We are NOT YET A Secular Nation

But we might be headed that way....

from JoeUser Forums
 

The most common Polls show that over 90 Percent of the country Believes in God, that alone shows we are NOT yet a secular nation.

The far left Secular Progressives {gag} continue to try and push the country into a secular mindset, but so far they continue to fail. Why you might ask. See above. 90% of the country believes in GOD.

Europe has become a collection of Secular nations and we see the results, Poor economies, Poor morals, lousy ethics and most of all the people have a huge sense of ENTITLEMENT. Give me! is the watch word of the day. Give me food, Give me shelter, Guarantee me that I will have a place to live and shelter myself if I NEVER WORK A SINGLE DAY IN MY LIFE. This attitude of Secular Progression {gag} is crippling the countries of Europe, with huge taxes to pay for the bums and malcontents, it causes a huge drain of the governments ability to do things like defend themselves, prosper and grow.

The result of this attitude resulted in 15,000 deaths in 2003 in France when the power went out in August and the workers were on the traditional Month vacation and refused to come back to repair the electrical grid, Which powered the air conditioners in a summer that saw record heat waves..

Living on the "DOLE" is a way of life in England. Worse than our welfare.

As long as we have a country where the Majority of people believe in GOD the force feeding of Secular progressive {gag} Ideals and Ideas will NOT take hold.

God help us if somehow the far left loons and their secular progressive {gag} Agenda takes over the country, who knows where it will lead to, possibly the banning of religion. Some proof of this is how religion has become an anathema in politics {courthouses, statehouses, government owned lands, Schools}.More proof is the many suits against states, counties with crosses on the flags, the pledge of allegiance {they want it gone} The money we use {they want in God we trust removed} God is being attacked from the loony left secular progressives {gag} and we people of faith in GOD must fight back.

 

religion
10,554 views 84 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
We can be a secular nation, or not.  It really is not the point.  WHat is the point is that the government should be secular.  And sadly it is fast becoming non-secular.  But the religion that is being espoused is not about Judeo-Christian ethics, or even Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu ones.  It is a religion of anti-religion.  Its god is the abolition of anything approaching devine belief or basic human compassion.  In praise of the almighty state.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I laugh everytime I see [gag] in your wirting!!


I like it that God might just fight back! Good article!
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Wednesday, June 13, 2007
We can be a secular nation, or not. It really is not the point. WHat is the point is that the government should be secular. And sadly it is fast becoming non-secular. But the religion that is being espoused is not about Judeo-Christian ethics, or even Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu ones. It is a religion of anti-religion. Its god is the abolition of anything approaching devine belief or basic human compassion. In praise of the almighty state.

While I think that religious leaders are a good thing, their religion SHOULD NOT come into play when making decisions. IMO.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: foreverserenityPosted: Wednesday, June 13, 2007
I laugh everytime I see [gag] in your wirting!!


I like it that God might just fight back! Good article!

I am glad to male you laugh donna, but the truth is there is nothing 'PROGRESSIVE" in secular progression{ga

If I can for a moment do Gods work I am truly blessed.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
If I can for a moment do Gods work I am truly blessed.


I'm blessed just reading you MM. Keep up the good work.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: KFC Kickin For ChristPosted: Wednesday, June 13, 2007
If I can for a moment do Gods work I am truly blessed.


I'm blessed just reading you MM. Keep up the good work.

Thank you KFC, I try to read you and lula, but you guys write so far above my head in knowledge of the bible, I just get lost.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr. Guy Posts:
It is a religion of anti-religion. Its god is the abolition of anything approaching devine belief or basic human compassion. In praise of the almighty state.


It's the latest form of American atheism to me.

I think we are enterng into a new and more intensified phase of the Culture War. The C-War's been going on for 30-40 years and the 2 sides have been battling abortion, homosexuality, contraceptive sex ed, pornography, prayer in school, legalizaton of illegal drugs, teaching Darwinian theory as fact, etc.

MM, wouldn't you think that if those polls you quote are correct, that things in the C-War would be going better than they are?

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
i'm confused.

you lament this:

religion has become an anathema in politics


while proclaiming this:

religion SHOULD NOT come into play when making decisions. IMO.







Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)kingbeeJune 15, 2007 12:21:02


i'm confused.

you lament this:


religion has become an anathema in politics


this is almost to easy kingbee, to declare your passion for GOD while in politics is very suspect and makes the farleft loons come out in droves, declaring "he or she lets their religion make decisions"


while proclaiming this:


religion SHOULD NOT come into play when making decisions. IMO.


Again, to easy, no time should a politician that represents many people of many religions let his or her religion dictate policy while making laws that affect people not of their particular religion, example: for a Jewish politician to try to get a law in outlawing pork because it is against his or her religion.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
lulapilgrimJune 15, 2007 00:34:32



MM, wouldn't you think that if those polls you quote are correct, that things in the C-War would be going better than they are?


it is what it is, because we that are religious do not {for the most part anyways} DEMAND THAT we wnat things done our way, while the far left has many voices, in the entire media to back their agenda, we do not.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
to declare your passion for GOD while in politics is very suspect and makes the farleft loons come out in droves, declaring "he or she lets their religion make decisions"


Yes. According to them if you are a believer in God you have no right to politics because your religious beliefs may determine how you act on a certain issue. Well isn't that as true for the Atheists or the Agnostics?

Did you read about the recent sudden removal of General Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? The Marine general created controversy in March when he likened homosexuality to adultery, and said the military should not condone it by allowing homosexuals to serve in the military.

General Pace made statements that were opposed by the homosexual activist community, and rather than fight they decided to just replace him. The path to lest resistance...Pace has been replaced by Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chief of Naval Operations.

This is the name of the game. Compromise. We're in trouble when we do this.

I'm reading all about Ezra, Zerubbabel & Nehemiah in the Hebrew Scriptures right now. The setting is about the Jews coming out of Babylonian Captivity in 538 BC

During this time they set out to build the new temple. The enemies of Israel wanted to help in the building of it. Their wish was to make it a house of worship for all...eccumentical if you will ....Zerubbabel, the builder and Joshua, the High Priest refused to compromise God's laws and worship with these other nations with their pagan beliefs.

Because they were refused, these same adversaries who tried to come across as wanting to be friendly, now went to the Persian officials to have them stopped. They wrote lies about them and managed to get the building project stopped for like 16 years. The foundation just sat there until Haggai the prophet got word from God to the Jews to continue. Again the enemies sought to stop it by going to the new King of Persia Darius, but to no avail. The decree by Cyrus was found by Darius in their well kept records and the rest is history as they say. They refused to compromise and it cost something for a while but in the end the heavens opened up with blessings for them. The temple was finished in 516 BC.

Many years later Nehemiah came on the scene to build the walls around Jerusualem and ran into the same opposition. Only this time their lives were in danger. He also would not compromise and set about to do God's work no matter the death threats leveled at him and the people.

God blesses us in our time of adversity when we refuse to compromise with the world all just to appease or because we wish to take the path to lest resistence.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Again, to easy, no time should a politician that represents many people of many religions let his or her religion dictate policy while making laws that affect people not of their particular religion, example: for a Jewish politician to try to get a law in outlawing pork because it is against his or her religion.


MM, what, or better yet, whose standard should we/do we use for making laws?

America's founding is rooted in the order of Creation itself. It's founding documents are an outworking of the Biblical principle of human equality derived from the fact that men and women are made in God's Image. The doctrine of human equality has the premise that certain rights are self-evident and unalienable, (they can't be abridged or taken away becasue they come from God, the First Authority). They are the right to life, liberty, and property. These are the political doctrines which guided the Founding Fathers and they are also theological foundations of our physical and moral laws which bind all of creation.

I do not want to put words in your mouth, however, here you seem to be saying that our legislatures must somehow leave their religious beliefs outside the door of their legislatures chambers. Some call this "religious neutrality"...which in effect is impossible and logically indefensible.

Take a landmark case of Everson v. Board of Educ. in 1947. Everson was the first case to list atheism with Christianity as equivalent religious beliefs toward which government must be neutral. This unprecedented judicial and legislative conception of 'religious neutrality' has in turn resulted in subsequent civil laws and judicial decisions that every Christian recognizes as contrary to GOd's law of divine justice.

See, we can't start with the premise that individuals have inherent equalities, but deny that they are limited by duties and moral restraints imposed by GOd. Without the moral boundaries imposed by Scripture, 'equality' was quickly recognized as an arbitrary premise without the moral authority to deter the powerful from redefining utilitarianism to serve their own ends. Marx went this way and the result was totalitarianism.

In order to hold that Christianity and atheism are equal for the purposes of achieving religious neutrality, one must assume the government can define and enforce equality on some basis other than provided in a Biblical context. This unfortunaately is being done day in and day out. The result has been the institutionalion of moral relativism which if not reversed, at least IMHO, can only result in serious social chaos. Individual equality has been interpretated to mean equality of any beliefs which individuals might hold.

I think the burden relies on us, the voters. Are we wise or foolish, good or bad. Shall we put wise or foolish, good or bad men to govern us. Shall we have righteous laws, a faithful administration of government and permanent good order, peace and liberty or on the contrary feel unsupportable burdens and see the affairs of government in confusion and ruin?

You say we are not a secular nation--yet....I would disagree for the very reasons I just cited. This is me, a Catholic...I would never vote for a irreligious and immoral person. For how can I expect good just laws to be made from men who have no fear of GOd before their eyes and who boldly trample on the authority of His commands?

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
it is what it is, because we that are religious do not {for the most part anyways} DEMAND THAT we wnat things done our way


Yes, I think this is a good part of it. For a myriad of reasons, too busy working, paying the bills caring for our families, etc... Take this giving what amounts to amnesty to the illegal aliens. That went down the first time because the grass roots called, wrote, and emailed their congressman. It's coming back and if we don't keep our voices LOUD and CLEAR, it's gonna pass they say over the 4th of July holiday when people are vacationing!!

In my state they had a vote yesterday and two referundums on bonds passed 2-to-one. The bills just keep piling up and the burden becomes heavier and heavier.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

The most common Polls show that over 90 Percent of the country Believes in God

Ah, but which one (and isn't that the point of the separation of Church and State)??
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah, but which one (and isn't that the point of the separation of Church and State)??


Did you know that there's a bill in the Senate right now to limit Pastors teaching against Homosexuality. It's called the Hate Crimes Bill. In the House it passed and was called HR1592. So the bill was introduced, debated and passed...now onto the Senate.

If it passes the Senate S 1105 it will go against the law for preachers to preach the bible in certain parts. I'm sure Bush will veto it but my "prophetic guts" tell me that it will be reintroduced soon, maybe under a new Leftist President and it will pass.

Now what does this mean? Separation of Church and State ONLY works one way?

also....even the demons believe in God and tremble. Even if 90% believe in God (which seems kinda of high to me), only a very small fraction of that number follow him.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah, but which one (and isn't that the point of the separation of Church and State)??


Did you know that there's a bill in the Senate right now to limit Pastors teaching against Homosexuality. It's called the Hate Crimes Bill. In the House it passed and was called HR1592. So the bill was introduced, debated and passed...now onto the Senate.

If it passes the Senate S 1105 it will go against the law for preachers to preach the bible in certain parts. I'm sure Bush will veto it but my "prophetic guts" tell me that it will be reintroduced soon, maybe under a new Leftist President and it will pass.

Now what does this mean? Separation of Church and State ONLY works one way?


Good point, KFC, you knocked this one out of the ball park.

also....even the demons believe in God and tremble. Even if 90% believe in God (which seems kinda of high to me), only a very small fraction of that number follow him.


Another valid point.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

While I think that religious leaders are a good thing, their religion SHOULD NOT come into play when making decisions. IMO.




I disagree. I think that a person's core beliefs absolutely should steer their decisions instead of the politics that normally does.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: MasonMPosted: Friday, June 15, 2007


While I think that religious leaders are a good thing, their religion SHOULD NOT come into play when making decisions. IMO.




I disagree. I think that a person's core beliefs absolutely should steer their decisions instead of the politics that normally does.

core beliefs, yes, his religious beliefs, no.

If I was President would you want me banning crab, pork, shellfish, bottom feeders of any kind? Make law that all male children MUST be circumcised? that's what I mean mason.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Lula And KFC, I love reading the two of you, but again you are both way over my head.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry MM...don't mean to.

I thought you may be interested in the OT Jewish History regarding the second temple (after Solomon's) and applied it to the compromise of today. I find it all very interesting.



Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
(Citizen)KFC Kickin For ChristJune 16, 2007 12:09:37


Sorry MM...don't mean to.

I thought you may be interested in the OT Jewish History regarding the second temple (after Solomon's) and applied it to the compromise of today. I find it all very interesting.


no.no, you misunderstood, I love reading you two, I just never have anything to add, due to my lack of knowledge. I find the amount of stuff you two know very very interesting.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
MM posts:
core beliefs, yes, his religious beliefs, no.


What's the difference?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
If I was President would you want me banning crab, pork, shellfish, bottom feeders of any kind? Make law that all male children MUST be circumcised? that's what I mean mason.


Sorry, MM, never mind. This adequately explains the difference and i hadn't read this part of your answer to mason b-4 I posted #22.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
MM,
I'm curious what you think of my reply # 12. Did that make any sense to you? I challenged you a bit.

MM POSTS:
no.no, you misunderstood, I love reading you two, I just never have anything to add, due to my lack of knowledge. I find the amount of stuff you two know very very interesting.


Thank you MM, for the very nice compliment.


MasonM posts:
I think that a person's core beliefs absolutely should steer their decisions instead of the politics that normally does.


I'm with you on this. I mean my core beliefs ARE my religious beliefs OR based directly on them.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: lulapilgrimPosted: Saturday, June 16, 2007
MM,
I'm curious what you think of my reply # 12. Did that make any sense to you? I challenged you a bit.

I think using your core beliefs even derived from religion is a good thing, but using the beliefs instilled from a particular religion is NOT.

 I GAVE EXAMPLES,  Using the part of the religion that praises HONESTY as a value is GOOD, using the part of a religion that commands you to bring others into YOUR specific religion is not good, while in office.

Now if an Atheist was a moral man, an honest man, a good man with the best of intentions for America, and with no agenda of destroying religion or denigrating religion, you still WOULD NOT VOTE FOR HIM?

HANOIJOHN KERRY CLAIMS TO BE RELIGIOUS, HE IS A CATHOLIC, BUT HE IS ALSO A TRAITOR TO THE COUNTRY, PUTS THE MILITARY DOWN, CALLS THEM STUPID, BELIEVES IN RAISING TAXES, is a proven liar, would you vote for him instead of the Atheist I pointed out?