A Place Called HeavenThread Started October 25 at 1:44AM
Here is a good example of why the American founding fathers were incredibly wise in not including God, Jesus or any kind of creator even once in the Constitution. Because when the line between church and state is blurred, all manner of politically convenient biblical cherry picking enters the political arena. Here is a fine example of this, and should circumstances play out according to plan, Catholics, Mormons, women, gays and many others will be in for a dose of megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress's evangelical interventions.
According to the good pastor, Trump was elected by God and therefore he has sanction from on high to do many unsavoury things, including taking care of Supreme Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, Kim Jong Un. Says Jeffress, "The biblical passage Romans 13 gives the government authority to deal with evildoers--that passage gives the government the authority to do whatever, whether it's assassination, capital punishment or evil punishment to quell the actions of evildoers like Kim Jong Un." And a whole bunch of other people now too.
Jeffress goes on to say that many pacifist Christians will cite Romans 12, which says, "Do not repay evil for evil," but Jeffress says that that passage is referring to Christians, not to the government. Yay! Finally we get an autocracy. I must admit to being somewhat surprised to learn that Trump once predicted the only way he'd get into heaven was if he was elected president. And how odd the president just the other day peddles Jeffress' book A Place Called Heaven on Twitter.
Even odder, this is what the good pastor Jeffress has to say about congresswoman Wilson and the Niger ambush: "It's the height of hypocrisy for this whacko rhinestone-cowboy congresswoman to accuse the president of insensitivity when she is the one exploiting the widow's pain for her own partisan gain." Jeffress' hypocrisy is truly stunning but I guess when the end game is filling the supreme court a few little sins on the road can be overlooked. I've heard God is good that way, when he goes to the trouble of electing a president.
Sorry to say though, this a proverbial caught between a rock and hard place scenario because Pence is worse and has native intelligence. Perhaps if you had to pick between the lesser of two evils, Trump is the better choice? Although it would be rather humorous watching Jeffress twist himself into a pretzel explaining how God pulled a fast one and what he REALLY meant was God elected Pence. The lord truly does work in mysterious ways especially when you bargain with the devil to gain entrance to heaven.
Reply on October 25, 2017 02:05 AM
There are many good reasons not to believe. Right up there with the best of them is the behaviour of Christians. Not all of them, but a huge number. This dimwit "pastor" seems to be a good example of that.
"The King was in the altogether..."
Short Works Rating
Reply on October 25, 2017 02:57 AM
This may be the most important issue facing us in the U.S. at this time. I agree with what Gloria has posted completely and I must admit, sheepishly, that Craig is on the money as well. I hope though that the number of Christians who would see a Church State run by the likes of someone like Gloria describes are MUCH fewer than Craig suspects. I have my doubts. I feel rather lonely around here most of the time. LOL
REMEMBER, this guy has our PRESIDENT'S EAR.
The separation of Church and State is at the heart of this administration whether anyone likes it or not. That boundary has already been breached. "Church" is now a powerful political force lobbying with voice and cash for their agendas. It's always been so, but now it's out in the open and becoming the law of the land, slowly but surely.
The travel ban is clearly a religious issue and the lower courts have said so. Sadly, one branch of government has already fallen to the church. The Supreme Court is now in the pocket of the Fundamentalist Christians and it may become deeper in the pocket before this nightmare is over.
Civil rights are being dismantled as are ANY rights that assist ANYONE who isn't white and Christian. Say what you will, that is what it amounts to.
It isn't a secular vs non-secular issue. I don't know how many Christians are in favour of separation, but I hope it's the same overwhelming majority it's always been. This Christian would be terrified to live in a CHRISTIAN STATE. Mercy ... I doubt I would be the RIGHT kind of Christian for one thing. I don't think the lesbians in my congregation would get a fair shake either. ETC., ETC., ETC.
Remember, the founding fathers DID have a great number of Christians among them. Indeed, many of the values set forth in the Constitution regarding equality and freedom find a parallel in Christian teachings. Well, of course, ALL positive faiths or simple lifestyles if they are of value are founded on do unto others and do no harm. Christians, myself included, don't have the market cornered on being decent.
In fact, there are a great many so-called religious folk who are as evil and fraudulent as any humans to ever walk the face of the Earth. ISIS claims a religious base. I've seen some pretty hate mongering Christians gaining notoriety and huge followings of late. I'm loathe to identify myself to be honest. NO, I'm NOT one of THOSE. But, hell, there's so damn many of them it seems, the assumption is almost automatic. OMG! He's a Christian ... RUN!!!!
Anyway, Gloria's point is on the money. Without lapsing into an argument on whether Christians are good or ill, I'd love to hear a real argument on WHY there shouldn't be a separation of Church and State. Why is a Christian nation a good thing, if you think it is?
I rambled on ten times as long as I planned. I hope separation of church and state remains the focus and not some tangent I may have went off on.
Reply on October 25, 2017 04:02 AM
Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I come from a country in which the church and state is NOT separated, and yet it seems far more separate than in America. I found it very disappointing to discover that the 'land of the free' is anything but, in that respect.
A person's religion is a person's religion. That person can live by it if they so wish, and that freedom should be there, within reason (i.e if your religion advocates human sacrifice, or torture, you shouldn't be permitted to do that on religious grounds). But the laws of the land should not be so influenced by religious beliefs that what I choose to believe in, or not believe in, can be detrimental to my quality of life in that country.
Who I choose to love is my business. What I do with my body is my business. I choose not to let religion dictate that to me. I don't want to have the life choices I make with consenting adults dictated to me by a law influenced by a religion I do not believe in. I'm not stopping anyone else living by the rules of their chosen religion. I just don't see why a particular religion needs to force itself, by law, onto every citizen in the land, and I don't think it is right that it should.
Reply on October 25, 2017 05:22 AM << Modifed October 25 at 5:29AM >>
No prizes for guessing where I stand on the issue of separation of church and state. It is something we probably enjoy more than either the UK or the US (maybe not Canada), although there are a couple of tub-thumping fundamentalists in our parliament (and at least two of them are ex prime ministers) who would like to see everyone forced to live the way the church decrees. But thankfully, they have no more say than anyone else, and probably less, because most people don't like them.
The issue is at the forefront here at the moment because we are in the midst of trying to decide whether we will allow same-sex marriage (yes, I know, we are behind most of the western world here).
There was a debate about this on Q&A on Monday night. I've included the video for anyone who might be interested. Basically, the Anglican Church here has adopted a position against legalising same-sex marriage. The Catholic church has also officially declared itself against it, although one brave priest appeared on the Q&A panel advocating a "yes" vote.
Now to my simple mind, the logical position to adopt if you are against gay marriage is not to marry a gay person. What gives anyone the impression they have the right to impose their will upon another in such matters is beyond me. What does it matter to you whom your neighbour marries?
(Aside: one bizarre thing is that the most outspoken representative for the negative case is an ex PM who has a gay sister!)
Anyway, it has been made clear that clergy will NOT be forced to marry couples if it is against the teaching of their church or their own conscience. So what right do they have to dictate that gay couples can't be married by a civil celebrant (civil celebrant officiated weddings already outnumber church weddings in this country).
I also wonder how gay Christians feel about all this Of course some hard-liners will tell you there is no such thing - to which I say "how Christian of you".
So, while I respect the right of religious people to not be involved in such ceremonies if you find them offensive, how dare you presume you have the right to tell someone else what they may and may not do.
(For some reason, there is 1 min 40 sec of "blank" at the beginning of the recording - it's fine after that).
Reply on October 25, 2017 05:34 AM
I'll give you two words that adequately prove why religion and politics shouldn't mix...
Reply on October 25, 2017 05:35 AM
A point well made, GMG.
Reply on October 25, 2017 06:09 AM
That's exactly it, Craig. Also, I find it interesting that the people so keen on these sorts of legal restrictions often tend to be the same people who bang on about an excess of government interference.
But again, I have to say, that despite the lack of separation of church and state here, we do allow same sex marriage under law. But nobody is forced to carry out such ceremonies. Some churches will allow it, some will not, but they are not forced to allow it, just as some still do not permit divorcees to wed in their churches.
I think the worry is that the day may come when people ARE forced to carry out these ceremonies, because of the publicity some refusals in certain areas have received. The problem is, 'live and let live' has to apply to everyone, which means that, whilst you should be able to marry any consenting adult you choose, the person offering the service in a religious establishment still has the right to refuse, without threat of repercussions. Otherwise, we end up in the same oppressive state, just from another angle.
Laws should primarily relate to benefits to the whole community. A law opposing gay marriage confers no benefit to anybody but those who wish everybody to conform to their own sensibilities. Gay people present no threat to society simply because they are attracted to folk of the same gender. There are more than enough heterosexual people to endure the human race isn't in danger of extinction from lack of breeding any time soon. So the only reason a law disallowing two consenting adults to be joined in a legal contract of matrimony would exist is because some people don't like it. It has no adverse effect on others.
But, in some areas of the religious community, it is considered a sin, and to be forced to enable another person to commit such a sin would cause untold emotional distress (even though some of us might think the whole notion of consenting adults being in a loving, committed relationship is some sort of an abomination is ludicrous). So, in a house of religion, such as a church or temple, a member of the clergy should retain the right to deny gay couples a religious ceremony.
A person working in an office of the government, providing civil ceremonies, however, should suck it up or leave the job, because the right to a civil ceremony is a legal one, not governed by religious caprices.
Reply on October 25, 2017 06:11 AM
We crossed posts, Gman. Yes, absolutely.
Short Works Rating
Reply on October 25, 2017 07:41 AM
Hey, as soon as the Luciferians take their hand out of the political realm, the likes of Trump and many others would gladly take their hand out as well. A glorious day that will be
Unfortunately for many though , the NEW King of this New world would-be Jesus.
Short Works Rating
Reply on October 25, 2017 08:26 AM
I wonder why it is that "evolution" has evolved mankind into two undeniably distinct groups. One that seems perfectly happy and content to live in a New World Order, and the other that is avowed to NEVER bow down to it. "Survival of the fittest" indeed.
-1- 2 3 4 5
Sebastian and the Invisible Island tells the tale of a young boy stranded on a mysterious island where his only hope for rescue lies in feuding extraterrestrials who also yearn for home.
“This is a great book to enjoy between parent and preteens or younger. It drew us with its intriguing tropical island setting, heroics and strange goings on.” -Sally
“Excellent reading material for the age group. A breath of fresh air for young people in an area that is growing darker.” –Robert
Available in Kindle ($2.99) and paperback ($9.97).
Advertise With Us