By trying to make your faith theirs by government fiat it pisses people off and leads to major backlash. Take abortion. Abortion can be fought against on a secular level without bringing religion into the debate. Religion can serve to help troubled women save the life of the unborn. It can not be used as a hammer by government to make the choice for them. We should not make abortion illegal because it’s the Christian thing to do, we should make it illegal because it is the human thing to do. Nobody argues that murder should be illegal because it’s against the chruch’s teachings, they argue it should be illegal because it’s against mankind and society. Same with private bedroom issues. Same with homosexual marriage. It’s wrong not because it’s a sin but because a child needs a father and mother, because western civilization is based on that family unit. It is not about sin. It’s about economics/nuturing/disipline. A child needs two different adults that see things two different ways etc. Religion should be about you, your local government not national government. That is why the 1st amendment is there. That is why the pilgrims left. They didn’t want government telling them what was sin and what wasn’t. When you try to tell people how to live it irritates them. ESP when the leaders of the political party that they vote for are seen as bigger sinners then everyone else.
unseen on May 19, 2008 at 8:28 PM

You can argue against abortion and homosexual marriage from a secular perspective and others can argue against it from a religious perspective (that right is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment).

Arguing against those things, from a religious perspective, is not “trying to make your faith theirs by government fiat” (again, the 1st Amendment protects us from a government fiat i.e. Congress establishing a religion).

Religion can serve to help troubled women save the life of the unborn.

Agreed.

It can not be used as a hammer by government to make the choice for them.

The “choice” is not Motherhood vs. Abortion.
The “choice” is Motherhood vs. Adoption.

That is why the pilgrims left. They didn’t want government telling them what was sin and what wasn’t.

The pilrims themselves told us why they left. And it wasn’t for the reasons you say. They wrote the Mayflower Compact:

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

“for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith”

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 1:39 PM

To be clear, I respect and admire evangelicals and believe that we share many of the same beliefs and values so there is no dispute there.

Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 8:31 PM

The respect is mutual. We do share many of the same values. However, there are significant differences in our beliefs, so I wouldn’t say we share many of the same beliefs, unless you limit the sharing to a sharing of the Old and New Testaments. We don’t share the other scriptures shown here.

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 2:17 PM

SaintOlaf on May 20, 2008 at 3:15 PM

You’re chosing to fight over the difference in wording in two different versions of the same Word of God

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
1 John 1:8 (New International Version)

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1 John 1:8 (New King James Version)

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 3:22 PM

McDowell answered the question and said that it is imperative that we all know the answer.

The answer is…

Murder is wrong because it is against the very nature of God.

Murder isn’t wrong just because the Bible says ‘You shall not murder’…
…the Bible says ‘You shall not murder’ because murder is wrong.

Murder would still be wrong even if the Bible never mentioned it. God communicates His nature (as well as the nature of Satan) to us in the Bible. A great example is here:

The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

John 10:10

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Things that are against the nature of God are wrong.

God is truth…so lying is wrong.

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 3:29 PM

What is more incredible is that the so-called secular left will elect a Messiah.
Entelechy on May 19, 2008 at 8:39 PM

1) The word “Messiah” is equivalent to the word “Christ”

He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated, the Christ).

John 1:41

The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.”

John 4:25

2) The Bible warns us about false christs (false “messiah”s)

For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Matthew 24:24

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 3:39 PM

philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 8:36 PM

Very very interesting to me. As a “non-religious” person who thinks I can do without religion, I constantly find myself asking where my values come from, and if they indeed come from having absorbed religious teachings unwittingly. I always wonder if I am being foolish.

Great comment.

JiangxiDad on May 19, 2008 at 8:48 PM

JiangxiDad, I applaud your honesty.

I personally believe that the knowledge of good and evil comes from this:

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Genesis 2:17

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

Genesis 3:1-7

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 3:46 PM

In the past, I was a member of a very large evangelical church. The pastor of that church started from scratch in the 1970s and built-up the church to mega-proportions in a 20 year period. Over 5000 people were attending every Sunday at 3 services. Then, 17 people came forward and reported that he had molested them over that same 20 year period. The thing that REALLY frightened me was that I had attended that church for almost 10 years, exchanged letters with the pastor, and had talked with him — and I had NO clue that there was anything wrong with him.

CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 8:51 PM

Did the pastor confess his guilt?
Was he found guilty by a trial by his peers?
Was there any evidence other than the oral testimony of the 17 people?
How do you know for sure that these 17 people were telling the truth?

Could the pastor be guilty? Sure.
Could the pastor be innocent? Sure.

That’s why we have a judicial system that assumes innocence until you are proven guilty. If there was a confession of guilt or a legal conviction of guilt, then I believe the pastor was guilty. If not, I presume he was innocent and this was an attempt by 17 people to destroy a church of 5000.

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 3:52 PM

CyberCipher
I’m so glad you shared that story because it is enlightening and illustrative.
Your story is a perfect illustration of why following a cult personality is a dangerous proposition. When the person falls or comes up short, and they always do, the failure can destroy something larger and drastically more important that was founded on a belief in a man rather than something divine.
The Obama supporters are going to learn the hard way as did many of the Huck supporters. No man can be a substitute for what must fundamentally be a personal relationship with God.

Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 9:18 PM

That is quite a statement coming from someone who follows Joseph Smith. I’m not trying to be offensive, but I realize my speaking the truth will probably offend you and other Mormons.

Joseph Smith claimed that God told him to be a polygamist, and that if his 1st wife Emma didn’t “receive all those [wives] that have been given unto my servant Joseph” she “shall be destroyed”.

And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SECTION 132:52

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 4:06 PM

My point, however, is that those who choose to do their political thinking in religious terms 1) have every right to do so, and 2) are not doing anything any less rational than you are with your secular reasoning. Take a page from your own multiculturalist book: just ’cause it’s different from you, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
The authors of our Constitution did a pretty reasonable job of creating a system where different points of view can be arbitrated peacefully and fairly. Prejudice against religious points of view threatens to undo what they did, and enforce a national secularism that is in fact just an instance of the very sort of thing they were trying to avoid. If you don’t have patience with religious reasoning, don’t hang around with people who do it — but don’t you DARE try to tell religious people that they don’t have the right to advocate and vote according to their religion here in America. They have as much right as you — and historically, they produce pretty decent results by doing so.
You haven’t said a single thing so far that suggests you’re even capable of understanding the point, let alone rebutting it, so I don’t think you’ve earned the right to accuse others of lazy thinking. I’m not the one who’s being lazy here.
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 9:30 PM

So excellent a comment that it bears repeating.

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 4:18 PM

go read chapter 17 of de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” and get a sense of just how deeply religious the people were who voted for the first fifteen presidents or so. If those people didn’t tear the republic apart, religious people today won’t. A religious populace was one of the givens when the Constitution was written.
Religious conservatives are FAR from being the most intractable folks in American politics. That dubious honor goes to the hard left. You might argue — I do — that the hard left is actually a religion unto itself, but they’re way worse than religious conservatives.
philwynk on May 19, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Agreed.

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 4:22 PM

MB4, you are SO Jeffersonian (for an atheist, that is). It is natural for people to fear what they do not understand. There IS a danger. But it is NOT necessarily from the adherents of the Christian faith. No ordinary churchgoer wants to impose his religious beliefs on you, or attack the constitution that you worship.
…
In fact, you seem to be SO paranoid of Christians that you come across like a conspiracy theorist. Most Christians are just people that want to be something better than what they are. It’s as simple as that. They don’t want to “rule over” anyone — and they are just as vulnerable as you atheists. If anything, based on the track records of you atheists, Christians have FAR MORE to fear from you, than you have to fear from them.

CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Indeed. The movie Expelled shows how many athiests treat Christians (and even open-minded non-Christians).

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 4:56 PM

right2bright or Mitt supporters

I don’t know why anyone would support Mitt for dog catcher let alone anything else. He is disingenuous at best and a pathological liar at worst. Please let me provide a specific example that was very revealing for me.

As members of the LDS faith we believe in a modern day prophet who directs the Church as he is inspired and directed by God. We have the same regard for “modern” prophets as we do for prophets of the Old Testament. In fact, the words of a modern prophet are given precedence over prior prophets since they relate directly to what is going on now. Mitt either lied to the members of his congregation when he sustained President Gordon B. Hinckley as the prophet, seer and revelator of the LDS church or he lied in his on camera interview when he rejected the idea that God speaks to people today.

I must stress that this is not a matter of him not being religious enough. It is more fundamental than that because it speaks to his integrity. He lied to one group for his own reasons. That is fine. Maybe he doesn’t believe anything. But the fact is that if he will lie about something that is a key element of what it means to be LDS then it should say something about his character. He claims membership in the church so it is a key issue.

I don’t want someone in a leadership position that denies the tenets of his faith because he is embarrassed by them. I also don’t want someone pretending to believe in something they don’t. I would have more respect if he simply rejected the ideas. I have said this before because I believe that he is dangerous because he is a man without a core set of values.

Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 10:15 PM

I respect and applaud your honesty.

29Victor

Hey. Calm down now. None of us enjoys beating our wives.

I also like that you used the plural – wives. It made me feel right at home.

/Polygamist

Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 11:24 PM

Are you guys really Polygamists? I know there are some out there, I just don’t expect them to openly say so.

If same-sex marriage is a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship”, then is polygamy a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship”?

Red Pill on May 19, 2008 at 2:31 AM

Yes.

29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 9:22 PM

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 5:09 PM

As profoundly religious as our founders were, don’t you ever wonder why God is not mentioned once in the U.S. constitution? Or why the only mention of religion is to restrict its practice by the government?

RightOFLeft on May 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM

All 50, yes all 50, of the state constitutions mention God.

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Some Mormons want to be accepted so much by main stream society that they will do anything to get that acceptance. They are tired of feeling on the outside. Having a Mormon president would go a long way toward getting that acceptance in their view.

Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 10:48 PM

Thank you for your honesty.

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 5:18 PM

While I don’t agree with polygamy, I agree with Mormon Doc on this:

It never ceases to amaze me when I watch those who want so desperately to dismiss the idea that the founders had a deep and abiding belief in God. The contortions and mental gymnastics are impressive even going so far as to parse the word Creator. And through all of the twisting and muddling as an attempt to cleanse the founders of such beliefs I watch an exercise designed to establish not the truth of the matter but to establish some form of academic bona fides.

But invariably what is often missed at the end of the day is the people. The people who stood behind the founding fathers and made up the country the founders worked to establish. The deeply religious, boldly faithful founding citizenry who knew God and relied on his mercies and generosity on a daily basis.

To speak of the founding fathers as though they were somehow plucked from a Godless universe wherein they could apply their miraculously thoughtful and revolutionary ideas is no less than astonishing. These men who lived amid people who embraced religion and but who remarkably had no influence on the founders and were clearly unlike them in the practice of religion. We are expected to believe that the American people supposedly thought nothing like the founding fathers and yet somehow managed to adopt, embrace and in many cases die for those allegedly secular ideas outlined in the defining documents of our country.

To say that such documents and such men had inspiration from anything but a benevolent Creator or God is to espouse a type of religion that requires greater faith than any practice known to man.

Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 11:45 PM

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 5:25 PM

Ok, I’ll match that quote with this one.

“Our Constitution was made only by a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”, John Adams.

And raise you with this.

“Religion I have disposed of all my property to my family. There is one thing more I wish I could give to them, and that is the Christian religion. If they had that and I had not given them one cent, they would be rich. If they have not that, and I had given them the world, they would be poor.” Patrick Henry.

This country was founded by what we now call “religious nuts”. Many of them came here specifically to find freedom to practice their religion.

flenser on May 20, 2008 at 12:06 AM

Indeed. Here’s another…the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, in his dying hour, was asked if he had any farewell counsels to leave his children. His reply was:

“THEY HAVE THE BOOK.”

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 5:48 PM

Where’s Red Pill?

kirkill on May 19, 2008 at 1:11 PM

I bet you’re sorry you asked…

:-)

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 6:06 PM

it wasn’t Communism that killed all of those people, it was the Communist leadership. It wasn’t the form of government that committed the atrocities, it was people who formed the government, the people who followed Hegelean ethics as interpreted (and perverted) by Marx. An ethic without God, were one’s duty to society is more important than one’s duty to self or to God. Where the value of a human life is determined by that human’s value to society.

What would have stopped them (at least if we get real silly and look at history) is a belief that they had someone to answer to after they died, or that there was a good greater than the good of the state. Even when the Church was at its most corrupt it never matched the killin’ power of the athiest state.

I thank God every day for the freedoms that Americas enjoy, the freedoms that, according to [the Declaration of Independence] He gave me and, thus, are intrinsic to me.

Unlike the “rights” given to man by the government in an athiest state (the U.S.S.R. had a Constitution too, ya know). “Rights” that are completely dependent upon the whim of the State.

29Victor on May 20, 2008 at 2:00 AM

Good post.

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 6:28 PM

“The lesson the President has learned best—and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him—is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration’s current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.”

–Source

America was not born in 1877 or even in 1776. The Constitution did not create America, America created the Constitution. More specifically, the states created the national government. The states (colonial governments) were a reality long before the Constitution was conceived, and there is no question about their being founded on Christian principles.

– Source (good article, worth a read)

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 6:51 PM

Kentucky: Precincts Reporting: 100%

Republicans
Candidate # of votes % of total
John McCain 142,854 72.30%
Mike Huckabee 16,238 8.22%
Ron Paul 13,439 6.80%
Uncommitted 10,629 5.38%
Mitt Romney 9,151 4.63%
Rudy Giuliani 3,126 1.58%

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 10:42 PM

Yesterday’s stunning and outrageous ruling of the California Supreme Court adds to the demand for a national Constitutional amendment that affirms that marriage is the relationship of one man/one woman. Traditional marriage is not only being attacked by runaway divorce rates from within the institution, but the California ruling, the Massachusetts same sex marriage law, and the polygamist camp in Texas remind us that not everyone seems to have gotten the memo on marriage.

This is not a time to be angry, but broken hearted. We should not hurl insults, but get on our knees and pray that we will have moral courage to stand for truth and what’s right, but the Master’s compassion to do so without rancor. It should be another wake up call as we as a culture keep hitting the snooze alarm.

Mike Huckabee, May 16, 2008 – 01:13 PM

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 11:55 PM

I also had friends in Utah who had left polygamous groups.

sulla on May 21, 2008 at 12:41 AM

Proof that such groups exist.

If you refuse to accept the distinction between FLDS and LDS, then there is nothing further to discuss.

I accept the distinction between FLDS and LDS. Just as I accept the distinction between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist Protestants. I’m not saying there isn’t a difference. But both FLDS and LDS are followers of the teachings of Joseph Smith…one in its original form, one in a modified (by a later LDS leader) form.

Polygamy is still being practiced in this country, by people who claim to follow Joseph Smith, and many people weren’t aware of that until the FLDS raid in Texas.

Red Pill on May 21, 2008 at 9:44 AM