Last updated on 2012.12.24
Please spare me the "War on Christianity" baloney. I'm not out there arguing Christians have no place in making in America greater. My fellow atheists, as well as American Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists aren't telling Christians to get with our program or leave the country.
That message of rage and exclusivity is what Baptist preacher Dennis Terry is saying to all non-Christians. And that's what GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum stands up and applauds. Here's the video from a Sunday night event in Baton Rouge:
I don't care what the liberals say, I don't care what the naysayers say, this country was founded as a Christian nation. The god of Abraham, the god of Isaac and the god of Jacob. There's only one god, there's only one god and his name is Jesus. (wild audience applause) I'm tired of people telling me that I can't say those words. I'm tired of people telling us as Christians that we can't voice our beliefs or we can't no longer pray in public. I'm, listen to me, if you don't li..love America and you don't like the way we do things, I've got one thing to say, GET OUT (wild audience applause).
We don't worship Buddha. I said we don't worship Buddha. We don't worship Mohammed. We don't worship Allah. We worship god. We worship god's son Jesus Christ.
I believe the church is to be the conscience of the nation. The church needs to be the conscience of our state and our local community. Listen closely. Now hold on for just a moment. As long as they continue to kill little babies in our mother's womb, somebody's got to take a stand and say, it's not right. God be merciful to us as a nation. As long as sexual perversion is becoming normalized, somebody needs to stand up and say, god forgive us, god have mercy upon us. And as long as they continue to tell our children they cannot pray in public schools or pray in open, public places today, somebody's got to take a stand and say, god forgive us, god have mercy upon us. As long as they continue to tear down traditional marriage. Listen. God intended for marriage to be between a man and a woman and as long as they continue to attack marriage, somebody needs to take a stand and say NO! NO! NO! NO! (crowd erupts in wild applause)
I tell you my friend, I believe that Christians in America are the key to revival. I believe that Christians in America is the key to the economy turning around. I believe that Christians in America is the key to the jobless rate continuing to go down. I believe it's a spiritual thing. If we'll put god back in America, put god back in our pulpits, put god back in our homes and in our State House and then in Washington D.C., then we can have revival in America and the holy spirit will show up and great and mighty things will happen for this country [Rev. Dennis Terry, transcribed in "Dennis Terry Introduces Santorum - tells non-Christians to GET OUT," Daily Kos, 2012.03.19].
We can only hope that such rhetoric is not supported by South Dakota Santorum supporters like Jason Gant, Lee Schoenbeck, Allen Unruh, and Leslie Heinemann. If you do, well, I may not want you folks winning elections, but I don't mind if you stick around.
"I’m not out there arguing Christians have no place in making in America greater. My fellow atheists, as well as American Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists aren’t telling Christians to get with our program or leave the country."
"And as long as they continue to tell our children they cannot pray in public schools or pray in open, public places today"
But you are telling Christians to stay out of their children's education, which is what is making America. With that said, I am not supporting the Religious Right's Dominion Theology, because it is not Biblical. Now, the anti-Christian bigots need to admit that their New Age Theology, that is being established by the public schools, is not only un-Biblical, it violates the First Amendment.
No, I'm not, Steve. I support home school. My daughter does Sunday school. I don't even advocate the French system of strict separation that prohibits the display of religious symbols in public spaces, including schools. You just don't get to do the Republican "I know you are but what am I" trick. The real bigots here are Rev. Weaver* and Santorum, who think America belongs only to people like them.
[CAH edit: below comment is right: Terry, not Weaver. I must be thinking of McCloud and Dennis Weaver!]
"I support home school."
Cory, paying an education tax to public education and then paying for your own child's education is the same religious bigotry that brought forth the First Amendment. Reseach the colonial Baptists and paying taxes to the Church of England.
That's not bigotry; that's the price of living in society and helping make sure all kids, not just your own, have educational opportunities. And I'm willing to support people of any religion getting a good education... unlike Rev. Terry and Santorum. (Now how much chance is there we'll stay on topic?)
"The real bigots here are Rev. Weaver and Santorum, who think America belongs only to people like them."
What we have in politics today is bigots fighting bigots for power and control.
"That’s not bigotry; that’s the price of living in society and helping make sure all kids, not just your own, have educational opportunities. "
Moral relativism Cory. Again research the colonial Baptists and the Church tax:
The year is 1774. American colonists are strongly protesting British invasions of their rights, and in September the first Continental Congress is convened as a response British encroachments. Also in 1774 in Northampton, Massachusetts, eighteen Baptists are sitting in jail. Their crime? Refusing to pay taxes for the support of the town’s Congregational minister.
http://www.brucegourley.com/baptists/persecutionoutline.htm
Has Santorum attended that church for the last 20 years?
He stood, he applauded, he didn't repudiate the bigotry. Defend those actions.
The good Reverend Hickey and I are going to disagree about this. I look forward to his rejoinder and will try to be respectful.
What the Santorum and Weaver are worshipping is America or their idea of America. It has little to do with Christianity. Both John 15 and and 1 John 3 remind Christians that they will be hated. There's little in the Bible that allows Christians to tell others to get out of Dodge or anyplace else.
I would remind the originalists that the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796 contains the following clause
"ARTICLE 11.
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 Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp
Should be Terry not Weaver. My error
So here is where I agree with Cory and LK. There is nothing Biblical aboput Dominion Theology and Jesus never told his disciples to chase nonbelievers off the land. He said to dust their feet and leave. It is false teachers like Terry who supply the fuel used by the New Age Theocrats to hate all Christians. Time for Bible reading Christians to discern the truth and confront the false teachers.
So I can't support Santorum or Romney. I am disenfranchised.
Since we agree on that somewhat major point, do I get a free Sibby for Senate T-shirt?
Pastor Steve, is that anything like Michelle Bachmann's long relationship with Rev. Marcus Birkholz of Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater. You remember him, he's the minister that believes the Pope is the anti Christ.
Sibby, when you are elected, put up a bill to replace that dominion theology state motto we now have: "under God the people rule." What Santorum believes is known, he's Catholic. Cory, put up a post on what Romney believes.
If there is no christ, how can there be an anti-christ? Lutherans should self-deport, too.
http://www.nativeamericanchurch.com/
Sibby: why are you running as a candidate in the earth hater party and not as a christian nationalist?
Put up a post on what Romney believes? That's easy. He believes he's going to be the Republican nominee. He believes he's going to make about $50,000 today like he does every other day without working and pay under 15% tax rate on those earnings. Beyond that, his beliefs are pretty pliable. Heck, when Romney gets to Pennsylvania he may be Catholic too.
Treaty of Tripoli - http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=125
David Barton and Wallbuilders. "Barton holds no formal credentials in history or law, and scholars dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, "pseudoscholarship" and "outright falsehoods".[5][6][7][8] His research has been described as flawed by many historians, who dismiss his work as that of "a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible."[9]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author)
I know Wikipedia can cherry pick too, but I don't believe they are here. If Barton has credentials, the entry would be edited.
Few people in this country know American history better than David Barton. Of course the revisionists hate him.
"Sibby, when you are elected, put up a bill to replace that dominion theology state motto we now have: “under God the people rule.â€"
A Dominion Theology motto would be "under Jesus Christ the people rule". Under the ecumencial masonic based theology, "god" could be anything, even Satan and/or Lucifer. And taht is waht Cory is saying here:
"My fellow atheists, as well as American Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists "
The ecumenical movement is within the New Age Theocracy and sadly in the name of Christianity. Of course that only support the warnings from Jesus about false teachers who will deceive many.
David Barton is also a revisionist. We have that problem coming from both directions. It is not just about secular vs Christian. We need to add Satan's freemasonry as a third force. Beward of the upcoming Monumental movie.
"Came across a good quote for all the christofascists running:
‘You put your hand on the Bible, and swear to uphold the Constitution.
You don’t put your hand on the Constitution, and swear to uphold the Bibleâ€!"
http://mtcowgirl.com/2012/03/20/what-lies-beneath/#comment-46382
These to excerpts right here is all you need to know about how theologically bankrupt Terry is:
"The god of Abraham, the god of Isaac and the god of Jacob. There’s only one god, there’s only one god and his name is Jesus."
"We don’t worship Buddha. I said we don’t worship Buddha. We don’t worship Mohammed. We don’t worship Allah. We worship god. We worship god’s son Jesus Christ."
Utter theological nonsense. Gobbledygook.
"Utter theological nonsense."
Mind explaining that conclusion Bill?
Sibby, it entertains me to watch you comment here and elsewhere on so called dominion theology. Oh how you love to label. The Bible clearly teaches dominion and what is meant by that is widely debated and has been for centuries. I love how you have it so clearly understood and again I ask... who made you the Keeper of All Things Orthodox? Did that designation come with your degree from the University of Google? :-)
Why don't people care to talk about Romney's Mormon dominion theology?
Steve,
I said I can't support Romney for the exact reason you brought up. So we have agreement on that. And you have to be careful about the post-rebellion meaning of dominion Steve. The post-millenial idea that we are to create the Kingdom now, then Chirst can return is exactly what the rebellion is about...we can do it ourselves, we don't need God.
Pastor Steve Hickey.
My answer to your Romney question would be because when it comes to answering this classic polling question, my answer would be "never."
Here's the poll question:
"In your mind, do you think a president's religious beliefs should influence his federal policy decisions all of the time, most of the time, just some of the time, or never?"
You can use this link here to see how the question polled recently among adults nationwide:
http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm
Sibby, no, I will not. I was hoping maybe you would. I have a suspicion you agree with me... (now wouldn't that be amazing?)
I wish there was a emoticon for biting my tongue because I would insert that here.
The Lord's Prayer is not a post-millenial idea and there we have Jesus expressly saying we are to pray his kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. We need God, we aren't doing this ourselves, and his kingdom comes now (and fully later). Christianity 101.
Steve, then explain this passage from John 18:
33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?â€
34 “Is that your own idea,†Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?â€
35 “Am I a Jew?†Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?â€
36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.â€
Thank Google! Here's the emoticon for biting my tongue...
:-&
His Kingdom is not OF this world, but it is IN it.
"Sibby, no, I will not."
Because you can't.
Steve, Jesus was not taking dominion of the Roman government, and that threw most of the Jews into thinking he was not the Messiah. Beware of false Messiahs today. Mathew 24:
4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Bill - great question. A person's worldview is inseparable from everything they do. Remember John Kerry saying his religion didn't influence his policy decisions. Nonsense. Even atheists have a religious view. The only question is who's worldview do we want to prevail in the public square??
So Sibby, ... salt and light. If we obey that charge in the various sectors of society are we guilty of dominion theology?
Kira at Bashi. Shaka, when the walls fell. Temba, at rest.
Rev. Hickey,
Several things. First, I view Barton in the same light that I view Charles Beard. Both have itneresting inerpretations of the American history. Both also start with a thesis and pick the facts that confirm their thesis instead of starting with the facts and developing a thesis based on those facts.
Second, I have trouble with the whole idea that the U.S. is somehow a new Israel unique among nations as if blessed by a second covenant. I think that view colors Barton's reading of history and it certainly colors Romney and other's view of history. Try as I might, I can't find that doctrine in the Bible.
I am glad people of faith and virtue helped create the country; the idea that they were uniquely blessed by God over any other group of people seems dangerous especially if that viewpoint develops into an idea that America is a land where only Christians are welcome.
LK - who is saying the US is a new Israel?
Steve, yes salt and light. Now you have humbled me. That important concept would require us to follow what the Apostle Paul addressed in Romans 13, which also supports the premise that Jesus did not expect his followers to take dominion of the Roman government:
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Israel should be a county in New Jersey or Utah.
Paul was an opium smoker.
Pastor Hickey, the question isn't say anything about a person's "worldview."
Read it again:
“In your mind, do you think a president’s religious beliefs should influence his federal policy decisions all of the time, most of the time, just some of the time, or never?â€
It asks if YOU believe a person's religious beliefs SHOULD influence his federal POLICY decisions.
Like Sibby you seem eager to equate philosophy, reason, culture, science, political background, life experience and what ever else you want to throw in there with "religion" which pretty much makes the word "religion" meaningless.
I on the other hand will argue that all of the above terms have separate and distinct meanings and suggest that it is your and Siobby's idea that is "nonsense" not mine or the pollster's.
Where in the Constitution does it say that Israel has a right to exist?
I should note here that as per Hickey's assertion, Terry is pretty much an "athiest" himself, having renounded every notion of the divine but his own. The athiest simply renounces one more god than Terry does.
Bill, your worldview is your religion. The New Age Theocrat's bible are the science textbooks used in public education.
I answered the question - do I believe a persons religious beliefs should influence policy - with the answer it is impossible that they not influence policy. Secularism is every bit as much a religious belief as atheism or Christianity. We all have a religious belief.
Religion is like any addiction: it can be treated with therapy.
Anyone wanting to follow the "New Israel/Covenant" idea to its logical conclusion may want to read James Mitchener's "The Covenant" (a history of South Africa in novel form). That nation has only just recently began to recover from the resultant mass hysteria, structural racism, genocide, etc. thanks in no small part to Nelson Mandela. Sibby is right to be concerned about people who hold that "worldview" (or whatever.)
Steve and Steve. Nonsense. Secularism and religion are political opposites. Were they not, the first Amendment would be meaningless, and you would have nothing to hide behind (or take sanctuary in, as the case may be). What has happened to your minds, guys? Has your zealotry overcome all sense of reason?
:-&
*middle finger*
Here guys.
Read this and then comment please. It covers everything we've touched on here and more. Special added benefit: It is rational. Once you have finished, plese demonstrate to me in what way ther person who wrote it is in any way "religious."
Thanks.
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate101/a/secular.htm
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/03/20/148985296/dark-energy-and-the-joy-of-being-wrong
Great example, Larry. Unless one is willing to argue that the "worldview" of "I don't know, let's find out and be able to prove it" amounts to a "religion," the position I have outlined stands. Science didn't set out to disprove what religious people believe, nor does hold steadfast as gospel the discoveries it makes. They are always subject to review and revision. And in any case, whether or not there is a "divine supernatural being" as far as science is concerned is moot point (thank god ;^)
Rev. Hickey,
I'll answer your question in two ways. First, nearly every neocon who uses the term American exceptionalism expects his or her listeners to see America as the "city set upon a hill" and therefore uniquely blessed by God. That unique blessing makes the US immune to the pitfalls of other nations. That is a de facto covenant but one not found in any scripture.
I would also contend that American civil religion--the idea that the founding documents are somehow blessed by God has crept from the public square to the pulpits and pews more than it should have. The mix of civil religion, conservative politics, and bad readings of the Bible produced the doctrines that again hint at a unique covenant between the US and God.
Good LK. And Pastor Hickey's assertion that one's religion SHOULD influence political policy decisions is a barefaced admission that he is advocating for the establishment of a state religion, in clear opposition to the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause.
Where do you guys see freedom from religion in that earlier mentioned First Amendment? What I see is the free exercise clause.
Again, as per Larry's great quote above:
‘You put your hand on the Bible, and swear to uphold the Constitution.
You don’t put your hand on the Constitution, and swear to uphold the Bibleâ€!â€
Bill, the courts say secularism is a religion as it applies the free expression right of the First Amendment. But then it fails to apply the establishment clause. The courts then applies the establishment clause on the Bible, but then disallows the free expression. Such is the case in a New Age Theocracy.
Hickey. Third time's the charm. Read the question again:
“In your mind, do you think a president’s religious beliefs should influence his federal policy decisions all of the time, most of the time, just some of the time, or never?â€
Any form of "Yes" is an argument against the establishment clause. Period.
Steve, take what you just wrote sentence by sentence and notice how none of them make any sense, either freestanding or in combination. Four assertions in a row, each one a non sequitur. An empty syllogism leading nowhere.
To come to Rev. Hickey's defense a bit, I would recommend the Steven Prothero book God Is Not One. Prothero cogently and rationally argues that atheism is a religion
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-One-World-Differences/dp/006157127X
LK, I'll put it on my reading list, but on first blush, it sounds a bit like linguistic sleight of hand, in that only a theist would make such an argument, and even then, only in order to justify their (usually irrational) position. In any case, it's not what we're discussing here, is it? I thought we were trying to distinguish between religious and secular — a context in which it's entirely possible (even commonplace) for a person to be both. i.e. is a baseball game a religious event? How about a barn dance?
"Steve, take what you just wrote sentence by sentence and notice how none of them make any sense, either freestanding or in combination."
Bill, don't blame me, blame the courts. Or more accurately, blame FDR the Freemason who changed the court by making it a masonic dominated institution that established its religion, and over time, has slowly established the New Age Theocracy.
Bill, your religion is based on science (man's knowledge above God's truth), whose textbooks are the bible of the New Age religion being established in public schools.
NPR is reporting at this hour that this Terry character is back-pedaling this thing. jesus christ=capitalism
I agree with LK.
The definition of religion is such that non-belief in a supreme diety fits (emphasis added below to make my point). Furthermore, in the context of the First Amendment, such "non-belief" is a belief to be protected under the Constitution.
Religion:
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 (NOT ALWAYS) 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 (ATHEISM/SECULARISM IS A FUNDAMENTAL SET AGREED UPON BY MANY PEOPLE).
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices(THERE ARE GROUPS ORGANIZED UNDER THE BELIEFS OF ATHEISM, ETC.).
Steve, I'm going to leave off the usual "ridicule" that usually accompanies this Jefferson quote and just trust that you'll understand this time. "Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
When you (and others) blur word definitions words lose their meaning.
WÃhákata Cépapi Wi – Moon of Making Fat.
As far as baseball and religion, I thought the character Annie Savoy answered that question in Bull Durham when she said,
"I believe in the Church of Baseball. I've tried all the major religions, and most of the minor ones. I've worshipped Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, trees, mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan. I know things. For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I heard that, I gave Jesus a chance. But it just didn't work out between us. The Lord laid too much guilt on me. I prefer metaphysics to theology. You see, there's no guilt in baseball, and it's never boring . . ."
As far as the second part goes, I have long struggled with and never satisfactorily resolved the question about whether religion is a synonym for ideology.
To build on Troy’s definitions, Dictionary.com gives one definition of religion as "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects." It says an ideology is "the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group"
Quite frankly, the connotations the words bring to my mind would cause me to reverse those definitions.
Bill, it is you who do not understand the clear fact that the Supreme Court recognizes secular humanism as a religion when protecting its free expression, but does not regard it a religion in regard to the establishment clause. Jefferson would have applied both. So thanks to FDR for changing the court to implement his religious beliefs. Your insistence that you are above is a clear example of your religious belief that you have evolved to be like a god.
LK,
Not synonomous except in the case of an individual atheist and applies in the case of a seculurist.
You have to distinguish the link. Religion arises from something outside the person, even for one who worships "mother earth" and then is applied by the individual. Ideology arises from within the individual and then is applied to the whole. (not sure I'm saying this very well)
Troy,
I think you've stated it well. I'm not sure that I agree with the distinction that you draw. The defs I picked may be weak ones and I want to look at them more. That being said, however, the doctrine and especially myth that are part of either religion or ideology spring from outside an individual.
You guys are trying to fit round pegs into square holes. Sorry. I'm trying, but just can't get there with you. Religious beliefs to me are beyond reason. Answers to metaphysical questions that can't be reached any other way.
Mormon and Protestant ganging up on Catholic:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/19/romney-and-paul-team-up-try-and-snatch-santorum-s-missouri-delegates.html
"Religious beliefs to me are beyond reason."
http://www.amazon.com/Doctrine-Buddha-Religion-Reason/dp/817769507X
Bill,
I don't know what fits with reason and what fits beyond reason. When Hawking says "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" he seems to be using reason to asking a metaphysical question but wanting answer it with math/science/reason.
I am pretty sure I'm not going to figure everything out before I die.
LK, correct. None of us will. So whatever happened to being able to say "I don't know."? Clearly, Hawking understands the limits... where the edge is... the difference between a scientific hypothesis, a scientific theory and a metaphysical belief system unsupported by empirical evidence. And he will (and has) happily elucidated these for anyone willing to listen.
I am just going to stick to the definition of religion given by James. Otherwise I will get a headache thinking about it :-)
"Your insistence that you are above is a clear example of your religious belief that you have evolved to be like a god." That's the kind of goofiness that gets you in trouble, Sibby. I'm not "above" anything. And I am not promoting any belief system whatsoever. Your insistence that I am (and by extension, that others are) is part of your neurotic mental disorder, nothing more. No one knows the mind of another. And pretending that you do is pure folly and self deception. It's what happens when one presumes to have all the answers.
Based on your insistence that I have a neurotic mental disorder and you use reason, you clearly think you are above me. You treat Bob Ellis the same way. Based on the Bible, it is you that is the fool, oh man of great knowledge and reason.
"part of your neurotic mental disorder"
"No one knows the mind of another."
You seem to make a judgement on my mind. Wow Bill, ever think before you type, oh man of great knowledge and reason?
Bill,
Don't know when people stopped saying "I don't know but I'll think about it for a while and see what I come up with." I used to hear that phrasing or something close to it quite often.
I think that people have started to equate seeking as a loss of faith and so many are equating faith with certainity. I could be wrong. If I am, I'm sure someone here will tell me.
Man, I hope Santorum is the GOP nominee. Otherwise I hope Gingrich is the GOP nominee. Wouldn't it be great if Romney or Paul is the GOP nominee? If any of those 4 makes the cut things look good for the incumbent.
"According to a new study by Yale University psychologists, most people intuitively feel as if their "self" — otherwise known as their soul, or ego — exists in or near their eyes.
It is also worth noting that the part of the brain in which self-awareness is thought to arise, called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, happens to be located behind the eyes."
http://www.livescience.com/19185-soul-eyes.html
Sibby's soul is firmly located on or near his sleeve....
I'm not making this up guys:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/
And yes, Sibby, I think before I type. You should maybe give it a shot some time? My admittedly amateur analysis of your behavior comes from observations of your behavior on blogs. It may or may not be accurate, but you present many of the classic symptoms of neurosis. That is why I continue to suggest you seek professional counseling.
"It is false teachers like Terry who supply the fuel used by the New Age Theocrats to hate all Christians. Time for Bible reading Christians to discern the truth and confront the false teachers."
I had to start with that because it represents what I am pretty sure is a FIRST! It's a Sibson statement that I mostly agree with! This has to be a sign that THE END IS NEAR!!!
Rev. Hickey, I don't know what your faith tradition is, so I lack a context for your statements. When you talk about the role of faith in government, I don't know what you have in mind. To help remedy that I've gone to your church's website and read the faith statement. I have some questions:
The faith statement says -
"Church at the Gate recognizes that it cannot, and does not desire to, bind the conscience of individual members in areas where Scripture is silent."
In what areas is the bible silent?
"All members shall refrain from advocating doctrines that are not included in the Statement of Faith in such a way as to cause dissension."
Does that mean that if members disagree they will be kicked out?
"WE BELIEVE that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God and the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine and conduct."
I notice that "conduct" is included here. Does that mean that you make your legislative decisions based on your interpretation of the bible?
"Jesus voluntarily paid for our sins according to the scriptures by dying on the cross as a representative and substitutionary sacrifice..."
Human beings were so terribly sinful, and had so terribly affronted God that the only effective way to satisfy God's rage was that Jesus should be killed? Would Jesus not have died if we were better people? Jesus' crucifixion was our fault? Many, many denominations have challenged substitutionary atonement.
"All who come by grace through faith to accept the Lord Jesus Christ are born again of the Holy Spirit and thereby become children of God."
Does infant baptism surrounded by a cloud of believers satisfy your requirement for being born again?
"WE BELIEVE the Holy Spirit is manifested through a variety of spiritual gifts to build and sanctify the Church, demonstrate the validity of the resurrection and confirm the power of the gospel."
Specifically, what does this look like?
"WE BELIEVE that other religions and ideologies are not alternative paths to God..."
Does that mean non-Christian religions, or does it mean other denominations of Christianity?
"This freedom creates a climate which allows for differences of opinion in matters of interpretation, doctrine and practice within the context of Biblical guidelines and historical Christianity."
Would you please expound further on that statement? It seems to directly contradict on of the first statements I quoted.
"That is why I continue to suggest you seek professional counseling."
“No one knows the mind of another.â€
Fleming well never learn.
Learn what? If you cherrypick my quote Sibby, you can make it say anything. See if you can calm down enough to read and comprehend the whole thing.
Then, maybe try this ...although, D.E., this is more for your benefit than Sib's perhaps.
From the link above concerning Religious Disagreement:
"Religious disagreement is a long-standing problem in philosophy of religion, but this century there has great interest in disagreements between theists and atheists as well as the disagreements between followers of various religions. (See Kelly 2005, Christensen 2007, Feldman 2007, Kraft 2007, Feldman and Warfield forthcoming.)
The problem here is obvious: how can sincere intelligent people disagree? Should not both disputants suspend judgement? To be sure, sometimes those who disagree with you are your intellectual inferiors in some respect. Consider, for instance, someone who insisted that π was precisely 22/7. Those who know of and can follow a proof that π is an irrational number may justifiably dismiss that person as a mathematical ignoramus.
The case of interest, however, is that in which no such inferiority is on public display. This is referred to as a situation of public epistemic parity. Richard Feldman criticises the relativist solution to the problem along with unargued dismissal, and reaches the conclusion that in situations of epistemic parity disputants should suspend judgement.
Many, however, agree with Peter van Inwagen who, in his autobiographical ‘Quam Delicta’ (1994), implies that it is justified for both parties in a dispute to appeal to what is privately available to them. Such private assertions of epistemic superiority are often expressed by saying that someone “just does not get the pointâ€.
Typically, not getting the point requires a cognitive blind-spot. It is not that you know there is a point you cannot grasp, which reasonably requires some deference to those who claim to grasp it. You fail to see there is a point.
One obvious complication concerning religious disagreements is the appeal to divine inspiration, as a source of private epistemic superiority, as in Plantinga's “Aquinas/Calvin†model (Plantinga 2000). It is hard to see, though, how this could apply to disputes between two religions that both rely on the role of divine inspiration. Perhaps the only substitute for unargued dismissal is argued dismissal."
"It’s a Sibson statement that I mostly agree with!"
"Does that mean that you make your legislative decisions based on your interpretation of the bible?"
You would not have asked that question if you mostly agreed with my statement.
"Learn what?"
Fleming proved my point yet again.
What fresh hell is this?
Is this what the house of legislators will be like with Pastor Steve and Mr. Steve sharing a desk, every SINGLE DAY????
Grudz. Yup.
Yes, Grudz. If both Steves win, the Republicans could makes thousands of dollars selling tickets to caucus meetings... unless the leadership make Sibby go sit in the corner with Stace Nelson (probability: 99%).
Whatever you may label my atheism, it's clear Rev. Terry doesn't think I belong in America with it, and it's clear that Santorum applauded that bigotry, and now tries to walk that applause back after being called on it.
From Joan Walsh, Salon [emphasis mine]:
"If his campaign can’t be defined by his stance on either contraception or unemployment, what’s the rationale for Santorum’s marathon and increasingly long-shot candidacy? Cheering on a Christian theocracy, and then quickly backpedaling, is as close as I can get. Dennis Terry’s hysterical remarks should be chilling to anyone who values religious freedom, on the right or left.... Watching Santorum standing and clapping for the bigot made it more clear than ever that he can never lead this nation. The fact that he later backtracked and (sort of) said he disagreed with Terry’s remarks doesn’t erase the fact that when he heard them, he stood and clapped like all the other good Christians. This is the company Santorum keeps."
My neighbors above have done a reasonable job of responding to the Romney question. I'll be curious to hear whether Romney has expressed any such desire to exclude anyone but people of his faith from living in America. I'd like to think that his status as a member of a somewhat maligned religious minority might give him a little more tolerance than Santorum has for people with different worldviews.
If those guys win, Cory, they should start holding caucuses in a revival tent. Put a big dunk tank in there where they can officially "unbaptize" the RINOs.
Kinda like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrZWG1RWIbQ
Pastor Steve, I asked you if the comparison to Rev. Wright was the same as Rev. Marcus Birkholz who preaches that the Pope is the anti Christ. Guess I missed your response...but I can understand why you would want to duck that question.
But your earlier statement "The only question is who’s worldview do we want to prevail in the public square??" Made me think of the standard bearer for your party and his religious worldview.
Are there any worldview statements or beliefs from Brigham Young...the second Prophet, or Joseph Smith that should make us question Mitt Romney's worldview?
I mean, this one makes me a little nervous - Brigham Young said you are damned if you deny polygamy.
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).
or this one...Brigham Young said you can't get to the highest heaven without Joseph Smith's consent.
"...no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289).
I don't know what to think here Pastor Steve...what should we think? Mitt's been a follower of the prophets Young and Smith all his life...is this a problem?
I'll defer to you and respect your consistency of thought leadership. Especially since you seem to think that President Obama should be judged by his minister.
Sorry to pose that question Pastor Steve. I will admit to a certain bit of mischief in my question.
But if we are to believe that the religious leaders that our presidential candidates follow is important in shaping their worldview, then this is a legitimate question to ask our resident cleric. (After all you did open that door with the reference to Reverend Wright)
Here's some music to help you craft your reply...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2mqqCMu-LM
Gosh this whole Mormanism thing is just begging more questions related to current events. Like the government getting religion and mandating certain sexually related laws that conflict with the freedom of religion.
Do you think we should go back and get rid of that polygamy law. That really smacks of the government intruding on religious beliefs. I mean that kind of government intrusion could make families move to Mexico for religious freedom.
What's the emoticon for tongue in cheek again? I think this is the one...
:-J
Jana, good points.
Typically an election strategy has to do with convincing a small number of undecided voters to vote for your guy instead of their guy.
One presumes the other side is going to support their own guy.
Not so this year it seems.
Combine Sibby and Hickey's idea that the election is all about the candidate's religion with Romney's Mormonism and it will be all over on the GOP side the minute the first reporter goes on record with the question about his magic underwear and what he's going to name his planet.
I can see them slowly imploding under the sheer weight of not being able to mind their own business.
Here's a little starter kit so those of us who don't usually concern ourselves with such things can at least try to keep up with the conversation:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/definitions.html
Aaronic preisthood, telestial heaven (oh boy—that's where I go!)... who has time to make stuff like this up? Was Joseph Smith just the L. Ron Hubbard of the 19th century?
Oh yeah, Cory, this is right up Sibby's alley, don't you think? Maybe Hickey's too? Here's a link to the main article.
Note his apologia to Mormons. He's not trying to offend, he says, just clarify. Say's he himself used to BE Mormon.
Like you said, you can't make this stuff up... and btw, why would one want to?
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/mormonism.html
"Dennis Terry’s hysterical remarks should be chilling to anyone who values religious freedom, on the right or left…. "
And what about the New Age Theocracy? What about the anti-Christian bigotry of public education?
"Was Joseph Smith just the L. Ron Hubbard of the 19th century?"
Pretty close, they both have ties to Freemasonry, the force behind the New Age Theocracy.
Sibby, read the guy's Mormon link above. If it's your contention that Cory and I believe anything even remotely similar, you need to call a taxi and head to Yankton State Hospital right away. Have them send me the bill for the cab fare if you're a little short on cash.
Romney's Mormonism is an issue, that's why I brought it up. Sibby is running for senate. I'm in the house. We wouldn't caucus together , at best I'd see him in the halls. I've been there two years. Have I overgodded anyone? With the exceptiOn of the resolution on the bible in public schools I haven't held revival meetings. Relax. Here's the big picture: Judeo-Christian values are what we have had. What is coming are the untested progressive doctrines. So, who is bringing the religion into the public square? Answer: those who want to supplant our Christian foundations.
Sibby, what about unicorns? What about Han Solo?
Bill, indeed: isn't life complicated enough without convincing yourself of a whole 'nother layer of fantasy about different levels of the afterlife and holy underpants?
Hickey, please clarify.
Are you saying Mormonism is an "untested progressive doctrine?"
Please, please tell us that's not what you're saying. LOL.
(I'm getting a sideache over here, Cory.)
Not to worry, Pastor Steve. At least Cory and I won't make fun of your beard corners like that other Christian pastor did. LOL. BTW, have you seen Sibby lately? Check him out.
He's looking JC all the way (...and I don't mean Penney):
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politicalblog/?p=9221
"If it’s your contention that Cory and I believe anything even remotely similar, you need to call a taxi and head to Yankton State Hospital right away."
No Bill, Freemasonry has infiltrated many organiazations including Christian. Time we take off the blinders and due some real critical thinking. The plan is a one-world religion for a one-world government. You and Cory's all religions are the same is playing right into their hands. Wake up!!
And by JC looks is due to parts I am playing in a muscial. I will be hitting the barber April 9.
OK Jana, now the Steve Hickey has addressed your questions, answer this:
Does religous freedom mean we have to allow Islamic fathers kill their daughters for reading the Bible and/or dating a Christian, based on their religous belief? I would assume that a pro-abortion anti-Christian bigot would not deny fathers the same rights they proclaim for mothers.
Steve, if I may presume to speak for Cory as well as myself here, our contention is emphatically NOT that all religions are the same. It is that one's religious beliefs should have no bearing on public policy decisions. None. And conversly, that discussion of a candidate's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) has no legitimate place in a political campaign. None.
p.s. sorry to hear about the beard's pending extinction.
Personally, I really like the look. Very cosmo. Almost New Age edgy.
"It is that one’s religious beliefs should have no bearing on public policy decisions."
Then why do you support the New Age Theology as established public policy?
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/03/21/daily-circuit-teacher-morale/
I don't Steve. After all your attempts to explain, I still don't have any idea what you mean when you say that, and neither do you. That's the whole point.
Bill, nice that you deny that so that it does not violate the First Amendment. But it is indeed true. You need to brush up on your critical thinking.
You need to call that cab, Stevie.
...still waiting to see if Hickey and Sibby think Cory and I believe in the angel Moroni and wear the magic boxer shorts.
To the degree that it's possible to make sens of Sibby's rantings at all, here's my best guess. When the country was first founded, and for the first 100 years or so, the citizenry was (religiously speaking) primarily white, Northern European Christian Protestant. With the passage of time and the freeing of the slaves, more and more non-white, non-Northern European Christian Protestant became part of the American social fabric. This includeed immigrants who were Catholic, Jewish, Voodoo, Hoodoo, Hindus, Quakers, Shakers, you name it, not to mention those pesky non Puritain, nonCalvinist, deists, atheists, and libertines like Jefferson, Paine and Franklin who were already there, or the American Indian nature religions that everyone was sure could be beaten or bread out of them come hell or high water. And then of course the American Mormon movement. And most recently an influx of intellectual, science minded group of atheist/agnostics and the influence of Asian Taoist and Buddhist thought. And yup, some Muslims too. It is this diversity that Sibby and Hickey are bemoaning... this dilution of the once fairly robust Christian Protestant purity. They want their old time religion back again.
Meanwhile, Sibby lumps all these non-protestant forms of thought together and calls it a "New Age Theocracy" mostly as a smokescreen to detract from his obvious wish for a re-establishment of what was once a de facto state religion. Never mind that the founders said we shouldn't have one, we had one anyway for a while. They just wanted to make sure it wasn't the Catholic Church, or the Church of England.
good eye, bill: entropy=steve squared.
Like this, Kurtz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f68TdgErXkE
"And most recently an influx of intellectual, science minded group of atheist/agnostics and the influence of Asian Taoist and Buddhist thought"
Fleming stop spinning for a second and you may finally get it:
"The Operative Freemasons had to know more science than any other men in the Middle Ages; they constructed engines such as elevators, cranes etc., used chemicals in staining of glass, knew mechanics, and had to employ mathematics, geometry especially, at every step in their work. This use of science was as much a part of Freemasonry as was either morality or brotherhood."
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/liberal/science.html
The public schools are establishing the Freemason's New Age Theocracy with their science textbooks as they ban Bibles. Clear violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause.
maybe like this, bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Whfp0_ynkKI
Sibby=Kaczynski?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EHgfn_brPU
That is because science and Christianity are two completely different subjects, Sibby. One is a religion, and the other is not. Do you think the alphabet is a religion? How about the multiplication tables? Driver's Ed? Color theory? This is where your resoning goes to hell in a handbasket, Steve. You simply don't make any sense.
And Fleming, I think you seen this before:
A brilliant eight part audio series by Ron Carlson discussing Freemasonry and the Masonic Lodge, Christian Science, Reincarnation, Transcendental Meditation, The New Age Movement, Jehovah Witnesses and Mormonism and the characteristics of a cult.
http://www.changinglivesonline.org/sort-by-topic/more/religion/item/769-freemasonry-christian-science-reincarnation-transcendental-meditation-jehovah-witnesses-mormonism-ron-carlson.html
I'm not following this close enough to say much. Is the question whether or not I think Romney's mormonism is a progressive doctrine? No, it's an issue, a separate one. Most of my paragraph is about the displacement of the Judeo-Christian tradition by secular progressives. My view is: I'm not bringing religion to the table, I'm one who thinks it's the foundation we've always had. Those who suggest separation is possible forget law is not amoral. I was elected a lawmaker and laws are inherently moral. My point is that the only question remaining is who's moral framework will prevail - the one we've had for centuries or the new untested values of secularism.
Secularism working in Canada:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Religion+Experts+What+role+should+government+play+regards+religion/6285005/story.html
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/02/28/french-expert-on-secularism-brings-message-to-multicultural-b-c/
Thank you Pastor Hickey. At long last that is a rational answer, and I understand it. Praise the Lord. I don't agree with you, but I at least understood what you wrote.
(Ethics are not the exclusive property of religion... in fact, they are far from it, having more to do with reason and logic than the hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo of the bulk of religious mythology and dogma.)
For example, if one learned the Ethic of Recriprocity from the New Testament, great. But is is by no means the only source. It is a universally shared human ethical code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
" . . . laws are inherently moral. "
Could I get a clarification of this statement please? Those slavery laws? Those laws the Nazi's wrote? The Jim Crow laws?
Bill did you know that if I lived closer to Sioux Falls I'd certainly attend Pastor Hickey's church? He is truly very interesting to listen to and always makes sense. (I'd help him trap those rascally efficient chicken nabbing Mink too!) (Just think ; the farmer and the preacher catching mink and weasels--almost doesn't sound right. .:)
Angus is an invasive species.
"It is a universally shared human ethical code"
Yes Bill, your New Age Theology that places man above God. The universal ecumenical premise of the one-world religion to set up the one-world government. The Harlot riding the Beast.
Warning, do not take the mark of the Beast.
If he has any of his sermons on-line, Charlie, I'd sure give him a listen. He gets himself into some sticky wickets around here sometimes, but can usually weasel out of them. Must be due to his trapping experience, huh? ;^)
Did you miss this part of the link, Sib?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Christianity
Okay so, what am I missing here?
Are you talking about this deal now?
http://www.markbeast.com/
Or this one?
http://313merch.com/blog/the-mark-of-the-beast-qr-code-t-shirt/
LK,
I know exactly what Rep. Hickey was saying. Just cut it short. I made the same mistake once on a blog (here or DWC) and I had to write one of my monologues explaining it.
All laws are an expression of a moral value. I think I said it reference to political views in response for someone telling me to keep my moral values to myself.
Murder is illegal because society judges it immoral/wrong.
Killing Jews was legal in Nazi Germany as Hilter thought it moral/right.
He was not saying they are all moral.
"Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things -– he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies." --former President Carter.
Well, some laws don't have anything to do with morality guys.
In fact, a lot of them don't... maybe even the majority of them.
Should we check and find out?
"In 1982, Mormon Kip Eliason killed himself at the age of 16 because of "the immense feeling of self-hatred" he had, as a result of not being able to comply with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' teachings regarding masturbation."
http://news.yahoo.com/mormonisms-lethal-culture-sexual-dysfunction-224800095.html
"the one we’ve had for centuries or the new untested values of secularism"
Here is how deception is used to trick Christians and members of the Christian Right political movement. Secularism is not new. It is a term created by Fremasonry used to establish their religious beliefs by having those who drink their Kool Aid (like Bill Fleming) promoting the idea that secularism is not a religion. Don't take it from me, here it is coming from the horse's mouth:
What do Modern Free-Masonry, Humanism, and Secularism have in common? The answer to this question lies in the analysis of the key principles of these three philosophies, and as we shall see, there is more in common between them than what one might suspect. This essay will demonstrate that Modern Free-Masonry, as exemplified by the Grand Orient of the United States, the Grand Orient of France, and the original Modern Free-Masons of 18th century Europe, are fundamentally humanist and secular in nature, differentiated from Humanism and Secularism by their focus on brotherhood and ritual.
http://www.examiner.com/secular-humanist-in-boise/the-intersection-of-free-masonry-humanism-and-secularism-part-i
From the above link:
"Humanism in light of the above is clearly framed as a natural philosophy, where ethics and the pursuit of knowledge are grounded in empiricism, reason, and human experience. However, this is not just an epistemology or theory of how we seek and validate knowledge, but also a moral philosophy centered on egalitarian values, which are rooted in the age of enlightenment and deeply immersed in the notion of individual freedom and the intrinsic value of human beings."
Note the "moral philosophy" of Fleming's ethically rules that he wants to argue as secular and not moral.
Steve, when you use Roundup® to kill unwanted gifts from God, kills bees, and pollute the James River watershed, how are you not putting yourself above His wishes?
Should read:
Per your post above: "...a moral philosophy centered on egalitarian values, which are rooted in the age of enlightenment and deeply immersed in the notion of individual freedom and the intrinsic value of human beings."
Sorry. Sounds like the first plank on the GOP platform to me, Sibby.
I thought egalitarian values would be socialism. So wouldn't the GOP's fascism be a third way Hegelian dialectic on individualism and socialism?
And are you now understanding the deception of "secularism"?
http://www.gop.com/index.php/issues/what_we_believe/
Excerpt:
What we believe:
We're fortunate to live in America
The Republican Party believes that the United States has been blessed with a unique set of individual rights and freedoms available to all.
You can be what you are, and become what you are capable of becoming
The Republican Party is inspired by the power and ingenuity of the individual to succeed through hard work, family support and self-discipline.
(Strange, I don't see that "intrinsic value of human beings" part in the National Platform, but I'm pretty sure the Repub's believe in that too, don't they?)
Steve, don't take this personally, but have you gone coo-coo for cocoa puffs?
Ok this is from the above link:
"Finally, if we review the entry for Secularism in Wikipedia (4), which draws from many sources, we glean the following:
Governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.
Critical of religious orthodoxy and asserts that religion impedes human progress because of its focus on superstition and dogma rather than on reason and the scientific method.
Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus, Enlightenment thinkers like Denis Diderot, Voltaire, John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine.
What we can see from the above sources is that Secularism bears a strong resemblance to Humanism, with a strong emphasis on separation of church and state, reason and science, and freedom of conscience. Again we find a worldview strongly based on natural philosophy, where we approach life's most critical philosophical questions from the standpoint of "human" reason and experience, and where supernaturalism, religious dogma, and superstition are kept separate from the establishment of knowledge and morality."
So the secular humanist establishes its "knowledge and morlaity" outside of "religious dogma". Therefore all law is moral, regardles if it is considered secular or religious. By that we can conclude that both religious and secular humanism is a worldview based on the premise that man is above God. Satan would be happy with either, because that is the source of both. Read Genesis...eat from the Tree of Knowledge and become like god.
The fact that Sibson is running as an earth hater means he intends to suspend disbelief as a candidate.
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/mccainpalin-campaign-staffer-palin-character-cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs/
"The Republican Party believes that the United States has been blessed with a unique set of individual rights and freedoms available to all."
Bill, that is how conservatives come to vote Republican,. The leadership doesn't believe that stuff.
Okay now, I'm confused again, Sibby (it doesn't take much for me when I'm talking to you.) Are you saying being "blessed with a unique set of individual rights and freedoms available to all" is a GOOD thing, or a BAD thing?
(...this is as per my notes above... I don't understand what the heck Sibby is talking about most of the time, and I don't think he does either.)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/
Bill, did I not say that conservatives believe, but the GOP leadership just give it mouth service?
So now from Part 2 of the freemason's mouth:
Now let's turn to the American extension of European Modern Free-Masonry, namely the Grand Orient of the United States. Here we find the following key principles and values:
Freedom of conscience of all people, and that it is an essential component of liberty, equality and fraternity
Separation of religion and government, and religious and spiritual tolerance among all people.
Freedom of the press as a necessary component of maintaining the inalienable rights of all human beings, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The need for higher education and life-long learning
An impartial judiciary system as essential to guaranteeing the preservation of human rights
Arts and sciences as essential elements in the progress and evolution of humanity
Efforts that work towards global environmental and ecological sustainability as essential to the survival of the human species
http://www.examiner.com/secular-humanist-in-boise/the-intersection-of-free-masonry-humanism-and-secularism-part-ii
Now doesn't that sound like Cory, Bill, Larry and the rest of you liberals?
Bill,
Give me a single instance of a law that doesn't have anything to do with morals.
Now I will assume that none of you liberals will admit that your political beliefs are in line with the Grand Orient of the United States, I will then prove that those very beliefs are driven by the "New Age Religion" by providing a link that deals with these questions:
But is there really a connection between Freemasonry and the New Age Movement, as we claim? If so, what is this connection? What are the characteristics of the coming New Age World Religion? Is Masonry really based on occult, mystic rites of ancient, pagan Mystery Religions? What role is Freemasonry to play in the unveiling of the New Age World System? To answer these questions, we'll look to the authorities of both Masonry and the New Age Movement.
http://saintsalive.com/resourcelibrary/freemasonry/freemasonry-and-the-new-age-religion
There you go libs, go for some of that critical thinking, but first put down the Kool Aid.
Troy, I was going to do exactly that earlier, but I didn't want to insult your intelligence. The answer is pretty obvious.
Most City and County Ordinances for example. In terms of State Law, here's the list of master categories (there are 62 of them. I'll be curious to here which of these you really think have to do with "morality": http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/TitleList.aspx
Here's a "For example":
32-5A-5. Schedule of rates. The per vehicle wheel rate imposed pursuant to § 32-5A-1 may be imposed according to the manufacturer's shipping weight, including accessories, and may vary according to the following schedule:
(1) Two thousand pounds or less, inclusive;
(2) From 2001 to 4000 pounds, inclusive;
(3) From 4001 to 6000 pounds, inclusive;
(4) Over 6000 pounds.
Is it moral to tax a 6000 pound vehicle more than a 2000 pound vehicle when the 2000 pound vehicle averages 10 times more miles on the road than the 6000 pound vehicle?
Sorry. Sibby you lost me. Are you FOR or AGAINST individual freedom and the idea that human beings have intrinsic value? I thought I heard you say that people who believe in those things are secular humanist, Masonic, mark-of-the-beast, New Ager kinda guys. Yes? No?
I personally am all for it. So, I thought, were most Republicans.
Are we doomed or what?
Is it even a morality question, Steve? That's the point.
I just made it a morality question, as that is what your worldview is based on. And if human beings have intrinsic value, why do you continue to promote abortion? If you believe in individual freedom, then why do you want to the government to take property from individuals who earned it and give to sluggards? Bill you are really confused.
So why is Fleming so confused? Because he refuses to understand that both political parties are controlled by the same authority and I just showed you all what that force is.
Yes, I am confused Steve. You now seem to be arguing the exact opposite of what you were arguing before. I think you've painted yourself into a corner here, buddy. You're starting to sound like Mitt Romney and John Kerry. "I was against that before I was for it."
Charlie, we need to sick Pastor Hickey on Sibby here. He's starting to get all weaselly on us. "Round and round the mulberry bush..."
"You now seem to be arguing the exact opposite of what you were arguing before."
Show me like I showed you:
“part of your neurotic mental disorderâ€
“No one knows the mind of another.â€
You seem to make a judgement on my mind. Wow Bill, ever think before you type, oh man of great knowledge and reason?
"“Round and round the mulberry bush…â€
Fleming, you are looking into a mirror, so look closer and you will see that it is you not me that is running in circles. That is why you seldom answer my questions.
It's not a judgement, Steve. It's an observation. I don't know what to make of it. I think you might be driving yourself bonkers and blaming it on everybody else. That's pretty much what you always do.
Now, if you've been paying attention all these years, you'll notice that I'm not the only one who thinks this. I'm just the only one who will tell you. But hey, that's what friends are for, right?
LOL. What questions? All you do is make ostentatious pronouncements. And every question you ask is loaded and disingenuous. Always trying to catch somebody in the trick bag.
When someone does answer it, you snip off a little chunk, change the meaning, and go off on your next hyperbolic polemic.
In short, you are either completely dishonest, or just plain nuts. I usually choose the latter to be generous and compassionate. But at times, I run out of patience. I shouldn't do that. It's not nice to be mean to neurotics.
Fun sometimes, but not very nice.
"What questions?":
And if human beings have intrinsic value, why do you continue to promote abortion? If you believe in individual freedom, then why do you want to the government to take property from individuals who earned it and give to sluggards? Bill you are really confused.
You see? Just as I predicted. First, I don't promote abortion. Never have. Second, I don't believe that taxation is "tak[ing] property from individuals who earned it and giv[ing it] to sluggards." That's what YOU think. See how you do it? Both of those questions were dishonest (or nuts, take your pick.)
Bill, you promote abortion and the welfare state. So stop with the denials.
What you don's understand is Freemason's promotion of intrinsic human life (a pro-life position) and individual freedom. It is Luciferian and comes on as an angel of light to deceive, as they have done to you. I am throwing you a life line Bill. Jesus Christ will save you if you let Him.
On the abortion issue, you and I disagree on the definition of a "person." I think your definition is faulty and leads to irreconcilable moral dilemmas even far more complex than those we are dealing with now (the banning of contraceptives for example, or even people having sex at all for fear of committing murder a month later.) Second, I believe you feel the same way I do about abortion. It is sometimes necessary, and so, you are willing to make some exceptions (situational ethics). We just aren't quite in sync on which situations.
But that's not even the point. You said that people who believe that human beings have intrinsic value are New Age Theocrats... secular humanists. That implied to me that you reject the value, and that you don't believe it. Now you appear to have reversed your position. Talking with you is like untying knots. I can usually do it, but it gets tiresome after a while.
Sibby, I have no religion. I teach no religion in my French classroom. I teach against no religion in my French classroom. Nothing I do in my classroom on the public dime warrants Rev. Terry or Santorum telling me I don't belong in this country.
Hickey, you said, "My point is that the only question remaining is who’s moral framework will prevail – the one we’ve had for centuries or the new untested values of secularism."
The problem is, for centuries Christianity has been roiled by disagreements regarding all aspects of the religion. So it is an important and valid question to ask for further details about your particular beliefs, since what you believe may not be common to all Christians, perhaps not even most Christians. You've been clear that your beliefs affect your decisions, which affect all SDans.
I took the time to go to your church's website in an effort to learn about your faith. I had several questions. Will you answer them? Or are you being evasive? If so, why would you do that?
I don't see what the difference is between the intrinsic value of life of one belief system versus another. We either agree that it has value or we don't. I don't believe Jesus would argue with me on this point. I believe he would say that your life is as sacred as mine is which are as sacred as his is. There is no such thing as life that is not sacred. It's all the same life.
It's been nice talking with you today, Sibby. Good luck with your campaign. I would stay off the Masons/Demonic/Mormon bashing trip in your campaign talking points though. You're not quite ready for prime time with that stuff, broheem. Just stick to the issues and use your head. You do pretty good when you do that.
The Beast at Tanagra. Shaka, when the walls fell.
Bishop, I have five hundred plus podcasts on that website where I talk at length about all kids of doctrinal issues. Come to our Starting Gate class which is a great intro to our church. You can ask anybod these types of questions. I'm afraid of none of them. I have no time or desire to belabor each of your questions and I can't imagine Cory wants me turding up his blog with my Bible views. A couple quickies before I take my 22 year old out forth his birthday dinner.... The Bible is silent on what kind of car to buy. And God would not have let his Son die on the Cross if there were all kinds of other viable paths to reconcile with Him.
Wait. You young fellows are saying that the Shriners are manipulating the world? Those guys with the funny hats and little cars who put on circuses are manipulating the world?
If true, that's amazing. Ingenious, too.
and jesus said: show me the money.
Forgive my typos . My big thumbs on this iPhone are clumsy and the autospell feature is a pain especially when I'm in a hurry.
Yes, Grudz. That's what Sibby is saying. Not me. Sibby. And he might be saying that Mormons are kind of early proto-Shriners, who wear magic underwear and stuff. But maybe not. We'll have to check with him on that part. ;^)
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/commentary/business-morality-good-public-morality
"That implied to me that you reject the value, and that you don’t believe it. Now you appear to have reversed your position."
No Bill, my positiondid not change. My position is that no secular humanist who believes in killing a human being can claim they believe human beings have intrinsic value. Further I explained that Luciferians come on as an angels of light to deceive, as you clearly are.
And finally for someone who claims "No one knows the mind of another†spends alot of time thinking he knows what is on my mind. You can't get it right even after I explain it to you numerous times.
Your only hope is to give up teh humanism and turn your life over to Jesus Christ. That was the last point I made before you decided to lie about my position on life and the rights of individuals
"Nothing I do in my classroom on the public dime warrants Rev. Terry or Santorum telling me I don’t belong in this country."
No argument from on that point. I have been saying the Religious Right has it wrong. And I have also pointed out that the New Age Theocrats also have it wrong. Politics has turned into a simple-minded dichotomy between two movements who want to take control of the government and establish their theocracy.
On what planet will you be running after your opponents smother you, Sibby?
I didn't lie, Sibby, you waffled. And like I said, your life, Jesus' life, and my life are all the same life. I don't know how I can surrender it to him any more than that. I not only believe that spiritually. I understand it as a scientific fact.
Candidates for induction into the Shriners are greeted by a High Priest, who says:
“By the existence of Allah and the creed of Mohammed; by the legendary sanctity of our Tabernacle at Mecca, we greet you.â€
The inductees then swear on the Bible and the Koran, in the name of Mohammed, and invoke Masonry's usual gruesome penalties upon themselves:
“I do hereby, upon this Bible, and on the mysterious legend of the Koran, and its dedication to the Mohammedan faith, promise and swear and vow … that I will never reveal any secret part or portion whatsoever of the ceremonies … and now upon this sacred book, by the sincerity of a Moslem's oath I here register this irrevocable vow … in willful violation whereof may I incur the fearful penalty of having my eyeballs pierced to the center with a three-edged blade, my feet flayed and I be forced to walk the hot sands upon the sterile shores of the Red Sea until the flaming sun shall strike me with livid plague, and may Allah, the god of Arab, Moslem and Mohammedan, the god of our fathers, support me to the entire fulfillment of the same. Amen. Amen. Amen."
With this oath, Christians swear on the Koran, and declare Allah to be “the god of our fathers.†From the perspective of Christianity and Islam alike, Shriners take the name of God in vain, and mock both faiths.
Excerpt from The Origins and Influence of Masonry
by Lee Penn, SCP Journal Vol. 25:2-25:3 2001
P0 Box 4308, Berkeley, CA 94704
http://crossbearer-brian.tripod.com/id189.htm
"Politics has turned into a simple-minded dichotomy between two movements who want to take control of the government and establish their theocracy." You think this way because you are a dualist, Sibby.
Lot's of people have belief systems like that because they are unwilling to take personal responsibility for their thoughts, emotions and actions. They prefer to blame them on God, or the Devil, or whatever, when the battle is all inside their own heads.
Fleming and Sibson apear to be joined at the hip when it comes to the funny hat issue.
The Shriner is given a red fez with an Islamic sword and crescent jewel on the front of it. This sword emblem originates from 7th century Arabia when the Moslems, under the leadership of Muhammad (aka: Mohammed), slaughtered all Christians and Jews who would not bow down to the pagan moon god Allah. It is a symbol of subjugation.
http://cantontruth.blogspot.com/2008/07/shriner-red-fez-hat-symbol-for-death-of.html
There are three tiny rooms on a mezzanine in the meeting room of Woodmen Hall elevated above the gathering. Skull and bones, cats and dogs sleeping together, real wrath of god stuff.
"They prefer to blame them on God, or the Devil, or whatever, when the battle is all inside their own heads."
Yesterday you said:
“No one knows the mind of another.â€
Which way is it Fleming, oh man of great knowledge and wisdom who accuses others of flip-flopping.
Well, there you go grudz. Straight shootin' from the Sibbonator. Steve's source must have spaced out that "God the Father" is the same Supreme Being in all three Abrahamic faiths, Judaic, Christian and Muslim. That eyeball thing IS a little over-the-top though, huh?
p.s. I wonder how he would feel if he had some secrets and somebody found out about them and decided it was his job to tell everybody. I don't get it why people like Sib can't learn to just mind their own dang bidness.
That is what dualists do, Steve. By definition. You yourself have told me that you are one. Many, many times. Or are you going to change your mind about that now too? (It's okay with me if you do, Sibby. That IS your business.)
poor moroni....
let's see: psalm 109.....
No, Mike, Bill is the sane one. He dives into Sibby's language only to show its absurdity.
Pastor Hickey, I may chuckle all night at your phraseology. "There goes Hickey turding up my blog again." Hee hee!
But there's a key difference between me and the Terry-Santorum wing of the Republican party: I can stand Rev. Hickey turding up my blog with his Bible views. I can stand Rev. Hickey turding up my state and my country with his Bible views, even as I reserve the right to play turdbuster. Dennis Terry, Rick Santorum, and others think non-believers like me don't deserve to remain in America to bust those turds.
who would jesus etch-a-sketch?
This has been great entertainment guys! Thanks! I think the GOP and the Bible thumpers needs a double dose of ExLax. I would be happy to bake brownies. ;-)
Cory, you just keep bustin' them turds!
"No, Mike, Bill is the sane one."
"Steve’s source must have spaced out that “God the Father†is the same Supreme Being in all three Abrahamic faiths, Judaic, Christian and Muslim."
Straight out of the New Age Theological ecumenical one-world religion that will be the Harlot riding the Beast (one-world government). And Cory agrees with it. Thanks guys for proving my point about the New Age Theocracy. What Fleming doesn't want you all to know is that the Beast will destroy the Harlot once the authority has been established. Then the question becomes, will you accept the Mark of the Beast?
and jesus said: hand me the bong.
A little deprogramming primer for the Sibbonator:
http://dangerouschristianity.com/2011/07/01/fundamentalist-christianity-cult/
Bill, I am not a Fundamentalist and your link includes this:
Dick Sutphen, the popular New Age author and hypnotist, has pinpointed what I think is a very valid reason for the continued growth of the Fundamentalist Christian cult.
New Age is a cult that you support. Again accusing others of what you yourself is guilty of.
and jesus said: hand me dictionary.
Regardless of how you classify yourself, Sibby, I think you'll find the information helpful. It's a more systematic approach to deprogramming than the one you use. Time to get organized, brother. Unless of course, you think that in certain contexts, brainwashing is actually a good thing. In which case, the link won't help much, I suppose.
Bill, being deprogrammed by a New Age hypnotist is completely illogical.
Okay, Steve, here's one that's a little more generic:
http://www.soulwork.net/sw_articles_eng/exit_coach.htm
Ok Bill, good link, so when are you going to start deprogramming yourself from the New Age cult?
Maybe we should set up a deprogramming counselling service, Sibby. You do the lefties, I'll do the righties. LOL.
Can't wait for your first townhall, Sibby: deconstructing you in front of a madding crowd would be a blast.
Bill buddy,
Good example to prove my point:
The section you point out is part of something the larger: The moral perspective that those who use and cause our roads to wear out should pay for their maintenance. There is morality in everything.
If you say so, Troy. I on the other hand, think there are "immoral, moral, and amoral constructs" the latter being akin to "blind justice" and jurisprudence, and often reflect compromise, not the always (perhaps hardly ever?) the most "moral" choice.
As per LK, some laws are immoral, depending on one's perspective. We have issues like that on our plate all the time. Gay rights, medical marijuana, capital punishment, birth control, parking tickets, speeding tickets, etc. When legislation is passed and the laws enforced, there is rarely a sense of "right and wrong" only "legal and illegal."
Oftentimes people obey laws they believe to be immoral because of the social contract which (in my mind at least) is a step away from moral judgement.
"Adultry" is not illegal in most states for example (SD being one of them).
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/is-adultery-illegal-map
i.e. on some of our most volitile moral issues, the law is mute. Conversely, as per Hickey, this is why Jesus won't tell you whether to buy a red car or a green one. Oftentimes the Church handles issues the Law doesn't and vice versa. I think it's important for us to be clear about which is which.
Legalizing adultry is New Age Theology...the worship of sex.
So, are you going to add it to your legislative "to-do" list, Sibby?
Bill,
Being mute is also an expression of a moral: The state has no compelling interest in expressing itself on a particular matter.
Yes, in that sense, then, it is "amoral" Troy. My point exactly. As with "religion," if we blur the meaning of the words we use, one into the other, they lose their meaning. Conversely, you seem to be arguing that something outside a moral context is still a moral issue. This is how Sibby gets to ideas like "science is an immoral religion" when in fact, science is no such thing. There is nothing either moral or immoral about two hydrogen atoms combined with one of oxygen or the fact that that's what water is.
Bill,
I think we might be talking around ourseelves.
My point is every law or opininon, etc. is a statement of a moral view. A law that was passed is because it was thought good (a moral view).
I think you are saying not everyTHING is moral as somethings just are (like two atoms combining) where the good or bad is a reflection on the object/use. For instance, your example is good if the need is water but if the combination absorbs all the oxygen and nothing can breathe it is a bad thing. And I agree with you.
My point is restricted to the context of a law/opinion (not the entire universe).
Perhaps the best example I can give (because, hey, why sweat the small stuff, right Troy?) is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
I will argue that it is an "amoral" law, Troy. Beyond the context of "right and wrong." Transcendent of it, actually, as the recent round of action in the SD Legislature and the Governor's office illustrates.
Bottom line, it doesn't matter how the Amendment got there anymore, or even if any of us really understand what it means (we don't).
It's just the law of the land, and it is unlikely to change. (i.e oftentimes, the moral arguments oftentimes come after the law, not before it.)
Okay... not to the Laws of Physics then, Troy. That's good. Thank you. It's a start. Farther than I can get with Sibby. ;^)
Bill,
I was not contending that slavery, the Nazi's laws regarding the Jews, or Jim Crow were wrong based one's moral perspective. I was contending that they were immoral.
To clarify, I offer these paragraphs from Terry Eagleton, a professor who has taught at Oxford among other places. Just so I can have the pleasure of having both you and Sibby tell me I'm wrong, I'll note that Eagleton is a Marxist.
Here's the quotation:
All truths are established from specific viewpoints; but it does not make sense to say that there is a tiger in the bathroom from my point of view but not from yours. You and I may contend fiercely about whether there is a tiger in the bathroom or not. To call truth absolute here is just to say that one of us has to be wrong.
If it is true that racism is an evil, then it is not just true for those who happen to be its victims. They are not just expressing how they feel; they are making a statement about the way things are. ‘Racism is an evil’ is not the same kind of proposition as ‘I always find the smell of fresh newsprint blissful.’ It is more like the statement ‘There is a tiger in the bathroom.’ One could imagine someone murmuring consolingly to the victims of racism that he understands just why they feel the way that they do; that he understands just why they feel the way they do; that this feeling is of course entirely valid for them – indeed, that if he were in their shoes he would doubtless feel just the same way; but that in fact he is not in their shoes, and so does not consider the situation to racist at all. This individual is known as a relativist. He might conceivably be known, less politely, as a racist. – Terry Eagleton, After Theory, 106
Good point, LK. One could make a similar argument about Manifest Destiny, Capital Punishment, and unbridled Capitalism. It's why I contend that the law is amoral. i.e. like H2O, it just is what it is.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." — Sir Winston Churchill
"This is how Sibby gets to ideas like “science is an immoral religionâ€"
No Bill, I am saying science is a religion that puts man above God as designed by Satan. So what are you saying Bill, we can't pass laws passed on God's laws, only those supported by Satan? The New Age Theocratic immoral "social contract".
"There is nothing either moral or immoral about two hydrogen atoms combined with one of oxygen or the fact that that’s what water is."
Can science tell us where the two hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atom came from?
Hydrogen is about 13.7 billion years old. God is about 25,000 years old.
Steve, no, and neither can you.
Very disappointing dodge Hickey. I asked a few simple questions, and you refuse to answer them. You say your governing decisions are made on the basis of your faith, but you don't elaborate on what your faith is.
Effective dodge, but nothing to be proud of.
D.E. Bishop you are one of those elitist liberals who charge corruption and attack standing moral conservatives but refuse to answer a farmer/haystacker/politicians remarks to your reasoning and thought process without answering their smack back. What shallow life you live to attack a standing ordained minister of his faith when you cannot answer a proven sinner?
Careful, Charlie: we are all proven sinners. That collar absolves and perfects no one.
Corey; much of what we do is a direct result of who started us talking and walking. Obviously your parents worked very hard to make you see through the forest. Some here(and certainly elsewhere) were not so blessed.
My mom and dad appreciate your appreciation, Charlie.
What difference could it make for you tomorrow if I let you know that of the six or seven folks who write stuff on blogs; which I think about the next day, include you? You hammer on things which make no sense with well thought out response's. And you are one very intelligent guy. Misguided/directed on a few economic issues; (I am a supply sider :) ) but overall straight out correct on what most of America truly thinks while shaving. You don't need to respond here, having a cup of coffee sometime somewhere really early in the morning with you would be truly neat. My guess is we would agree on much. And to that we must agree. Life is short; let's hit it hard!!
I appreciate that too, Charlie. Your comment is a good reminder that we aren't mortal enemies, one of whose camps is an enemy of the state who has no business sticking around in America (oh yeah, remember the original topic, everyone?). We share a love of country and our fellow man. We argue hard because we give a damn, and because, as you allude, we don't have long to argue. But we still need to be able to sit down for coffee (your Main Street or mine, whichever works). Pastor Dennis Terry's rhetoric and Rick Santorum's applause-cum-fumbling show that those two men have lost sight of that common ground.
Sibby might be onto something here... perhaps we should compare the first few sentences of Genesis to the first few sentences of the Gospel of John to what we know about physics and chemistry... Particularly photons, gravity and hydrogen. (...oh yeah... And maybe quarks and gluons.)
Revisit this post, all.
Steve, Rick Santorum is going to be your party's nominee for Veep: would you trust his finger next to the button?
PA charter school in fraud case:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20120724_Feds_charge_Philly_charter_school_mogul_in_massive_fraud.html