The beginning of the jihad in Europe?

If you can't see the difference between Dominion theology and the Christian right on the one hand and Islamicism on the other, then you've got real problems with basic reality. The idea that Christians should influence the culture, including the law, is as American as apple pie, and really how is that any different than beleiving lefties like you should influence law and culture?But the idea that male infidels should be killed, and their women raped and forced into being Moslem wives, concubines, or sex slaves is somehow analogous to the beliefs of the Christian right is totally absurd.

What can we say? You think religious people that think they should try to better the world are nutjobs?Maybe the same can be said for lefties like yourself, assuming objective standards are applied to both? You want laws to be evaluated based on your values and ideology, and Christians want their values reflected in legislation.Is there a difference?Imo, your denigration of Christians for being politically or culturally active or active in any form is mere bigotry.This message has been edited by randman, 11-08-2005 03:45 PM

I have never met anyone advocating that. Have you?Please tell me the names of the Christian organizations that hold to dominion theology that advocate forced church attendance, forced conversion, etc,... It seems to me you have trouble distinquishing between wanting Christian values to be reflected in the culture and law and "trying to write laws to enforce religion."The people most likely trying to use the law to force their ideology on others are the leftists, liberals, and fellow travellers that want to force the rest of us to abide by their beliefs and support their programs via forced confiscation of our money and excessive regulations.Let's take an example I am familiar with. Liberals with good intentions worked awhile back here in Florida to enforce child labor laws with respect to agriculture. In some ways, it was a good idea, but they were so fanatical they the law restricts even one's own family from working on the farm.So a liberal beaurocrat in Alachua county, Fl just outside the city limits of Newberry, actually hid out with binoculars to watch and see if a farmer let his child run the tractor, and caught him, and punished the farmer with fines at or over $10,000.That's using the law to force your beliefs on someone else, and that's pretty much what liberals are expert at. Christians are not the ones advocating things like that.

Answer me this. Was Martin Luther King, jr trying to force a faith-based agenda into the public square?You can bet he was, and if you are honest, you'll admit to that.This message has been edited by randman, 11-08-2005 04:19 PM

MLK believed in taking the principles of non-violence and equality as expressed by Jesus Christ, and as an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, to mobilize first church members frequently using the pulpit and church services as a means of mobilizing people for political action according to those principles, and anyone else willing to assist, to make those principles a matter of law. He was, in fact, using his religion both religious beliefs and religious services to codify into law religious beliefs, and also very strongly preached a method of political activism which he felt was based on his religion and the teachings of Jesus Christ.He was a minister of the gospel who used his ministry to bring the principles of Jesus Christ into the political arena and that's a fact!

What's wrong with that?You want laws based on your morals and beliefs, and Christians want laws based on their's. Once again, you seem to be inable to distinquish between legislating religious laws into law, and merely allowing for religious values to influence law. There is nothing wrong, unConstitutional or anything like that with Christian values influencing legislation. So? And how does this legislate religion? Is anyone required to obey the Bible just because a Ten Commandments is on public ground?Let me ask you this. When a statue of a famous secularist is put up on a public property, is secularism as a religion being codified into law? Take a step back and look at what you advocate.You advocate the forced removal and banning of anything in publicly owned arena that mentions or relates to Christianity all the while pushing for your own ideology, or religion, to be pushed on everyone else. You are against religious expression because you want to ban allowing public expressions related to religion even though our Congress has always opened with Christian prayer, including the assemblies that ratified the Constitution. Gasp! How is this any different than you wanting full control by liberals of government? Is it OK for liberals to be in power, according to you, but inherently wrong for Christians to be in office? Is the political arena meant to be off-limits to Christians.Get real. What you believe and express is mere anti-religious bigotry.

Ghandi said he was following the principles of Jesus in the gospels, and the fact that some believers disagreed with MLK is a moot point.But that seems to be something you guys have a very difficult time with. It's hard for you to accept that MLK as a preacher, as a minister of the gospel, who believed part of the gospel message and work was to motivate people in their religion towards religious activism, was religiously motivated by his Christian beliefs because hey, some other people used the Bible to say something else. It shows a very childish and uneducated mind that cannot realize that is a complete moot point, and it is frustrating here to even think college educated people would be that way.Same thing happens often whenever the subject of freedom of religion comes up, which totally stemmed originally from Christians, and yet because Catholics killed those Christians for that, you guys cannot mentally grasp that not all "Christians" were the same religion basically. It's really weird, in fact.But the bottom line is MLK, jr was far more politically active and used religion as a basis for seeking to enact legislation than the anyone in the religious right has ever been, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Your form of secularism is clearly anti-religion. You say so yourself. You think all religious belief and sentiment is non-objective, false, etc,...and has no place in influencing a man's mind.Yep, what you are expressing is nothing more than anti-religious bigotry, and totally unAmerican thoughts alien to the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to seek to have their values reflected in legislation and policy. That's what a democratic republic is all about.What you seek to do is denigrate a portion of the electorate based on their religion and seek to demonize them and their values in favor of your values.That's bigotry, plain and simple.Separation of Church and State, a term not in the Consitution by the way, was not meant to keep religious values out of the government, but to keep the government from legislating religion. That doesn't mean civil law and policy should not be affected and influences by religion, nor by ministers of the gospel such as Martin Luther King.What it does mean is the government cannot govern in ecclesiastical affairs.

great post

The fact MLK was a minister, used sermons during religious services as his primary place to preach to motivate people for political activism is mere unsupported ramblings, but let a conservative Christian dare point out his opposition to abortion, and somehow we have a separation of Church and State issue.Sorry, but the unsupported ramblings stem from you. You seem to fail to recognize that it was the Reverend Martin Luther King, jr., that his political action was all done as part of his ministry of the gospel, as he interpreted the gospel message for that situation.

The idea you think Jimmy Carter's example is meaningful here is absurd. Every democratic politician says the same thing, that they are personally against abortion but don't feel the government should legislate it.Coincidentally, Carter is now saying he thinks some restrictions on abortion should be put in place and that the democrats are wrong to exclude pro-lifers.But you really don't care regardless, I suspect, because your belief centers on hatred and bigotry of religious people.The simple fact is trying to force religion on people using the law is wrong, but that is not what you are against. You stated you are even against religion or religious values being used to affect legislation and policy, and even religious people being in office.That's blatant bigotry and discrimination. Moreover, it's probably hypocritical if you are like most liberal democrats. Liberal dems have no problem speaking in minority churches or using their deacons and ministers to help get their people to vote dem, but if a conservative preacher says abortion is wrong and that it is wrong to support pro-abortion politicians, you guys act like treason has been committed.You are not being honest, and frankly, most of America is beginning to see through the type of bigotry you advocate.There is absolutely nothing wrong with religious values and religion in general influencing legislation and policy in civil matters. The example you gave would be legislating an ecclesiastical matter and that's a different subject altogether.The point here is whether religion and religious values and religious people should influence policy and legislation in civil matters.This message has been edited by randman, 11-09-2005 01:14 PM

That's a good point. Let's hope that they are not being won over by the jihadis.

His political activism was part and parcel of his faith-based agenda.Btw, you do realize that Ghandi's political activism was faith-based as well, don't you? So arguing, as you did later in another post, that he was influenced by Ghandi's example, still makes it faith-based, but regardless, MLK felt to work for justice in the political arena using non-violence and love was the work of the gospel of Jesus Christ in his ministry.

So Ghandi was faith-based too.Somehow, the fallacy of using him as a secularist escapes you.

Jazzns, thanks for your post. Maybe Yaro and I are talking past one another. I think you may be right on that.It's an interesting issue. I am not sure things like "under God" or "In God We Trust" on the dollar are a violation of the separation concept since they don't really deal with a specific establishment of religion since the term "God" is so general, and I see the Constitution as more prohibiting one religion over another, not the concept of religion in general.And when you think of how Congress has always had a Christian chaplain, I really think the Consitution should be read more strictly as referring to governmental legislation not governmental participation. In other words, it's not wrong to open every legislative session with prayers in the name of Jesus, even though that involves a clear preference for Christianity over other religions, because there are no laws being passed concerning religion. That's the way I look at it.Public participation in religious worship or ceremonies, regardless of seeming entanglement, is not an issue I think the letter of Constitution forbids as long as there is no legal effect enforcing one religion over another.So a president can pray publicly or whatever. Military and Congressional chaplains are OK. Generic religious public statements, statues, whatever, are OK as well provided no laws or preferences are based on religion when it comes to legislative and enforcement action, hiring, etc,...Right now, I realize the courts seem to come down somewhere in between where I stand and your stance of thinking even "under God" is a violation, but I think we both abhor the concept, as nearly all Americans do, of actually using the government to force religion and religious practices on people.This message has been edited by randman, 11-09-2005 03:37 PM