|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hypocrisy Among American Fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Percy,
Percy writes: But religion has more than just the potential for abuse. It has a demonstrated history of abuse. We can speculate about the potential for abuse by environmentalists (an example from one of your previous posts), but no speculation is necessary for the abuse religion is capable of. We need only look at history. Can you point out a time that religion was abusive that it was not a part of the government? That is the reason our Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ". This forbids the government from establishing a religion. Our forefathers had left England which had a government/religion which had been very abusive to those who did not believe the same as the state church. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
That is the reason our Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ". This forbids the government from establishing a religion. Our forefathers had left England which had a government/religion which had been very abusive to those who did not believe the same as the state church. It means quite a bit more than just not choosing a specific Christian denomination or church to represent the United States. In fact, respecting any religion at all is the onus of that phrase. "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -- Thomas Jefferson "... the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -- Thomas Jefferson "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5
|
Hi Hyroglyphx,
Hyroglyphx writes: The teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ. The teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ have nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel or good news is that Jesus was crucified and died for the sins of mankind. He was buried and rose again 72 hours after He was buried. So we could know we can have victory over death. So in short form the gospel of Jesus Christ is His death, burial and resurrection. So I don't think that will help explain anything to you about politics. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ have nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospels are about a chronicling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, to include his teachings and the revelations about his mission. That's why the four gospels contain more than just the sacrifice and resurrection. But now I'm curious what this has to do with the current discussion"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Hyro,
Hyro writes: It means quite a bit more than just not choosing a specific Christian denomination or church to represent the United States. In fact, respecting any religion at all is the onus of that phrase. The First Amendment to the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ". The first part says plainly that Congress shall make no law respecting. An establishment of religion. That part says Congress can not make a law establishing a religion. (regardless of what brand of religion). The rest: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Plainly states that Congress can not make a law prohibiting the exercise of a religion. (regardless of what brand of religion). God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
ABE: I've removed the part of the post that was considered too personal. /ABE
===============================The gospels are not THE Gospel, which is what ICANT said, Jesus' dying to pay for our sins so that we are spared their consequences. That's what salvation is and that is what is known as THE gospel. But now I'm curious what this has to do with the current discussion ICANT was responding to your statement in Message 57 that you think a preacher should only present "the gospel" and not argue politics. I earlier responded as if you had said "the Bible" or the New Testament, though I should have asked as ICANT did what you mean by the gospel. f Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22389 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: ...you never were a Christian...etc... That's getting a bit personal, don't you think?
But the gospels are not THE Gospel, which is what ICANT said, Jesus' dying to pay for our sins so that we are spared their consequences. That's what salvation is. Gospel has more than one definition, and Hyroglyphx gave the definition of gospel he had in mind in his passage that ICANT inquired about. Here are the definitions from Dictionary.com:
Your definition is number 6. Young's Compact Bible Dictionary defines it like this:
quote: There is not just one meaning of gospel, and someone can choose whichever one they like, hopefully making the one they intended clear from context. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22389 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
NoNukes writes: I believe that our current separation of church and state jurisprudence is sufficient to handle most of that problem here. I hope you're right that it's sufficient.
We have some history with environmentalists issues too. The Sierra Club (wrongly in my opinion) lost their tax exempt status for becoming involved too politically for some people. Haven't some churches lost their tax-exempt status? While searching for examples I came across this link: How Can a Church Lose Its 501(c) Status? It says a church can lose its tax exempt status by campaigning for or against political candidates or even just participating excessively in the political process. My concern is that some religions are already too involved in the political process, particularly those that don't see a separation between the religious and the secular, that even see religion as including all aspects of life to the point where there is no secular side. They don't see campaigning against abortion or homosexuality as participating in the political process but just as the free exercise of their religious beliefs. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
I'm saying that it isn't enough to just donate of your own volition. In a democracy, we have a moral obligation to speak up about where our taxes go. I, for one, would rather see my taxes go toward feeding homeless people instead of toward policing them off the street.
Do you feel like you've done your moral obligation by simply allowing the government to withhold your wages (as if you had any choice in the matter) or is it better to actually donate of your own volition and going directly to the source of the problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Today. Much of the abuse of gay people is religion-based.
Can you point out a time that religion was abusive that it was not a part of the government?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Your idea of what the "Gopel" is just makes Jesus' life pretty much worthless, God stu8pid and the whole story a farce.
It is just a revolt misrepresentation of Christianity or the Gospel of Jesus.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
ABE: Removed because considered too personal. /ABE
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22389 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Faith,
Hyroglyphx and whether or not he was once a true Christian are not the topic, and he never made it an issue or mentioned his status as a Christian in this thread anyway. The topic is whether the surprising level of acceptance of Donald Trump by fundamentalist Christians is in some way hypocritical. Diversions onto related sub-topics are fine, but your co-discussionists are not valid sub-topics. Hyroglyphx has made plenty of arguments that you can take issue with, and you should be focusing on those. More generally, people should be free to use whatever valid definition of words they choose without facing personal accusations of any type, and participants should never be made the focus of discussion (unless they insist, which happens from time to time). You shouldn't have to be reminded of simple things concerning the Forum Guidelines over and over again. Normally I recuse myself for two days before switching to moderator status, but we're short on moderators these days. I'll switch to my moderator role immediately after your next Forum Guidelines violation. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Haven't some churches lost their tax-exempt status? Yes. Is that evidence that the law works or that it does not?
They don't see campaigning against abortion or homosexuality as participating in the political process but just as the free exercise of their religious beliefs. It is not because such things are not political, but rather that almost every social policy is political. The first amendment does not prevent churches from participating in the political process. So the question is where to draw the line between allowed and disallowed participation for tax exempt purposes. We live in a world where tax exempt super pacs are free to engage in almost any level of politics short of involvement directly in campaigns for office. Taking the Sierra club as an example, they objected to dam building because of its affect on the environment. That opposition was deemed politics primarily because the power brokers who wanted to build dams were politically backed. In my view, that interpretation of the law is totally nonsensical.
My concern is that some religions are already too involved in the political process By some definition. But I don't really see a fair way to draw a line. Lots of people are way too involved. There is too much money involved, too many anonymous participants and too little responsiveness to individuals. There is too much politics in politics.
They don't see campaigning against abortion or homosexuality as participating in the political process but just as the free exercise of their religious beliefs. Sure. But in truth their campaigning is both free exercise and participation in the political process. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22389 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
NoNukes writes: Haven't some churches lost their tax-exempt status?
Yes. Is that evidence that the law works or that it does not? I thought I remembered that some churches had lost their tax-exempt status, but a quick search didn't find any, so I asked. You provided an example of an environmentalist group losing their tax-exempt status, so I was wondering if the same was true of some churches. I wasn't thinking of it as evidence of whether the law works or not.
So the question is where to draw the line between allowed and disallowed participation for tax exempt purposes. We live in a world where tax exempt super pacs are free to engage in almost any level of politics short of involvement directly in campaigns for office. Obviously the line for Super PACs has been drawn in the wrong place. Hopefully that will be remedied at some point. I think they won their current freedom from spending limits based upon free speech arguments, but can't it be argued that issuing someone a megaphone that drowns out other voices is itself an infringement on free speech?
Taking the Sierra club as an example, they objected to dam building because of its affect on the environment. That opposition was deemed politics primarily because the power brokers who wanted to build dams were politically backed. In my view, that interpretation of the law is totally nonsensical. That political machinations happen shouldn't discourage us from trying to find a fair place to draw the line, speaking of which:
But I don't really see a fair way to draw a line. There's already a line. It's just in the wrong place.
They don't see campaigning against abortion or homosexuality as participating in the political process but just as the free exercise of their religious beliefs. Sure. But in truth their campaigning is both free exercise and participation in the political process. Sure, but the problem is that they don't see their views on abortion or homosexuality as religious. The Bible isn't religion for them, it's reality. When their interpretation of the Bible says that abortion is wrong or that homosexuality is an abomination, that's not a religious belief, it's law - or should be in their view. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024