Your statement"Maybe if all religious people lived their Faith openly and freely and accepting of others we would all be better"
I agree with this thought,every single person has the right to believe in the faith of their choice,"every person" And should be able to live it peace without fear of persecution.
And the people who do not believe in a religion also have the right to not believe.
There are people out there that would like to stamp out the rights of people to believe in the religion of their choice (or no religion of their choice) but those are not the "norm".
They are not representative of the whole.
I don't agree that Christian religion is solely singled out,there are other religions as well that some people would like to see limited (boxed in).
Maybe when a person is of a Christian faith they feel singled out,and while people of other faiths also feel singled out.
I don't know if "all people" will ever move past not being able to be accepting of all faiths, there probably will always be some out there that feel they are entitled to think what they believe is always superior to anyone else's belief ,be it religion,or politics.
It just seems to be the way it is sadly in the world.
All anyone can do is follow their own beliefs and respect "anyone's" rights to follow theirs.
Can you provide an example of a restriction on Christianity that does not also apply to Buddhism, Wicca or Islam?
I agree that all religions should worship as they please. And no that worship does not have to be restricted to a formal house of worship.
Your words do in fact reflect the kind of America I want to live in, but those words conflict with the world as it really is.
The reality is that it is not Christians who are being prevented from building houses of worship or having their constitutional rights under Article 6 being questioned by a would-be candidate for President of the United States.
Canative, I am not sure what " acept Jesus" means, but the words of jesus (joshua) are not the words of conservatives, or modern day christians, but rather those of people who care and take care of the poor and the needy. This is a complete opposite of the conservative movement. But then, your bible speaks to the anti-christ doing what the conseratives are currentltly doing. Do you not think that the folllowers of the anti-christ would say the same as you? It says so in the bible. You and your kind are the evil ones in the bible. You present yourselves as good, but that is just a perception.
Oh no the Christian majority can't make people pray in school anymore, persecution! Where is this persecution again? Oh in places where religion shouldn't be like our schools? It's funny how conservatives cry out about Muslims and how bad their theocratic governments are but at the same time when we try to limit the power of the church over the lives of people who don't believe in Christianity it's all of a sudden persecution. You say that your religion doesn't say we need to go kill infidels but the history of the Christian Church shows that it's exactly what they did when they did have absolute authority over society.
No atheism is not a religion and neither is being a communist. Furthermore it's CPUSA.org not .com...
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
US Constitution - Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Opinions from James Madison - "Father of the Constitution"
"Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect... Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish that mutual respect and good will among citizens of every religious denomination which are necessary to social harmony, and most favorable to the advancement of truth." - Letter to Dr. Jacob de La Motta, August, 1820 - James Madison
"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." - Letter to F. Schaeffer, December 3, 1821 - James Madison
In this country, its been said that your rights end where mine begin. Its been described as you have the right to swing your arms around, but only until you reach someone elses nose.
No where have I ever said that religion should be eliminated, just don't tread on my rights with yours.
It is actualy hard to understand how some one who considers themselve to be bright, can call Christians "anti Christs" especially after the rants about someone using the "n" word, and think you are innocent.
You can deny the underpinning of the movement to use the Hate Speech law to curb what Churches can preach as unreal but it is out there. You can call the attacks on Christian Sarah Palin and Rick Perry innocent but there are real . There are those on this blog that have sided with those very attacks.
Finally your comments about the Conservatives being against Biblical Pricniples for government aid for the poor and needy is much like DOUBLE talk since we constantly hear from the left HOW there is separation of church and State and how there was supposedly no biblical influence over the Founding Fathers and that this is not a Christian country... Sov you can't have it both ways....
Well it is a fact that you would not be able to know since you don't accept Websters Definitions.
In fact you don't even recognize bigotry when yoou see it in the mirror.
canative you again miss any point that someone was trying to make. First of all criticizing someone's religion is not persecution. Saying I don't like Rick Perry's Christian beliefs is not persecution, writing a book talking about how there is no God is not persecution.
Sov is pointing out the hypocrisy of many conservative Christians who want to force through laws based on their Christian views like the banning of gay marriage, taking away abortion rights, etc, while at the same time ignoring what Jesus says when it comes to helping the poor. He's not advocating the Church being intertwined with the State, just that conservatives seem to not care about our government only helping rich folk out while simultaneously screaming about how we need better morals. Jesus says if you're a good man give all of your possessions away. The conservative says "nah that's cool, but I like what your daddy said about homosexuality being bad so I'm going to try and outlaw gay marriage".
FROM USA TODAY 9/20/2011
Green points out,
Obama didn't talk much about faith during his first two years in office and this has left 40% of Americans wondering just what, exactly, is his faith commitment. Now he is ramping up this kind of language and using it in the right kind of context.
Most recent examples: On Sunday, Obama recited Psalm 46 at the 9/11 memorial event in New York and quoted Psalm 30 that same night at a memorial concert at the Kennedy Center in Washington. In his televised national jobs bill speech, he declared,
We are one nation under God, we always have been and always will be.
Did anyone Notice Obama NOW says we
are one Nation under God we always has been and always will be?
Most be part of campaign rhetoric which is easily broken.
Again canative I see no point in your comment whatsoever with what is being talked about. How come you can NEVER stay on topic? Like literally I have NEVER seen you stay on topic in a discussion you just jump around avoiding what anybody says.
Are we not talking the role of Christians here?
For two years Obama has denied this is one Nation under God NOW he is running for re-electio he brings it up because he needs The votes of Christians....
GET IT NOW.
canative, from our percpective, if the president isn't living up to YOUR expectations, then there is something sinister going on.
I don't recall ever hearing Presdient Obama deny that this country is one nation under god, so you are wrongly implying something here. If he brings up a god in his speeches, especially during a memorial service, he is looking to comfort those who do believe. I have no idea what his religious leanings are if any, and I really don't care, because it doesn't mean a hill of beans.
If I don't see the good in Rick Perry's extreme Christain beliefs or Sarah Palin's, its because they are wearing it on their sleeve. From what I have seen, they are the types who will force their beliefs on the people of this country, and that goes against some of the founding principles of this country. It is only important to those where symbology is important. Just like a number of years ago when some yahoo wrote to the paper complaining that Jerry McNerney didn't have a flag pin on his lapel. It means nothing.
I do not see Rick Perry as being a good governor or potential president because he uses his religous beliefs in his political rhetoic. I want to know if he can manage the country, and it doesn't require a faith in a mystical being in order to be a good manager.
At a press conference in Turkey, President Obama casually rebuked the old chestnut that the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation.
"One of the great strengths of the United States," the President said, "is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
So the President did not say we are not one nation under god, he said we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.
Interesting how when you are forced to cite what the man actually said, it does not match what you claimed.
I found this then as I find this now inspiring
In his inaugural address, President Obama said:
"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers."
As noted in the link I will provide it points out that a President of the United States for a first time ever not only acknowledged Christians,Muslims,Jews,Hindus,but "non-believers"
I think we could all learn a lesson in that.
Every faith,or non-faith is of value to the people who follow it.
Thanks for posting this wonderful excerpt from President Obama's inaugural address.
Indeed, our "patchwork heritage" is ultimately what has made the U.S.A. the greatest of nations---not only in the sense of religious beliefs, but in the ethnic diversity that enriches our cultural heritage.
Is the typical double standars from those on the left?
About Obama Sov says
"I have no idea what his religious leanings are if any, and I really don't care, because it doesn't mean a hill of beans."
Then on the other hand Sov says
"I do not see Rick Perry as being a good governor or potential president because he uses his religous beliefs in his political rhetoic."
Lets review "patchwork" I believe at one time we were taught that the strength of this Nation was as a "melting Pot". Much like Iron it is far stronger whenm it is melted in with other minerals to produce steel which is an alloy. Melting pot means each contirute to the whole to make the whole stronger..
its a matter of opinion but I like the strength of steel
I don't know how many times I have seen patch work quilts coming apart at the patch seams they are separate parts of the whole but only use the joining together of the whole to be bigger not any stronger than any one individual piece. On the other hand an an ore in an alloy does not maintain its independence but blends (melts) into the whole to make it stronger. We don't see many countries where multiple languages are provided for by the government. I remeber while I was serving in the Air Force in France, we needed not only ot learn French to get along once off base but we needed to learn the money system also. It was part of fitting in to the host country.
The minor fact was brought up that ALL students in France were taught English since it was the "INTERNATIONAL" language. The language pilots used to communicate when over various countries is English .
In this English speaking country we get advantages for speaking Spanish, our DMV provides various language services, and some jobs require the ability to speak Spanish.
What other country requires all of that?
The melting pot is a metaphor for a heterogeneous society becoming more homogeneous, the different elements "melting together" into a harmonious whole with a common culture. It is particularly used to describe the assimilation of immigrants to the United States; the melting-together metaphor was in use by the 1780s.
After 1970 the desirability of assimilation and the melting pot model was challenged by proponents of multiculturalism, who assert that cultural differences within society are valuable and should be preserved, proposing the alternative metaphor of the mosaic or salad bowl – different cultures mix, but remain distinct.
Can any one tell when the influence of liberalism in this country began?
Liberalism gained influence in this country with people like Thomas Paine. Our founding was based on liberalism...
OK so the 1930s thats when the country seemed to turn towards More government and less personal responsibilty probably the . I just wondered.
Liberalism as CN thinks is not in fact accurate.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion. These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.
Sound like any liberals or Communists you know?
According to Louis Hartz, liberalism in the United States differs from liberalism elsewhere in the world because America never had a resident hereditary aristocracy, and so avoided the worst of the class warfare that swept Europe.
Lets all try to stop the personal abusive comments.. I for one will not stop going after the ideology I feel is wrong for the country and I will respond to personal attacks.
While we are considering raising taxes on the rich maybe the government should start further investigation.. If it happened in the Justice Dept it probably is more wide spread... But thats OK we will just get the rich to pay for it...
U.S. President Barack Obama Wednesday ordered federal agencies to review expenses for conferences after an embarrassing report revealed the Justice Department served $16 muffins at a 2009 gathering.
Office of Management and Budget chief Jack Lew directed agency heads to conduct a thorough review of how taxpayer dollars are being spent on conferences.
Under the directive, a deputy secretary or other senior agency official will have to approve conference-related expenses while the review is underway.
A report by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General Tuesday said the agency spent $121 million on conferences over two years, exceeding its own spending limits.
Some of the spending appeared to be "extravagant and wasteful," the audit said.
"We found the Department spent $16 on each of the 250 muffins served at an August 2009 legal conference in Washington," the report said.
The audit focused only on 10 conferences held during the 2008 and 2009 fiscal years.
Other examples of waste reported were snacks at $32 per person, $10 brownies, $8.00 coffee, and nearly $600,000 for event planning services for five conferences.
Deputy Attorney General James Cole said Wednesday the Justice Department took steps in 2009 to curb wasteful or excessive spending for conferences.
"At the beginning of this year, the attorney general issued a memo ordering the reduction of spending, including the suspension of all nonessential conferences," Cole said in a statement.
Vice President Joe Biden, who leads the administration's effort to cut waste at federal agencies, last week asked Cabinet secretaries to do more to end unnecessary spending.
He said he expects a progress report from agency heads at their next meeting in December, including "what they are doing to get on top of conference-related expenses."
"Every day, middle-class families are making tough choices to make ends meet," Biden said in a statement.
"It is our responsibility to make sure that their taxpayer dollars are not wasted." (Reporting by JoAnne Allen; editing by Todd Eastham)
© 2011 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.