Georgia Republican: State-sponsored religion will end big-government tyranny

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Everyone wants power. Including you to dictate your views as you are doing in your fear-mongering post.

What views am I dictating? That I don't want a religious-based government? It's not just MY view, it's in our Constitution.

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
Absolutely there is a difference between endorsing a religion and an establishment of religion.

An establishment is an official, or mandated, thing. A endorsement is an un official, non-mandated, thing.

What does "endorsing a religion" look like? How would it manifest in our government? For example, with marriage equality. Since Christianity has determined that homosexuality is a "sin", would gay people be allowed to marry in this Christian-endorsed government? Would laws apply equally to all citizens? Would atheists be permitted to marry? Would Jews be permitted to marry? Divorced people? Fornicators? Or would straight, non-sinning Christians be the only ones allowed to marry?

Organized religion drives me crazy.
Its ALWAYS a blame game point the finger.

What's happening to us?
Everything is falling apart, half of us are asleep and the other half just don't care anymore.

Just seems to have gotten really bad really fast, the train wreck is soon approaching....

Religious fanatics give me the willies. Years ago I had a girlfriend who grew up in a very strictly religious family. She somehow managed to escape much of the insanity of her upbringing, though, and turned out reasonably stable (mentally) and well adjusted. I guess miracles do happen. Her parents belonged to some offshoot of the pentecostal group of holyrollers. I recall one time she and I had to stop by her parents house for some reason, and man did I feel out of place. Then to make matters worse, while we were there the preacher from their church stopped by; just checking on the flock, I guess. Now this is where it starts to get scary. This preacher dude immediately zeroed in on me and slowly made his way across the room to shake my hand. It was like out of a horror movie; I was frozen in my tracks. I’ve never seen such an overpowering, hypnotic, laser-focussed stare in my life! This guy made Charlie Manson look like a choir boy. While cutting me to pieces with his icy stare and shaking my hand he started saying things like, “You must be new. I haven’t seen you in church before. We sure would like to see you this Sunday. The good Lord loves you, son. blah..blah..blah.” There was just something about that preacher’s demeanor, his expressions and that paralyzing stare of his that sent chills up my spine. I felt like I was peering into the eyes of utter madness and total insanity. There was just something very, very deeply disturbing about that encounter for me. Be that as it may, that preacher is held in highest esteem by his flock and is considered to be a “Chosen One”. Go figure. That was years ago, and yet to this day the hair on the back of my neck still stands up whenever I think about it.

When it comes to religion, many folks do become fanatical and irrational. IMO religion has no place in governance and politics. I think a lot of the problems our political system is having today is due to the evangelical influence hovering over it. Come to think of it, in certain ways Ted Cruz reminds me of that crazed pentecostal preacher I mentioned above. Spooky... Wow, that’s proof in itself that religion has no place in politics. Anyway, I think Jody Hice is misguided and his agenda is dangerous, which means he’ll probably get elected.

I’m no fan of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. I think he’s definately got an agenda. To my understanding what he’s getting at regarding religion is that he believes it serves a purpose in that it causes society in general to be more tightly bound. That it’s less divided when a commitment is made by all to a common belief system. There may be some truth to that, but I don’t think that legislating the Ten Commandments will accomplish that feat. Surely there’s another solution.

Just my 2 cents...

a reply to: jimmyx

Interesting. yet, the '1600's has NOTHING to do with the current political situation.

That argument is utterly invalid.

The current situation-and my rebut- is based on current restrictions on Christian values and morals while at the same time promoting Muslim values and ignoring their ridiculous oppressions of women and non-muslim peoples.

While you and others may agree with the reasoning behind it, it remains that social engineering, especially when it comes to religion, is a gross violation of the Constitution. Hence, the feeling, more valid than not, they they'd keep the Constitution better than the current lot.

A view I tend to agree with.

These matters are best addressed on a state to state basis-including marriage definitions-with majority ruling the day.

a reply to: olaru12

I'd modify your statement re 'control mechanisms' somewhat. They both can be control mechanisms. However, they can also be, and have been, benign in their functions allowing their citizens and members to live their lives as they choose.

It's called balance.

Religion was the fundamental that allow civilization to develop. A more or less agreed upon moral system that allowed for predictable response from others in cooperating to form a group. Without which we would have never risen above non-stop barbarism.

Both gov't and religion have value.

The very lack of those morals offered by the Judeo-Christian system has given us this current lot of louts in both political parties, business...on and on.

Once again, I'm not a Christian. I would, however, rather they ran the show than what we have in power now.

a reply to: Sophie111609

Wouldn't it be ironic that the 'train-wreck' that's coming is due to the very loss of religious values??

If you don't blame the religion for the failings of the fanatic-and I'm sure you don't blame the bad cop on all cops- then you might begin to see that, overall, without that moral code that religion provides, we end up with the society we have now and that approaching train wreck.

Just a different take on it.....

a reply to: olaru12

It is my considered opinion that this is coming from those same vice people who brought about the Inquisitions in Europe.

We all have read about how great times those were; haven't we?

a reply to: nwtrucker

I agree with you 110%
Very well written
I believe and know even though there is "denial" there.....
Hope that makes some sense

I know its always been there, just getting worse at a pretty quick pace.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

OK. Dictating is the wrong word. Promoting would be more accurate, I suppose. It is fear based and I fear your scenario less than where we are going now.

Actually, I don't disagree. I don't want a government controlled by a religion, or atheists, or unions...or any 'group'.....other than "we the people".

Having said that, if I was stuck with A Judeo-Christian dominated gov't choice or what we have now, the former would, at least for a while, would better the lesser of two evils. IMO.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Actually, I don't disagree. I don't want a government controlled by a religion, or atheists, or unions...or any 'group'.....other than "we the people".

So, let me get this straight, you would prefer something more on the still of, let's say, a "fiefdom or even some sharia law" setup rather than what we have in the U S ?

I am quite sure they will welcome you with open arms in any number of middle eastern countries and there are lots of airline companies who have tickets at the ready for your trip.

Bon voyage!!

I will admit we do not have a "perfect system" but it beats the HELL out of anything else I have found anywhere on this planet.

a reply to: teamcommander

You confuse what we HAD with what we have now.

The is NO similarity between what was intended and what we have. If you cannot see that then, brother, you have a serious perception issue.

No need to move to the Middle East...they're bringing it here!

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

OK. Dictating is the wrong word. Promoting would be more accurate, I suppose. It is fear based and I fear your scenario less than where we are going now.

1. What view am I promoting, then?
2. I'm not sure I understand your view of "what we have now" or "where we're going"...

Actually, I don't disagree. I don't want a government controlled by a religion, or atheists, or unions...or any 'group'.....other than "we the people".

Agreed. ALL the people. We are a nation of secular laws, not religious laws. Do you advocate religious laws? (such as marriage for some)

Having said that, if I was stuck with A Judeo-Christian dominated gov't choice or what we have now, the former would, at least for a while, would better the lesser of two evils. IMO.

I think we DO have a Judeo-Christian dominated government. Anti-abortion laws and marriage laws are indicative of that. I guess I'm not sure what you think we have now.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: teamcommander

You confuse what we HAD with what we have now.

The is NO similarity between what was intended and what we have. If you cannot see that then, brother, you have a serious perception issue.

No need to move to the Middle East...they're bringing it here!

Well, in some sense, you may be right.

At one time in this country we had a certain "reverence" for those who were duely elected to serve a our leaders and even when many disagreed with them personally, they still got respect for the offices which they held. Oh, I have noticed the ever increasing rhetoric about how the entire government has become so corrupt and unlawful. Most of which has no basis in fact and is founded on the opinions of those who still can't get over loosing the 2008 election.
Maybe I am just an optimist, but I still believe in the American people too much to give up as easily as many have already done. I can't simply write off the whole country because some one disagrees with me and is a position to make the hard decisions, which so many who sit on the sidelines have already shown to be disasterous in their hands.

a reply to: olaru12

You know, he just stop me from voting for him here in GA, because no everybody in GA support religion in politics.

First issues are for me Immigration, gun rights and third religion, while he passed the first two with flying colors, he needs to keep his religious favoritism in the church.

Now a man that is such an advocate for gun rights and a member of the NRA, with a very strict view on immigration violations, he doesn't seem to me like somebody that will want guns in church but wants church in government

He either is just pandering to the southern baptism church that got a strong hold on the welfare state feeding the souls of the poor or he is just like any other politicians that will do anything to get votes.

a reply to: MentorsRiddle

Yes is unconstitutional is say so there very clear in our constitution.

I guess it comes down of who are the ones doing the interpretation when money and influence within the church is as corrupted as those of private interest.

In America private interest and organized religion serve one master, the Money God.

Actually I find interesting that the supreme court with Scalia in it, has used the references of separation of church and state often

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

en.wikipedia.org...

Religion belong in the Church and in congregations that will accepted, not in politics or with political candidates

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: olaru12



He either is just pandering to the southern baptism church that got a strong hold on the welfare state feeding the souls of the poor or he is just like any other politicians that will do anything to get votes.

It's this type of crazy pandering that will turn around and bite the conservative GOP right wing in the butt. His opponents should play off this attempt at a fascist theological oligarchy and point out what it really is...Religious tyranny.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I'm a big supporter of Christianity in general.

Living a religious life is far different than 'ruling' others based on that religion.

Sadly taking the glorious way that our system of government works we are actually geared with propaganda, beside moronic laws to do what the leaders wants.

Thankfully we don't have an extremist government yet, Thank our constitution for that.

Religion is at it's finest when one lives by those tenets and leads by example. It is at it's worse when enforced on others-via laws, etc.- and is used as the justification, is some convoluted fashion, to act against the high standards that very religion sets.

That sounds fair enough but taking into consideration that any religion given the changes to govern turns into extremism I will be very worry about that comment.

a reply to: olaru12

The Democrat for senate Michelle Nunn in GA is worst, she is after gun control with one of his biggest sponsors behind " NY Bloombug".

She is dangerous, taking into consideration that GA is big in gun rights, she will be barking at the room tree.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Let's see, what your promoting? "They want POWER"...GREED, AFRAID so on about "Christians". Your post...

We are a nation of secular laws?? Really? I beg to differ.

The secular humanists would like everyone to buy into that idea, but it's just not true. I believe you well know that.

Seeing your posts, I believe I know where your coming from. I hold different views..

We shall have to agree to disagree.

a reply to: marg6043

Once again, I don't support a religious gov't. Period. Having said that, any one segment that garners control of the Gov't tends to move towards an "extreme". Religious or otherwise.

Don't even try to tell me that this current administration hasn't moved towards the extreme.

I can only guess at the reasoning of the left that curtails Christianity and promotes Islam. "Balance"? "Fairness". A balancing out?

Whatever the logic, I see only chaos resulting from this. An affront to millions of U.S. citizens. One that will engender consequences.

My view is let Georgia do whatever it wants...and California....