Sick and Tired

PitbullMidwest · Sep 6, 2002

knucklehead,

Have you seen the latest ad for the ACLU? Makes me want to puke everytime I see it (I'm sure that's the reaction they want from someone with my Christian views). It's shot in the classic propaganda style, black and white, low angles, showing the poor and huddled masses and symbols of freedom while the playing the song "This Little Light Of Mine".

This Little Light Of Mine and the ACLU? Isn't that like having Pat Buchanan doing voice overs for Ted Kennedy's reelection ads?

Only the godless ACLU would pervert a children's song about personnal faith to their own advantage.

Tractorgirl · Sep 6, 2002

Well said Mark!

Rhonda

jhburke · Sep 7, 2002

I agree with you but today it seems to be the rule to slant without any regard to truth or morals everything to suit your desires.

blurrybill · Sep 7, 2002

Excellent, Mark. I would only add that in my orientation as an humanistic/existentially-oriented psychologist, I too recognize and value an individual orientation. As others have implied, individuals are destroyed by "gifts" that rob them of incentive and a sense of self-worth. I see it every week in my practice. Thanks for continuing the message.

Bill

knucklehead · Sep 8, 2002

Pit, Tgirl, Jim, Blurry: Thanks!

Pit, Blurry: I gotta run, and slog off to Rockland to suffer through some shrimp and salt air, after assaulting the back of the house with clapboards yesterday. My wife is tugging at my sleeve, and made me promise to be brief. I want to talk more about psychology, and about the ACLU, but I have to make the sacrifice for the family. /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif

Do ya get Adrian Rogers on the radio out there, Pit? He's whacking them, lately.

wroughtn_harv · Sep 8, 2002

Those who work directly or indirectly to deny, neglect, or oppose the basic Godly origin of our nation, incredibly do so in the name of "freedom" and "rights".

I agree with you Mark one hundred percent. So many today forget or even worse, never learned, that our great nation was founded by those who understood intimately about gods and government being hand in glove. They understood that any god given preference caused harm to not only individuals but society as a whole.

Of course one has to admit their experience with gods was singular in name but plural in doctrination. I guess they understood that sharing even one god could cause severe problems. We could even quote Jesus, "Render therefore unto Ceasar the things which be Ceasar's, and unto God the things which be God's." And have an accepted authority's opinion on god in government.

No, they understood best that government should govern and faith should be an intimate experience by each individual according to their needs. Faith isn't a one size fits all kind of thing.

Even more incredibly they almost always find themselves espousing the opposite themes, socialistic in nature and very destructive to individual freedom and rights.

You'll have to explain this. I think anyone can look at religion in general and see it as socialism by definition. One could even take a close look at faith as it purtains to the individual and see that it expresses socialistic concepts, group responsibility for the individual and individual's responsibility for the group.

All I can do in my head, over and over and over, is repeat "Oh what a tangled web we weave.....!"

Self therapy at work one oh one!/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

The time has come, however, to get the destructive elements of Godless humanism out of prominence. I find it interesting that humanism - isn't. Maybe we should call it deathism.

A little challenge for you Mark. Show me where humanism is causing conflict. Just some examples, nothing real hard for you I'm sure.

Of course you can't use the conflicts in the middle east. God's got that covered coming and going. The same thing can be said in India and Pakistan, Ireland, Afghanistan, Europe, Africa, the gods have got it going their way.

Now if we did take out humanism and put a god into the government we have to wonder which one to choose. We can look where they do have god's integrated into the government and there's problems. Saudi Arabia would be a classic example. Ireland would be another. We can look back through history and every nation that was based upon religion, faith in a god or gods, has fallen. Might be a lesson in that........../w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

BTW I'm a secular humanist sometimes. Sometimes I'm an atheist. It all depends upon whom I'm talking to about the subject. When I'm discussing personal faith with someone not really adept at the discussion I use secular humanist. It gives me an edge because I know where they're coming from and they don't have a clue about me until they get home and find a dictionary.

What's among the first things the USSR did when they invaded a country? Close or otherwise hamper the churches, and relax divorce laws.......does that tell you anything about where they considered the threat to be? Right at home!

I find your statement interesting. Saudia Arabia sounds like your kind of place. God's in charge and divorce is out of the question. In fact some of the most restrictive and backwards societies have restrictions on divorce, again, might be a message there....../w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

You might also note about your statement that the nation you're complaining so loudly about has a tradition against infringing upon personal faith and or religion.

Again define yourself a little clearer for me, what exactly do you want and show me some examples if you will about how it will make us better as a nation.

Boondox · Sep 8, 2002

All I can say, Harv...is Amen! I can't think of a single war started by a humanist. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif Or as that great Vermonter and American patriot, Ethan Allen, once said, "The gods of the hills are not the gods of the valleys."

To each his own.

Pete

PitbullMidwest · Sep 9, 2002

We could even quote Jesus, "Render therefore unto Ceasar the things which be Ceasar's, and unto God the things which be God's." 

This quote was in response to whether man should pay taxes, had nothing to do with seperation of church and state. In fact Jesus's view seemed to be that most of society's problems stemmed from following the state's laws instead of God's laws (singular God BTW).

Seperation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution. The state is prohibited from establishing a national religion but says nothing about the seperation of the two. This was in direct response to the Church of England, established by the Crown and headed by the King. Anyone remember why the Pilgrams and Quakers left England? Religious persacution from the State established church. The Magna Carta, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution all have their foundations in Biblical law and should be enough evidence that the framers intended to prevent the establishment of a national church not the seperation of the church from the state..

wroughtn_harv · Sep 9, 2002

Happy lunch time Pit Bull,

This quote was in response to whether man should pay taxes, had nothing to do with seperation of church and state.

It was a discussion about tribute. They were pawns of politicians trying to trick Jesus into stating something inflammatory so they could get him brought up on sedition charges against Rome.

What I find so interesting about this discussion is how Jesus wasn't crucified for being contrary towards the government but being a threat to the church of the moment. Pilate, Rome's representative didn't want to have anything to do with Jesus' being persecuted but did his part solely to appease the local powers that be in the church. They had no civil authority.

So once again, Jesus' life stood for separation of church and state.

And if you have a bucket of grins to play with you could have a ball comparing the church that killed Jesus with the current administration.

What is interesting is Jesus understood their interest and what the ramifications of their inquiries. You can see over and over again where Jesus goes out of his way to separate his spiritual kingdom from the earthly kingdom. When he does talk about earthly goals and aspirations it's in a very anticapitialistic vein. Over and over again Jesus ridicules personal wealth and seeking to achieve it.

In fact Jesus's view seemed to be that most of society's problems stemmed from following the state's laws instead of God's laws (singular God BTW).

You'll have to show me your source for that statement. As I've read the Bible I see him complain about Jewish law, Old Testament law, but never do you hear him attack Roman law, the law of the land.

If you set down with your Bible and read the four gospels, hour at most, you will come away with the distinct separation of church, christian church, and state.

The Magna Carta, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution all have their foundations in Biblical law

Of course you do understand that Biblical law is a copy of civil laws used long before the time of the Bible by other civilizations??????

If you don't you should.

PitbullMidwest · Sep 9, 2002

Afternoon Harv,

you said "You'll have to show me your source for that statement. As I've read the Bible I see him complain about Jewish law, Old Testament law, but never do you hear him attack Roman law, the law of the land. 

Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy (the 2nd law) more than any other book of scripture. Don't recall him ever complaining about His Father's laws. He complained about those Leaders of the Sanhedrin (sic) who added law upon law (Democrats? /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif) and made it a burdan on the people or those who twisted it to their own advantage (Republicans? /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif) but don't recall Him complaining about the Law itself.

Look at the history of the Jewish people as recorded in scripture. The closer the people and their goverment (Kings and Judges) stayed to God's law the more prosperous and successful they were as a nation. But as they seperated themselves from God and his law they suffered.

Jesus said that He and the Father were one, since all law decends from God and it was God who established goverment, it would seem contrary to hold that Jesus believed in seperation of Church and State.