HAVING PROBLEMS VIEWING THE SITE? GET FIREFOX! | A NOTE ON ADVERTISING

   

What are you defending - the Constitution or the Bible?

I am well past the despair that drove me to write this. Thanks to Donnamatrix (and less so rainey and a couple others), for showing you all exactly what I have been dealing with. Thanks to the many, many more of you who expressed an understanding, and said that you will defend me even if I do not believe in your god. May we all meet on the PEACE fields!

I have been beaten into submission by my fellow supporters at a critical moment. I do not try to get like this, I try very hard NOT to get like this, but there is something screwed up with my adrenal function ever since I was put on an SSRI. I was ready to march, to fight and die, for months, to defend the Constitution and the people like you who still believe in it as the defining "American" document. And I got to the meetup where it began like this; "I want to open with a prayer, if you are not a Christian just look away and ignore us." It hurt. Why can't I pray, too? I passed a sign the other day; "Prayer vigil, Christians meet here" again - I am specifically NOT invited? I have tried to "go along to get along" and my lifelong belief is that we all have crutches, life is tough, I don't want people kicking at my crutches, I try not to kick theirs. But I was raised in what some call a cult, my husband was raised Jehovah's Witness. We are smart, largely self-educated people (we have degrees, but that education is of limited value) and we do not believe in superstitions or fairy tales of any sort. We take a lot of "science" with a heathy grain of salt, too.
I recruited this one PCP candidate myself, who believes the pledge was written with "under God" in it, which is incorrect. I do not like it there, we are NOT "one nation, under God" we are one nation under the Constitution. One species under our creator I will grant you. But he ranted on for quite a while about this nation having always been a Christian one. I needed him to run, I let him rant. So, here is my answer, to all the Christians who have finally pushed me into defending myself rather than supporting Ron Paul. (I still support Ron Paul, my time is spent reeling from emails from my "fellow supporters" who are damning me for all eternity because they assume I am Christian.) If there is another person out there awake enough to stare into the unknown and say "I don't know" I will still fight and die for your Constitution. I will NOT fight for your Bible any more than I will fight for a Koran, Bhaga Vad Gita or Aesop's Fables.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Our Founding Fathers appear to have chosen every word with great care when they crafted the Constitution of the United States of America. We have spent a couple of centuries teasing out intended meanings and subtle nuances of meaning, but for the most part the document is beautifully succinct if one is willing to accept the obvious. One question that arises frequently is whether or not this was designed to be a Christian nation. These articulate men stated their intended purpose thusly:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Not a word about religion.

Make no doubt; many of these men were devout Christians. Did they forget about Jesus and religion? Apparently not, as Article VI ends with this sentence: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” So the first mention is of “NO religious test shall EVER be required…”

However, the very First Amendment is known as the “Freedom of Religion” amendment so the right to practice their faith was clearly of great importance to them. How EXACTLY did they wish to see this freedom protected? Amendment 1 states “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.” The first thing is to protect AGAINST the establishment of a religion, the right to excersise freely comes next.

This concludes the founding fathers thoughts on religion as it related to the establishment of the nation. Perhaps it is unfair to hold this document out alone, for the Declaration of Independence is also something that defines an “American.”

The Declaration’s opening line mentions God, in these terms “…equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God…” “NATURE’S God,” cited AFTER “the Laws of Nature.” This seems like an accident to the modern Christian? In paragraph two, these erudite men mention things “endowed by their Creator…” Not Jesus, not Christ, not even “our Lord God” but the inarguable “Creator.” Even the most die-hard athiest believes he has a mother and father that created him. The final reference to any diety is in the final sentence: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” The final mention of the divine is to “Providence” and this word was chosen as wisely as the others for its ability to unite, not divide, on the concept of religion. Please note the thing they called “sacred” was our Honor.
End rant.
If you actually got to the bottom of this, please plan to attend our "After the Rapture Party" on December 25, 2012. We figure the Christians will be done with the day by then, and we will still have the day off work. :)

output

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If no Constitution to bind

If no Constitution to bind men from their mischiefs, there will be no freedom of anything, much less religion.
This what all of us need to learn, Christians as well.

I'm ashamed of Christians who say people are going to hell.
God will be the judge of that. Not man.
Second they are not acting like the one they profess to follow. Jesus didn't come to condemn he came to save.

Forget those who would persecute you. Your creator made you to stand tall. Stand tall.

Davy C Rockett

http://www.thelibertypost...
http://screamfreedom.blog...
http://christianquest.net

Very good post. I totally

Very good post.

I totally agree. While I am Christian, I am not religious. Organized religion, as far as I can tell, is one of the most destructive forces on this planet.

The funny thing is, prior to hearing about Ron Paul, I was, I guess you'd say, atheist. Since hearing of Ron Paul and learning about everything else that is happening around us, I have taken the time to read the Bible, as well as, accept and believe what is written in it. And, having read it, it appears to me that nearly every organized religion's work's is contrary to what is written in that book.

I think what really needs to be understood is the difference between Spirituality and Religion. As far as I can tell, Religion has been corrupted and/or usurped long, long ago.

very well said.. I agree! as

very well said.. I agree!

as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD

Just my mindset

As an undogmatic Christian I consider spiritual life a fact. But I deeply distrust organized forms of religion.

Dr. Paul cured my apathy

AMEN!!!

Bump!

BOTH

Freedom to do both is why we are all here!

Okay,

So, let me get this perfectly straight, because the answer seems clear from the OP and many of the comments on this thread.

The general consensus among the "anti-Bible" crowd here is based, not on whether any actual laws or regulations are made that establish religion, but that Christians are not to be allowed to have opinions which do not provide approval for the actions of others. It's not enough to merely not make laws which establish religion, but now it is important that nobody disapproves or can form opinions regarding others' actions.

Now, many of the posts below support exactly that premise.
I want them to make this clear, so that there is no doubt.
Proseletyzing, personal disapprovals of certain actions, beliefs in certain moral codes, even if not codified into law and only held as personal POV, should not be allowed, and anything pertaining even peripherally to this religion should not be taught to children, publicly or privately, or it is considered some form of "child abuse"(which reeks of approval of gov't force to "correct").

And that is exactly what I have suspected for quite some time, based on many posters' comments on this forum, and which has grossly lowered my opinion of the "Libertarian" positions as massively hypocritical in general, and is not even limited to this particular topic.
This is not at all about "freedom of religion", because religion is clearly not being imposed by law on anybody in the US.
However, what is clear is that there is a certain element which desires to suppress certain religious beliefs because the religions don't condone their moral(or immoral/amoral as the case may be) preferences.

Now, it is a very different thing to make laws regarding religion, which is protected against by the 1st Amendment, and another thing entirely to decide that YOUR personal preference MUST be approved by everyone else. It seems to be quite okay to proselytize what you like, but not what other people like, teach in schools what you like, but not what other people like, etc. This is "political correctness".

Again it is illustrated to me, as has been demonstrated over and over again, that the "Libertarian" philosophies are attractive platitudes iin principle and quite narrow and slanted dogma in deed. Claiming to be one thing, and actually being something else entirely. A sham.

So, what is glaringly apparent in this thread is that the Constitution is for atheists, and Christians should shut up and have no rights to freedom of expression and religion as the 1st Amendment states. Apparently the "new Libertarian 1st Amendment" which they have decided to put into place, now requires "approval from all others" for their preferred actions. A new "right to require approved by others, but only for atheists, and Christians need not apply". Interesting.

Please step up, Libertarian atheist apologists, and explain to me how requiring approval from others for your desired actions, outside the frame of federal law, has anything to do with the Constitution?
Show me where in the Constitution you have the right to require another's approval for your actions, including using force of gov't to enforce it, which some here seem so keen to do.
I'd be very interested in hearing the responses.

The general consensus among

The general consensus among the "anti-Bible" crowd here is based, not on whether any actual laws or regulations are made that establish religion, but that Christians are not to be allowed to have opinions which do not provide approval for the actions of others. It's not enough to merely not make laws which establish religion, but now it is important that nobody disapproves or can form opinions regarding others' actions.

Incorrect.

The desire of unbelievers is to have an equal voice and to be equally respected. This is strongly resisted by theists, just as they resist giving equal rights to gays, etc. They want to maintain their privileged position in society, which they have always enjoyed. Whenever some minority voice cries out for equality, those at the top of the mountain refuse to give up any ground. It's the same whether it be heterosexuals clinging to the high ground and denying any to homosexuals, or whites denying it to blacks, or the rich denying it to the poor, or men denying it to women, or theists denying it to atheists, etc. This is a matter of elitism, and the struggle to dismantle it.

----------
Liberty for Dummies

I see.

Very interesting.

So, your response there seems to buttress my posted premise that this is not a Constitutional or legal issue, but a social "respect" issue.
And as such, each person does have his own right to think and believe as he sees fit(including disapproval), even if for seemingly irrational reasons as viewed by onlookers of another stripe.

Thank you for your thoughtful response .

Thank You BigT..

And may I say you seem quite tense today. I'm running a nice Hades Special in my spa this week..

A nice hot lava massage with a burning ember rubdown should make you feel saucy again.

And I'll even comp you dinner..The sauteed dictator is phenomenal! Highly recommended, by us demons, I assure you.

-----------------------

Get in line. No pushing, no shoving. All souls are taken one at a time, in the order in which they are recieved.

Thank you.

are you saying I have to support one or the other

I don't think Manny would like knowing your trying to force people to chose. I know he does not share your ideas and would not wish to lose the Christian support this site has gained for Ron Paul in the last year. I do not have to chose one or the other I can do both. I believe my rights are unaleinable and that goes just fine with my bible. The mob in America have already been talked into believing there rights come through themselves. The mob has already sold their rights to the higest bidder so my question to you is at what price will you sell your self held rights. If you wish to purchase mine your going to have to talk to God. I do not have the authority to give mine up or sell them even if I wanted to. I don't think he will trade the ones I have now for these self held ones you seem to be preaching. Also do you get like a free rights safe to lock them up in if you make the deal. I mean you get free gifts for transfering your banking account you should get one when you trade away superior rights for UN rights shouldn't you. I mean the UN has purchased these peoples self held rights far and square. So what is your price?

Fighting for the constitution will give you the freedom

to read the bible. So fighting for the constitution wins freedom to keep the right to pursue the bible or spiritual path...

Nice answer elif.

___________

Lisa C.

“Elections are short term efforts; revolutions are long term projects.”

--Ron Paul

Join the rEVOLution here: http://www.campaignforlib...

without the bible

there would be no Constitution.

Simple

Simple nonsense.

----------
Liberty for Dummies

And without that Constitution in this country.......

There might be no Bible.

correct

see the relationship?

Yes

The Constitution and the Bible have the same relationship as with the Constitution and those that do not follow the Bible. Only the Constitution doesn't threaten you with damnation, or condemn others for disagreeing. Religions and government, that blatantly disregard the privileges granted by that Constitution, do.

accountability...

it and responsibility are horrible things ...

Who's

accountabilty and responsibility? Mine? Designated by whom? You? On behalf of your God, stomping on my freedom of belief in my God, yet once again?

again...it is very relevant...

our rights come from our Creator. the declaration of Independence and Constitution clearly agree that they come from the Creator. now, the question is, who is the Creator? and who that Creator is determines our world view, how we behave, and how we address our responsibilities, or if we even have any.

i have asked you many times...

How do you decide right from wrong? Who or what decides them?

as for Christians, we know who our Creator is, and what He wants us to do, and in what manner to do it. "Thus saith the LORD...". we may have problems living up to it, and have to learn some hard lessons of life...yet it still does not negate what HE said.

some of you people seem to think that their are no "hard lessons" to be learned in life, or wisdom or rules to live by, or any reason to have character or integrity or responsibility...that you can do what you want, how you want, whenever you want, with no consequences for anything. This is the Truth that i am talking about that you refuse to acknowledge.

"we know who our Creator is"

I beg to differ. You have faith, which you have been taught is admirable and as good or better than proof. Fine, enjoy, have at it, but PLEASE do not confuse it with fact. I do not claim to be this or that, I claim I do NOT know. I will not make any attempt to FORCE you to accept the same about yourself, but I do KNOW that I am correct. No one, this side of the grave, knows what lay on the other side.
Same for who or what created us. I believe in a Creator, it is obvious that I am here. Beyond that, my relationship with that Creator is DEEPLY personal, and I wish others would stay out of it. THAT is the religious freedom I seek.
I was raised Christian, and I seem to recall Christ recommending the proper place to pray, and yet Christians insist on praying at every public event they can. Why? Are they praying for their Creator's ears, or for their fellow men?
And, as near as I can tell, manystrom tolerates intelligent discussion, even the occasional ignorant comment, when the general tone is one of seeking understanding.
That is how this started. The day I did the OP, I was at a breaking point. Interesting to see it recycle from time to time.

goodnight all...

please give my questions some serious thought. you will see it has relevance.

I have a question for you, Christopher X

Given that Ron Paul believes in the separation of church and state, freedom of religion (including no religion) and a government that does not try to legislate morality, do you still endorse him?

-"Ron Paul cured me of my predilection for Che Guevara T shirts."

Good questions, but you

Good questions, but you clearly don't understand these people. One of their favorite lines is "it's freedom OF religion, not FROM religion." They reject the concept of being free to life a life without religion, and they see it as their right to impose theirs on others (although they'd call it "proselytizing," rather than "imposing," but that's because they don't understand that the two are effectively the same).

----------
Liberty for Dummies

Rainey took flight

when another DPer posted a link to a radio interview with Ron Paul. The fundie interviewer asked Ron about "gays in the military". Ron refused to condemn. On a google interview, he spoke in a similar vein on the subject of prostitution.

I understand that Ron is a christian. But I know that he is smart enough to see the difference between morality and legality. He doesn't want to legislate morality. Fundies do. They want a christian taliban. When fundies realise that Dr Paul does not support their agenda, they can take it from there.

-"Ron Paul cured me of my predilection for Che Guevara T shirts."

"Fundies want a christian

"Fundies want a christian taliban."

Exactly right!

----------
Liberty for Dummies

I doubt it.

You might want to give some serious thought to Ron's request.

___________

Lisa C.

“Elections are short term efforts; revolutions are long term projects.”

--Ron Paul

Join the rEVOLution here: http://www.campaignforlib...

Heh

"some of you people seem to think that their are no "hard lessons" to be learned in life, or wisdom or rules to live by".

It sure doesn't take the Bible and God, and only the Bible and God, to understand this. These are lessons that life, in itself, will teach, regardless of particular religious affiliation. Even lowly animal beasts learn hard lessons, grow older and remember. (Wisdom, does not mean genius). As the squirrel in his first confrontation with a hawk, as the deer in its first confrontation with an alligator, mountain lion, or human hunter. As any of the above that challenged another of greater size or speed... Any living animal, will naturally establish rules to live by. The only difference being, some of us still observe them, understand them when we encounter them, and some of us had to be taught.

so 'nature' decided?

please explain.

There is no further explanation.

Nature will always make the final decision. No matter who makes one beforehand. It is people, that choose to explain those decisions made by nature, which they do not understand, as acts of a superior being, sometimes as good, and sometimes as evil. Hence the word 'supernatural'.

you still have not answered the question....

what or who decides right from wrong. if nature does...how do you interpret what it is saying about right and wrong...what are the 'guidelines'.

example: why would it be right or wrong to 'lust'? please tell how nature shows that it is right or wrong...

We would first need to know what you define as "lust."

In the dictionary there are 2 definitions of lust.

1. desire sexually
to feel a strong desire to have sex with.

2. to be eager for something
to have a very strong desire to obtain something

As defined above, this is a part of the natural process in which animals are "fruitful and multiplying".

The peculiar part however, is that even most wild animals in nature show, "there is a specific time" for this activity, most often, one litter per year, with an evolutionarily acquired "season" that it is triggered within. (yes I spoke the e word, unholy of unholies) Also note in nature, most often, many species do not engage in reproduction while raising a brood and not all, but most, revert thereafter, to defending, and providing for the brood they have created, until the offspring are capable of self sustenance. It is not usually some frequent daily indulgence.

If your definiton of lust is intended to actually mean "deliberate perversions" it makes the answer much easier. "Perversion" as people understand it, simply does not exist within nature as there is no practical use for it.

Therefore, my final answer is:
Nature indicates, that lust is acceptable as in it's direct english dictonary definition, as per, feeling a strong desire to have sex with, yet also nature indicates, it is practiced amidst moderating factors.

This much, is the natural procedure of producing offspring. Without any "desire to have sex with," a species would surely be doomed, including man, as all are aware that, without some driving system producing a "desire to have sex with," the organs provided as the means to "be fruitful and multiply" would not function successfully solely by making a mental decision to procreate.

On the other hand, deliberate perversion to heighten sexual gratification, is more likely the picture painted of lust by your bible, that you also likely refer to here. This is not acceptable when using nature as a guide, where it is nonexistent. Nature does not deliberately "pervert" it's natural process through sexual deviances merely for the sake of heightening sexual gratification, this idea was implemented by man, who is "born a sinner." It has no productive function in nature, as the system in place is apparently sufficient.

So in the question of 'who or what will determine right or wrong', it should instead be phrased: Who will dictate the particular demands of one's beliefs as an exact fine line that should not be crossed by any other? Producing the paradox of yet another question, as the answer: Who's beliefs should we consider "right" and who's beliefs should be considered "wrong"?

For those of us that desire to seek peaceful harmony with nature, that line is often unnecessary.

definition...

either

This isn't a conducive

This isn't a conducive format, given the atrocious software that runs this site, and the way threads are mangled once they reach a certain length, but I'd be happy to explain these things on a proper forum, if you want to suggest one.

----------
Liberty for Dummies

Awwwwwee C'mon phoobar,

don't ya wanna "get small"

So because YOU wouldn't know

So because YOU wouldn't know how to live without your religion, you presume that everyone must be lost without it.

That is where you are wrong.

----------
Liberty for Dummies

why, can no one answer those questions???

it is very relevant.

Why don't you stop, like Ron asked?

___________

Lisa C.

“Elections are short term efforts; revolutions are long term projects.”

--Ron Paul

Join the rEVOLution here: http://www.campaignforlib...

He never asked me to,

why can you not answer the questions?

He asked all of us -- his supporters -- to STOP!

You're questions are not relevant to me and I don't feel the need to respond twice to the same exact questions I answered weeks ago.

Since you no longer support Dr. Paul, you might find the CP forum more to your liking.

___________

Lisa C.

“Elections are short term efforts; revolutions are long term projects.”

--Ron Paul

Join the rEVOLution here: http://www.campaignforlib...

Whoa

"Since you no longer support Dr. Paul, you might find the CP forum more to your liking."

Congratulations. You may have just possibly, hand delivered an "epiphany." ; )

Rainey was already "outed" today as not being a supporter

but he continues to hang around spreading his "love".

___________

Lisa C.

“Elections are short term efforts; revolutions are long term projects.”

--Ron Paul

Join the rEVOLution here: http://www.campaignforlib...

Well, I never did actually hang around speading my love....

*drumroll now*

but I was generous enough to offer, and humble enough to accept the rejection on a few occasions. : /

You're a big boy, what you spread is your business.

___________

Lisa C.

“Elections are short term efforts; revolutions are long term projects.”

--Ron Paul

Join the rEVOLution here: http://www.campaignforlib...

ROFL

Yea that's true, but I had to file bankruptcy for lack of customers.

Without Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" there would be no

Constitution.

___________

Lisa C.

“Elections are short term efforts; revolutions are long term projects.”

--Ron Paul

Join the rEVOLution here: http://www.campaignforlib...

It is quite telling how

It is quite telling how Paine was a bestseller during the 18th century enlightenment that gave us our secular republic, while today most Americans have never even heard of him and we're sliding towards theocracy.

----------
Liberty for Dummies

It's very telling but not very surprising.

___________

Lisa C.

“Elections are short term efforts; revolutions are long term projects.”

--Ron Paul

Join the rEVOLution here: http://www.campaignforlib...

Oooo Christopherx..Satan here..

You've been a naughty boy in not giving me equal time.

It's okay. I'll have a signed copy of the Necrimonicon sent to you.

*muah*

-----------------------

Get in line. No pushing, no shoving. All souls are taken one at a time, in the order in which they are recieved.

Thank you.