Rise of the Radical Religious Right-(Read it first, b4 you decide to lynch me)

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
Ah, the redefining of terms you say?

Like .. for example ... "marriage"?

There are many American's who do a little bit of "reading" and "studying history". I understand that our rejection of the King, was a rejection of Europe. It was a rejection of the King appointing himself as head of the church. That is kind of important to study when trying to subvert freedom of religion, indirectly, while attacking a very specific segment of religious Americans directly.

Speaking of subverting freedom of Religion, who is trying to make their Religion the dominate Religion here in the US??? Radical Christians. Who is it that is using so called Religious Freedom as a way to subvert laws in this country??? Radical Christians. Who is using their Religion to deny Religious Freedom do Muslims here in the US??? Radical Christians. Who is using their Religion to try and rewrite history to say America was founded on Christianity??? Radical Christians. Who is it that want Creation Myths taught in Science Classes and who are using hand picked zealots within the education system to do just that??? Radical Christians.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
Ah, the redefining of terms you say?

Like .. for example ... "marriage"?

There are many American's who do a little bit of "reading" and "studying history". I understand that our rejection of the King, was a rejection of Europe. It was a rejection of the King appointing himself as head of the church. That is kind of important to study when trying to subvert freedom of religion, indirectly, while attacking a very specific segment of religious Americans directly.

Speaking of subverting freedom of Religion, who is trying to make their Religion the dominate Religion here in the US??? Radical Christians. Who is it that is using so called Religious Freedom as a way to subvert laws in this country??? Radical Christians. Who is using their Religion to deny Religious Freedom do Muslims here in the US??? Radical Christians. Who is using their Religion to try and rewrite history to say America was founded on Christianity??? Radical Christians. Who is it that want Creation Myths taught in Science Classes and who are using hand picked zealots within the education system to do just that??? Radical Christians.

Well, then, the "radical" Christians do have some things correct, wouldn't you agree?

The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, which was the document that formally ended the American Revolution - www.law.ou.edu...

I guess radical Christians cannot be blamed for re-writing history and re-defining things .. that would simply be the left. maybe you guys on the left should actually ... you know ... practice what you preach and study some of that history you know nothing about.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
Well, then, the "radical" Christians do have some things correct, wouldn't you agree?

No I wouldn't. The RRR don't have anything correct. That's what this whole thread is about. Maybe you should consider what it's saying rather than doing whatever it is you're doing.

The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, which was the document that formally ended the American Revolution - www.law.ou.edu...

I guess radical Christians cannot be blamed for re-writing history and re-defining things .. that would simply be the left. maybe you guys on the left should actually ... you know ... practice what you preach and study some of that history you know nothing about.

Yes they can be blamed actually because this is a country that has a secular Government. One that specifically states that there is NO ESTABLISHED RELIGION and NO RELIGIOUS TEST TO HOLD OFFICE. There is also that little thing called the first Amendment that establishes Freedom of Religion. Which means All Religions. If this was a country operating by Christian Rules that wouldn't be possible.

You keep labeling me as "those guys on the left". I'm not part of any group or membership. I suggest you ditch your little stupid labels and address me as an individual rather than resort to labels that won't hold up.

a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Let me give you a couple examples of what I mean when I say they are taking positions in Government and trying to create some crazy version of Theocratic Christian Rule.

Sen. Sylvia Allen (R-Snowflake), was selected by fellow Republican and Senate president Andy Biggs to chair of the Arizona Senate Education Committee. She's a Creationist who believes the earth is 6,000 years old, never went to college and is now going to be making policy for Education in Arizona. What could go wrong???

Gordon James Klingenschmitt (born c. 1968) is a former American military chaplain and elected official. A Republican, he is the member to the Colorado House of Representatives for the 15th district. He's one of my personal favorites actually. There are really too many crazy stances this guy has to list them here. But I suggest you check him out too and ask yourself if this is the kind of guy you want making any kind of policy.

Then there are the big business people too that like to push their personal religious views in everyone's face and even get laws made on their behalf. The TV preachers which seem mostly about ripping people off to make themselves rich but do have quite a bit of lobbying power too.

These people are everywhere and they have built up mass amounts of money with their lies and snake oil sales or by simply taking others money, tax free, by promising things they cannot deliver. I'm sure you're going to say 'Well they aren't real Christians though." to which I agree in a sense. They are certainly bad at being what Christians should be, but they are Christian all the same.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
Well, then, the "radical" Christians do have some things correct, wouldn't you agree?

No I wouldn't. The RRR don't have anything correct. That's what this whole thread is about. Maybe you should consider what it's saying rather than doing whatever it is you're doing.

The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, which was the document that formally ended the American Revolution - www.law.ou.edu...

I guess radical Christians cannot be blamed for re-writing history and re-defining things .. that would simply be the left. maybe you guys on the left should actually ... you know ... practice what you preach and study some of that history you know nothing about.

Yes they can be blamed actually because this is a country that has a secular Government. One that specifically states that there is NO ESTABLISHED RELIGION and NO RELIGIOUS TEST TO HOLD OFFICE. There is also that little thing called the first Amendment that establishes Freedom of Religion. Which means All Religions. If this was a country operating by Christian Rules that wouldn't be possible.

You keep labeling me as "those guys on the left". I'm not part of any group or membership. I suggest you ditch your little stupid labels and address me as an individual rather than resort to labels that won't hold up.

I am glad you are making an attempt to understand history. I am just doing my part to deny ignorance.

Did you realize that the 1st Amendment does not create a "wall of separation" between the government and religion? What it actually does, is prohibit the government from interfering with religion (i.e. King Henry VIII and Edward VI). You actually might want to read Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in order to further your own understanding of this Amendment, as it was Jefferson who authored the 1st Amendment. It was in this letter that Jefferson mentioned "the wall of separation" - as this term is not found in the US Constitution. He conveyed to the Danbury Baptists that they could not be established as a State Religion, and that Congress had no right to prohibit them from practing their religion - meaning the President could not declare that his denomination, or version of Christianity, to be a mandated practice by all citizens, such as King Henry VIII did in regards to the CoE - it also made it very clear that the government could not prohibit the free exercise of religion (i.e. the persecution of Baptists in England un King Henry VIII and the persecution of "right wing radicals" in the modern era by socialist lefties).

In other words, the President can pray in the oval office, on live TV, and be sworn in to office by placing his hand on the Bible - he is absolutely free to exercise his religion. You, as a constituent, do not have the right to compel Congress to impede his personal liberties. As for the united States being founded on Christian principles ... that is a fact - I linked the pertinent information in my prior post. The Religious Test - do you even know why that is there? You don't have to swear allegiance to the King to hold public office (in order to hold public office in Colonial England, you had to be a member of the CoE).

I can continue to prove this ....

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
I am glad you are making an attempt to understand history. I am just doing my part to deny ignorance.

Did you realize that the 1st Amendment does not create a "wall of separation" between the government and religion? What it actually does, is prohibit the government from interfering with religion (i.e. King Henry VIII and Edward VI). You actually might want to read Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in order to further your own understanding of this Amendment, as it was Jefferson who authored it. It was in this letter that Jefferson mentioned "the wall of separation" - as this term is not found in the US Constitution. He conveyed to the Danbury Baptists that they could not be established as a State Religion, and that Congress had no right to prohibit them from practing their religion - meaning the President could not declare that his denomination, or version of Christianity, to be a mandated practice by all citizens, such as King Henry VIII did in regards to the CoE - it also made it very clear that the government could not prohibit the free exercise of religion (i.e. the persecution of Baptists in England un King Henry VIII and the persecution of "right wing radicals" in the modern era by socialist lefties).

In other words, the President can pray in the oval office, on live TV, and be sworn in to office by placing his hand on the Bible - he is absolutely free to exercise his religion. You, as a constituent, do not have the right to compel Congress to impede his personal liberties. As for the united States being founded on Christian principles ... that is a fact - I linked the pertinent information in my prior post. The Religious Test - do you even know why that is there? You don't have to swear allegiance to the King to hold public office (in order to hold public office in Colonial England, you had to be a member of the CoE).

I can continue to prove this ....

Yes I'm familiar with the letter. Also, I know that the president can pray or exercise his religious beliefs personally. However, doing so in an official capacity would be respecting one religion over others. Could you imagine having a president exercise his faith by praying to mecca or perhaps throwing in a few Hail Satan's in his speeches??? This of course is and should be allowed on a personal level.

Look at it this way. If our Government was meant to be Christian or based upon Christian ideology Religious Freedom would be impossible. Christianity demands devotion to only the Christian God. You couldn't have Religious Freedom with the demand that people worship only the Christian God at the same time. It is that separation and a Secular system which makes that possible.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
I am glad you are making an attempt to understand history. I am just doing my part to deny ignorance.

Did you realize that the 1st Amendment does not create a "wall of separation" between the government and religion? What it actually does, is prohibit the government from interfering with religion (i.e. King Henry VIII and Edward VI). You actually might want to read Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in order to further your own understanding of this Amendment, as it was Jefferson who authored it. It was in this letter that Jefferson mentioned "the wall of separation" - as this term is not found in the US Constitution. He conveyed to the Danbury Baptists that they could not be established as a State Religion, and that Congress had no right to prohibit them from practing their religion - meaning the President could not declare that his denomination, or version of Christianity, to be a mandated practice by all citizens, such as King Henry VIII did in regards to the CoE - it also made it very clear that the government could not prohibit the free exercise of religion (i.e. the persecution of Baptists in England un King Henry VIII and the persecution of "right wing radicals" in the modern era by socialist lefties).

In other words, the President can pray in the oval office, on live TV, and be sworn in to office by placing his hand on the Bible - he is absolutely free to exercise his religion. You, as a constituent, do not have the right to compel Congress to impede his personal liberties. As for the united States being founded on Christian principles ... that is a fact - I linked the pertinent information in my prior post. The Religious Test - do you even know why that is there? You don't have to swear allegiance to the King to hold public office (in order to hold public office in Colonial England, you had to be a member of the CoE).

I can continue to prove this ....

Yes I'm familiar with the letter. Also, I know that the president can pray or exercise his religious beliefs personally. However, doing so in an official capacity would be respecting one religion over others. Could you imagine having a president exercise his faith by praying to mecca or perhaps throwing in a few Hail Satan's in his speeches??? This of course is and should be allowed on a personal level.

Look at it this way. If our Government was meant to be Christian or based upon Christian ideology Religious Freedom would be impossible. Christianity demands devotion to only the Christian God. You couldn't have Religious Freedom with the demand that people worship only the Christian God at the same time. It is that separation and a Secular system which makes that possible.

Think of it this way - if the United States was NOT founded on Christianity, as you are claiming, then why has every single U.S. President claimed to be a Christian? There has only been one Catholic, while every other President has been Protestant. There have been no U.S. Presidents that have openly admitted they were atheists ....

(just continuing to deny ignorance)

Could it be at all possible that maybe you are wrong? I mean, even the minutes of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 show that our nation was founded on Christian ideals.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

Think of it this way - if the United States was NOT founded on Christianity, as you are claiming, then why has every single U.S. President claimed to be a Christian? There has only been one Catholic, while every other President has been Protestant. There have been no U.S. Presidents that have openly admitted they were atheists ....

Could it be at all possible that maybe you are wrong? I mean, even the minutes of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 show that our nation was founded on Christian ideals.

Because they wouldn't get elected that's why. Because there is such a large and powerful majority of Christians who have a bias against anyone not belonging to their club. That's no secret. Even now there are polls which show most people wouldn't even consider an Atheist President even if he was the better candidate. That my friend is extreme bias based on belonging to a cult. If the same thing was done to favor Scientology, Islam, etc. people would lose their minds. But because they don't recognize their own bias it's allowed to continue.

Explain to me how the US was founded on Christianity by pointing out specific laws or policy within the US if you would??? I would like to know what laws we have that are unique to Christian ideology??

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

Think of it this way - if the United States was NOT founded on Christianity, as you are claiming, then why has every single U.S. President claimed to be a Christian? There has only been one Catholic, while every other President has been Protestant. There have been no U.S. Presidents that have openly admitted they were atheists ....

Could it be at all possible that maybe you are wrong? I mean, even the minutes of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 show that our nation was founded on Christian ideals.

Because they wouldn't get elected that's why. Because there is such a large and powerful majority of Christians who have a bias against anyone not belonging to their club. That's no secret. Even now there are polls which show most people wouldn't even consider an Atheist President even if he was the better candidate. That my friend is extreme bias based on belonging to a cult. If the same thing was done to favor Scientology, Islam, etc. people would lose their minds. But because they don't recognize their own bias it's allowed to continue.

Explain to me how the US was founded on Christianity by pointing out specific laws or policy within the US if you would??? I would like to know what laws we have that are unique to Christian ideology??

Ask yourself this ... if they could not get elected 240 years ago, and they cannot get elected now ....

ah, never mind.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

Ask yourself this ... if they could not get elected 240 years ago, and they cannot get elected now ....

ah, never mind.

What??? Just say it. If you think you can back it up with more than your own opinion. While you're at it why not answer the questions I asked??

I'm not afraid to answer yours.

a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Could it be at all possible that maybe you are wrong?

You asked mOjOm this question.

The answer is "no." He is not wrong. The US was not founded as a Christian nation, no matter how much you insist that it was.

originally posted by: rexsblues

he radical religious right has gained power only by keeping its true intentions under wraps, by using the Republican Party as a cover, and by portraying itself as conservative rather than radical.

...This could only come from the radical left.

In all seriousness... was this guy drunk or were you?

...both probably.

How is this any different than saying all Muslims are radical? Or all democrats are weak minded radical socialists hell bent on bringing the world together under one government ruled by justin beiber?

It's different because it fits with the Progressive narrative, ok? Don't question it you nazi bigot.

Jokes and Progressive hypocrisy aside, I'll start fearing Christian radicals when they start killing innocent people en masse. You know what I mean - with planes or bombs or illegally obtained firearms inside a crowded music venue.
Currently there is only one group in the world actively committing such attrocities, and they are radicals of a different faith.

All American Christians are not reactionary nor right-wing political adherents.

That fact is often missed on all sides (and by myself) and forgotten in the horror and disgust that the actions of many Christian Fundamentalists advocate for in the US.

Most American Christians are appalled at what some of their Dominionist brothers and sisters advocate for, such as is outlined in the OP.

Bravo, mOjOm once again! Timely thread.

a reply to: mOjOm

Speaking of subverting freedom of Religion, who is trying to make their Religion the dominate Religion here in the US??? Radical Christians. Who is it that is using so called Religious Freedom as a way to subvert laws in this country??? Radical Christians. Who is using their Religion to deny Religious Freedom do Muslims here in the US??? Radical Christians. Who is using their Religion to try and rewrite history to say America was founded on Christianity??? Radical Christians. Who is it that want Creation Myths taught in Science Classes and who are using hand picked zealots within the education system to do just that??? Radical Christians.

But who are these radical Christians mOj? The term itself
is an oxyanamaly.( my less offensive word for oxymoron )
Because following Christ is being a Christian therefore
being truly Christian disallows any and all radicalism.
Islam doesn't seem to do this. But if there are radicals who
CALL themselves Christian? You need only look to the ones
who are making enough money to be your so called radicals.
They are A.K.A. wolves in sheeps clothing. And everyone is
warned of them in our very own scriptures. My only King
has said he will not know them.

And no one should be harder on these vipers than us.




Opps had the wrong vid up.

a reply to: odinsway

Religions
Explore religious groups in the U.S. by tradition, family and denomination

TOTAL CHRISTIANS: Christian 70.6%

Evangelical Protestant 25.4%

Mainline Protestant 14.7%

Historically Black Protestant 6.5%

Catholic 20.8%

Mormon 1.6%

Orthodox Christian 0.5%

Jehovah's Witness 0.8%

Other Christian 0.4%

www.pewforum.org...

Let's look at it in terms of sheer numbers:

70.6% of Americans call themselves "Christians." This might be a smaller PERCENTAGE, but if you work the numbers (by doing the math), it is indisputable that MOST AMERICANS still identify as Christians.

Of that 70.6% (70.6% of 324 million Americans total = 228,744,000 of them), fully one quarter are EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS. That's 1 in 4. 1 in 4 American Christians are Evangelicals.

1 in 5 are Catholic (and YES, CATHOLICS ARE CHRISTIANS).

Still a majority. A comfortable margin. 7 in 10 people in America are "Christians".
How does that make "fewer" Christians than ever?????

Here's another nifty graph showing that there are JUST AS MANY (percentage-wise) now who feel "Prayer is Important" from 1987 to 2012:

That's 25 years worth. The same percentage, but MORE people by sheer quantity.


www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Can always count on Buzzy for accurate stats,
I've learned that much. I think you must read
EVERYTHING.

a reply to: randyvs

Thanks, doll.

If there's ANYTHING I learned in college and grad school - it's how to do research.


yeah. No decline in percentage of prayerful people. Big increase in population.


population in 1987:
Jul 1, 1987 242.29 million

now:
Nov 1, 2015 322.07 million

Source

originally posted by: randyvs

But who are these radical Christians mOj? The term itself
is an oxyanamaly.( my less offensive word for oxymoron )
Because following Christ is being a Christian therefore
being truly Christian disallows any and all radicalism.
Islam doesn't seem to do this. But if there are radicals who
CALL themselves Christian? You need only look to the ones
who are making enough money to be your so called radicals.
They are A.K.A. wolves in sheeps clothing. And everyone is
warned of them in our very own scriptures. My only King
has said he will not know them.

You're right. That's why I keep saying that even though they also take the label of Christian they are in fact horrible at representing Christian principles. However they do use that label as a shield as well as a sword in their tactics which makes using that term important in identifying them. I also think they have a much louder voice than the majority who have their faith in Christ. But they certainly have an influential minority going for themselves.

I think a major player, although not a person but an organization, is the Becket Fund for Religious liberty. That's the law firm taking on such cases as Hobby Lobby. Another figure I think is heavily involved is Pat Robertson. I also don't think it's all one single organized group. While that I'm sure exists in one form or another I think various groups simply use the same kind of thinking. It's difficult to figure out whether it's strictly organized or not and to what degree and who all is involved.

Another one would be Ted Cruz IMO.
Probably Bachmann.
Huckabee for sure.

a reply to: mOjOm

Another one would be Ted Cruz IMO.
Probably Bachmann.
Huckabee for sure.

Yes. Except Bachmann for sure also.

See, the thing about these Dominionists is that they operate "under the radar". On purpose.