Say Anything Blog

Yes, it is confirmed that Conservative Christians are in fact forming a Third Party.

They are going to call it the:

“We-Didn’t-Screw-Things-Up Badly-Enough-In-2006-By-Not-Voting-So-Now-We-Are-Going-To-Make-Sure-Hillary-Gets-Elected-In-2008” Party.

I wonder if God considers stupidity to be a sin?

Well, some conservative Christians are threatening to form a third party if Rudy is nominated. This would be a stupid move, of course.
Where we differ, Rob, is in the idea that “social conservatism” and “fiscal conservatism” are somehow separate things.  I have to ask you the question I always ask those who claim to be fiscally conservative but not socially conservative: How does the fiscal conservative countenance the spending of the social liberal?
Your federalism argument might be compelling if the lefties didn’t want to force their agenda on us through the courts.  I think you have to fight the enemy at the level they are fighting you(if you want to win).  With the passage of Roe v Wade, all conservatives needed to wake up and smell the aborted coffee.  The lefties created a constitutional right without going through the amendment process, and that should frighten any real American.  If we want to prevent another minority pressure group with the entire MSM as a propaganda machine from imposing the next item on their agenda on us without our being able to vote on it, we need to pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting real marriage.  I know you consider that a violation of the principle of federalism, but so does Roe, and it’s a done deal, with a huge holocaust of dead babies as a result. Do we really want to have this happen to marriage?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

The only thing they can accomplish by this is exactly what Bill mitchell just said....divide the conservative vote enough for Hillary to walk into the White House.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

<*shrug*>
It looks like another scare story from the MSM.  They have always tried to put a wedge in the crack between religious conservative “leaders” and less morally driven conservatives.  I won’t give this story any credence until there’s an actual announcement from somebody that matters.

I particularly liked the constant use of the word “secret”.  It didn’t sound like a particularly secret meeting if the NYT knew about it and knew the subjects (if not the details) of the discussions.  Of course, had this been Hillary!, it would have been called a “closed-door” meeting, much like her health care reform meetings back in the 90s.

First, don’t forget that the President chooses Supreme Court Justices and the Senate confirms them, so now why is it exactly that the President or Senate don’t have any power over these social/moral issues, I don’t quite get your logic here?

No matter how great the economy is or how much states rights you are able to restore, if we are a morally and spiritually bankrupt people, are we not just a rich, immoral nation?

If the far right Republicans are going to in effect tell evangelical Christians to shut up about their moral issues and wanting a candidate to support those issues, as many here have suggested, on what basis then should we vote for your candidate or support your party? Just to avoid a Hillary presidency? This suggests that Christians are to vote against the immoral Leftist candidates and for the immoral Right Wing candidates wholly for economic reasons.

Speaking only from a Christian point of View: The argument that people can be moral and decent outside faith in Christ and fear of God’s Judgment, even wholly secular, atheist or agnostic people is to deny reality. Those societies having viewed Christ and the Church and the Judeo-Christian code of morality as an enemy (opiate of the people) have all been wholly corrupt and have fallen into the ashheaps of history or are on their way. On the other hand, as long as we as a people have honored God and been mostly a Christian people, we have been blessed in military and economic power much more than any other nation in world history. For Christians, there is nothing good outside Christ.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

If the far right Republicans…

One of the many problems with this characterization, Neiman, is that the lefties consider the Christians the “far right”.  Remember one of their favorite stereotypes, “the Christian Right”?  This whole thing is designed to drive a wedge between Republican voters. Please don’t help it to succeed.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

First, the idea that social conservatives aren’t being pandered to enough by the GOP is absurd.

I don’t think standing up for conservative principles is any type of “pandering”, Rob.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

All these political names and what the hell do they mean anymore? I consider Ron Paul to be Far Right at least further right than Bush.

Bush usually walks down the center of the political circle, but sways to the right here and there. A Christians vote is nothing but a check list of the good and evils of who ever is running.

But I probably would not consider voting on the side of the Judeo/Christians, being that the Jews seemed to have infiltrated there theology with there pro-Israel nonsense.

I am simply a Christian and Ron Paul gets my vote, but I know that the “Jews” will never let that happen.

The fringe right has made its demands, so we can expect a whole lot of apologies and promises from the otherwise reasonable right in coming days.  Dobson and his crusade against evils like the gays and teletubbies must be placated if the GOP is to have a prayer in 08.

Social conservatism is often great at the personal level and almost always dangerous at the government level.

Of course that all depends on how you define “social conservatism”. Many so-called liberals say that being against abortion falls under the category. The intelligent among us realize that the abortion issue is a matter of life and death.

And the idea that we have to “fight the enemy at the level they are fighting you” when that entails flushing all ideals of fiscal conservatism down the toilet is just plain bat-shit crazy.

Social conservatism remains at home and in the community. It does not even exist in Washington D.C. Nice try, but no cigar.

kbiel - They have always tried to put a wedge in the crack between religious conservative “leaders” and less morally driven conservatives.

“Less morally driven conservatives”? That’s one hell of a way of framing the debate kbiel.

Since Rob has made so much of his personal life public, let’s use him as an example. He often espouses social conservatism on the personal level. He lives a good life and although he has fallen down and has made a couple of mistakes, he knows the good path and does his best to stay on it. Where he, I and many others draw the line is when one tries to implement those social policies at the government level.

It’s not about being “less morally driven” kbiel; rather, it is how those morals should be endorsed and who is doing the driving. Many of us look at the government’s track record and the unintended consequences wrought over the years and say, “no thanks”. That said, we all have different lines.

I don’t think standing up for conservative principles is any type of “pandering”, Rob.

I don’t consider banning gay marriage to be a conservative principle, robert.  And yes, I know you’ll respond with some ridiculous, hair-splitting argument about it not really being a ban or something, but I don’t find any of that the least bit convincing.

And we can defend against a left-wing agenda driven through the courts while still respecting federalism.  Fred Thompson’s proposed constitutional amendment recognizing that states don’t have to recognize one another’s marriages is an example of that.

It’s not a ban on gay marriage, but rather a firm statement that each state should figure it out for themselves.

I remain rather skeptical of the conservative bonafides of most self-described social conservatives.  It drives me nuts to hear someone call themselves a conservative and then turn around and talk about banning alcohol or banning smoking on private property.

Banning those things in public is one thing, banning them in private is quite another.

I’m a conservative, and that means I value freedom and independence over all other things.  That’s a messy definition because some freedoms (like the freedom to kill one another or steal or act in such a way that endangers others) just can’t exist in a stable society.  But the litmus test is whether or not an activity actually hurts the rest of society.

What the litmus test shouldn’t be is the bible, or any other set of religious beliefs.  The founders were deeply religious, and their religion no doubt informed the principles this country is founded on, but ultimately the constitution and the will of the people is the law of this land.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Fred Thompson’s proposed constitutional
amendment recognizing that states don’t have to recognize one another’s marriages is an example of that.

So, it’s a Constitutional Amendment either way; why support one and not the other?  Of course, there is no way to “ban” something that doesn’t exist; this is not “hair-splitting”, but simple reality.

It seems as if “banning” is your issue; can you look at conservatism in another way?  If you are a fiscal conservative, you could be said to want to ban the expansion of govt and ban increased taxes.  If you want to eliminate some taxes, like the capital gains tax or the “death tax”, then you want to ban them, don’t you?  I think this line of argument is just silly; if you don’t want to establish federal “rights” or entitlements to things you think are bad, be they a redefinition of marriage for some minority pressure group, or if it is taxes or excess govt, why shouldn’t you?  To me, that’s what conservatism is all about.  If commie lefties weren’t trying to cram this social crap down my throat, I wouldn’t care, frankly.  I want to deny them the money through limited govt, but they go through the courts and do it anyway.  For the record, I do want to ban things that are wrong, be they high taxes/intrusive govt or destructive social behavior.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

And the idea that we have to “fight the enemy at the level they are fighting you” when that entails flushing all ideals of fiscal conservatism down the toilet is just plain bat-shit crazy.

Which is why I didn’t say that.  If you read what I wrote, I specifically referred to social “rights” and entitlements being forced on us through the courts, and recommended that to prevent it, we had to act at that level with Constitutional amendments where necessary.  I used Roe v Wade as an example.  Excuse you!

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Who the f**k are these people who claim to represent Christians?  Which of these 10 largest denominations do they speak for?  My guess is none of them so what they may say has absolutely no weight.

1. Roman Catholic Church: 67.2 million.
2. Southern Baptist Convention: 16.4 million.
3. United Methodist Church: 8.2 million.
4. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: 5.5 million.
5. Church of God in Christ: 5.4 million.
6. National Baptist Convention USA: 5 million.
7. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: 4.9 million.
8. National Baptist Convention of America: 3.5 million.
9. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): 3.2 million.
10. Assemblies of God: 2.7 million.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

The fringe right has made its demands, so we can expect a whole lot of apologies and promises from the otherwise reasonable right in coming days.  Dobson and his crusade against evils like the gays and teletubbies must be placated if the GOP is to have a prayer in 08.

It is not the Left driving a wedge between Christian Conservatives and secular conservatives, it is people like jpe, Rob, others here and their ilk in the Republican Party that are driving that wedge deep into the heart of the Party. Several loud voices here are in essence telling Christians to shut the hell up about their beliefs, take your religious fantasies and keep them quiet and at home and stay out of the public square. Further, they want to deny Christians the same rights they claim for themselves, the right to try and change laws to reflect their world view and to select and support only those candidates substantially in harmony with those views.

People like Rob and others will be the cause of the Republican Party facing major defeats in 2008 because they are preaching the doctrine that God, Christ and Christians are personna non grata in the party except to vote while keeping their mouths shut, they are second class members of the Republican Party and not welcome to fight for their beliefs and candidates.

So, please don’t accuse me or other believers of falling for the Democrat plan to divide and conquer, when those on the Right are speaking out passionately against the basic civil rights of Christians to push for laws in line with their beliefs and candidates that support their beliefs. You want to see the enemy of the Republican Party, look inside, the enemy is you! Rob says the party in the long term would be better off without Evangelical Christians, so I am sure he will not object when we no longer support the party.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Who the f**k are these people who claim to represent Christians?

First, it is quite telling that you seem incapable of talking about Christians without engaging in expletives. It is unbecoming and only causes further divisions.

It is a false charge and you know it is, to accuse any Christian that defends their beliefs of talking for everyone claiming to be Christians. Christians tend to talk about their faith in Christ and their views of what they believe Christ would demand of us all, with the degree of Spiritual Light they possess; but, no true Christian judges the eternal fate of anyone, or claims to speak for God or for all Christians. Nor would any true Christian think they possess all the Truth, but only have the faith to speak out on the degree of Truth they do possess.

Dobson and others lead large groups of Christians, as Elders in the Body of Christ, and they will answer to God for speaking outside His Will. Nonetheless, being anointed to preach, teach and lead certain ministries, they have an obligation to share their views and at the same time they never demand anyone agree or act they way they feel appropriate.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

I personally see elections as a joke, its sought of like voting for the pre-selected candidates that have been placed there by the same party.

Theres not a hell of allot of difference between them, I consider them just puppets for there masters, the string pullers, It’s nothing but a sham.

Who is gonna be this time puppet #1 or puppet #2?

For years I always felt that if you want a slow death with mild anesthesia than vote Republican and if you want a quick and very painful death vote Democratic.

Yea and if your a Christian than just write in Jesus Christ because neither of the puppet parties will never make any Christian more than 65% happy.

Who knows I would like to see who the Christian’s nominee will be, but knowing the brain washed JUDEO/christians it would probably be Henry Kissinger.

Wetback: I know it is a small point, but it drives me crazy: There - adverb used to indicate position in or motion toward a place relatively distant from the speaker. Their - belonging to or relating to a specific group of people or things. Please use the correct spelling for the sake of my sanity.

It is not if ’your‘ a Christian, but if ’you’re‘ a Christian.

Who knows I would like to see who the Christian’s nominee will be, but knowing the brain washed JUDEO/christians it would probably be Henry Kissinger

Kissinger is a jew and if I recall not a natural born citizen. How about Ambassador Alan Keye’s?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

¡Cookoo! ¡Cookoo! ¡Cookoo!

¡Cookoo for crazy Christians!

¡Cookoo! ¡Cookoo! ¡Cookoo!

(My limit for this shit has been reached. Christians are persecuted enough. For some to see persecution coming from people who are giving none is just plain ¡Cookoo!)

likwidshoe: I have a great deal of personal respect for you, your intellect and your always civil manner; so please excuse me if I view your last post as being mostly uncharacteristic inane ramblings, void of any substance or value in this discussion.

To observe and note the reactions and comments of Republicans here and elsewhere that seem to uninvite Evangelical Christians from full participation in the party’s political process; and to view them as harmful to the cause of fiscal and states rights conservatism is not to claim persecution, but rather it is an observation of words and events that for all intent and purposes makes Evangelical Christians personna non grata within the Party. Any other interpretation seems wholly subjective in my opinion and not in accord with the facts.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

likwidshoe,

How else do you want me to word it?  Some come to the conservative fold looking for limited government, fewer taxes, lower taxes, greater freedom.  Others, while maybe sharing some of those ideals, also bring their religious/moral convictions to the party.  And notice that I said ”less morally driven,” not completely immoral or amoral.  After all, abortion is a moral issue and some non-religious conservatives oppose legalized abortion.  On the other hand, do you doubt that the Log Cabin Republicans are driven more by ideology than morals?  Do you doubt that Gary Bauer is driven more by his morals than his ideology?

There was not insult meant by that phrase.  It was merely a means of describing the divide.  You seem to be the only one offended by it.

Further, you assume that I am one of those icky social conservatives or religious right or evangelicals.  I said nothing to indicate which side of the divide I fall.  Just so that you know, I would be one of those Republicans that are driven less by morals than by ideology.  At the same time, I am a Christian who attends at least 2 worship services a week.  I just believe that we do not need to codify the morals taught by the Bible because those are a matter of individual choice, just as it is each individuals choice to accept or reject Christ.  The only moral issue I feel compelled to pursue in the political arena is abortion.  But not because abortion is a moral issue (though it is), but because I see it has a natural rights issue.  It falls into one of those pesky inalienable rights (i.e. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) that the left would love to get rid of in our country.

So, please ignore my phraseology and put aside your righteous indignation and address my point.  I hate the term “religious right” and “evangelical” (in the context of politics anyway), so you pick a better descriptor.  In any case, I find it to be a false dichotomy, driven by the MSM to try to divide the Republican party.  Not because there aren’t those who fall sharply to either side, but because a vast majority of us are somewhere in a spectrum between the two extremes as painted by the MSM.

And notice that I said ”less morally driven,” not completely immoral or amoral.

Au contraire! Personally, you’re talking to someone who views the world through the lens of good and evil, right and wrong; something that translates all the way down to political views. It’s all about morals even though, paradoxically perceived by some here, I am not much of a social conservative at all.

The reasoning I use for why I am not a government social conservative is that I believe that being against what I view as a nanny-state government to be a highly moral position given government’s horrendous ass-backwards track record on these issues. In short, I think that they end up doing more harm than good and often end up exacerbating the very problems that they set out to solve. Incidentally, this is the same reasoning I use for being against most of the liberal ideas.

On the other hand, do you doubt that the Log Cabin Republicans are driven more by ideology than morals?

You could say that, but then we could start examining the issues and applying moral reasons to the thinking. It’s not hard to do. Fiscal conservatives believe in the moral position of letting a man earn his keep and keep his earn. He doesn’t agree with the often amoral and immoral government taking his hard earnings to give to ungrateful welfare leeches. Conservatives are against the oddly titled and immensely demeaning “affirmative action”. I’ll stop here with the examples and just say that you can apply morals and values of right/wrong (aka “morals") to just about every typical fiscal and governmental conservative belief.

What’s the drive? Morals or ideology? Why are you a fiscal conservative kbiel? Because of some nebulous concept of ideology or something higher and deeper?

People, both left and right, are so passionate about these issues because they believe that they hold the moral position. The left will go further and add in their concept of “fair”. Conservatives, on the other hand, view the left’s definition of “fair” as immoral. It’s all dependant upon the personal definition of what the morality entails, where that moral line lies, just who is in charge of that morality, whether or not an outsider in charge of that morality is moral in and of itself, and so on.

There was not insult meant by that phrase.  It was merely a means of describing the divide.  You seem to be the only one offended by it.

I know that and I wasn’t insulted. I have a bit thicker skin than that.

Further, you assume that I am one of those icky social conservatives or religious right or evangelicals.

Not at all.

So, please ignore my phraseology and put aside your righteous indignation and address my point.  I hate the term “religious right” and “evangelical” (in the context of politics anyway), so you pick a better descriptor.

Geeze. You’re jumping the gun and barking up the wrong tree with this one. I NEVER use those phrases unless I am quoting back someone else’s own words or, and this will surprise you, arguing against the use of such terms. They’re charged terms and so often misused by my political opposites that they have become little more than insults.

In any case, I find it to be a false dichotomy, driven by the MSM to try to divide the Republican party.

As do I, as my somewhat lengthy explanations up above will show. kbiel, we’re more on the same page on all of this than you realize.

Funny how social conservatives “aren’t qualified” to get the Republican nomination with a fiscal conservative blemish. But fiscal conservatives with Hillary-like social policies like Rudy get a pass.

The president has veto power over EVERY congressional bill, so don’t say he can’t do anything. Look what Bush did for stem cell research and signing partial birth abortion ban.

And please, the next president will pick the next Supreme Court justice to potentially overturn Roe. That’s not good enough????

For those of you who put making another buck over abortion, need to re-evaluate priorities.

For those who think Giuliani will put in a judge to overturn Roe, I’ve got some ocean-front property in Fargo you might be interested in.

Why should we have less abortions if you’re not really killing someone?

Reasoning from observation and concluding there is a Creator and that such an intelligent being created according to His wisdom strongly suggests we live in accordance with the priniciples of wisdom.  Many of these principles are self-evident and are the basis of our constitution. As a social conservative I would like to have a President who acknowledges this reality and acts accordingly.  That would mean that such a President would acknowledge that abortion is murder, that marriage is a time, cultural, religious, and sacred institution honored as such throughout recorded history and is not relatively defined by society, that decency promotes a positive and healthy society, that evil is a reality, that Capital punishment is necessary, that discipline is instrumental in education, that spanking is not child abuse… etc, etc. 

The candidate that comes closest to these as well as fiscally conservative principles gets my vote.  If another less socially conservative candidate gets the nod, then that candidate will be weighed against the opposing candidate, and the one judged to be the most true to conservatism will get my vote.  Creating a third party to elect a Christian is likely to land us with a liberal for some time to come. 

As to why some Christians may be considering a 3rd party, I don’t know for certain; but, I suspect flawed theology which sees a mandate in Scripture to redeem the American culture is to blame.  While a socially conservative culture is prudent IMO, there is no mandate for Christians to redeem, that is to Christianize, culture.  Nor is such a Christianization of culture necessary to achieve a social conservatism.  As human beings with unalienable rights, we who acknowledge such can agree that our individual liberty evident from nature’s revelation transcends religious differences that arise from our various theologies.  This liberty unites us as a people and subsequently a nation.  Therefore the candidate most true to liberty and the principles thereof deserves my vote, not just the candidate closest to my theology.

Look what Bush did for stem cell research and
signing partial birth abortion ban.

He prevented federal funds from being wasted on a deadend research boondoggle.  He did nothing to affect the private sector from doing it, but nobody in the private sector wants to waste their money on it.  The President prevented the waste of taxpayer money; that’s what he should be doing.
The partial abortion “ban” actually reflected the will of the people; it was a gruesome act, well beyond the purview of Roe v Wade.
Enough of your lying leftie propaganda.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Everyone brings their moral and religious beliefs to the party whether they happen to be Christian or not. Those are the things that most decisions are based on.

Would you say that, in order for a person to be president, they have to be non-religious?

The state gets to decide at what point a fetus becomes a human being making abortion murder at that point. They also should consider what it was before that point in the process. Then, again, whether it’s illegal to take another person’s life, is ultimately a moral decision. The interesting thing is that it wasn’t necessarily considered a bad thing before the advent of religion. It seems to be becoming more acceptable now.

This country is in need of another party that actually has the interests of its Citizens at heart.

Barring that, Fred seems to have enough of the right moral convictions to be the best choice.

“I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.” - Clarence Darrow

The big lie here is that “social conservatism” is equal to govt mandate, and nothing could be farther from the truth.  In fact, it’s govt telling the truth about morality, then leaving it up to the voters. It’s a phony construct to equate social conservatives to the totalitarian left, which wants to impose their ideology on everyone, without input from the people, except through rigged polls.  The reality is that it’s the lefties who want to mandate everything, and for the purpose of buying votes, they lie about morality.
They lie when they say that abortion is about “choice”, instead of what it really is:  killing of innocents.  They lie when they say that it’s just “a fetus”, a “clump of cells”, when it’s a human being.
They lie when they claim that there’s no price for a woman to pay for killing her child before it’s born, just because it’s an inconvenience for her.
Conservative politicians tell the truth, if they are any good at all.  People get to choose whether or not they live in the truth or live a lie, but there are consequences, no matter what the leftie liars say.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Would you say that, in order for a person to be president, they have to be non-religious?

That would, IMO, be a disaster. When Ronald Reagan was asked if he would enforce Roe v Wade, even though he was against abortion and a religious man, his answer was just about perfect.  He said that since he was President of all the people, his duty was to obey the laws on the books(in this case, a court decision), and to advocate for his own moral standards as a private citizen.  He felt the office of President was larger than any individual person, and I share that viewpoint.
IMO, the President’s moral values guide the country to a great extent(witness the loosening of personal morality under Clinton), without him trying to impose his personal moral standards on the country.  He should not be afraid to tell his truth.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

HG
This:

Reasoning from observation and concluding there is a Creator and that such an intelligent being created according to His wisdom strongly suggests we live in accordance with the priniciples of wisdom.

Is nonesense. How can you get that a priori? None of that is obsevationally grounded.

Rob

What I don’t understand is why these religious conservative groups are doing this, and what they hope to accomplish.

Its called democracy Rob. If you don’t like a candidate, you shouldn’t vote for them. Simple, really.

What the litmus test shouldn’t be is the bible, or any other set of religious beliefs.
Rob Port

I’m in full agreement!!

Several loud voices here are in essence telling Christians to shut the hell up about their beliefs, take your religious fantasies and keep them quiet and at home and stay out of the public square.
Neiman- Christian Taliban

Christians who want to live in the full presence of rationality and modernity should keep the Jesus of Matthew sermonizing on the mount and simply “ignore” the “world-consuming” rigmarole of Revelation!!

Further, they want to deny Christians the same rights they claim for themselves,
Neiman- Christian Taliban

Sounds like:
Cair exposed the relentless efforts by critics made up of racist right-wing and neo-Zionist extremists who seek to silence and marginalize American Muslims and groups that represent them.

The Muslim jihadis always preach and pontificate about how “morally and spiritually bankrupt” America is; just like you do Neiman!!

if we are a morally and spiritually bankrupt people, are we not just a rich, immoral nation?
Neiman-Christian Taliban

Islamic militants are angry at the West for exporting “hedonism and materialism into their very homes through television, enticing Muslims to become religiously lazy and morally corrupt.”

Quoting a 1985 communiqué from the terrorist group Hezbollah: “Our way is one of radical combat against depravity, and America is the original root of depravity.”

Anger at Western decadence fueled the writings of the radical Sayyid Qutb, which so influenced Osama bin Laden. These people see themselves not as terrorists, but as holy warriors fighting a holy war against decadence.

The argument that people can be moral and decent outside faith in Christ and fear of God’s Judgment, even wholly secular, atheist or agnostic people is to deny reality.
Neiman-Christian Taliban

“The Only true faith in God’s sight is Islam...he that denies God’s rvelations should know that swift is God’s reckoning.” Qu’ran [3:19]

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

Joel: Please quote exactly, under which thread, on which date and time did I ever judge anyone here as being lost, going to hell, etcetera? .....If you cannot find such a quotation, please admit you either lied or are suffering delusions.
Neiman [Christian Taliban] on September 26, 2007 at 12:38 pm

The argument that people can be moral and decent

outside faith in Christ and fear of God’s Judgment,even wholly secular, atheist or agnostic people is to deny reality.
Neiman-Christian Taliban

---

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

Muslims have the right under OUR Constitution to be a political party, then Christians have the right under OUR Constitution to be a political party. And that is the end of it.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

The partial abortion “ban” actually reflected the will of the people; it was a gruesome act, well beyond the purview of Roe v Wade.
Enough of your lying leftie propaganda.

huh? I’m a lying leftie because I support the president’s ban on partial birth?

Why should we have less abortions if you’re not really killing someone?

huh? I’m a lying leftie because I support the president’s ban on partial birth?

It that’s really true, very good.  That wasn’t apparent from your initial comment, which sounded very critical.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Is nonesense. How can you get that a priori? None of that is obsevationally grounded.

How are you doin’ Sparkie?  We haven’t spoken directly for a while.  I always enjoyed our debates.

So, self-evident truths our government was established upon and proceeds to protect is nonsense?

To more directly address your question, there is observable evidence of a Creator as I have demonstrated in the past.

1.  What was first must have always been.

2.  What has always been was not of another.

3.  What is not of another is independent and all else dependent.

4.  What is independent is necessary by its own nature.

5.  What is necessary is self active (having the power, in and of itself, to act).

Since knowledge is possible we know that all things exist and continue to be according to the laws of thought (i.e., logic). So either the power reasoned in 1-5 ignorantly or intellegently effects knowledge.  The first is counter intuitive, the latter relates to our own human experiences and observations. 

Creativity is also evident when we consider the ability of intelligence to design.  A artist’s own creation implies intelligence and design and yet is often only captures a picture of nature, while nature itself is the original.  Just a human intelligence constructs creations using repeted techniques, solutions, and menchanisms so to does such occur in nature.  That these exist in such a way as to provide a purpose for something created implies both intelligence and design as well.  That we marvel at nature for its beauty, creativity, and sophisticated design bespeaks an Intelligent Creator.

I should have edited before posting:

Creativity is also evident when we consider the ability of intelligence to design.  A[n] artist’s own creation implies intelligence and design and yet often only captures a picture of nature, while nature itself is the original.  Just a[s] human intelligence constructs creations using repeted techniques, solutions, and menchanisms so to does such occur in nature.  That these exist in such a way as to provide a purpose for something created implies both intelligence and design.  That we marvel at nature for its beauty, creativity, and sophisticated design bespeaks an Intelligent Creator.

Conservative politicians tell the truth, if they are any good at all.  People get to choose whether or not they live in the truth or live a lie, but there are consequences, no matter what the leftie liars say.

R108,

Excellent.

Joel considering my own service, that of my son, grandson, nephew, brothers, sisters, mother and father to this country, going back to the American Revolution; and the fact I have never judged the eternal fate of any human being here or elsewhere or forced anyone to accept my beliefs, your use of the term Taliban or to equate my beliefs with those of Islam is beneath contempt, and appears to be the product of a foul and diseased mind.

You need serious help! Not one charge you have ever made against me is true, not one. You are operating out of blind hatred and I pity you!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

That is not what you said. Please try to keep up, will.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I AM WILLING TO LET GOD JUDGE BETWEEN ME, YOU [R108] AND PROOF IN THIS REGARD, ARE YOU?

NEIMAN WRITES: ROBERT108: I SUGGESTED WE SUBMIT THE MATTER TO GOD AND ASK HIM TO JUDGE WHICH ONE OF US WERE BEING FALSE AND BRING ABOUT APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENCES TO THE PERSON IN THE WRONG. ARE YOU AFRAID?

R108 SAYS: WHAT PART OF “I HAVE NO SAY IN GOD JUDGING ME, AND NEITHER DO YOU.”
DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?

R108: SO NEIMAN, YOU THINK GOD DOESN’T KNOW SOMETHING UNTIL YOU “SUBMIT” IT? TALK ABOUT A MONUMENTAL EGO.
http://SAYANYTHINGBLOG.COM/

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A RELIGION.
DEMONINATIONS AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS ARE FORMED AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORCE WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS GOD’S WILL ON OTHERS, FOR THEIR own GOOD OF COURSE

Says Neiman

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

Guess who said this:

“ONE DAY, HOPEFULLY BEFORE JUDGMENT DAY, YOU’LL HAVE TO FACE THIS REALITY”

“I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DID NOT WARN OF GOD’S JUDMENT”

“HE THAT BELIEVETH ON HIM IS NOT CONDEMNED: BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT IS CONDEMNED ALREADY, BECAUSE HE HATH NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.”

“I’M HOPING YOU’LL COME TO ACCEPT FAITH BEFORE JUDGMENT DAY”

“I AM WARNING YOU, GOD WILL BE THE ONE JUDGING YOU “

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

Joel,

Me, Me, Jesus, Me, Me.

What’s your point?

What’s your point?
HG on October 2, 2007 at 04:55 pm

Is that a rhetorical question, Taliban-man?

The answer seems self-evident!

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

MOST MUSLIMS ARE NOT ‘MANIACS,” HAVING UNCONTROLLED MANIA, RATHER THEY SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT ALLAH IS GOD, MOHAMMED HIS PROPHET AND SO, TO THEM THEY ARE ACTING IN LOVE FOR GOD IN DOING THESE THINGS.
NEIMAN SEPT. 9, 2007

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

According to the Democrat Party, Muslims have the Constitutional Right to form a political party, therefore Christians have the right to form a political party.

That is the end of the f-ing discussion. Period.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

"Taliban-man”, that’s cute Joel. I guess since you included Jesus’ quote He too is a taliban-man according to you? 

What do you want me to do Joel, get pissed and cuss you up one side and down the other?  Tell you what an ignorant fool you are for attacking people simply for having faith in something more than the material?  For what?  So you can retaliate rhetorically?  No thanks Joel.

HG, you are the one who keeps defending Muslim terrorist, just as Nman does. You are both wrong.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Let’s try something Joel.  Maybe you can tell me why you fret yourself so over the thought of a judgement day where justice will be served by the Creator Himself?

HG, you are the one who keeps defending Muslim terrorist, just as Nman does. You are both wrong.

Really?  Where did I do so?

Kiss my ass Taliban-Man!

Prove to me that Jesus said that using a different source other than the redacted [and re-redacted] metaphors and allegories in the Bible.

You are an arrogant, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, condescending, deluded, thoecratic bully!

You need a good-ole Texas ass-kickin’!

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

Fret myself? Why whatever do you mean Beauregard?

Ok, I’ll play--but first you answer this:

Prove to me that, seventy-five million years ago, Xenu was not the ruler of a Galactic Confederacy which consisted of 26 stars and 76 planets including Earth, which was then known as Teegeeack.

and that the planets were not overpopulated, each having an average population of 178 billionand that he Galactic Confederacy’s civilization was not comparable to our own, with aliens “walking around in clothes which looked very remarkably like the clothes they wear this very minute” and using cars, trains and boats looking exactly the same as those “circa 1950, 1960” on Earth.

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

And communists have a constitutional right to form a political party also!

Communism is evil

Oh, and while your at it Taliban-man, prove to me that Muhammed did “not"ascend into heaven by flying on the magical white Winged-Horse of Fire which he called Burak.

Prove to me that the following is not true.

Awake, thou sleeper, awake!” And Mohammed saw in front of him, dazzling in darkness the shining Archangel Gabriel who was inviting him to follow him outside.

Before the door stood a Horse as dazzling as Gabriel. It had wings, glittering wings of an immense eagle.

Gabriel presented the Horse to Mohammed, saying that it was “Burak” the Horse of Abraham. Burak whinnied and allowed Mohammed to vault on its back.

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

Nice Joel, I guess you didn’t need a reason to retaliate rhetorically.

Prove to me that Jesus said that using a different source other than the redacted [and re-redacted] metaphors and allegories in the Bible.

Joel, why don’t you try and prove He didn’t. 

You are an arrogant, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, condescending, deluded, thoecratic bully!

Ouch, I never said I was perfect, but you mistake confidence in my faith for arrogance.  Although, it is possible I have acted arrogant at one time or another.  “Self-righteous”, no way.  The only righteousness I have is that given to me by my Savior and that I don’t apply and practice as much as I should.  “Holier-than thou”, maybe, hell I don’t know, I don’t keep score.  “Condescending”, would mean that I treat others as if they are socially and intellectually inferior.  Maybe, although I have been known to treat them as superior at times as well.  In fact let me just say that you have demonstrated that your writing skills are superior to my own.  Then again, the tone of this response sounds a little condescending—I’ll work on that. “Deluded” would mean I believe something that is false.  What is it Joel?  I don’t believe in bigfoot, or aliens, or liberalism.  “Theocratic bully?” Jeez Joel, who have I tried to intimidate into faith in Christ?

2Hotel9 said: “HG, you are the one who keeps defending Muslim terrorist, just as Nman does. You are both wrong.”

Again 2Hotel9, as I asked you under the thread about Muslim homosexuals, please help me understand wherein I ever defended Muslim terrorists. I have always condemned them, defended Bush and the war against Islamic terrorism, and have had very close members of my family going there to fight them, including my late son. No one is more critical of militant Islam, Islam in general and all forms of terrorism. I swear I just don’t get it, your attacks are not to the best of my knowledge based on anything I have ever said in support of these clearly evil people, they are certainly not based on anything I have ever thought/felt about these terrible people.

Joel: You are terribly confused about someone speaking of Holy Scripture in general terms versus condemning any specific individual. If we say anyone (general language) not having faith in Christ and accepting His Salvation are lost and will suffer eternal judgment, since you apparently reject Christ you may feel offended by these words, or feel you are being judged bu HG or myelf, which you are not. That my friend is the Holy Spirit speaking to your heart, pleading with you to come to Jesus and accept His Salvation. As for me I do not judge any individual’s salvation or eternal destiny, I only quote what Jesus has said about certain matters, and if you think that is unjust or wrong, your argument is with Him and not me.

HG: I share your consternation at being accused of things you have not said, being called a Taliban Christian and being attacked for speaking out of faith about certain matters. I am subjected to these grossly unfair and dishonest attacks all the time, but take heart the people of the world attacked Jesus and as His children they will attack us as well.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Joel, why don’t you try and prove He didn’t. 
HG

Check-mate!..and that “IS” the point!

I imagine that I’d have as much trouble “disproving” that as you would have disproving Galactic ruler Xenu [scientology ] or Muhammed’s ascenscion into heaven on a winged horse![muslim bullshit]

“Ye who is without sin cast the first stone”

This strikes as something Jesus would have said. He didn’t seem like the condemning type.

BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT IS CONDEMNED ALREADY, BECAUSE HE HATH NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.”

P.S. John [or whoever the author of John was] said this, not Jesus!!

And.... the Gospel according to John is quite different in character from the three synoptic gospels.

It is highly literary and symbolic. It does not follow the same order or reproduce the same stories as the synoptic gospels.

To a much greater degree, it is the product of a developed theological reflection and grows out of a different circle and tradition.

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

since you apparently reject Christ

I don’t “reject” Christ at all; just your [and HG’s] erroneous puritanical, interpretations and applications of his teachings

What benefit do you guys get out of all the apocalyptic- end of the world, judgement day God-the punisher rhetoric?

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

This strikes as something Jesus would have said. He didn’t seem like the condemning type.

Well, well, who is the arrogant condescending know-it-all now?

You, Joel, are the final arbiter of what Jesus did and did not say even when both are recorded in the same book?

Only someone holier than everyone else could possibly be so in tune with Jesus as to recognize His voice in the midst of quotes attributed to Him by none other than His own disciples.

You, Joel, are the final arbiter of what Jesus did and did not say even when both are recorded in the same book?
HG

You are truly a major fucking prick ! Take your head out of your ass, Francine.

This strikes me as something Jesus “would” have said

I didn’t say he “did” say it or that he “didn’t” say [you lying hypocrite] as you well know.

This is simply “my” opinion, pinhead, and it was offered as such;not as an adjudication of anything.

Oh, and one last word of advice nancy-boy; try reading [and understanding] the Bible first before you make such an ass out of yourself again!!!!!

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”—The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

P.S. John [or whoever the author of John was] said this, not Jesus!!

All Scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It was not John but the Holy Spirit, the indwelling Spirit of Christ speaking through John, thus Christ being the Living Word, every word of Scripture is from Christ.

I don’t “reject” Christ at all; just your [and HG’s] erroneous puritanical, interpretations and applications of his teachings

To be Puritanical one must believe in strict religious discipline. I cannot speak for HG, but I believe in the Gospel of Grace, Salvation by the free gift of God in Christ Jesus, grace alone by faith alone. However, no gift is of any value unless it is accepted, so even if someone believes in Christ, if they don’t sincerely accept His gift of Salvation, their eternal destiny was their choice not His.

Next, wherein did I say to be saved you must do this or refrain from doing that and state that a strict code of religious discipline must be adhered to or a person is lost? I could not have said that as I passionately believe that Salvation cannot be earned by any amount or quality of good deeds nor lost because of any number or depth of bad deeds, it is first, last and always a free gift. On the other hand, if a person claims to have accepted that gift but in their words and deeds they live not for Christ in all things in this life, but for themselves, they (not others) certainly should be concerned if they really accepted His Salvation by having genuine faith in Christ.

What benefit do you guys get out of all the apocalyptic- end of the world, judgement day God-the punisher rhetoric?

1. The Bible from cover to cover speaks clearly and with power to a day of final Judgment of all flesh, a time when God the Father will avenge what the world did in rejecting and crucifying His Son, when He will judge every human being, but only by one standard: What they did about Christ and His offer of Salvation. If they have genuinely accepted Christ they will not be judged at all, not one bit, but rather they will inherit eternal life. If they have not accepted His Son and His Free Gift of Salvation in Him, He will not judge them, they will have judged themelves by rejecting Christ and refusing the Gift.

While God is most surely Love, He is also a God of Justice and He will never sacrifice one Divine attribute for another. So, the Bible speaks much about Judgment Day and God as the Judge of all men.

2. Why would we speak of these things you asked. Well, if I know someone is rushing towards a cliff and certain death, in the loudest voice and in the strongest terms I will tell them of the danger ahead if they do not change course. In a similar manner, knowing we all deserve God’s Judgment (me no less than anyone else) and also knowing Jesus paid the debt we owe to Divine Justice, we must warn those rushing through life without Him of the danger ahead should they die before finding Him and His Salvation. This is solely to warn others of the possibility of a terrible, horrible fate in eternal punishing, in hopes that by warning them some might turn from their wicked lives and be saved, and that warning is an act of love by every true child of God not hate.

I have repeated often as has HG, I am a sinner, saved by Grace and I have no greater claim to His Salvation that any other sinner. I judge no one, while I am willing to warn sinners that God will judge all flesh one day, hoping that they will believe in Him and accept the Free Gift of Salvation before it is too late.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.