Seperation of Church & Politics
Post your opinions. I hope to come out of this of a stronger stance in one way or the other (hopefully there is a happy middle ground).
Printable View
Seperation of Church & Politics
Post your opinions. I hope to come out of this of a stronger stance in one way or the other (hopefully there is a happy middle ground).
This is going to end up in a fight.
I hope not, I hope people could be non-offensive with a topic like this.
Just wait. You will see.
This will end up in a fight, because people on either side are always too arrogant to see the other persons point of view.
Agreed.
IMO it is hard for a Christian to say there should be a seperation, however it is hard for an American to say that people have to acknowledge the Bible in society. A classic catch 22 of modern times. One of the main reasons America was founded was freedom of religion, we as Americans can't take that away just because we have strong feelings toward God. That is why I do not have a probelm with this, I believe that your relationship with God should be both private and personal, I am sure we can all think of a handful of hypocrites who can see everyone else's faults (and makes it well known to the public), but can't see the log in his own eye. Actually a parallel quote from both Jesus and Buddha. That being said who are we to judge someone on how they pray or lack there of?
As Earl's former mother -in-law (My name is Earl, an LPD Sports Forum Favorite) said, "Don't judge me."
Agreed MG...I've said plenty of times on here when you look at guys like Rasputin and Cardinal Richelieu throughout history, when anyone in a religious walk of life attempts to control the course of action in their government, it can often be as underhanded and evil as can be. Why? Because people who are too far into their religion instead of focusing on their relationship with God and Jesus (and for Catholics, the Holy Mother) can rationalize that they're doing sinful things "for God's will and purpose". Religious leaders should stick to what they're supposed to do--lead people to God and help to get souls saved and into Heaven. They should NOT attempt to control government. There shouldn't be any statements on any governmental control or law by the Vatican, the Church of God, the Southern Baptists, the Jewish, the Islamic, etc...as a body trying to influence government. Religious freedom means freedom to WORSHIP as you wish...not freedom to force your doctrine on others, especially when it comes to affairs a religious body has no business dealing with.
Our modern day Rasputin or Richelieu? Has to be guys like these Bishops in this article and Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc...Religious men claiming their religion as an excuse to push their own political agendas. It's not right and really and truly I believe against what God wants.
God, being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent as he is has no need for a Christian president of any denomination in the White House to get HIS agenda done. And isn't that the one that really matters anyways?
Okay I'll lay things out as I see them and I'll try to take on criticism whether instructive or destructive because if you can think your way through adversity you'll find a position you can be proud of to support and help other find the position they need to support given their own morals.
*Assuming you read the article posted, here's how I want to start stuff out*.
First my flaws: Though I was raised in a Catholic (yes Christian) family, I am not the perfect son. Far from it, I've been a hypocrit many times throughout my life, I've done a lot of wrong. I'm still working on becoming a better person, and I may not ever be completely happy with how morally good I am, but my aim is to gain consistency in the morals I espouse along with how I act in everday life.
That being said...
I think the complicating philosphical matter is creating a distinction between what is morally prudent and what is practically/socially prudent and which sense of prudency to use in the political arena, whether voting or establishing a platform.
Inherently, Church-State seperatoin is a good thing given the history of the world. Take for example Medieval Catholic Italy or Early Protestant England. In both cultures people unfairly used religion for the sake of political gain and to coerce people based on "divine right". Putting power in the hands of the people is what modern society prides itself on because it prevents this immoral and unfounded use of religion for personal gain.
But what happens when a democratic political system is in place, one of secular basis, based on majority rule. The beauty of the democratic system of rule is that people are respected as individuals and it is in no one's place to dictate what morals a person has, so long as he/she does not harm their fellow man in doing so.
Fast forward a couple hundred years of social/political evolution...
You are in the position of being a voter for the office of president in a bipartisan political system. You are a pereson of religious background and one party supports your views and the other party supports the exact opposite.
The problem of the matter is, the other party that supports your oppositve view on the moral matter supports your views on a vast array of other things (make stuff up just so the argument works... to not change focus of the argument lets say this second party supports something that is easily agreed upon like human rights in general for law-abiding citizens). But the first party doesn't cover your views with respect to these other things as well as the second party does.
The problem is that because you are a man of faith and religious background, the one moral issue that the first party supports is recognized by your religion as the foundation of the entire faith.
Here's where the matter got complicated for me. The Republican party is pro-life but is in complete disagreement with a lof of my beliefs on social justice and even some of my partical notions of monetary policy and such.
Which do you give more precedent? Your religious morals or your practical intuition which you know would benefit a lot of other people?
In response to: Why? Because people who are too far into their religion instead of focusing on their relationship with God and Jesus (and for Catholics, the Holy Mother) can rationalize that they're doing sinful things "for God's will and purpose".
- Just to dispel a quick myth - the Holy Mother is not the center of the Church. The Holy Trinity is. The Mother of God is just looked at in espeically HIGH regard. She is not of "God" status, but she's seen as an example of how good Christians should act and serve
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I've done a lot of wrong. I'm still working on becoming a better person, and I may not ever be completely happy with how morally good I am
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't it this kind of guilt what it takes to be a REAL Catholic? Or just Jewish...either one...OY! [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]...just kidding RW0105...
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
- Just to dispel a quick myth - the Holy Mother is not the center of the Church. The Holy Trinity is. The Mother of God is just looked at in espeically HIGH regard. She is not of "God" status, but she's seen as an example of how good Christians should act and serve
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that, but what I guess I meant was that she is looked up to and prayed to as a religious figure--not a God--but a religious figure, like any of the saints. She's a central figure in the faith just like the Holy Trinity, but just below that God status you mentioned.
To be honest, I think for the most part I agree with your argument. I have those same problems...socially, I think abortion is a choice. Religiously, I think it is an abomination. Socially, I think church and state should be kept separate. Religiously, I feel that we need to have people who have a personal relationship with God in office to make the right decisions, not just totally based on their faith alone, but by the knowledge that God has blessed them with. That may be where the rift lies...some of the religious figures that dabble in government policy are basing their beliefs totally on the letter of the word, and not leaning on the understanding of the world today that's granted to them by a relationship with God. Some people thump the Bible until they're red in the face, but lose sight of the fact that God lives and we can have a relationship with him and he will guide us through prayer and through studying the word...not all answers come from the Bible--it is merely a guide by which for us to worship & relate to God and Jesus Christ. I know that's an unpopular opinion, but I think it's a focal point to help us see things that God wants us to see and have knowledge of.
In response to:
Some people thump the Bible until they're red in the face, but lose sight of the fact that God lives and we can have a relationship with him and he will guide us through prayer and through studying the word...not all answers come from the Bible--it is merely a guide by which for us to worship & relate to God and Jesus Christ. I know that's an unpopular opinion, but I think it's a focal point to help us see things that God wants us to see and have knowledge of.
That my friend whether your realize (intended) it or not, is a very "Catholic" statement haha.
Here's my take it was wrong of the Republican party to polarize relgious people on the subject just to help win an election. It made a lot of people hateful towards each other. Last year I was a fourth year at UVA and I would say the campus was about 50/50, but never had I seen such hostility in opinion towards other people. Best friends would talk behind each others backs, or would spout out their political opinions out loud without regard to how offensive they were to other people (this may actually just be a Wahoo thing - I hate the stuck up NOVA kids myself).
I seriously am not built for politics because I believe that in a bipartisan system, you're given few choices as to what sides you can take. That's why I'm a swing voter. I just hope I can better inform myself before the next election and accurately weigh out my priorities.
Yeah--It probably is RW0105, I really don't define myself as one particular denomination. There's not going to be denominations in Heaven, so why worry about that right now? I grew up in a Freewill Baptist church, but now regularly attend a Southern Baptist church. I've been to Catholic services, Presbyterian, Methodist, Church of God, Christian Church, Church of Christ, non-denominational churches (that may as well have been Pentacostal)...and the one constant out of all of them is Jesus, the cross, and an importance of a relationship with the Holy Trinity. That my friend is what I focus on when I'm worshipping. Not spiritual gifts, special prayers, good works, backsliding/once-in-faith-always-in-faith/confession, or anything else that gets argued about.
I think sometimes God is kinda left out of most churches and he's sitting in the corner like "Hello? What about me? Are we going to get to me anytime soon?" [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
In response to:
Not spiritual gifts, special prayers, good works, backsliding/once-in-faith-always-in-faith/confession, or anything else that gets argued about.
That my friend is a complaint of more educated Catholics - that some people do all those things you listed above and expect everything will be alright. Which is why your statement about eternal guilt as being part of being a good Catholic is actually a pretty correct one.
One should never compare himself against others and say, "I do this better". But rather you should look at others and see what they do morally well and try to emulate that action. Everyone (except for crazed psycho Satanic killers, etc...) has their inherent goodness, and has good points that should be emulated.
"God, being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent as he is has no need for a Christian president of any denomination in the White House to get HIS agenda done. And isn't that the one that really matters anyways?
socially, I think abortion is a choice. Religiously, I think it is an abomination. Socially, I think church and state should be kept separate."
- I think that right there sums it up pretty well A Football Fan
I think if religious pro-lifers want to get their mission done, they should work on Evangelizing people and not mobilizing voters.
From 2004: Do Democrats Stand a Chance?
"Here's where the matter got complicated for me. The Republican party is pro-life but is in complete disagreement with a lof of my beliefs on social justice and even some of my partical notions of monetary policy and such."
In what way are you in disagreement with the Republican Party in reference to social justice? I am somewhat in agreement with your analysis on Republican Fiscal policy and have stated that several times myself.
ergh, that's for another day and after I do a lot of research before I open my mouth...
I'm speaking off of intutition, strong intutition, but my opinions aren't perfectly researched...
I'll bring it up eventually I'm sure as we get closer to critical elections.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
ergh, that's for another day and after I do a lot of research before I open my mouth...
I'm speaking off of intutition, strong intutition, but my opinions aren't perfectly researched...
I'll bring it up eventually I'm sure as we get closer to critical elections.
[/ QUOTE ]
At least you're honest and bravo to you for wanting to come on this board and argue facts instead of pure intuition, thought, & emotion. You'll be a welcome asset here.
"focusing on their relationship with God and Jesus (and for Catholics, the Holy Mother)"
-Are you implying that Catholics do not show the same reverence to "the holy trinity" that protestants do?
"They should NOT attempt to control government."
-I see, should they atleast be allowed to participate in government so as they don't end up being excluded or CONTROLLED by that very same gov't itself?
"There shouldn't be any statements on any governmental control or law by the Vatican, the Church of God, the Southern Baptists, the Jewish, the Islamic, etc...as a body trying to influence government."
-Wow...let me take this in, if thats not a radical statement I don't know what is! A call to exclude all faiths from freedom of speech!
"Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc...Religious men claiming their religion as an excuse to push their own political agendas."
-So are you saying they are not really men of faith but just pretend to be for their own political motives? Do you have any supporting facts on that?
"especially when it comes to affairs a religious body has no business dealing with."
-Just curious which affairs you might be referring to?
much appreciated...
I just want to be politically informed. I'm welcomed to criticism, otherwise if your'e never corrected, you'll just chug along thinking you're the greatest... Here's one of my favorite quotes...
"If you're not modest, you're probably overestimating yourself."
- Tim Cordes M.D.(made one B in medical school - University of Wisconsin-Madison, Undergraduate Valedictorian of Notre Dame)/(soon to add Ph.D)/blackbelt in jujitsu/avid water skiier/musical composer
- He happens to be blind.
Nothing wrong with stating one's thoughts, emotions, intuition, etc...so long as one doesn't state it as a fact.
Let me rephrase my question....in general wahoo, what social injustices might you be referring to whether it be fact based or thought/emotion based? Just your personal opinion...i'm not here to flame anybody. Thoughts and feelings have a place in adult intellectual discourse in my opinion as does factual dialogue.
#1 The Patriot Act allowing President Bush essentially boundless freedoms into prying private conversations for the sake of National Security
#2 the Death Penalty - I am a bitter vengeful person by nature, and though I would like to see bad people disappear, sigh moral intuition kicks in and says, "Death Penalty Bad..."
#3 Tax breaks for the wealthy
#4 the lack of establishment of a "living wage", minimum sucks... and some actually try to support people off of this
there are others, but they escape me at the moment
I strongly agree with #3.....I agree slightly with #4...Strongly disagree wtih #2...Neutral on #1 [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
-Are you implying that Catholics do not show the same reverence to "the holy trinity" that protestants do?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, and I do not see how you got that out of what I said. I explained to RW0105 about what I meant in a few consequent posts.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
-I see, should they atleast be allowed to participate in government so as they don't end up being excluded or CONTROLLED by that very same gov't itself?
[/ QUOTE ]
Active participation is one thing...a highly welcome thing that is necessary. Attempting to actively control and manipulate government to serve their religious fatwas--not so much.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
-Wow...let me take this in, if thats not a radical statement I don't know what is! A call to exclude all faiths from freedom of speech!
[/ QUOTE ]
No--once again--you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I feel that they're in the business of spreading faith and saving people--not running the government. Vote your conscience and your faith, but don't actively try to control legislature to fit a religious agenda.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
-So are you saying they are not really men of faith but just pretend to be for their own political motives? Do you have any supporting facts on that?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would tell you my facts, but I don't want to suffer another stroke...[img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Seriously...you can tell from their actions and their words what they're trying to do. When do you hear about Dobson, Robertson, or Falwell in the news? Not when they've helped save so many souls and bring them to knowing Christ, but when they're speaking out against something they see as diabolical and evil because it's an inconvenience to them. Why should we have to hear Dobson or Falwell call Spongebob or Tinky-Winky homosexual? Who cares? It seems to me that if you want to lead people to faith in Jesus, you'd do it by acceptance, not by perpetual chastisement.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
-Just curious which affairs you might be referring to?
[/ QUOTE ]
Any government sanctioned affairs. I don't want to hear what my local pastor says about the price of oil by the barrel. I don't want to hear Robertson give his thoughts on how to solve the problem of stopping the AIDS epidemic. Stick to saving souls. Let the "secular leaders" take care of the secular world, and concentrate on strengthening your churches (not politically, but spiritually) and the rest will take care of itself. Jehovah Jireh--go look that up and see what it means.
as the day... haha in just a day... has progressed, I'm getting stronger intuitions that church and state should be greatly seperated
like I said, the religious folk should work on influencing how people lead their lives in a moral fashion, rather than controlling what they do in the voting both...
isn't the point of christianity recruiting people to the flock and teaching them good graces such that they WILLINGLY accept God, rather than force feeding them an opinion...
Haha this would be good material one day for the social contract theory of justifying political procedure
All this being said...
My girlfriend is a hard core Democrat (again I'm a swing voter). I do mean hard core... Like she would punch Bush in the face if she had the chance.
Sometimes she just says things that get under my skin haha. Ever try to have a political discussion with a liberal girl of strong conviction... ouch... haha. I'll build up my smarts by reading/researching and chatting with you guys and other people first before I take her on.
Run Run as fast as you can from her. Next thing you know she will be taking a knife to your manhood.
At Boys State I had a guy on my hall tell me about his best friend's parents.
The Father was something like A chairman of the DNP or another position of high authority.
The Mother was of equally high stature in the GOP.
They never discussed politics, but the family gets along just fine... I may have to take some cues from these people come election time, because even if I vote left, I probably won't vote left for the same reasons she does.
"Active participation is one thing...a highly welcome thing that is necessary. Attempting to actively control and manipulate government to serve their religious fatwas--not so much."
-Last sentence could very well be used to describe many secularists(insert "non" before religious)
"Seriously...you can tell from their actions and their words what they're trying to do. When do you hear about Dobson, Robertson, or Falwell in the news? Not when they've helped save so many souls and bring them to knowing Christ, but when they're speaking out against something they see as diabolical and evil because it's an inconvenience to them. Why should we have to hear Dobson or Falwell call Spongebob or Tinky-Winky homosexual? Who cares? It seems to me that if you want to lead people to faith in Jesus, you'd do it by acceptance, not by perpetual chastisement."
-I agree with you to a point and will not condone all of their actions but whose to say they are do such things for any kind of political gain? While I totally disagree with Robertson claiming to understand God's actions for natural disasters or the stroke of Israel's president I actually don't see how he could gain anything from that politically...and honestly speaking I can't say he is wrong either because I really do not know. It would be outrageous for anyone to claim as fact that they do know about any kind of divine intervention or dispute (as fact)any such claim like Robertson made as being invalid. I may be wrong but I believe Robertson made a statement based on his theological "interpretation" of the Bible and didn't make any claim that what he said was "The Gospel." He has a different way of communicating his beliefs and I think he sincerely believes what he says no matter how off base it may seem and in the case of Sharon I'm sure their are biblical passages that support his claim...but once again I do not condone what he said at all. Just saying there are several passages in the Bible which make reference to the "Holy Land"(Israel) and negative results to those who attempt to defy it or it Sharon's case allow others(non-Jews) to stake claim to it.
"Any government sanctioned affairs. I don't want to hear what my local pastor says about the price of oil by the barrel. I don't want to hear Robertson give his thoughts on how to solve the problem of stopping the AIDS epidemic. Stick to saving souls. Let the "secular leaders" take care of the secular world, and concentrate on strengthening your churches (not politically, but spiritually) and the rest will take care of itself. Jehovah Jireh--go look that up and see what it means."
-Well I think you just told me what it means in the sentence prior to it.
Personally I see more secularists who want any reference or practice of religion banned(more specifically Christianity)than I see of any religious leaders trying to impose a state religion on government. The backlash to this secularist influence are citizens of faith considering such religious/moral based issues more important than before because of the religiously eroding affect over time that secularists are having on gov't policy. In my opinion people of faith have just as much right to vote their conscience NO MATTER WHAT THE ISSUE as do secularists.
One follow up question to what you just stated...do you agree that Pope John Paul II had a right to his actions when he attempted to influence then VA Governor Doug Wilder to grant clemency to Grundy native Roger Keith Coleman in '92?
"No--once again--you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I feel that they're in the business of spreading faith and saving people--not running the government. Vote your conscience and your faith, but don't actively try to control legislature to fit a religious agenda."
-Thats nothing close to what you said in your previous statement on the issue.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
isn't the point of christianity recruiting people to the flock and teaching them good graces such that they WILLINGLY accept God, rather than force feeding them an opinion...
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly @RW0105
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
-Last sentence could very well be used to describe many secularists(insert "non" before religious)
[/ QUOTE ]
More accurate with religious though. BTW--remember, not every Dem is a secularist and not every Repub is a Christian, regardless of presentation to the media or party. Think about it.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
It would be outrageous for anyone to claim as fact that they do know about any kind of divine intervention or dispute (as fact)any such claim like Robertson made as being invalid.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Because he's a "man of God"? That's the exact crutch that he's helping people who won't question him to lean on--the fact that he's accepted as a "man of God" and that questioning him would be questioning God...so it shouldn't be done. In otherwords, that's abuse of his position of the church and if excommunication was still done in Protestant churches--Robertson should go first thing.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
In my opinion people of faith have just as much right to vote their conscience NO MATTER WHAT THE ISSUE as do secularists.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with that statement...that's exactly what I'm saying--VOTE your conscience and conviction...not what your church says to do--do it through your knowledge and understanding along with God's guidance through your personal relationship with him instead of what Falwell, Robertson, or Dobson happen to say on the news on a given night about a candidate. THAT is where I have a problem, when people blindly follow and vote unknowingly. If you know what you're voting for, then do so with conviction. If not--then don't follow a mantra that is going to affect your vote that some man tells you is the right thing to do. Also, if you're going to vote your conviction, don't try to influence others as to YOUR religious conviction, especially by less than Christian (read secular) means. It's a choice...not something to be forced upon you. That's why there's a lot of Christians that will be going to hell right now, because the faith they tout as having was forced on them and they do not have an actual relationship with God.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
One follow up question to what you just stated...do you agree that Pope John Paul II had a right to his actions when he attempted to influence then VA Governor Doug Wilder to grant clemency to Grundy native Roger Keith Coleman in '92?
[/ QUOTE ]
Your question is does he have a right to his actions--yes he has a right to his actions--we all do, that's what free will is all about. And there's a huge difference here BGJ--are you saying he "attempted to influence" or that he "plead on Coleman's behalf"? Attempting to influence means he started a political onslaught and went on TV & radio, staunchly in opposition of the sentence. If he did that and tried to rally public opinion--I don't like it. Now if he merely met with Wilder, stated his request and his thoughts, I have no problem with it. You'll have to forgive me a lot of the details of what transpired, I'll be honest--I was 11 at the time and do not recall.
"isn't the point of christianity recruiting people to the flock and teaching them good graces such that they WILLINGLY accept God, rather than force feeding them an opinion..."
-I haven't seen anyone holding guns to sinners heads forcing them to accept Christ in this country...then again maybe I'm missing something.:)
"More accurate with religious though. BTW--remember, not every Dem is a secularist and not every Repub is a Christian, regardless of presentation to the media or party. Think about it."
-And I never said they were...but since you brought it up would you at least agree that MOST secularists vote Dem and most Christians vote Republican? Its a simple concept really...vote the party who most represents your views. There ofcourse are never absolutes in this sort of thing because I actually have a good friend in Clintwood who is a secularist but almost always votes Republican. Needless to say his reasons are not social.
"Why? Because he's a "man of God"? That's the exact crutch that he's helping people who won't question him to lean on--the fact that he's accepted as a "man of God" and that questioning him would be questioning God...so it shouldn't be done. In otherwords, that's abuse of his position of the church and if excommunication was still done in Protestant churches--Robertson should go first thing."
-So now you are going to categorically state that he is NOT a man of God? Thats my point...its a dangerous game to get into but I guess I should not go there. It makes more sense to me to say that I do not necessarily agree with his interpretation of Biblical scripture than to dispute what he says and consider it bologna when I actually don't know God's true plans. I also refuse to start picking out evangelists who make comments that I don't necessarily see eye to eye with and that result in me discrediting that persons relationship with God. I or no one else is really in a position to do that.
"I agree with that statement...that's exactly what I'm saying--VOTE your conscience and conviction...not what your church says to do--do it through your knowledge and understanding along with God's guidance through your personal relationship with him instead of what Falwell, Robertson, or Dobson happen to say on the news on a given night about a candidate. THAT is where I have a problem, when people blindly follow and vote unknowingly. If you know what you're voting for, then do so with conviction. If not--then don't follow a mantra that is going to affect your vote that some man tells you is the right thing to do. Also, if you're going to vote your conviction, don't try to influence others as to YOUR religious conviction, especially by less than Christian (read secular) means. It's a choice...not something to be forced upon you. That's why there's a lot of Christians that will be going to hell right now, because the faith they tout as having was forced on them and they do not have an actual relationship with God."
-You seem to be over generalizing and almost pigeon holing the Christian religion into a bunch of robots who blindly follow in masses these very few televangelists. I think its very offensive and very much underestimating the intelligence of millions of people of faith in this country. If you really think even more than a very small percentage of Christians base their ENTIRE political ideaology on every word that this small group of folks say then it is my opinion that you are being severely mis-guided.
"Your question is does he have a right to his actions--yes he has a right to his actions--we all do, that's what free will is all about. And there's a huge difference here BGJ--are you saying he "attempted to influence" or that he "plead on Coleman's behalf"? Attempting to influence means he started a political onslaught and went on TV & radio, staunchly in opposition of the sentence. If he did that and tried to rally public opinion--I don't like it. Now if he merely met with Wilder, stated his request and his thoughts, I have no problem with it. You'll have to forgive me a lot of the details of what transpired, I'll be honest--I was 11 at the time and do not recall. "
-I'm sorry but pleading on someones behalf IS attempting to influence and there is NOT a huge difference especially if you are THE POPE. Any such action by the Pope is going to draw huge attention from the media and John Paul was not naive to the point that he didn't know that ahead of time. Yeah I assumed you were a little younger [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
I am 100% for the seperation of church and state.
I havent read this thread at all, but in things such as education, what place does God have in a math book?
Why not let the kids decide on how they chose to believe.
Im gonna steal a quote from someone-
"Religion is an opiate for the masses."
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
-You seem to be over generalizing and almost pigeon holing the Christian religion into a bunch of robots who blindly follow in masses these very few televangelists. I think its very offensive and very much underestimating the intelligence of millions of people of faith in this country. If you really think even more than a very small percentage of Christians base their ENTIRE political ideaology on every word that this small group of folks say then it is my opinion that you are being severely mis-guided.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dude--I'm a Christian. I have a personal relationship with God. I pray. I read my bible. I attend church, I'm not perfect, but I strive to do what God wants me to do and repent for my shortcomings.
However, I will not allow a religious ideology to cloud my judgement when it comes to affairs of this world. I'm mostly concerned that people want to use the federal government as a religious mission to bring people aboard to the faith. It's not needed because "every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess" one of these days anyways. Everyone will hear the word of salvation and the gospel, so there will be no excuses come judgement day. The federal government is not the vehicle by which to evangelize to non-believers...I strongly believe that. All I ask is that others take it directly to God--unfettered from what the world or even so-called religious leaders may believe.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
-So now you are going to categorically state that he is NOT a man of God? Thats my point...its a dangerous game to get into but I guess I should not go there. It makes more sense to me to say that I do not necessarily agree with his interpretation of Biblical scripture than to dispute what he says and consider it bologna when I actually don't know God's true plans. I also refuse to start picking out evangelists who make comments that I don't necessarily see eye to eye with and that result in me discrediting that persons relationship with God. I or no one else is really in a position to do that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not questioning that at all--I'm questioning if he's acting like one or not. I'm not judging the man's soul--that's between him and God. I'm judging the man by his actions on this earth and how it seems to me that he's using his relationship with God to justify saying what he wants. He's abusing that relationship. God doesn't want that I'm pretty sure. To come out publicly and say things that are not Christ-like in the name of God as a man of the cloth...THAT is blasphemy and it's highly dangerous for him and those who heed his words.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
-I'm sorry but pleading on someones behalf IS attempting to influence and there is NOT a huge difference especially if you are THE POPE. Any such action by the Pope is going to draw huge attention from the media and John Paul was not naive to the point that he didn't know that ahead of time.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's your opinion. If I go to a lawmaker, or simply write a letter requesting that a law or decision be discussed or taken into consideration--that's my right as a citizen and as a human being...even though John Paul II isn't a citizen, he has a right to come into this country and make a request...I see nothing wrong with that. It's these guerrila tactics that a lot of these main-stream evangelists use that irks the crap out of me and makes me doubt their standing as a religious leader. The God I serve is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. I don't need any of those evangelists to dabble in the secular world to have God get his will granted and done in the long-run of things. He's God--I have faith that whatever his will is, regardless of what we do, will be what happens.
Do you believe they should teach evolution?
Good point monkeyhead. While there may not be alot of significant reasons to incorporate religious teachings into mathematics there is probably no other single issue that has played a more prevailing role in history, politics, gov't and social studies as a whole in the history of the world.
I will concur that I'm also in favor of separation of church and state. That is necessary because you can't have a state that is controlled by the church and vise versa. They need to have a degree autonomy from each other in order to be effective but one must be realistic that while you separate them as entities it is impossible to exclude them completely from one another especially in a democracy because you have many who participate in both living in society. I also will say that while you can separate church and state I feel it is impossible to separate "God" and state. Hopefully people understand where I'm going there because without God the state would not exist and failure to recognize this is a failure to recognize God as the creator. If you do that then you are taking somewhat of a stance that man is responsible for all of his own blessings and prosperity and it could be argued that you are making the state(USA) into a god itself(worshipping the american flag).
"He's God--I have faith that whatever his will is, regardless of what we do, will be what happens."
Are you suggesting that the actions of man have no bearing or affect on what actions God may take?
I agree mostly with what you're saying about separation of church and state, with exception to only one thing you brought up. How do we know that Pat Robertson (or others) is not speaking what God has told him to speak? No one heeded Jeremiah. John preached that the "kingdom of God is at hand" to a mostly unbelieving Israel. Jesus lost even his most devoted followers at the time of his arrest, and these men had seen him perform miracles only God could do!
I'm not trying to put Robertson on that level, just saying that its dangerous to judge whether or not a man is speaking for God. Only he and God know for sure. Personally, I think his statements are so outlandish that he is either crazy or telling the truth!
Now that the gun debate is over, we can start on religion. Peace, man. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
Pat Roberson is too out spoken at times and many don't even understand why he says some of the things he does. Whether they be his opinon or what he feels God is leading him to say. When it comes to Israel God says that this is his chosen land of his chosen people. Also God says that those who bless his people he will bless in return, but those who curse his people he will curse in return. No matter who they are, whether it be a president or just citizen or group. God should be feared when it comes to anything to do with Israel. He will bring judgement against anyone that does wrong by Israel. Now I did not see or hear the comment made by Pat Roberson nor do I know what Sharon plans on doing with Israel's future or land. But rest assure that God knows all hearts and plans that are being made about Israel from any country or president of Israel.