Before Louisiana pastor Dennis Terry introduced Rick Santorum to his congregation on Sunday, he took a few minutes to hurl some fire and brimstone down from the pulpit.
“I don’t care what the liberals say, I don’t care what the naysayers say, this nation was founded as a Christian nation…There is only one God and his name is Jesus. I’m tired of people telling me that I can’t say those words,” Terry said.
“Listen to me. If you don’t love America, if you don’t like the way we do things, I have one thing to say — get out. We don’t worship Buddha, we don’t worship Mohammad, we don’t worship Allah. We worship God. We worship God’s son Jesus Christ.”
In his diatribe Terry indirectly addressed the biggest threat to our nation. The biggest threat to our nation — our liberty — is radical Christianity.
Terry’s diatribe, and Santorum’s complacence, reveal that radical Christians don’t want a republic — they want a theocracy.
They have created a historically inaccurate dual narrative of American history, a narrative in which all of our nation’s founding fathers were devout Christians. In this narrative, it is the devout Christians who have held our nation together, fought for social justice and the downtrodden. In this narrative our nation has prevailed because of the influence of the Christian god.
In reality, our nation has prevailed because of the separation of church and state, which has thus far prevented us from crumbling into a theocracy.
Many of the Bible Belt revisionists who are trying to pervert this separation are the descendents of the same Christians who supported slavery, were against granting women the right to vote, were against desegregation and interracial marriage.
Do not be fooled by their rhetoric or their “compassionate conservatism.” Radical Christians want to reverse our nation’s steady march towards equality for all. They want to send us back to the days when they could force their beliefs on other Americans, shame them into complacency.
Rational Americans have two choices. They can either sit by and watch our republic dissolve into a theocracy, or they can rise up and fight.
the biggest threat to our nation is people like you!
you don't really "get" America, do you?
Try reading the truth, not just swallowing what ever the head guy sends your way…All our Founding Fathers spoke aloud to this issue as well as wrote tons of articles about it. Go Forth Brother and breath fresh clean air for a new start.
exactly…a flawed view of faith, typical of the undiscerning.
Thank you for speaking up. A wonderful commentary.
One who belittle another religion does not have the knowledge of his own religion, because every religion advocates tolerence for the other.
No job interview in America should ask your religion – how come the job of president is centered around this BS. Let the best guy be president of this wonderful country, vote your conscience.
To ibs: nice. by the way, do your initials stand for irritable bowel syndrome?
As Bugs Bunny So memorably and accurately described your reasoning, ibs2, "What a marooon!"
I have to agree. I've watched them for years trying to tell people what to believe & what to think. My father wad a devout Christian & WWII combat veteran. He warned me against two types of people: bible thumpers & flag wavers, "All they ever do is cause trouble.". This from a man who said his prayers every night & defended his country.
Frankly you know nothing about the founders and the acceptance of religous freedom for all… What has happened is that Christians have been told they can't and they shouldn't speak up… God loves us all but He does not love all that we do…
i hate this sort of nonsense, some christians seem to feel they've be told to sit down and shut up but you all don't seem to realize that some of us don't want your God and we don't want your belief system to have undue influence on our lives. this country has given all of us the right to practice any religion in whatever way we see fit, including none at all, our right to religious freedom and separation of church and state is what protects us from sliding into theocracy, it's not just there to protect the more pious of us.
Who has told Christians recently that they can't pronounce their love for Jesus/God? Give me an example please
Rart of religious freedom is freedom from other's religion or simply freedom from any religion.
I have my beliefs…but that is my business….no one elses…..not something I try to shove down people's
throats or want others to shove down my throat.
If Romney is elected you want him to try make this a mormon nation? Don't try to sell me on what you and your people believe. I believe what is choose to believe and could not care less what you choose to believe.
This is not christian nation. It is a pluralistic nation made up of all kinds. More kinds each day.
perfect succinct article
When fascism comes to these shores, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross – Sinclaire
I can't believe google would ever syndicate such hate filed press. Wow….look who is prejudice, ignorant, and stereotypical!
Hows this for radical Christian: I'm mad that the choice has come down between a mormon and a papist. The only real christian in the race (RP) has virtually no chance.
there are no "real" christians
Mormons and Catholics are both Christian denominations.
What an ignorant comment. The race has come down to a Mormon and two Papists. One of whom used to be a real Christian. And a Libertarian might just read the Devil's very own copy of the Jeffersonian bible.
Radical Secularism and young naive writers are what are dangerous! Yet another example of poor logic skills and a student of modern stupidity.
You must be one the wishful thinkers like IBS.
RSM must mean rarely smart man!
thank you! the truth hurts doesn't it? radical secularism and the new atheism, which is more radical than any so called radical christianity, coupled with writers who lack critical thinking skills and jump to illogical conclusions in defense of ignorance are the real threat to america…and to common sense.
Yes, the kids commenting on this site are the same ones using ipods, and ipads at the ows rallies living with mom and dad and brainwashed by a professor from the 60's who has run out of rebel causes and is now trying to create them. The same thing happened in France. Unfortunately for them, those people now are contained in a section of the country not realizing they gave rise to the fascism they espoused. 20 something kids should not be allowed to write for any media group until they actually live on their own for 10 years.
1. You really have no idea who is commenting on this website
2. OWS and Apple products have nothing to do with each other
Turner, you might want to check your security settings on FB…best of luck
evangelical christians should all just go to hell. simple as that.
1bs3.a2, please note that intolerance can work both ways, and such generalized damnations of evangelical Christians do as much injury to our public discourse as Sen. Santorum’s or Rev. Terry’s harsh fanaticism.
The Constitution won't allow it. There must be a separation between Church & State. Tolerance of all Faiths is what our Forefathers had in mind.
That is what the Russian Constitution states, not the US one.
Wrong, Wes.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. — U.S. Constitution, 1st Amendment.
that doesn't even make sense.
Time for us Christians to pray for our nation!
Jesus said not to be part of the world, would not he have taken a governmental position as King if he wanted us to pray for our country, so which country did God pick? A new paradise with St. Louis as capital, or … doubtful best pray for someone not something
Do you recall what Jesus had to say about your public piety? Matthew 6:5-6.
Personally, I follow that and James 5:12.
I suggest you read James 3:1 and be afraid.
Goddess help us, we’re in a race with Al Qaeda to return to the year 1096. Well, the American Experiment was fun while it lasted, but it didn’t last long as empires go. Soon enough the Chinese will be out-sourcing 10 cent an hour jobs to us! The might even let us keep our Jesus.
Excellent post. Too bad the Christians posting here haven't read more history, or bothered to read the scathing letters the founders themselves wrote about Christianity.
There are many Dennis Terry’s in the world. They are the Jihadists, the Teahadists, the racist, bigoted, Dominionists. They will, if given the chance, destroy America’s promise to the future of a nation founded in Liberty, and Justice for all.
Evangelical Christians Karl Giberson (physicist), and Randall Stephens (historian) wrote an OpEd for the New York Times October 17th 2011, entitled “The Evangelical Rejection of Reason.” They observed that,
“… many evangelicals created what amounts to a “parallel culture,” nurtured by church, Sunday school, summer camps and colleges, as well as publishing houses, broadcasting networks, music festivals and counseling groups.”
This alternate universe is something they want to inflict on us all.
All of the radicals are killing America. Not just the Radical Christians. Everything is all or nothing. Late term abortions or no abortions, keep ALL the immigrants out or let them ALL in, no healthcare or free healthcare… on and on. Blah blah blah.
Yes, good points
Bug be positive
AMEN TO YOU FOR THIS GREAT & VERY TRUE ARTICLE!
If we allow these nutcases to take control of our system it will be the end of our freedoms, they want our Army to settle ole Christian scores from long ago. They thrive on re fighting age old wars…
They are the enemy within that all our pledges speak to; Foriegn or Domestic!
Thanks for a very well written piece. You are right on target.
Radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical any religion. See what radical Islamists have done to many parts of the world.
To Terry: If you are a Christian then act like Christ. Spreading hatred and intolerance is definitely not Christian way. And, please tame your ego. You are not as good as you think you are. Also, remember Christianity does not own God or have a monopoly over Truth.
Radical ANYTHING is usually dangerous, including Radical Rationalists.
A solid warning to all of us. The distance from liberty to bondage is quite short. People like this pastor and Santorum (and also, that radio radical) would be happy if we were their slaves. Got to fight them.
The founding fathers created a free nation, not a Christian nation. Thank God!
As a Christian, I am appalled at the direction that theocratists want to take this country. I believe in Jesus Christ., but I believe in the non-establishment clause of Article I of our Constitution, too. I also believe God gave us each free will and the authority to exercise it over our own souls.
Is it actually impossible to fathom a society in which the sole purpose of a federal government is to ensure its citizens are able to form the communities (religious, socio-economic, etc.) they want without fear of reprisal from the state?
What's wrong with having radical Christians and Islams living in the same state? Nothing, provided the state doesn't favor one over the other. Pick any two extremist views, and they can exist side-by-side as long as the machinations of the government are not used by one group to oppress other.
Xenophobes justifying intolerance in the name of heaven, aren't we over that yet?
Well done America, well done.
ignorance justifying post modernism….aren't we more rational than that? well done America…well done
I do not believe these christians are after a theocratic government, they just want freedom to practice their faith openly. The pastors statement is about not being able to mention or worship Jesus's name in public not about taking over the U.S government. Also, to say to this is the biggest issue in America? How about moral decay! The writer politely skipped over the reason why these christians are so ''radicalized'' is because their ''equality'' is really a self-serving everything is good nothing is bad ''coexist'' rhetoric that attacks the basic thread and the existence of integrity and the christian faith itself.
I'm not quite sure that is the case. Most "Rational Americans" simply ask that all views get some airtime; the person who shouts the loudest is not necessarily right.
There's a difference between practicing one's faith openly and forcing other people to accept your faith is "true", "correct", "morally right", etc. (This somewhat touches on your comment regarding 'moral decay' in America – by whose standard of morality?)
In the end, I think most of us just want the freedom to have our own viewpoints. The (difficult?) task of government is to protect that freedom, even when a large segment of society would like to see a particular viewpoint eradicated.
they can practice their faith openly, in church and the communities built around that, and in their homes. no one is taking that away from them but we don't all have to be part of it. people can believe whatever they want without trying to impress those beliefs on anyone else.
I would refer you to a recent story by John Stossel which showed a husband and wife in California who ran a Bible study in their home. Unfortunately the local government told them they would be fined if they didn't get the proper permits, which they can't afford to do, nor should they have to. I have always believed that one should believe what they want or not want, either way, it's none of my business. Same goes for those who say I can't worship my way. In the Constitution there is no defined 'Seperation of Church and State'. None. Nada. Zero. What it does say is that the government cannot condone one religion over another or establish a state religion (ie Church of England). But some reason just the mere mention of God in front of an atheist seems to offend them. Obama makes me want to puke, but he is the elected President. So because he is so very offensive to me, should I have the right to not have his picture on TV or hear his name or speeches on radio? No, that would be ridiculous and yet it is okay for you and others who may not believe in God to demand His name and my beliefs are so offensive that they dare not be mentioned in public. In effect, your rights and sensibilities take front seat to mine. The 'coexist' argument doesn't wash because I have seen no tolerance from your side and I mean none at all. I can best describe it as the smoking bans. It all started out with a smoking section and a non smoking section cuz we could all get along. Smokers in a lot of cities were told not to worry, we're not going to ban it but fast forward to now and look what we got. In someplaces you can't even smoke outside. And this is your plan for religeon too. But this time, many of us who have sat back and watched the way people like you do things are not going to sit by and let it happen, especially when you have no right to do it. The scary part for people such as yourself who are trying shut down religious freedom and expression is that you have awaken a movement to stop it larger than you can even think. I for one am a 'lapsed' Catholic, my wife a Baptist and my children haven't been baptized. When this attack was launched by the administration I rediscovered my faith, my wife wants to convert and my two youngest WANT to be baptized as Catholics, something not forced on any of my family. I hate to tell you that we are not they only people thinking the same thing either. Look around and you'll see it more and more. I am tolerant, really I am. Do what you want and live your life the way you want to. Watch porn until your eyeballs fall out, worship a feret and eat tofu while not using soap while you bathe. Don't care. I am a Conservative. I have no right to tell you what to eat, watch, read, believe or sleep with. Many conservatives believe the same as I do. Just do us one favor in return… Believe my rights and beliefs are just as valuable and important to me as yours are to you. That's all I'm saying'.
I see your point, and am not familiar with the Stossel piece but I suspect there's probably more to that story. I should state I do not subscribe to any religious beliefs, atheism included. I agree with your assessment of the "church and state rule" but I don't feel it's "intolerant" to ask those of faith to keep it to themselves, it has no place in the public forum and when we now have a presidential candidate openly pushing for our country to ruled by the laws of God(and a fair amount of people agreeing) you're damned right i'm going to try and shut them down, our forefathers were trying to escape the church of England and freedom of religion was written into the constitution so that we wouldn't have to be having this argument today, it's just been co-oped and perverted by religion thinking it only applies to them. I am not offended by religion or religious people as long it doesn't become invasive, I have never once been approached on the street by an athiest, muslim, hindi, sihk,or satanist trying to "share" with me their beliefs but can regularly count on a christian to remind me I am going to hell if I don't think the way they think(krishnas excluded cause they're just kinda weird). that's not ok in my book. Have your faith,be proud and live how you want but when those of us who choose not to have a God speak up it's not intolerance, it's our right.
John, you appear to overlook the fact that Rev. Terry and his flock of Santorum supporters want to rid this nation of all who disagree with their theology. That is the very definition of a theocracy, no better than Iran’s. The name of Jesus has always been uttered in the public square, but the line must be drawn against its direct infusion into our government at the presidential level, especially when the goal is a fanatical religious “cleansing” such as occurred against Jews on Krystalnacht under the Third Reich.
Didn't Jesus tell someone don't worship me, worship God. Jesus is God's son, unless I am confused, oh and turn the check, and everything the Bible actually says but these people listen to people taking money from people paying them tell them what they want to hear not actually what the bible says. I does say to not accept money for preaching, do it without a fee. Oh I guess I have not read it and listen, kind of cool how the water cycle is explained accurately, how the old testament told people to wash there hands, not touch poo, bury the stuff and such. The problem is the nut cases and lack of consideration and especially lack of common sense
If you're confused it is because it isn't simple. There are certainly a lot of people confused out there. Jesus did not say, "Don't worship me", but he did say, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ (Matthew 4:10). It is interesting to see that on multiple occasions Jesus accepted worship and did not tell the people to stop. For example, "After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him." (Matthew 2:11), "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!”" (Matthew 14:33), "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him." (Matthew 28:9). There are other examples but all of those are from the book of Matthew where Jesus acknowledges that worship is only for God.
A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some-Supreme Court Justice Blackmun
I am not lock step with this pastor, but the staff that wrote this piece is extremely shallow. It bothers me how often superficiality is substituted for deep thought. For example, there is no such thing as law without a moral basis, certainly not in the main and I am hard pressed to find even a procedural law that is not based on some moral principle. Nobody believes that any position can be defended only on an equal rights basis. If so, pedophilia could not be attacked on a moral basis. Any thing that has a claim to equality must also have a claim to morality. Major equal rights victories can easily be defended morally: abolition, education, voting, race discrimination, sex discrimination (male, female). Take any of the major controversies that exist today, like reproductive rights and gay marriage. You cannot argue them only on equality. You must argue that they are also moral. If some one opposes you on a moral basis, then argue it directly. It is a basic first year college logic error to attack the person who disagrees with you. You have to argue the premise. That means equality “always” has to be argued morally at the same time. The person opposing you may not be someone you admire in any way. Still argue the premise, first. Then if you must (and sometimes you must), go after that person for inconsistencies, but only after you oppose the position directly, not with a sideways attack. Ken
There were many justifications for slavery that were founded on the Christian Bible. For example;
Marvin Wheat
1862 “Proof of Slavery From the First Chapter of Genesis”
They are still found;
Haberman, Fredrick
1934 “Tracing Our White Ancestors: White Roots” (1962 ed. Phoenix, Az: Lord’s Covenant Church) and 2009 reprinted as “Tracing Our Ancestors: Traces the European American Back to Father Abraham and Beyond” Muskogee, Ok: Artisan Publishers.
Haberman adds the extra “Fact” that Jews are also subhuman.
Nothing shallow or oblique about this staff or their editorial, Ken. It directly confronts the shallow patriotism of radical Christianity as practiced by Rev. Terry and Sen. Santorum. It’s your comment that tries — and fails — to equate an editorial with a debate. What’s off-base and unsupported is the polarizing Puritanism of those who set themselves up as freelance moral authorities who would banish American citizens from the “land of the free” that belongs equally to all of us.
LOL most of the founding fathers were protestant, remember, they were all english citizens before they made the us! heck, jefferson was a deist! People like washington were afraid of Catholics gaining power in the state because they had the pope telling them what to do, so he feared the us would be secretly controlled by the pope if there was no separation made between worshiping god, and pledging allegiance to the nation.
Christian Taliban is as dangerous as Muslim or Jewish Talibans who want to impose their narrative / idealogy on to others – maybe even more so given the West's military and economic might. What Christians, Muslim and Jews forget that the majority of the 7 billion people on this planet do not believe in the God of Abraham – God, Jesus, Allah, Ehyeh, YHVH. The majority are Hindus, Buddishts, Sikhs, et al; yet Christians, Muslims, Jews and their respective Talibans continue to impose their values and mores on the majority. The power behind our Constitution was the separation of religion (Church) and state – our forefathers wanted to get away from the yoke of religion and the power of the Church – and live their lives as they chose to do so. Don't let the Taliban – Dennis Terry / Mullah Omar, Lieberman and their ilk try to infect us with their virus of intolerance. Surely God wants man / woman to be tolerant and inclusive not kill each other over biblical land and misguided interpetations of scriptures to increase their power and personal wealth.
There is no invisible man in the sky watching everything I, you or we do. I am a devout atheist. Jesus, the historical figure, had an inspiring and noble purpose in his life. Christian ethics form perhaps the strongest moral system devised by man. I subscribe to New Testament morality, for the most part.
I also subscribe to freedom of the mind to imagine any construct to guide a person through the maze of moral, political, social and personal challenges that life presents, so long (Cf. Thomas Jefferson) “reason is left free to combat error.”
Thanks for the smart commentary. Intolerance and self righteousness beget anger and divisiveness. Wisdom and compassion create the opportunity for a just society.
Separation of church and state is to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the states. We've become a countr where atheists have more rights then people of any faith.
I suggest you do some research because that isnt true. You have the right to believe any fairytales you wish, what you do not have is the right to force those views on anyone else or hold anyone else accountable to YOUR morals.
what are you talking about? Separation of church and state is keeping each other out. What you said makes no sense.
Remember, our forefathers left England because of their religious intolerance. They wanted to build a nation that does not support or oppress any religion.
Idiot.
There is no god. free your mind and learn to live as a fellow human, part of a civlized society that learns to coexist rather than parasitize. Break away from your cults
There is a God whether you believe it or not. One day you will believe me when you are at the gates of heaven. Not trying to start a debate I just couldn't move on until I at least said this
The burden of proof belongs to those who are religious to show that a god exist.
Show me proof of god and I'll show you the science behind it.
The burden of proof belongs to those who are not religious to prove what morals they abide by that do not have a religious basis, to prove that a god does not exist, and prove that good things in human nature are natural and not based on morals that are religious in origin.
To be a human is to live in harmony with others. That's how you survive. Survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean the strongest, it also means the smartest, the most able to communicate etc. etc.
Here's a hypothetical example, you have an individual who is naturally careful, and individual is who careless. Personality can be related back to genetics thus the careless individual would be more likely to get in danger and perhaps die at a younger age, thus stopping his genes from being passed. The careful individual would pass his genes on and is more likely to have offspring with careful characteristics.
And honestly, religion does not make you good. Religion is a tool that works both ways. Look at both sides my friend and show me proof that god exist. The burden is not on me. The burden is on you, to prove the fantastic epic stories that you believe in and that its occurrence is truth and not fairytales
Dear Really?,
Do you have anyone in your life that you love? Please explain that in your laboratory.
And while you are in that laboratory, please remember that you have no way to explain the very existence of all those laws you like to throw up against the Christian faith, that does in fact explain them.
John
Love is an emotion that can be explained through the physical and physiological responses from the brain. Connections to people, animals, objects can be so strong that not all science can explain it. However, this does not mean a god exist. I'll step out on a limb and assume that you are a Christian against homosexuality. Is that not love? Is it not true that those two individual feel love for each other?
Science explains natural phenomenon through theories and evidence based research. I don't know what laws you are talking about that cannot be explained.
Every one that I know who has learned to live as a fellow human as done it by adhering to religious tenants like the golden rule. I hear claims of the benefits of a humanistic utopia, but I have never heard of a successful one. How are you managing it?
Yes, because everyone you know represents everyone else who lives on earth. Get you head out of the sand and realize your ideas/morals come not from religion, but from millions of years of evolution honing out the specific characteristics that would help you succeed in life. Morality does not come from religion, it comes from human.
What a laugh! Evolution honing out specific characteristics? Face it, you are a mistake, nearly an error in evolution, certainly not the most successful in life. I would rate the cockroach as miles above you. (Especially given the fact that most mutations are deleterious or nearly so.)
Go to any country not touched by religion (Africa, deep jungles of Brazil etc.) and talk to the community. See how they live, how they survive. See how it matches with what most religion teaches. That's proof that you don't need religion to have morals.
Even the most religious people do bad. Look at all your priest who rape little boys, or the religious zealots blowing up and killing hundreds of people. Religion only tries to define what human morals are. It does not make it.
And I agree that animals have far superior evolutionary traits than humans. The only thing that separates us is our endurance (humans have the highest endurance of any animals) and maybe our brain power…but it is not unique. Emotions, empathy, self awareness can all be found in nature.
There is no god.
I fail to see a single example of non-religious remote tribes that do not worship some form of nature as a god or godly manifestation.
I would agree with you that radical crazies of any religion obscure the true (and ideal) meaning and purpose of any religion, and of course religion only tries to define what human morals are. However, I challenge you to bring a concrete example of a non-religious (or atheist) basis for any system of morality that has no roots in religion.
I agree that most tribes worship some form of god, or nature, but the way they worship and who they worship all differ. Therefore whats is the common base that ties them together? They are human. They are human so they have an ingrain sense of morals…and through those morals they "make" the religion. It doesn't mean religion made the morals, but rather the human made the religion to explain the moral.
Its hard to bring a non-religious basis of a system of morals because religion is so prevalent, but my argument is that morals to not come from religion, but rather humans. Kind of what came first, the egg or the chicken argument, but in this case we have an answer. Human
Dear Really?,
C.S. Lewis demolished your position in his short book The Abolition of Man and I would highly commend it to you and others.
John
John,
I am sure C.S Lewis can demolish my position. However, I am also sure that other authors, philosophers, scientists who are in line with me can demolish Lewis' position as well. Again, I can't change anyone's mind, and noone can change mind. If I find god, then I find god, if you realize there is none, then you did it on your own accord. This is but a discussion between the opinions of people. I have left the sentiment of changing people's minds.
Really,
Here is the problem. If what you say is true, then there would be successful societies that have eliminated God. The fact that they do not exist cannot be blamed on religous prevalence. The attempts have been made – everywhere from communism to rich patrons to communes. They all fail. People tend to draw towards religion. Now there are two explinations. 1) they are weak-minded and they need that crutch, 2) there is really something there that can be found by testing it.
Humans are constantly curious about the nature of the universe. If we are unable to understand something, we seek solutions or theories to explain it, hence science. However, when even science can't explain a phenomenon, human tend to turn to God/religion. Is this right? I don't think so. I think humanity needs time to understand the universe. As technology and science increase, the more people realize religion can't answer everything. What is the alternative? Explanations through physical, testable means. I hope we come to an age where we stop believing in the fairy tales that demean other religions, humans, gays, etc. Just because it has not worked yet, does not mean it won't. We have have just begun our scientific discovery.
Perhaps people should realize that religion is not meant to answer everything. I can not query religion to find out whether cells in an organism choose to band together and make an intestine, or whether they have no choice in the matter, or whether they can think (though they can form logic gates – see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17530173).
I can query religion to tell me how to be a good person, though.
As Bill Clinton once said, "We are only passing through this place folks…". Are you all ready? The Constitution grants no man the right to eternal salvation. Good luck with that!
I have no idea what that means. Explain why you think it is astute and clever.
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and render unto God the things that are God's. I believe Jesus wanted people, not governments. I can't vote for Santorum or for Romney if they are focused on theocracy.
You should stop voting, for a change.
Jesus has no theory of political economy. Can you please update your political influences?
Organized religion is like the honey badger.
What really is amazing to me is that in country that touts freedom above all else, people in the public (I am talking about you Santorum) do nothing but advocate actions that restrict freedoms.
Control over birth control, control over gay marriage, control over internet pronography. So how is it no one seems to notice? My sister wants to be on the pill until she gets married? FINE. The guy I work with and his boyfriend wants to get married? HOW IS THAT MY BUSINESS. Weird old guy down the street wants to get his rocks off on his computer? GO FOR IT.
Funny I always thought we established this country in order to end the landscape of control.
Oh and just to clear things up, one of the main reasons for the separation of church and state is the protection of all people in this country to ensure NO GROUP has the power the shove their ideals down the throats of any other.
Well said. None are free to exercise their conscience if all are not free.
If America is not christian enough for you go start your own community. Remember Jones Town?
Erik, thank God you aren’t running for president or I’d consider your hate speech as dangerous as that of Santorum and the rest of the Radical Christian Right. You aren’t dangerous, but you do sound foolish.
I have no tolerance for hate speech, whether it is directed at Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims or any other belief system. As a Christian, I believe every person’s conscience is sacred. As an American, I believe every citizen’s right to live in this country is absolute. Don’t answer the call to freedom of this editorial with talk of Jonestown. You don’t sound dangerous like Santorum — just foolish.
Im pretty sure that TDC wouldn't have the guts to name an article " Radical Islam is dangerous for nation"…… they wouldn't want to offend the muslims…..
Anything radical is dangerous. And I'm sure there are enough newpapers talking about the radicalization of islam. What you forget, Sam, is that radicalization happens to every religion. Be in Christian, Buddhist, Hindu.
What the paper talks about is the radical ideals of telling those who don't believe in God and Jesus to leave.
Was Jesus radical when He said that He was the ONLY way to the Father?
John
I’m not an expert, folks, but the way I see it, the two parties should focus on the bounds of federal government scope and power as interpreted by The Constitution.
forget the Bible or Koran, we are united under our constitution. that is our nations Scripture.
I live in Kenya on the border of Somalia. how can Somali Muslims and Bantu Christians live and pray together? even with the two countries at war? because despite the many (many, many, many…) problems that plague this region, media politics have a focus on constitutional interpretations, not middle school smear campaigns.
when I read the news about America, my motherland …. guys, the election is pathetic.
this is a drastic over simplification, of course.
And I’m certain TDC wouldn’t waste an editorial on a proposition irrelevant to the actual danger posed by the radical religious views of many in the GOP and one of its leading candidates for president. But if you’re saying they are being politically correct or biased, I think you’re wrong; they probably don’t mind offending radicals of any persuasion.
"Prevailed?"
Yr kidding? No, no, n-no, no no no no no … Before you downvote like the usually unopinionated drip that you are. I could grab for you from today alone ~10 articles from the Webtubes which emphatically demonstrate the vacuity in such unoriginal propaganda language as "our country has prevailed." This dogged pragmatism at all costs. The belief that we are "all right" some how factored in, sneaked in, as essential to the idea of "working on it!" I am not a doomsayer. _You_ are not reading. Millions of americans are systematically feeding from CNN, MSNBC, etc. No no no no nonoo seriously. Not one of you knows how to browse the Web for news. You're incapable of reading, and satisfy yourselves with a digestion of 1-2 articles on average, if that. Most of you don't even bother to acknowledge that it is your duty as a rational agent to engage in some baseline activity which involves the consumption of valuable information. Whatever that means, if it has any meaning for you at all, I'm fucking right. Most of the time it's entertainment news, "news" like this op ed that is better served amongest the ranks of its comments, where some more journalistically valid piece would do, local culture news, 101 politics… Most of you are incapable of following a scientific article, or an article about the politics of science, and politics of technology and security is quickly becoming obscured by sensationalist writing like this and whatever Fox can produce.
http://torrentfreak.com/how-the-copyright-industr…
Ask yourself: Does this op ed on thedailycougar.com enrich your life? Or does it bother you with trivial concerns regarding the idle threats of religion? In a world where hacker groups are threatening the ballots. In a world where 3D printer programmers are hacking the gaps of the toy industries. In a world where humans en mass (civilian hackers, Russia, China, etc) are in search for earth-like planets and moons to inhabit.
We're here looking at the same old story. Being told what we already know of radical Christianity. But does this article inform us of any real threat? Does it prompt us in any real way? (A poll, a link to more information?) Am I better informed, or simply reminded? And regardless of the answer, would it truly matter anyway? Is this article stagnant? Does it harm us by existing so lifeless and pallid in our information ecosystem?
My sincere thanks to the Cougar Editorial Board for stepping up to the plate to voice to speak to the issue of threat that religious radicalism poses for our democracy. Your editorial also inspired me to Google into the religious persuasion of some of the key founding fathers and found surprising answers in this journal article http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
The article included a brief lecture from Thomas Jefferson about the Saxon source of English common law.
Cindy’s quote of Jesus demonstrates he did have a theory of political economy. Your comments demonstrate how garishly irrelevant it is possible to make oneself on the World Wide Web. Thanks for playing. This has been your consolation prize: an eyeblink of recognition for your florid impertinence. Next.
Just to clarify that my previous comment was directed at @filesofnerds.
There are two things that are humorous here:
1) The 'conservatives' who want LESS government are accused of being the 'theonomists.'
2) The one who takes a small reference from one of President Jefferson's letters and makes it our nation's narrative then accuses those who have been more faithful to the vast historical record of how our nation was founded of CHANGING the narrative.
All I am asking is that we think about that.
John
This nation has enjoyed a long run of prosperity not because of a theocracy, but yes, because of the blessings of God. Our country was predominantly a Christian nation which had no qualms with displaying that Christianity in daily life, politics etc… I don’t have a problem with other faiths coming to U.S. but I will, as every true Christian should, be trying to introduce them to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Wait wasn't the radical Christians in the Quakers, the Catholic Church, Protestants, and others was at the for front of the abolishment movement? Weren't the early progressives are radical Christians who used the bible for justifying the income tax and more social welfare. Wasn't Woodrow Wilson and FDR was considered to be Radical Christians. Doesn't the Catholic Church and many other "radical Christians" actively supported single payer health care and more help for the poor, but are afraid of speaking out because those who do share the belief wished to silence them? I don't think radical Christians are the problem, just people who are trying to force others on both sides are the problem.
By all means, James, let’s impose age restrictions and parental household tests on the freedom of expression. Oh, and let’s deport the ones who write unpopular things that offend your right to force your faith on others!
I respect your opinions, I know I won't change your mind and you know you won't change mine. I still enjoy the discussion so I will continue to refute your statement.
" I would rather live in a world with a somewhat all-knowing god, than one without one" Do you believe in one religion or are you more agnostic? I don't believe in any God, trusting that my actions are my own and that if something does happen to me, it is not because of a god, but rather my unfortunate or fortunate timing. Life is random, but through randomness you can have order.
"where Communists and Fascists godlessly decided that human lives had no value except in death, when they further progress life and industry." Crusades, forced by the catholic church, killed hundreds of thousands. Islamic suicides to kill hundreds or thousands. Men will be evil. Men will be good. Religion has nothing to do with it.
My argument is that religion, any type of religion, does not make you a good person or a bad person. Therefore there is no need for religion. You have to accept that your actions are your own and you will suffer the consequence of your action.
Communism and fascism are manmade, just like religion.
Perhaps religion goes beyond "being a good person or a bad person" that you suggest.
Care to expand your statement? I try to keep it specific so that it is easier to explain.
Well I have no opinion on the matter. I just know that there is more to life than being "good" or "bad". Perhaps religion is like a gang. It is a large community, a confidence boosting society. Makes an individual have common interests with others and makes them feel "welcomed" or "wanted". Gangs aren't moral driven, so religion doesn't have to be either.
Religion may also bring someone a "reason" for living. Without a God or an afterlife, whatever the case may be for each religion, a person may not feel like their life is worthy to live, since there is no "benefit" after dying.
I'm on neither side of the argument, I am just here to look at all sides of the argument. I just feel that religion is a lot more broad than being just a "moral" issue.
Mac is right: Those words are in the Russian Constitution and not ours.
We also need to define "tolerance" just a bit: Need we tolerate a return of human sacrifice or the Kind of human evolution that the Nazis envisioned? Who decides which are tolerated and which are banned?
John
PS: An lest anyone say that human sacrifice would be covered under our murder laws, please remember that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land so we already practice this with certain sized people.
Our founding fathers were not Christians but Deists, which means they did NOT believe in Jesus.
Incredibly false.
From George Washington : " You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are."
John Adams: " The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity."
Samuel Adams: "I . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins"
If you'd like more you can easily look up records of the founding father's statements on Christ.
Demonstrably false. As signed into law by President Adams and ratified unanimously by the US Senate (a who’s who of the founders of the nation at the time), the Treaty of Tripoli, Article Eleven:
As 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 tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] 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.
Radical Islam a danger to planet
Christianity isnt about being good or bad, but ther main purpose is Jesus Christ died on a cross, taking our punishment off our shoulders if we accept Him. To have a personal relationship with God. When people get saved they feel hapinedd and new hope! God created us fearfully and wonderfully, you can see this truth all around us and things that we cant explain. I Love JESUS (:
“nation’s founding fathers were devout Christians”
LOL most of our founding fathers were deists. Umad Terry?
radical xians want money and power. just like UH. and they're both full of crazy people who would destroy the world. to be fair, the xians have a better shot i guess.
don't u think that UH would like to be the only school in the entire world and branch into all different areas of your life? religion isn't that far from education aka socialization/indoctrination.
if they could make you believe you'd burn in hell if you didn't go to UH and do everything they said, they would do it.
you'll never hear any group say they're big enough and have enough power.
kind of an off topic rant, but i feel like someone should talk critically about UH since the daily cougar almost never does.
"All men would be tyrants if they could" – daniel defoe