Liberals ‘Religion’ Is The ‘Religion’ Of Abject Hypocrisy, Cynicism And Fascism

It’s a funny thing, liberals and Jesus.

On the one hand, they loudly and shrilly denounce conservatives from talking about religion and most certainly for actually trying to make their religion part of public policy in any way, shape or form.

“How DARE you?!?!” they declare with über self-righteous indignation and moral outrage.  “The separation of church and state is the foundation of our democracy!!!”

Only that’s an outright lie, or course, as is easily proven by reading the words of our founding fathers – including our very greatest founding father who was the father of our country:

What are the foundations of America? After 45 years of public service, George Washington, our greatest patriot and the father of our country, gives his farewell address. He says, ‘We need to remember what brought us here. We need to remember what made us different from all the other nations across Europe and the rest of the world. We have to remember what our foundations are.’ It was the road map, showing us how we’d become what we were, and how to preserve it. It has long been considered the most important address ever given by any US president. President Lincoln set aside an entire day for the entire Union Army and had them read and understand it. Woodrow Wilson did the same during WWI. But we haven’t studied it in schools for over 45 years, so your lack of understanding is understandable. Washington said:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

I have a lengthy volume of quotes in the article I link to above proving that “separation of church and state” was not a value our founding fathers cherished.  What modern progressive liberals wanted is most clearly seen in the near-contemporaneous events of a very different worldview that emerged in the French Revolution and ended in “the Reign of Terror” as a truly ugly and tragic spirit of atheism became a toxic, murderous cancer across France.

But what is most interesting about liberals isn’t merely their hatred of the morality of religion and their determination to suppress and exterminate religion by essentially banning it from government and from culture.

It is the amazing hypocrisy that they immediately show when they believe they can twist, pervert, distort religion to their side.

As an example, let’s consider what liberals – and I mean the liberals who are most toxic in their rants against the “Christian right” – are doing to subvert Jesus into their political ideology.

I came across on the editorial page of the überleftist Los Angeles Times a cartoon by the liberal cartoonist Jimmy Margurilis one such example:

Who Would Jesus Deport

Well, I suppose I’d like to ask Jimmy Margulies – since the opinion of Jesus is clearly so important to him – who Jesus would TAX?  Who would Jesus regulate?  Who would Jesus oppress with government bureaucracy?  Who would Jesus, for that matter, sentence to prison on Margulies’ deeply flawed understanding?  If Jesus wouldn’t deport anyone, He wouldn’t imprison anyone either, would He?  He’d just forgive them and let them go scott free to torture and rape and murder and oppress the rest of us.   That’s the Jesus the left loves: the benign Jesus who morally stood for NOTHING but “tolerance.”

Here’s another liberal telling us we should be a theocracy:

“Revised Tea Party Gospel: ‘Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they’re undocumented kids from Central America,'” tweeted King Tuesday before adding: “Much easier to be a Christian when the little children aren’t in your back yard, isn’t it?” — Stephen King

It turns out that Christian groups – the very people Stephen King is most demonizing – are doing by far and away the MOST work to help these people who are flooding across the border.  And they rightly asked the secular humanist progressive liberal turd, “What are YOU doing to help these people???”

But here Stephen King is quoting the Bible for us, quoting the Jesus who said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.  NO MAN comes to the Father except through ME.”  The same Jesus also said, “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.”  In fact, Jesus said, “not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”  And oops, Stephen, that includes the parts about homosexuality being an abomination and a detestable act and the like.  And oops, that includes abortion and the systematic murder of more babies than the total number of dead – civilian and military alike on both sides alike – of the bloodiest and most murderous war in the history of the human race.

Liberals believe in the separation of church and state.  Oh, until it suits their purpose NOT to believe in the separation of church and state.  To put it more accurately, liberals believe in the separation of church and state for Republicans and conservatives.

Which is why it is always amazing to hear a liberal try to tell you that we should open our arms, surrender our borders, and allow every single “refugee” to come flooding into our country because it’s in the Bible.  Where, number one, it is NOT in the Bible, and number two, even if it WERE, it would fundamentally and profoundly contradict your precious “separation of church and state” to do it anyway.

If Stephen King and Jimmy Margulies and Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want a Judeo-Christian theocracy, fine.  Let them say so.  Let them stand for the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers and forced worship of Christ.  But that’s not what they want, is it?  No.  They want a liberal progressive, secular humanist salad bar where THEY and ONLY THEY get to cherry pick the highly selective parts of the Bible they want to follow after splitting those parts out of their context and warping them.

See, I could actually LIVE in a world where Jesus was taken seriously and obeyed.  It’s LIBERALS who would be violently revolting.  Because liberals are people who are so toxic to Jesus that they literally put Him in a jar of urine and funded it as “art.”

I ask you, liberal, to produce for me ONE Bible verse that says it is secular government – and not the church’s and not God’s people’s – role to provide welfare.  I’m just going to state it categorically until you do, that your worldview is found NOWHERE in the Bible.

When the disciples came to Jesus because there was a crowd of 5,000 men (probably a good 15,000 people) who had nothing to eat, do you know what Jesus did NOT tell them to do?  He didn’t tell them to go to King Herod or to Governor Pilate for a government welfare program to feed the poor.  He said YOU feed them.  And after a little humming and hawing the disciples finally did the right thing: they did their best to put some food together and came to Jesus and asked HIM to bless it.

In 1 Samuel chapter 8, we find that the people, in wanting to be like all the other nations with a human king and a human big government, were rejecting GOD.  If you don’t believe me, why don’t you read 1 Samuel 8:7 for yourself?  And God warns the people, saying over and over again, when you have your big government king, HE WILL TAKE… HE WILL APPOINT FOR HIMSELF… HE WILL TAKE… HE WILL TAKE… (and redistribute them to his cronies according to 1 Samuel 8:14).   HE WILL TAKE (and redistribute them to his cronies according to 1 Samuel 8:15).  HE WILL TAKE (and exploit what he takes for his political and ideological projects according to 1 Samuel 8:16).  HE WILL TAKE … and you will become HIS servants.

And God will not answer you because you made GOVERNMENT your God and your master.

And that is exactly what liberals have done and exactly what liberals want.

Unless, that is, in their twisted and perverted way, they think they can twist and pervert Jesus into their socialist elf.

It’s actually true that the Bible tells us not to harm the sojourner in your land.

But let’s see if that’s an all-encompassing and all-inclusive edict that should apply to illegal immigrants who break our laws to enter our country and consume our resources like locusts when they arrive.  Let’s see what God had to say to Israel about how to treat the Jebusite, the Hittite, the Canaanite, the Philistine, etc:

“Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.  But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God. — Deuteronomy 20:16-18

I wonder if liberals are going to quote that passage to me when it comes with how to deal with illegal immigrants???

Oh, wait, I DON’T wonder.  Because liberals are the worst kind of self-serving, dishonest HYPOCRITES who despise the Bible in any kind of actual, legitimate CONTEXT.

God commanded Israel to drive out or destroy these peoples because they were absolutely wicked and depraved.  God knew they would corrupt His people with their vile ways.  A little leaven leavens the whole loaf.  And history proves that Israel collapsed spiritually and morally before they collapsed politically because they failed to carry out God’s command.

God was incredibly patient with these people in their wickedness.  In Genesis 15:6, God gave Abraham the land these wicked peoples inhabited.  But first Israel would remain in Egypt for four hundred years.  Why?  God explained, ” In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”  When these peoples reached their “full measure” of wickedness, it was time for Israel to come in and take what God had given them.

And America is in a very similar situation as millions of illegal immigrants pour in who do NOT love America, who do NOT want to assimilate, who have NO love for our Constitution, our founding fathers or our ways.  And they are subverting everything this nation used to stand for just as the above “immigrants” subverted everything that God intended for Old Testament Israel to stand for.

I state for the factual record that there are a lot more verses like that one regarding “immigrants” in the Bible than there are the kind the liberals cite as categorical commands to allow illegal immigrants to come in and take over our country as Democrats exploit them to “fundamentally transform” America.

And how did Obama instruct the people the liberals demand we let in?

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

But I’m sure that leftist propagandist Jimmy Margulies would fully agree that Jesus would instruct His followers to “punish your enemies.”  And of course Jesus would use the IRS as a political weapon to harass, intimidate, dismantle and persecute – and yes, “punish” – His political opponents, wouldn’t He???

Let me assure you of something: if Hispanic illegal immigrants voted Republican, you would see the rabid, poison-dripping FANGS of Democrats come out in a spirit of rage and hate unlike nothing you’ve ever seen on the faces of Republicans as they went completely poop-flinging nuts over the invasion of our border.

I attend a church that has an English and Hispanic congregation.  And I regularly take part in ministry to Hispanics, quite a few of which are here illegally.  As a true Christian, I DON’T hate illegal immigrants.  I realize as a moral human being that if I were a poor Mexican or Central American living in a completely failed state the way these people are, I would come to America too – either legally or illegally.  I recognize that for many illegal immigrants, work is a good thing that they are grateful for.  And that they send a lot of the money they earn home to their families.  These are virtuous things.  What I rabidly despise is a cynical and dishonest liberal ideology that wants to politically benefit from these poor people’s misery and ignorance.  I blame the left for its hostility to America as they seek to cynically grab further political advantages by exploiting these people.  Liberals are like drunken braggarts in a bar, buying drinks for everyone in order to be popular and then refusing to pay the tab when the bill comes.  America cannot afford to continue living so wildly and wickedly beyond our means.  We are going to completely economically and socially collapse because of the vile wickedness of Democrats.  And then you will see suffering as you have never seen before – suffering that Democrats forced upon the America that they destroyed.

I believe, therefore, that we ought to treat the illegal immigrants who are coming here as human beings.  And that we should protect our nation, protect our borders, protect our culture, protect our way of life by controlling our borders and enforcing our laws.

And, like the Christians that Stephen King demonizes, I’ve actually put both my time and my money where my mouth is.

Liberals don’t want to follow God or His ways.  They HATE and DESPISE God and His ways.  Instead, they want to REPLACE God with their human government and they want to replace God’s ways with the ways of “political correctness” that they can shape and distort and control by first banning God from our discourse and then replacing God’s ways with their ways in the vacuum that they created with their “separation of church and state.”

If you actually follow Jesus and His Word and regard both as your moral authority, fine, you go ahead and quote Jesus and quote the Bible.  But when I know and YOU know that you really despise both Jesus and the Word of God, THEN DON’T YOU DARE DISHONOR CHRIST BY SUBVERTING HIS TEACHING WITH YOUR WICKED IDEOLOGY THAT IN EVERY WAY, SHAPE AND FORM ABANDONS HIM.

I tell you what, liberal.  Since what you really want is more big government, instead of quoting the Jesus whom you clearly don’t follow, why don’t you quote the sources that actually represent your real belief system?  Quote me fellow adherents and proponents of your monster-sized (and frankly monstrous) government system.  Quote me Chairman Mao, quote me Joseph Stalin, quote me Adolf Hitler, quote me Kim Jong-Il on illegal immigration.  But, oh, that’s right: these people EXTERMINATED immigrants they didn’t like.  You’d be completely and utterly long, but at least you’d have the virtue of integrity.

But instead what you do is falsely masquerade behind an artificial Jesus when we both damn well know you don’t follow Jesus and never will.  There’d be nearly 57 million more babies born to grow up and come to the feet of Jesus if you believed Him, just for starters.

What liberals really want isn’t Christ, but the Antichrist.  They want the ultimate big government tyrant who will viciously persecute the people of God and impose the complete socialist takeover of the world in the economic system known as the “mark of the beast” such that no one can buy or sell ANYTHING without government approval.  THAT’S the “Christ” liberals want.

Jesus told us in the last days prior to “the Democrat Jesus” – the Antichrist – coming, people would come in His name claiming to represent Him.

And in the warped, dishonest left, that’s what we’re seeing.

Which is how we can know the beast is coming.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

35 Responses to “Liberals ‘Religion’ Is The ‘Religion’ Of Abject Hypocrisy, Cynicism And Fascism”

  1. dougindeap Says:

    Separation of church and state is indeed a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.

    While the religious views of various founders are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another and held views regarding religion such as reflected in the many quotations you offer. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted earlier. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.

    Contrary to your supposition (or at least the supposition of those you critique), the constitutional separation of church and state does not remove religion from politics or discussion of public policy. It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not, as is sometimes complained, purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties, they effectively are the government and thus generally should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

    Nor does the constitutional separation of church and state prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.

    Confusion understandably arises because the constitutional principle is sometimes equated with a widely supported political doctrine that goes by the same name and generally calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. The underlying reasons for that political doctrine are many, but three primary ones are that (1) it facilitates discussion amongst people of all beliefs by predicating discussion on grounds accessible to all and (2) it avoids, in some measure at least, putting our respective religious beliefs directly “in play” in the political arena, so we’re not put in the position of directly disputing or criticizing each other’s religious beliefs in order to address a political issue and (3) since the government cannot make laws or decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion, it makes little sense to urge the government to do just that. This political doctrine, of course, is not “law” (unlike the constitutional separation of church and state, which is), but rather is a societal norm concerning how we can best conduct political dialogue in a religiously diverse society. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea or not and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.

    As for all the “liberal this and liberal that” stuff, I’ll leave that to you. The constitutional separation of church and state is not a leftie-rightie thing.

  2. genomega1 Says:

    Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
    Liberals ‘Religion’ Is The ‘Religion’ Of Abject Hypocrisy, Cynicism And Fascism

  3. Paul H. Lemmen Says:

    Reblogged this on Dead Citizen's Rights Society.

  4. Gunny G Says:

    Reblogged this on BLOGGING BAD w/Gunny G ~ "CLINGERS-AMERICA!".

  5. walthe310 Says:

    You’re confusing fascism with communism. The Bible does not contain the answer for all of life’s problems.

  6. dog walker Says:

    That guy dougindeap throws a pretty cogent argument. I prefer yours but he makes for pretty good opposition.

    I been trying to polish my immigration arguments. “Money where your mouth is,” is some pretty meaty stuff. A lot of people that I don’t consider taxpayers are the ones that get pretty lofty and sanctimonious about their “compassion.”

    One thing that people don’t realize is that handicapped kids come here and are quite the bonus for their families. They get disability even though they haven’t or won’t work a day in their lives.

    That money comes out of our Social Security. Import a million or so disabled kids and couple that with the exodus of public sector employees and guess what Social Security is going to look like for the Boomers?

    Mr. Eden, I admire you for having skin in the game but I think my compassion account is pretty much depleted.

    There are a lot of problems with unbridled immigration and the abandonment of the rule of law.

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    walthe310,

    Dude, there is VERY little difference between fascism and communism. They are BOTH socialist, they are both leftist. To the extent that communism is “the extreme left” of socialism and fascism is “the right wing” of socialism” is mundane. The only difference between the two is that 1) communism is the outright seizure of the means of production by the state whereas fascism is the absolute control of the means of production by the state by lucrative arrangements. But when you have control over the means of production, you have control over the means of production. And 2) communism is “workers of the world unite!” and fascism is “workers of the Fatherland unite!” Again, you want to see a world of difference between those, fine. They’re both forests and they both have trees and they pretty much end up in the same, big-government, totalitarian control for anyone with half a brain to see that.

    China is today a hybrid of fascism and communism. The two blend very easily. You seriously ought to learn about such things.

    And the Bible DOES contain the answer for all of life’s problems for anyone with wisdom. Too bad you aint got any.

  8. walthe310 Says:

    Sorry, you are wrong. Communism is the left, fascism on the right. US moving toward fascism, with capitalism and government merging. No ownership by the workers under fascism.

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    Sorry, you are astonishingly ignorant.

    You actually are so ignorant you think that in Nazi Germany every business and every corporation had the right to do what they wanted and to produce what they wanted. That is such a lie and you are such a liar for saying it.

    Fascism controls the means of production with the State having power to dictate what is produced and who gets to produce it. You really seriously ought to learn before you blather your assertions.

  10. walthe310 Says:

    Ignorance is its own reward and you are richly rewarded

  11. Michael Eden Says:

    Thank you. I AM richly rewarded in ways you will never know or experience.

    Now, since it is your thesis that no business was every more free to pursue its own goals than those under Adolf Hitler but clearly have no more evidence for that utterly asinine assertion than your own idiotic opinion, get lost.

    But having thrown you out, I state the definition of fascism from the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

    As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

    Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

    Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.

    Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.

    You are just wrong, dude. Fascism is government domination.

    You idiotically believe that the leaders of Nazi Germany – Hitler, Goebbles, Klaus Von Barbi, Himmler, Speer, Heydrich, Bormann,etc. – were somehow all capitalist heads of corporations who seized political control of the state. You are a liar. NONE of these people was a corporate CEO leader prior to Hitler seizing power. It was the OTHER way around: these socialist goons took over the government and then used their government power to take total control over businesses that had little choice other than to knuckle under.

    Fascism is NOT corporations seizing power over government; it is government seizing power over corporations.

    The other side of this that liberals love to make false assertion about is labor unions and how Hitler was “right-wing” because he abolished labor unions.

    I debunked that quite a while back with this article: https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/fascism-a-socialist-leftwing-ideology-communism-fascism-labor-unions-workers-and-students-exploiting-crisis/

    The fact of the matter is that Hitler and Stalin BOTH did the SAME thing with labor unions: they created one giant labor union under THEIR control and then disbanded all the other unions. And thus Hitler had total control over both the corporations and the workers who worked in them.

    What did Hitler say about socialism?

    “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” — Adolf Hitler, from speech delivered on May 1, 1927

    What did the the communist “U.S.S.R.” stand for?

    The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

    What did “Nazi” stand for?

    National Socialist German Workers Party

    Do you know who added the “Socialist”-part to the National Socialist German Workers Party? Adolf Hitler. Prior to his leadership, it was the National German Workers Party.

    What did Hitler say about labor unions? It’s all here in his words: http://www.std.com/obi/Adolph.Hitler/unpacked/mkv2ch12.html

    Select quotes:

    “I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation.”
    » “Before everything else, the trades unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing the various professions and occupations.”
    » “As I have already said, the germ cells of this State must lie in the administrative chambers which will represent the various occupations and professions, therefore first of all in the trades unions. If this subsequent vocational representation and the Central Economic Parliament are to be National Socialist institutions, these important germ cells must be vehicles of the National Socialist concept of life. The institutions of the movement are to be brought over into the State; for the State cannot call into existence all of a sudden and as if by magic those institutions which are necessary to its existence, unless it wishes to have institutions that are bound to remain completely lifeless.

    Looking at the matter from the highest standpoint, the National Socialist Movement will have to recognize the necessity of adopting its own trade-unionist policy.”
    » “The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself.”

    So, yeah, you’re just wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Fascism is so similar to communism that Stalin was easily able to move from communism and the international cry of “workers of the world unite!” to fascism and calling his socialist people to fight for Mother Russia in the same way Hitler called on his socialist people to fight for the Fatherland. And today China has very clearly maneuvered to being more fascist than communist. Either that or “Hong Kong” does not exist, for example. But in fact Hong Kong DOES exist and China now has numerous millionaires who got rich under a FASCIST crony capitalist system.

    Obama is doing the same things with his green energy boondoggles such as Solyndra. Liberal fascism is big government crony capitalist fascism, with liberals getting to decide who pays and who gets the redistribution of wealth, who gets tax breaks and who gets broken by taxes, who is sued and who isn’t sued, who wins and who loses. It’s FASCISM.

    Fascism is “right wing” the way Obama is “conservative.” Both will be true when hell freezes over.

    Ronald Reagan summed you up quite well: “It’s not that liberals are ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

    You are the product of liberal government education. Which is another way of saying you are a completely ignorant fool with whatever it is you call your brain chock full of indoctrination.

    Now, having completely refuted you, I won’t waste any further time. Go away.

  12. FMC Says:

    Michael,

    I never understood the left’s thinking that fascism is a rightwing phenomenon. It just underscores their deranged thought process and general mental illness. I consider socialism, fascism, communism etc. to be different forms, although in most cases just slightly, of collectivism.

    Anymore I usually stay away from these types of arguments with liberals. Actually, yesterday, I abandoned this rule and got into a heated discussion with a group of liberals who were touting Obamacare. After soundly crushing their arguments and ideas, I realized that the points I were making were in vain, as there was no way that I was going to change their minds and they certainly weren’t going to change mine. I simply walked away, actually feeling sorry for these lost souls and the time I wasted. I had wrestled with pigs and was all muddy, but I know in the end God will sort em all out.

    However, you do and should continue to defend conservatism and the Bible on this forum. It’s not like you will change individuals minds like walthe’s, but it is for the others who are reading this blog that may be influenced. You have a way with getting your points across in writing that I’ve always dreamed about. You actually deserve a bigger forum. Keep on fighting the good fight!

    BTW, How is your biceps muscle doing? I know it has been awhile since the surgery.

  13. Michael Eden Says:

    FMC,

    For the record, for some strange reason I have to approve every single one of your comments as though you were a first time commenter. I have no idea why as everyone else that has posted a comment is automatically cleared to post comments (that immediately show up) without me doing anything. I’m just saying it’s not that I don’t trust you or anything.

    I actually DO understand why the left loves to say fascism is “right wing.” But not from my being smart, but rather from my reading Gene Edward Veith’s book, “Modern Fascism.” He points out that the Soviet Union defined fascism as the polar opposite of communism largely as a polemic, such that if communism is “left wing” then therefore fascism must obviously be “right wing.”

    It’s like Obama who defines his ideology as good. Therefore everybody else’s ideology that is any different must clearly be “evil.”

    And then given the rampant leftist bias in academia, if the communists say fascism is right wing, then they go with their masters and decry it as “right wing.”

    It’s simply asserted over and over and over. No one on the left actually bothers to think about why “national socialism” is “right wing” and “international socialism” is left wing. Socialism is an INHERENTLY and QUINTESSENTIALLY leftist phenomenon – particularly when contrasted with American political conservatism (which btw is identical with classical liberalism) in its goals of laissez-faire free markets, limited government, individual personal liberty and individual personal responsibility.

    Based on THAT comparison, it is only the true fool who would assert that fascism is “conservative.” But true fools abound and if you are a leftist you qualify as “true fool.”

    Fascism is the “extreme right” of the far, radical LEFT. It is pathologically LEFTIST because it destroys free markets, it massively expands government, it denies individual human liberty and it makes the STATE rather than the individual responsible. It is LEFTIST.

    I’ve had leftists on this very blog saying that fascism was “right wing” because it is “militaristic.” I’m asking these people, “what species of dumbass are you to say such a stupid thing given the fact that the military of the USSR DWARFED anything ever seen, or that North Korea is basically a starving and impoverished nation with a gigantic military machine???” Not that facts or truth matter to these fools. Which is why they’re fools.

    I have a policy on my blogging in regards to dealing with fools: 1) I refute them and then 2) I block them so I won’t ever have to waste my time with them ever again. This approach is biblical according to Proverbs 26:4-5:
    4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
    or you yourself will be just like him.
    5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
    or he will be wise in his own eyes.

    If you simply ignore a fool’s assertion, you find that they tend to spread like a plague on the one hand. But if you spend too much time arguing with a fool, passerby won’t be able to tell the difference. Refute him once for all and leave him in the dust.

    That is easier to do on a blog (where you can block fools) than it is in person. Unless you have a magic wand or a big roll of duct tape, anyway.

    My right biceps tendon where I had the reattachment surgery is doing GREAT. I’m extremely glad I had it done. On the down side, I think in protecting my repaired right biceps tendon I might have damaged my LEFT one. I’m having an MRI in a few days but have already applied for surgery in the fall to have a bad rotator cuff tear repaired. So I’m having surgery again anyway. I’ve had the rotator cuff tear for YEARS and I fear I could really hurt myself with that injury which could “blow out” futher. I kind of wanted to wait a little longer, but I’m back to full strength and I feel it is better to just get fixed up and healthy while I’m young enough to appreciate it and then try not to screw myself up anymore.

  14. Michael Eden Says:

    dog walker,

    For me, it comes down to this: should we help the poor? Absolutely. Should the government be the ones doing it? Absolutely NOT.

    What the government has done in the name of “the poor” is to incentivize sloth and laziness and an entitlement mindset and to punish the working people who have to pay for the indolence of others that the government incentivized.

    When individuals help the poor and needy, they are able to look one another in the eye and people are held to account in a way that government not only can’t do but REFUSES to even try to do.

    If you want poor, pathetic, helpless, needy people, keep subsidizing them with government money. Just like if you want an invasion of immigrants on your border, keep doing what the HELL – and I mean Obama IS doing “hell” – that Obama is doing.

    As a Christian and a Christian who serves in a church with a large Hispanic congregation, I believe in helping the poor – whoever they are – to the extent that I morally can. But at the same time I am very outspoken in the fact that we desperately need to gain control over our borders, dramatically limit the invasion that we see coming, and in fact change our immigration laws such that they are what they were prior to when LBJ and Ted Kennedy introduced “chain migration” to replace the system where the most qualified workers who would most help America with their talents were allowed in rather than “chains” of ignorant families who would be nothing other than a national drain.

  15. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks, Gunny G!

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks much, Paul H. Lemmen

  17. Michael Eden Says:

    Appreciate your reblogging, genomega1

  18. Michael Eden Says:

    Actually, you are wrong in your second sentence. In 1892, the US Supreme Court ruled “that this is a Christian nation.”

    I can provide you so many quotations from ALL of our most important founding fathers that “separation of church and state” is ANATHEMA to America that it is beyond unreal. I’ve done so many times on this blog. I cited such a piece in my article that you are commenting upon. Too bad you didn’t bother to read what Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, etc. etc. etc. thought.

    But the bottom line is this: ALL laws have a religious and moral foundation and bias. That is simply a fact. Read Hammurabi’s code, for instance and see how it begins:

    When Anu the sublime, the King of the Annunaki and Bel, the lord of
    heaven and earth, who fixed the destiny of the country, had committed
    the whole of mankind to Marduk, the son of Ea, the god of right, when
    they made him great among the Egigi, had pronounced the sublime name
    of Babylon, made it great upon earth, had established in it an eternal king-
    dom, the foundations of which are laid firm like heaven and earth, at that
    time Anu and Bel called me, Hammurabi, the great prince, who fears God,
    to -give justice a status in the country, to destroy the wicked and bad, that
    the strong should not overcome the weak, that I might rise over the block-
    headed ones; like Shamash, to illuminate the land and to further the
    welfare of humanity, Hammurabi, the prince, the one called by Bel, am
    I.

    There IS no morality and no law apart from a religious foundation. If we are meat puppets without souls, we do what we do. The strong SHOULD crush the weak according to Darwinism’s “survival of the fittest.” If you disagree, then I demand that you explain how someone could morally be “a bad atheist.” Explain to me how Joseph Stalin who murdered 40-60 million of his own people or Chairman Mao who did the same were “bad atheists.”

    Our own founding fathers, contrary to what you say, submitted a Declaration of Independence upon which they provided their foundation for separating from England and establishing a nation of their own. Here are the words:

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Now if you believe that those words are tantamount to a separation of church and state, I submit that you are a fool.

    Worse, the founding fathers were fools, because they claimed they had a right from God to do what they did only to immediately disband God from consideration immediately after taking power. Which would make them the most dishonorable wretches of all time.

    And the notion that any law that has a Christian foundation be excluded merely dictates that the religion of ATHEISM be the only one that ought to be considered.

    So in point of fact you ARE for the union of church and state; you merely end up wanting the church of ATHEISM to dominate the state.

    Right now, because of your precious “separation of church and state” – which is NOT in the Constitution but rather a phrase taken out of a private letter stripped of its actual context – the GOVERNMENT has BECOME the church. And the government is doing things such as providing welfare that ONLY a THEOCRACY has the right to do.

    So we are currently an atheist theocracy now.

    There IS no separation of church and state. It’s only a matter of whose “church” – i.e. whose religion – has any merit. And right now atheism IS our official religion in the vacuum that you helped create. Which in fact is why the ONLY countries that actually HAVE “separation of church and state” in their constitutions are COMMUNIST STATE ATHEIST REGIMES.

    In point of fact this nation WAS ordained as being a republic based on Judeo-Christian principles. When the founding fathers talked about limiting “religion” as they made clear in their writings they were describing Christians SECTS and saying that the state had no right to declare which sect/denomination of Christianity was “correct” and neither did any sect/denomination have the right to declare political policy. In effect, that limited religion from having an overly great role, but when it comes down to MORAL PRINCIPLES, NONE of our founding fathers wanted to exclude religion from a context that they understood was FOUNDATIONAL AND INTRINSIC to morality, law and public order.

  19. dougindeap Says:

    No, my second sentence is entirely and demonstrably accurate—in point of fact, the Supreme Court has indeed repeatedly held that separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of the Constitution. Proof (just a sample): Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879); Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952); Abington v. Schemmp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963); Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971); Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987); Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992); McReary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005)

    And no, the Supreme Court has never ruled otherwise. You make much of Justice Brewer’s statement in Holy Trinity that “this is a Christian nation,” apparently even thinking the Court “ruled” to that effect. The case did not even involve the Constitution. The Court held that a statute restricting importation of any alien under contract to perform labor or service did not preclude a church from contracting with an alien to come to this country and serve as its pastor. The Court based this holding on its finding that Congress intended simply to stay the influx of cheap, unskilled labor and did not intend to address circumstances such as the church’s contract with an alien pastor. It supported this finding, in dictum (i.e., a statement not essential to its holding), with the further thought that as this is a Christian nation, Congress would not have intended to restrict the church in this situation.

    Brewer later clarified that he meant simply to observe that the nation’s people are largely Christian and not that the nation’s government or laws are somehow Christian: “But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. […] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.” D. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (1905) 12.

    I have no doubt you can offer lots and lots of quotations like those in your earlier post (which, yes, I did review). So what? I took note of those quotations (and the many more like ones you could offer) in my earlier comment and explained why they are not in the least inconsistent with the constitutional separation of church and state. They certainly do not, as you assert, show that the founders considered separation of church and state to be anathema.

    It is instructive to recall that the Constitution’s separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement was linked to another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.

    This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).

    While some also draw meaning, as you seemingly suggest, from the variously phrased references to god(s) in the Declaration of Independence (references that could mean any number of things, some at odds with the Christian idea of God) and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution, the effort is largely baseless. Important as the Declaration is in our history, it did not operate to bring about independence (that required winning a war), nor did it found a government, nor did it even create any law, and it certainly did not say or do anything that somehow dictated the meaning of a Constitution adopted twelve years later. The colonists issued the Declaration not to do any of that, but rather to politically explain and justify the move to independence that was already well underway. Nothing in the Constitution depends on anything said in the Declaration. Nor does anything said in the Declaration purport to limit or define the government later formed by the free people of the former colonies. Nor could it even if it purported to do so. Once independent, the people of the former colonies were free to choose whether to form a collective government at all and, if so, whatever form of government they deemed appropriate. They were not somehow limited by anything said in the Declaration. Sure, they could take its words as inspiration and guidance if, and to the extent, they chose–or they could not. They could have formed a theocracy if they wished–or, as they ultimately chose, a government founded on the power of the people (not a deity) and separated from religion.

    Finally, it should not be supposed that the government, by remaining separate from and neutral toward religion in keeping with the Constitution, somehow thereby favors atheism over theism. There is a difference between the government (1) remaining neutral in matters of religion and leaving individuals free to choose, exercise, and express their religious views without government intrusion and (2) taking sides in matters of religion and promoting one view (whether theism [in one, any, or all its various forms], atheism, or whatever) to the detriment of others. It is one thing for the government to endorse the idea that god(s) exist or, alternatively, endorse the idea that god(s) do not exist; it is quite another for the government to take no position on the matter and respect the right of each individual to freely decide for himself.

    Separation of church and state does not require one to deny that laws reflect moral principles. Moreover, as I noted earlier, the principle, in this context, constrains government not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion, but a decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.

  20. Michael Eden Says:

    dougindeap,

    No, it WASN’T accurate. And your new words are also inaccurate. You say “repeatedly held.” That is okay if you choose to ignore our founding fathers and the first Supreme Courts following our founding fathers. It is a lie if you consider them. I pointed out that as this nation began, it was a nation that called itself “Christian” even in our Supreme Court that for some bizarre reason certainly utterly unknown and mysterious to you STILL has imagery of the Bible and Judeo-Christianity AND NOTHING ELSE decorating it’s building.

    After that, as this nation began to spiritually degenerate and betray the principles of America’s founding, well, you’re right; we began to go “progressively” astray into godless secular humanist liberal progressivism.

    We used to be a nation founded upon the Constitution; we are now a nation established by “penumbras and emanations” and to hell with the Constitution.

    But we certainly weren’t ALWAYS a nation of homosexual marriage, dude. And no Supreme Court would have been so depraved to claim otherwise in the nation I’M describing.

    You can play all the word games you want: the fact of the matter is that the Constitution was ratified “in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.” And I don’t care how you lie or how you slander, “our Lord” was none other than America’s declared Lord, Jesus Christ. And that is a simple fact of history. It wasn’t Buddha and it wasn’t Allah. It was the Lord of the Holy Christian Bible and none other.

    If you were right rather than very, very wrong as you are the American founding fathers not only wouldn’t have used the “Anno Domini” formula but wouldn’t have used the Gregorian calendar altogether. They would have been like the French Revolution which followed your views and invented it’s own calendar which “was designed in part to remove all religious and royalist influences from the calendar.” And that ended pretty well: in the vicious Reign of Terror which is what happens when people like you are allowed to run things.

    Did our founding fathers go the route you’d have them go? No. They didn’t even do what turd secular humanists of today do, keep the Christian calendar but purge it of all meaning by using “BCE” and “CE” with “Common Era” replacing Christ. Let’s change reality and pervert our history with political correctness’ language-warping capability. But not our founding fathers. “In the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.” In the year of our Lord. And in your face with it, too.

    Interestingly, one of the VERY FIRST acts of the American Congress was a vote to order BIBLES.

    Your separation of church and state is a lie that was IMPOSED on this nation. It was NEVER what our founders and our early Supreme Courts believed.

    Because of separation of church and state we have replaced God with the State and we have replaced the church with bureaucrats who do the will of their “god.” And we have 1) a near-$250 trillion actual debt as “god” goes bankrupt and we have 2) bureaucrats who are even harder to fire than any pedophile priest because just as you can’t defrock a Catholic priest YOU CAN’T DEFROCK A LIBERAL UNION-MEMBER BUREAUCRAT GOVERNMENT EMPLOEYEE. That’s the result of your separation of church and state.

    I’m being rather nasty with you because history has proven over and over and over that people with views like yours are vicious and evil and result in murder on such a scale it’s cosmic. It was NOT the Constitution of the United States that ever had the words “separation of church and state in it.” No. It was the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And because they used that particular phrase in their constitution they became a godless monster-state that murdered 61 MILLION Of its own people in peacetime. In America, we have now murdered more babies in your “separation of church and state” abortion mills than the total sum of ALL human beings both military and civilian on both sides were killed in the bloodiest and most vicious war in all of human history. More than 56 million babies are DEAD. Because people who dishonor God dishonor LIFE. “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death,” is how the Bible describes your worldview.

    That also puts to the outright LIE your slander of the clear meaning of GOD in the Declaration of Independence. I submit that you prove yourself nothing short of a fool for trying to claim that the God who created “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” who was the “Creator” who endowed men “with certain unalienable Rights” was anything other than the God who they describe in terms of “the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.”

    I mock you for your “argument” that:

    “While some also draw meaning, as you seemingly suggest, from the variously phrased references to god(s) in the Declaration of Independence (references that could mean any number of things, some at odds with the Christian idea of God) and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution, the effort is largely baseless.”

    Just as I mock you for your contention in the context of your quote that the Declaration of Independence – the grounds for establishing our nation – had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH our Constitution which described the nation that the same people who wrote the Declaration of Independence had just established. Your contention that our founding fathers were so depraved and so cynical and so dishonest that they baited and switched and exploited God – and yes, Jesus Christ specifically because only a pure FOOL would suggest that anyone ELSE is being described by “in the year of our Lord” – as the reason they had a right to separate from England. But having taken power, they were the kind of men who pissed on the very grounds for separating from England that they themselves had provided and instead dishonestly went in the very opposite direction.

    And that is just an outrageous lie and a slander you are telling.

    You are everything that Romans chapter one declares you to be for refusing to acknowledge THE OBVIOUS:

    18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

    24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    You claimed the Bible doesn’t have all the answers. It certainly has all of them when it comes to YOU. You can’t be that stupid and that blind and that foolish without having had your depraved mind given over to the devil.

    There is so much dishonesty and deceit regarding our history when it comes to you and yours. But history declares that “of the fifty-five men who wrote and signed the U.S. Constitution of 1787, all but THREE were . . . orthodox members of one of the established Christian communions.” They were publicly sworn and declared Christians. George Washington, whose faith has been slandered by liars, literally served in a position in his Anglican congregation in which he literally TOOK AN OATH that he was a Christian. And another rather significant fact is that NOT ONE of his friends and in fact NOT ONE OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES ever denied he was a Christian. No, it took horrible deceivers who came later to do that.

    http://providencefoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/October-06-Persp-Christian-Faith-of-GW.pdf
    http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.5482757/k.3115/George_Washington_and_Religion.htm
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html
    http://www.amazon.com/George-Washingtons-Sacred-Peter-Lillback/dp/0978605268/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1407046075&sr=8-3&keywords=Christian+George+Washington

    You people in your depravity “fundamentally transform” our founding fathers into a bunch of Christ-hating Bible-burners when in actual DOCUMENTED FACT they were profoundly Christian men who lived out their faith in Jesus Christ. And after dishonestly slandering their Christian faith you dishonestly pervert their agenda and warp their self-declared Christian values into your own warped Antichrist values.

    It’s no different in our universities. Because 106 of the first 108 universities established in America were established as CHRISTIAN institutions. But today the liars and the deceivers and the slanderers of reality and truth and fact have taken over and today these same institutions – having been hijacked and subverted and then perverted – blasphemy the very purpose for which they were ordained.

    That same subverting and perverting spirit is your spirit as you reveal it here.

    But it is your last paragraph that I have to truly mock as outrageous to any reasoning soul. You assert:

    Separation of church and state does not require one to deny that laws reflect moral principles

    I demand that you declare what the source of and the foundation for our moral principles is. If there is in fact no foundation and no source than there ARE no moral principles. Other than what any jackass can invent and impose. Which is where we’re at today when the vile religion of homosexuality and abortion trumps every remaining shred of righteousness.

    Your final assertion that having no religion somehow in no way disables moral principles is frankly idiotic. If you take away the religious foundation for morality, you take away morality. Just like if you take away the foundation for your house, you just destroyed your house.

    What is the grounds for morality? Where does it come from? Why should I abide by it? And you have no freaking clue. You just claim it’s whatever you want it to be at any given moment and tell me it’s somehow “progressive” and so it keeps changing as it suits your depraved mind’s desires.

    I have already established in my last comment to you that morality is grounded and founded ENTIRELY on religion. If there is no religion there IS no morality. I pointed that out with Hammurabis’s code which was grounded in the belief in deities just as I pointed it out in demanding that you answer how one would be morally unfit to qualify as an atheist.

    If you are “neutral” in religion, than you must likewise be “neutral” regarding any morality or law that in any way considers “morality.” But that’s your game: you separate God from state and then replace God WITH your State. And your State that replaced God in your bait and switch invents “morality” out of thin air.

    The simple fact of the matter is that every single law comes from somebody’s version of morality. Which means that every single law comes from somebody’s version of religion. You can play whatever game you want, but that is simply true. Atheism IS a “religion.” Your Supreme Court that you so love to cite has DECLARED atheism a religion. In 1961 the Supreme Court ruled that “secular humanism” – which is clearly atheism, btw – was a religion. And an appeals court in 2005 ruled in a decision regarding an inmate who wanted to start an atheist group (that the Supreme Court kept in place) that “Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature.” The problem is that the atheists and the secular humanist judges just keep ignoring that. And so “separation of church and state” keeps meaning atheism replacing “the church.” Even though it has no morality and no foundation for morality.

    Lastly, the belief in the existence of a soul depends absolutely on religion. There IS no soul and no possibility of one apart from religion. And that becomes a crucial thing for any free society. Because we are either souls created in God’s image or we are herd animals. And it is BECAUSE we are now deemed herd animals that liberals believe that the American people can’t be trusted to own guns the way the founding fathers said we were; we can’t be trusted to buy or own health insurance; We can’t be trusted to educate our own children; we can’t be trusted to have religious liberty. And now many liberals say we can’t even be trusted to have freaking Big Gulps.

    If I have a science that has absolutely no intelligible foundation for it whatsoever, are you seriously going to try to tell me I should prefer it over the one that actually has some freaking basis for legitimacy??? Because that’s the difference between my religion-based morality and your religion-free separation-of-church-and-state “morality.” Mine is grounded and founded and established in a Creator God and in God’s Word; yours has its feet firmly planted in mid-air and changes as your big-government dictator decides he wants to change it.

    Which side of this debate do our founding father’s take?

    “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

    “…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” –- George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

    “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.” –- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

    “The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.” –- Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

    “Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” —- Charles Carroll (signer of the Constitution), Letter to James McHenry,November 4, 1800

    “Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.” –- Life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol III

    “Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity…in short of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.“ –- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Adams, October 4, 1790

    “In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government. That is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible.” —- Benjamin Rush, “A Defense of the Use of the Bible as a School Book”, 1798

    “In my view, the Christian Religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” — Noah Webster, Reply to David McClure, Oct. 25, 1836

    “Information to those who would remove (or move) to America”: “To this may be truly added, that serious Religion under its various Denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there, Infidelity rare & secret, so that Persons may live to a great Age in that Country without having their Piety shock’d by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his Approbation of the mutual Forbearance and Kindness with which the different Sects treat each other, by the remarkable Prosperity with which he has been pleased to favour the whole Country.” —- Ben Franklin, 1787 pamphlet to Europeans

    “Independent of its connection with human destiny hereafter, the fate of republican government is indissolubly bound up with the fate of the Christian religion, and a people who reject its holy faith will find themselves the slaves of their own evil passions and of arbitrary power.” —- Lewis Cass, A Brigadier-General in the War of 1812, Governor of the Michigan Territory, a Secretary of War, a Senator, a Secretary of State. The State of Michigan placed his statue in the U.S. Capitol’s Statuary Hall.

    “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” –- “Yes, we did produce a near perfect Republic. But will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.” —- Thomas Jefferson

    “So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have exited thro’ all the time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe.” —- Thomas Jefferson

    “I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens…” — George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

    “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” — John Adams, Letter of June 21, 1776

    “It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being.” —- George Washington

    “So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have exited thro’ all the time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe.” —- Thomas Jefferson

    “I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.” —- Abraham Lincoln

    “History will also afford the frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion, from its usefulness to the public; the advantage of a religious character among private persons; the mischiefs of superstition, and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” —- Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1749), p. 2

    “I know, sir, how well it becomes a liberal man and a Christian to forget and forgive. As individuals professing a holy religion, it is our bounden duty to forgive injuries done us as individuals. But when the character of Christian you add the character of patriot, you are in a different situation. Our mild and holy system of religion inculcates an admirable maxim of forbearance. If your enemy smite one cheek, turn the other to him. But you must stop there. You cannot apply this to your country. As members of a social community, this maxim does not apply to you. When you consider injuries done to your country your political duty tells you of vengeance. Forgive as a private man, but never forgive public injuries. Observations of this nature are exceedingly unpleasant, but it is my duty to use them.” —- Patrick Henry, from a courtroom speech, Wirt Henry’s, Life, vol. III, pp. 606-607.

    “Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number; and, indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast.” —- Patrick Henry, 1796 letter to daughter, S. G. Arnold, The Life of Patrick Henry (Auburn: Miller, Orton & Mulligan, 1854), p. 250.

    “This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.” — Patrick Henry, From a copy of Henry’s Last Will and Testament obtained from Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation, Red Hill, Brookneal, VA.

    “It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being.” —- George Washington, James K. Paulding, A Life of Washington (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1835), Vol. II, p. 209.

    “While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to them whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.” —- James Madison, James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance (Massachusetts: Isaiah Thomas, 1786). This can be found in numerous documentary histories and other resources.

    “Waiving the rights of conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social state, & more or less invaded by all Religious establishments, the simple question to be decided, is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Christian religion itself ought not, so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Government, rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it.” —- James Madison, Religion and Politics in the Early Republic: Jasper Adams and the Church-State Debate, Daniel L. Dreisbach, ed. (Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1996), p. 117.

    “The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.” —- George Washington, 1778, upon seeing the divine hand in the Revolution against the greatest military in the world.

    “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” — U.S. Supreme Court in Holy Trinity v. U. S. — Richmond v. Moore, Illinois Supreme Court, 1883)

    “A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” —- Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren dated February 12, 1779

    “Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulties.” —- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

    “I entreat you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for ‘there is no salvation in any other’ (Acts 4:12). If you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ – if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness – you must perish forever.” —- John Witherspoon, founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence.

    “I am a Christian. I believe only in the Scriptures, and in Jesus Christ my Savior.” — Charles Thomson, founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence

    “My only hope of salvation is in the infinite transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come Lord Jesus! Come quickly!” — Dr. Benjamin Rush, founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence. Dr. Benjamin Rush, John Adams said, was one of the three most notable founding fathers along with George Washington and Ben Franklin. Benjamin Rush was the founder of five universities (three of which are still active today); he was the father of public schools under the American Constitution; he was also the leader of the civil rights movement, the founder of the first abolitionist society in America, the founder of the first black denomination in America, served in 3 presidential administrations, is called the father of American medicine, and 3,000 American physicians bore his signature on their diplomas, started the American College of Physicians, founded the first prison ministry, and started the Sunday School movement in America, started the very first Bible Society in America, etc.

    “I rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.” —- Samuel Adams

    “An eloquent preacher of your religious society, Richard Motte, in a discourse of much emotion and pathos, is said to have exclaimed aloud to his congregation, that he did not believe there was a Quaker, Presbyterian, Methodist or Baptist in heaven, having paused to give his hearers time to stare and to wonder. He added, that in heaven, God knew no distinctions, but considered all good men as his children, and as brethren of the same family. I believe, with the Quaker preacher, that he who steadily observes those moral precepts in which all religions concur, will never be questioned at the gates of heaven, as to the dogmas in which they all differ. That on entering there, all these are left behind us, and the Aristides and Catos, the Penns and Tillotsons, Presbyterians and Baptists, will find themselves united in all principles which are in concert with the reason of the supreme mind. Of all the systems of morality, ancient and modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus.” — Thomas Jefferson, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” Albert Ellery Bergh, ed. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, pp.377-78, letter to William Canby on September 18, 1813.

    “To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others.” — Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, “Writings of Jefferson,” Vol. X, p.380, letter to Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803.

    “But the greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of His own country, was Jesus of Nazareth.” — Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, “Writings of Jefferson,” Vol. XIV, p.220, letter to William Short on October 31, 1819.

    “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” —- John Quincy Adams, 1837 speech

    “Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [July 4th]? . . . Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. . ?” — John Quincy Adams, John Quincy Adams, “An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request,” on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5.

    “We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better that the builders of Babel.” —- Benjamin Franklin, appeal for prayer at Constitutional Convention, as cited by James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, ed. (Washington: Langtree & O’Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 985.

    “God commands all men everywhere to repent. He also commands them to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and has assured us that all who do repent and believe shall be saved.” —- Roger Sherman.

    “God has promised to bestow eternal blessings on all those who are willing to accept Him on the terms of the Gospel – that is, in a way of free grace through the atonement. — Roger Sherman. Sherman was the ONLY founding father who signed all four founding documents (the Declaration, the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the Articles of Association). He is called “the master builder of the Constitution.” He came up with the bi-cabinal system with the House and Senate. He was a framer of the Bill of Rights. And he was also a theologian who got George Washington to announce the first federal Day of Thanksgiving proclamation, going through the Scriptures to show why we should do so. He was also a long-term member of Congress. A newspaper article on him (the Globe) dated 1837 quotes, “The volume which he consulted more than any other was the Bible. It was his custom, at the commencement of every session of Congress, to purchase a copy of the Scriptures to puruse it daily, and to present it to one of his children on his return.” He had 15 children.

    “The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in His truth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Ghost.” —- John Adams

    “There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government – but what is administered by the Holy Ghost.” —- John Adams

    “There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or, in more orthodox words, damnation.” — John Adams (And Abigail Adams was the REAL Bible thumper in the family, telling son John Quincy Adams, ‘You know how I’ve raised you. You know how you’ve been raised in church, how you’ve been taught the Scriptures, how you’ve been taught morality.’ She tells him that if he’s going to go to France and give up his faith, that the Lord seek him out and drown him to prevent that from happening).

    “I am grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ our Lord, He has conferred on my beloved country.” —- Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration and framer of the Bill of Rights. He was the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence, dying at the age of 95 years.

    At the age of 89 (in 1825), he wrote, “On the mercy of my Redeemer, I rely for salvation, and on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.” —- Charles Carroll

    “Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian religion…. [T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles…. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.” — Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 300, Sec. 578.

  21. truthunites Says:

    Both this post and comment thread with its joust and parry of claims and rebuttals is excellent.

    Thanks Michael.

  22. Michael Eden Says:

    truthunites,

    Your welcome.

    Mind you, it causes me to prematurely age as I grieve over the REAL cause that is now cancerously killing the nation I served and was taught to love from my childhood: the separation of God from America.

  23. truthunites Says:

    “I grieve over the REAL cause that is now cancerously killing the nation I served and was taught to love from my childhood: the separation of God from America.”

    I grieve as well.

    I would not be opposed to a harmonious division of the country into two separate countries. One country is a secular liberal country. The other country is the country our founding fathers intended. A country where the government does not dictate, nor establish a state-church. As it is in England, in Norway, in Sweden, etc…. This country would be tolerant of secular liberals, but the secular liberals would not, could not pervert the originalist understandings of both the Constitution and the Bible without swift judicious discipline.

  24. FMC Says:

    Truthunites,

    How long do you think it would be before that secular liberal country would be begging us to bail them out?

    “This country would be tolerant of secular liberals, but the secular liberals would not, could not pervert the originalist understandings of both the Constitution and the Bible without swift judicious discipline.”

    There can be no tolerance. Sooner or later, this tolerance will only lead to the disease creeping in and spreading like a virus which will consume the whole host. Think back to the Old Testament days where God had told the Israelites to kill every man, women and child. I think even the animals were not spared and the possessions to be destroyed. These Israelites didn’t not obey God and they have had problems with those people ever since.

    If your idea did ever come about, it would be better if the people of the secular liberal country were never allowed to step foot inside the borders again. The only exception would be for purely business reasons, as both countries could trade with each other. Also, trade could only happen with precious metals, none of this paper crap.

    Anyway, enough of this fantasy and back to real life and the end times drama!

  25. truthunites Says:

    “How long do you think it would be before that secular liberal country would be begging us to bail them out?”

    Two good things would happen if the secular liberal country were to experience economic calamity due to their secular liberal politics:

    (1) Pride. They refuse to ask for a bailout because it would be a confession that their secular liberal politics is woefully inferior. Since they don’t ask for a bailout, the good U.S. Constitutional country need not worry about bailing out the secular liberal America.

    (2) They humble themselves and ask for a bailout. The U.S. Constitutional country attaches conditions to the bailout. They don’t like it, no bailout money. They want the bailout money, they have to abide by the terms and conditions. If they don’t, no more bailout money.

  26. Michael Eden Says:

    truthunites, FMC,

    Personally, the notion of separation and forming our own country with liberals is so theoretical that it isn’t worth spending much time contemplating.

    History has a few parallels. There were the days of our Civil War. But the division was pretty straightforward across a clear boundary (with a handful of states such as Kansas that screwed up that crisp division between North and South even then). What interests me is that the Democrats’ arguments in favor of slavery were IDENTICAL to their current arguments in favor of abortion: it should be up to me whether or not I want to own a slave => it should be up to me whether I want to murder my baby. The only difference is which victim gets dehumanized (black people vs. babies who don’t vote) and who the tyrant who gets the “rights” is (rich white men vs. PC women). Lincoln at that time obviously wanted to preserve the union. But what kind of union was that? He said himself in his most famous speech: “this nation, under God.”

    Democrats have officially pissed on “this nation, under God.” And the only way we could have it in a union would be to hunt down every Democrat with dogs and burn them alive. Which of course we won’t do. Which leaves us with God Damn America, to quote Obama’s reverend for 23 years.

    Then there are the historic tales of the divisions of Vietnam and Korea. In both cases, the socialists – i.e., the Democrat Party of those countries – viciously attacked those who wanted a republic. You don’t GET to dissolve peacefully with liberals. They are intrinsically violent fascist thugs. Look at union tactics. Look at Occupy Movement tactics. Look at La Raza tactics.

    There is no peace with the Democrat Party. They are community activists. They are community agitators. No state has a right to its freedom under them. You don’t even have a right to drink a damn BIG GULP under these people. They will fight to the death for tyranny because the State is their god and they like the Hamas terrorists whose side half of Democrats take will become martyrs for their god. There would never be peace. Not unless we return to the premise of hunting every Democrat down with dogs and burning them alive. Which like I said we won’t do.

    Anyway, the biggest problem is that there are liberals and there are conservatives in every state and there are no clear boundaries between states. It would be such a catastrophic mess and so impossible to negotiate that it is frankly pointless to talk about.

  27. truthunites Says:

    Liberalism is like a political and cultural Ebola with no chance of vaccine. Every state and every institution in America is infected.

    Can’t even isolate and quarantine. Dat sucks.

  28. truthunites Says:

    “You don’t GET to dissolve peacefully with liberals. They are intrinsically violent fascist thugs. Look at union tactics. Look at Occupy Movement tactics. Look at La Raza tactics.

    There is no peace with the Democrat Party. They are community activists. They are community agitators. No state has a right to its freedom under them.”

    Key word is “intrinsically.” There is something essential within the Liberal DNA, so to speak, that inclines them toward jihadist violence against those who don’t subscribe to their liberalism.

    Your statements about not getting to dissolve peacefully with liberals reminds me of the movie called Fatal Attraction with Michael Douglas and Glenn Close.

    Michael Douglas tried to peacefully dissolve his adulterous relationship with Glenn Close, but she wouldn’t let him. She was a relentless stalker. It got to the point where he had to put her down in a defensively violent manner.

    Analogous to Liberalism and Liberals. They will relentlessly hound and stalk non-liberals. It’s really sad. And really scary.

  29. Michael Eden Says:

    truthunites,

    That’s a truly excellent analogy between the left and Fatal Attraction’s Glenn Close and for that matter the radical Islam that like the left represents “Government as God” (which is the nexus point between liberals and radical jihadists).

    If you’ve ever had anything to do with them they OWN you. They are “entitled” to you and to everything you own and to everything you earn or ever WILL earn.

    They are pathologically fascist.

  30. dougindeap Says:

    I’ve posted a reply (or at least attempted to do so) twice in the last few days, but it does not appear. Is this a technical issue or a moderator choice?

  31. Michael Eden Says:

    dougindeap,

    All I can tell you is that this is the first time any comment by you has appeared to me since the last time you commented to this article. I looked in my spam file and my trash file and saw nothing from you whatsoever.

    That said, two things and a conclusion from those two things: 1) I get the last word on my blog. If you don’t like that, start your own blog and have a policy that everyone who disagrees with you will always get the last word. And 2) There is a finite limit to my time and patience. I refuse to endlessly interact with someone who may be inclined to “win” arguments by sheer ad nauseum, ad infinitum-style attrition. So consider your next post your last to this article, say what you want to say, and then say bye-bye. Because there just comes that time of night when it’s time to hold the door open and firmly ask your guests to kindly get out of your house.

    Some demands for what you should include:

    A foundation for a moral system – because a moral system is necessary to underlie ANY legal system – that carries actual force apart from religion. We have never in history had a moral/legal code that was divorced from religion, whether you want to talk about Hammurabi’s code (as I proved) or Roman law or any other legal system. They all came from specific deities and specific religions which served as the foundation for how people should live and what was declared right versus wrong. If you have a rival moral/legal system that is NOT based on religion, please provide it and defend how it is incumbant upon me to follow it without reference to a God or a heaven and a hell.

    Morality can ONLY be grounded in religion and God, unless you can show me men with godlike transcendence over all other humans who therefore have the right as ontologically superior beings to dictate to the rest of us how we should live. And a legal system can only be grounded in the authority of an all-powerful Creator God or in the tyranny of an all-powerful totalitarian State. The founding fathers were clear in which of the latter they preferred.

    That is what our second president John Adams meant when he refuted your views, declaring:

    “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    If there is no religion deemed “true,” then there IS no morality. And there is no basis for any “law” that has real force over the people and which is incumbent for any people to follow. And without religion and morality all that remains to constrain a people is increasingly totalitarian and tyrannical government to force them to do what the government says is right at whatever point in time, willy nilly, by dictate.

    On the Judeo-Christian view which IS the basis of America, we can have a limited government because there is ultimately a God (aforementioned God’s existence stated openly in the Declaration of Independence and specifically identified as Jesus Christ in the Constitution’s Anno Domini) who Created man and holds him accountable. And you might escape the grasp of limited government but you will NEVER escape God’s justice and judgment.

    Our second president pointed out that we need that or our Constitution and our government is “wholly inadequate.”

    The list of quotes from our founding fathers documents that Adam’s was the common view. Here are the next half dozen comments from founding fathers from that list:

    “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.” –- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

    “The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.” –- Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

    “Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” —- Charles Carroll (signer of the Constitution), Letter to James McHenry,November 4, 1800

    “Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.” –- Life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol III

    “Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity…in short of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.“ –- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Adams, October 4, 1790

    “In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government. That is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible.” —- Benjamin Rush, “A Defense of the Use of the Bible as a School Book”, 1798

    “In my view, the Christian Religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” — Noah Webster, Reply to David McClure, Oct. 25, 1836

    It is my demand that you refute their reasoning and provide your alternative to what is simply truth. I demand you interact with the statements I provided you from our founding fathers and explain how they were wrong and you are right.

    Our first president and the FATHER of our country agreed with that as well. In fact, he went even FURTHER:

    What are the foundations of America? After 45 years of public service, George Washington, our greatest patriot and the father of our country, gives his farewell address. He says, ‘We need to remember what brought us here. We need to remember what made us different from all the other nations across Europe and the rest of the world. We have to remember what our foundations are.’ It was the road map, showing us how we’d become what we were, and how to preserve it. It has long been considered the most important address ever given by any US president. President Lincoln set aside an entire day for the entire Union Army and had them read and understand it. Woodrow Wilson did the same during WWI. But we haven’t studied it in schools for over 45 years, so your lack of understanding is understandable. Washington said:

    “Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

    If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

    “In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

    Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

    Washington understood that if there is no religion, there are no souls and no free will and no morality. And therefore it becomes necessary to have a totalitarian government rule supreme over the sheople and take away their right to keep and bear arms, take away their right to make their own health decisions, take away their right to drink a damn BIG GULP, and impose taxes, and regulations, and bureaucracies that made the ones the King of England impose look MEAGER in comparison.

    I want you to take Washington apart and explain how you are NOT a traitor and how he just plain got it all wrong because he didn’t understand America and you do.

    George Washington – our first president and the Father of our country – also Presided over the constitutional convention. You know, the Constitution that begins by telling us it was written in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1787. Now since Washington was so clear in saying that anyone who tried to cut religion and the morality that only comes FROM religion out as the indispensable supports for our nation a traitor, I want you to explain why he decided that treason was no big deal. It will be interesting to hear your explanation.

    The thing about George Washington was that America would never have gotten off the ground without him. Even AFTER the Revolution. There were intractable differences between the various political factions. And Washington was so trusted by ALL sides that his presence was critical. But in order for your separation of God from America theory to work, he had to be the WORST hypocrite of all: because he clearly said one thing in his speech and on your view betrayed his own Farewell Address to do the thing he most passionately urged the country NOT TO DO.

    We get into a similar problem nearly a century later with Abraham Lincoln and his greatest speech. Here’s one of our two or three greatest presidents, but certainly not according to YOU. Because Lincoln talked about our having been “dedicated to the proposition that all men were CREATED EQUAL.” Damn. There’s that nasty God again. What YOU call if you have any consistency in your separation of church and state dogma a religious intrusion into government, Lincoln called the foundation for building a nation and ending slavery.

    In England and across Europe, it was CHRISTIANITY that ended slavery. And it was largely Christianity here as well, where the abolitionists universally spoke of the negro as having been created by God as human as anybody else and no different from us. Thus your view would have doomed us to slavery forever. Because it sure wasn’t going to come from Charles Darwin and his “On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

    And so we have our motto “one nation under God” coming from Abraham Lincoln. And BECAUSE it was a nation under God, according to Lincoln, we could have a new birth of freedom as opposed to slavery.

    One nation under God sure wouldn’t be allowed to stand today with the moral idiots we have running things. Now we’re one nation under GODLESSNESS thanks to you and yours. Which explains why we have a $250 trillion debt and we have Obama dictating our health care and crap like that.

    But let’s get away from the Gettysburg Address that embarrasses you and return to the Declaration of Independence that embarrasses you.

    Now, here’s another demand I have of you regarding the Declaration of Independence:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    You asserted that there is no connection between the Creator God of the Declaration of Independence and the Creator God of Christianity. Given that it is a FACT that “Of the fifty-five men who wrote and signed the U.S. Constitution of 1787, all but three were . . . orthodox members of one of the established Christian communions,” and given that it is a FACT that the Constitution began by specifically IDENTIFYING JESUS CHRIST in their “In the Year of our Lord” formula when I documented they clearly did not have to do so and could have done what the godless French did, I call you out as a LIAR. I demand that you prove that those fifty-two men who claimed they were Christian were NOT Christian and rather were liars and hypocrites and blasphemers.

    You asserted that there is no connection whatsoever between our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence. Maybe you believe it was completely different men who wrote them. Maybe you believe they were the worst kind of hypocrites. But here’s the thing: there is no question that the Declaration of Independence argues that 1) there IS a God, that belief in God is a self-evident truth, and 2) that this Creator God gave men specific rights such that any human government that violated those rights could and should be overthrown. But then you turn around and argue that the very men who presented that argument in the Declaration of Independence were such dishonest hypocrites that they THEN decided that what applied to the King of England would not apply to THEMSELVES and that they had a right to create a government and laws that were not connected to that very same God that they had just held the King of England accountable to.

    That is patently ridiculous. You are literally insane to claim what is so obviously false. Rather, the Declaration of Independence stated categorically that a government honor God and the rights that God gave to men (as descried by Christianity), and then they fought a revolution against a government that had violated those rights. And do you know what these honorable, consistent men did next? They created a Constitution that proceeded to honor God and provide men with the rights that the Christian God had provided in the Scriptures. Or, to just quote our second president John Adams again:

    “I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.”

    I’m just flat-out calling you a LIAR for asserting that there’s nothing to connect religion and morality, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or the founding fathers with their profoundly Christian faith when it is a fact of history that 95% of our founding fathers were sworn Christians.

    Now, I am patently disinterested in the bogus reasoning of the FDR-illegally-packed Supreme Court in 1947 where they demonically stripped Jefferson’s letter out of context, literally IGNORED Jefferson’s meaning, and imposed their OWN manufactured meaning of his “wall of separation.”

    In the same manner, I am not all that interested in your recent court crap. You may believe that the Supreme Court trumps our founding fathers as long as a Court has just enough liberals to agree with what you want to impose, but I don’t. I live in a time when two federal courts at the exact same level issue completely contradictory rulings to one another. We live in an age where our courts have literally refuted THEMSELVES.

    I also happen to agree with Thomas Jefferson who wrote this about the Supreme Court:

    “This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

    “The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

    “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

    So you cite the Supreme Court’s decisions all you want. You go ahead and say that the Supreme Court is your sole arbiter of right and wrong and good and evil rather than God when it comes to morality and religion and rather than our founding fathers when it comes to understanding the meaning of the Constitution. But I couldn’t care less and join Thomas Jefferson in yawning at your fondness for bowing down before black-robed masters.

    There is no question that our founding fathers were united in not wanting “the state” to recognize and embrace and impose one denomination of Christianity over all the others and over all the people. Which was ALL Jefferson was trying to explain in his letter that secular humanists hijacked and perverted. But they were just as clearly united in the sense that religion and morality – and when I say “religion” I mean CHRISTIANITY – was essential for the America they envisioned as men restrained their own passions rather than having to be controlled by a State. George Washington would have started a NEW revolution had you come along and tried to subvert the “indispensable pillars” “which lead to political prosperity” as you are calling for.

  32. truthunites Says:

    Michael Eden: “A foundation for a moral system – because a moral system is necessary to underlie ANY legal system – that carries actual force apart from religion. We have never in history had a moral/legal code that was divorced from religion.”

    Hi Michael, would you consider atheism or secular liberalism to be a religion? Here’s an article arguing that it is a religion:

    Excerpts:

    “Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

    “Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”

    Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

    “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”

    However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about ‘religion’. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

    Atheism will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

    Religion is a difficult thing to define. Various definitions have been proposed, many of which emphasize a belief in the supernatural.

    But such definitions break down on closer inspection for several reasons. They fail to deal with religions which worship non-supernatural things in their own right (for example Jainism, which holds that every living thing is sacred because it is alive, or the Mayans who worshiped the sun as a deity in and of itself rather than a deity associated with the sun); they fail to include religions such as Confucianism and Taoism which focus almost exclusively on how adherents should live, and the little they do say about supernatural issues such as the existence of an afterlife is very vague; they also don’t deal with religious movements centred around UFOs—which believe that aliens are highly (evolutionarily) advanced (but not supernatural) beings.

    A better way to determine whether a worldview is a religion is to look for certain characteristics that religions have in common. The framework set forth by Ninian Smart, commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.

    The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Not every religion has every dimension, nor are they all equally important within an individual religion. Smart even argues that the ‘secularisation’ of western society is actually a shift of focus from the doctrinal and ritual to the experiential.

    [Read the middle of the argument: HERE.

    Conclusion: “Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.

    Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.

    The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.

    Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.”

  33. Michael Eden Says:

    would you consider atheism or secular liberalism to be a religion?

    truthunites,

    Yes. Atheism IS a religion.

    Your question reveals that I wrote that sentence you quote poorly. What I should have said was, “A foundation for a moral system – because a moral system is necessary to underlie ANY legal system – that carries actual force apart from belief in a deity. We have never in history had a moral/legal code that was divorced from belief in God or the gods.”

    That is actually my argument, if you read through. I note that Hammurabi’s code, for example (I quoted it’s introduction previously in one of my comments to document it) is based on belief in the gods. The gods were Hammurabi’s platform to pronounce morality and punishments for breaking morality. Hammurabi was authorized to impose morality and the law not because he had an army but rather because he was able to speak on behalf of the gods.

    No God or gods, no morality. No morality, no law. There is NOTHING ABOUT survival of the fittest that argues that we ought to obey traffic laws. Not only does any consistent belief in evolution lead to amorality and lawlessness, but let’s get specific and point out that it leads to RAPE as we strive to be the “fittest” by propagating our genes as much as we can.

    William Provine – the famous professor and atheist – is quoted in the article I link to with these words:

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent (Provine, 1998).

    There is no ultimate foundation for ethics other than brutal government dictatorial power. There’s no meaning in life apart from what Obama tells you. And you are a biological meat puppet with no soul and no free will. Now may you flourish under the brutal dictatorship that is the ONLY possible way to control all you little rabid animals.

    Cheetahs don’t bother with speed limit laws. Lions don’t heed signs that say, “Thou shalt not kill.” You look at the animal world and it is vicious and brutal. And apart from belief in God that’s ALL we are and that’s how we should live.

    Hitler, Stalin and Mao all acknowledged their atheism. Tell me what they did that would qualify them as “morally unfit to be atheists.”

    Atheism offers NO moral system and NO foundation for morality. All communist regimes have been “officially state atheist.” And they have murdered more than 100 million of their own citizens during peacetime. Because all they have rather than God is a vicious totalitarian police state to impose whatever the hell their version of “morality” happens to be at any given moment by brutal force. They have nothing else to appeal to.

    Dougindeap wants that kind of society. Because he wants to impose into our Constitution the “separation of church and state” that was fundamental to the vicious communist constitutions.

    But, having said the last several paragraphs, there is no question that atheism – while it is literally the vacuum and the nihilistic destruction of all morality – Is VERY MUCH A RELIGION.

    That is a matter of legal fact, with an atheist having won the right AS A RELIGION to have an atheist study group in the federal prison system under a program that was reserved for religion.

    You’re right. Atheists have been playing on both sides of the fence for the last two centuries. They want to be a religion when it suits them but don’t you DARE call them a religion when it doesn’t. Because they are pathologically dishonest hypocrites lacking in any kind of virtue whatsoever.

    But atheism is not only a religion legally; it is a religion philosophically. “Religion” is not “belief in God or gods.” That does not describe religions like orthodox Buddhism or Confusionism – which do not believe in God. Rather, religion is an encompassing worldview that offers positive assertions regarding a doctrine of God (whether there is one or not in your worldview), a doctrine/anthropology of man that describes where man came from and why he is here, a doctrine of last things that describes the final state as well as where we will go when we die. And atheism is very much a religion.

    As you point out, atheism proposes POSITIVE BELIEF DECLARATIONS. They don’t merely deny God, they declare that there IS no God. And unless they’ve travelled in their space ships to the ends of space on all sides and to all points in the universe and can “scientifically claim” there is no God, they are affirming their religious belief system in their atheism. Atheism teaches what you are, how you got here, how the world around you got here and how you will end up. It is a religion.

    You reference Ninian Smart. So you understand.

    I have in more than one article documented that not only was belief in God or the gods necessary for the foundation upon which science arose, but CHRISTIANITY was essential for the rise of true science.

    Here’s a couple I quickly found:
    https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/why-pseudo-scientific-atheists-are-wrong-about-the-essence-of-science/
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2181544/posts

    One of the primary values necessary for science is that you have moral values to test theories fairly and to report the results accurately. That doesn’t COME from science; it’s necessary FOR science. You need morality to have science. But there are many other things that scientism – the belief that science is all there is – NEVER could have gotten off the ground. You need a theory-independent external world for science. Which is to say you need to believe that there really is a world out there and it’s not just an illusion as the godless eastern religions and philosophies teach. You need to have an “Imago Dei,” a belief that our cognitive and sensory faculties reliably serve as truth-gatherers that can lead us to justified true beliefs. I kept pounding away at Dougindeap about the founding fathers and Lincoln saying again and again WE WERE CREATED and referencing our Creator as the grounds for all of our most wonderful human attributes. Science was IMPOSSIBLE without that belief. You have to believe in “truth.” And that may sound silly, but in our postmodern age many atheistic philosophers and “scientists” don’t BELIEVE in the existence of truth. You can go back Nietzsche and Heidegger and atheist Nazi philosophers for that crap. Another key is the adequacy of human language to describe the world. If God created man He created man’s language. But today that is incredibly denied.

    Science would be impossible today. The atheists who play at science are intellectual and moral parasites who come upon something that they had nothing whatsoever to do with and then try to take it over for themselves. And they have largely killed the host. Which God told us would happen and which is why we’re in the last days.

  34. thinking about religions Says:

    Hello sir,
    Thank you for your nice posting.It is very interesting and informative site.The atheists who play at science are intellectual and moral parasites who come upon something that they had nothing whatsoever to do with and then try to take.
    Thanks…..

  35. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks, thinking about religions.

    And thank you for so concisely expressing the REAL struggle that is between the religion of atheism/secular humanism versus the religion of theism. The so-called “war between faith and science” is a deceitful polemic and red-herring advanced by the atheists/secular humanists and spread as propaganda by the atheist/secular humanist mainstream media to frame their own narrative.

    The reality is that science arose only once in Judeo-Christian “Christendom” and did NOT arise anywhere else on earth. For example, consider the “science” of Aristotle, the greatest of the ancient Greeks:

    Aristotle’s Ideas About Falling Objects

    Aristotle said that there are 4 elements: Earth, Wind, Water, Fire. Objects made of earth (like a rock) will want to go the center of the universe (center of the Earth). Things made of fire want to go to the place where fire is. I guess this would be the Sun – or somewhere up. Aristotle also said that a heavier object will fall at a faster speed.

    Of course he never did any experiments to test these ideas. Why would you do an experiment? There would be some experimental error and so you really couldn’t trust anything you found out anyway. Experiments just ruin all the fun.

    What we find when we learn the history of science is that Aristotle and the ancient Greeks were trapped by their worldview. Genuine science was impossible to them because they had been trapped by their own speculative metaphysics.

    Neither did science originate in China. Yes, gun powder was developed in China, for example. But no, it was not developed by Chinese science, but by Chinese alchemy. They also did not have the worldview presuppositions necessary for the development of science which include:

    1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

    2. the orderly nature of the external world

    3. the knowability of the external world

    4. the existence of truth

    5. the laws of logic

    6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as -truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

    7. the adequacy of language to describe the world

    8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)

    9. the uniformity of nature and induction

    10. the existence of numbers

    If one’s worldview presuppositions cannot provide ALL of these in addition to others that Judeo-Christianity provided, your science will never get off the ground.

    Let’s consider the words and writings of the man who DID formulate the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon:

    “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.”

    And:

    “To conclude, therefore, let no man … think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both.”

    In his 1605 book The Advancement of Learning, Sir Francis Bacon provided the classical statement that there are two ways of understanding the character of God: through the Bible, and through the world he has made.

    And in having hijacked the science that would have been IMPOSSIBLE for their wicked, depraved and limited worldview, they have now “fundamentally transformed” science into the very metaphysical (the metaphysics of “political correctness”) speculation that doomed the science of all other civilizations in the past.

    Their feet are planted firmly in midair. They are like the magician who tries to yank the tablecloth off the table without upsetting any of the dishes. But like the magicians, it’s just a trick.

    And true science has suffered greatly as a result.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: