.
#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?
#114. To: Gatlin, Pridie.Nones (#36)
Thanks, I just devoterd two seconds to that.
#115. To: Liberator, Gatlin (#110)
#116. To: Vicomte13 (#113)
I'd have fun answering those questions, but I'd be butting on a conversation between you and GarySpFc.
#117. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#113)
I'd have fun answering those questions, but I'd be butting on a conversation between you and GarySpFc.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]