What’s to preserve by the state?

When I marry my woman, it’s God that sanctifies my marriage, not the state. The state could “outlaw” marriage for everybody, and it still wouldn’t lose it’s sanctity, because it’s God’s design, not the states, isn’t it?

But then, I’m a little kooky. I don’t see how it’s the state’s business what anybody calls their relationship to someone else.

Pat Robertson doesn’t speak for God. If we want to know what God says, we read the Bible rather than turn on the 700 Club. There is plenty in the Bible about what we call social issues regarding sex, life and freedom. There is also plenty on the subjects of working, earning, integrity and lack of integrity in business and government.

For the most part, the designers of this country’s government used a Biblical model for its framework which grew a great nation. We have steadily moved away from our foundation by socialist and communist-minded humanists who think they are smarter than God. The historical result of such is documented over and over in the Bible, which is the transition from freedom to captivity.

The idea of captivity in a modern day developed nation can probably be best described as dependence, or the opposite of independence. Looking at the bleak administration-elect, it looks as though the plan is to bring about our captivity in the form of an expensive, manipulative, and enforced dependence on the government, by the government, and for the government.

You don’t have to be a backer of socialism to dislike the corruption in the marketplace and apathy and inactivity from regulators. What the players in our markets have been doing is wrong by Biblical standards, and a small but alert government should’ve done its job.

Dawn,

The cold hard reality is that our form of government relies on an understanding of freedom and government to survive. As we have grown ignorant of these our country has declined morally, ethically, and intellectually. Our founders told us this very thing would happen without an informed and understanding electorate. Until we recover a proper understanding and appreciation for liberty and government we will continue to decline.

I find it rather interesting that the political theory our from of government rests on is not even taught in our high school government classes. Probably because it relies heavily on Intelligent Design as the means of acknowledging a Creator and subsequently unalienable rights. Most Americans cannot even distinguish this from religion even though our founders clearly did and built an entire model of government accordingly.

Yeah, our country is becoming quite a mess but while religion may play a part in individual lives, and subsequently may have a positive effect on individual behavior, religion has no place in our federal government.

Eddie: The point was not that Pat felt God was approving of socialism at all, but that peole in America would embrace it, at least for a season.

I agree “If we want to know what God says, we read the Bible rather than turn on the 700 Club. There is plenty in the Bible about what we call social issues regarding sex, life and freedom. There is also plenty on the subjects of working, earning, integrity and lack of integrity in business and government.” We (Christians) all have a direct relationship with God in Jesus Christ, we all have the same Holy Spirit, we have the Word (Scripture), they are all we need. I believe prophecy is closed, it is now just unfolding.

I don’t believe Pat is a Prophet, I don’t support his ministry and I have my doubts about many things regarding his political activism; but, please don’t forget or totally dismiss the fact that God can and does speak through His servants to the Church and the World, on occasion; the only way to sure is to make search Scripture that every word aligns perfectly with God’s Word.

I think that once someone embraces Socialism it’s time to toss them into a big hole and cover’em with dirt. Adopting Socialism is akin to quitting — it’s saying I’m done, I can’t go on, I’m too weak to compete, I’m too feeble to produce.

Come on Pat, give up everything you’ve got — practice what you preach! If you wanna be Socialist be Socialist.

Someone said Pat didn’t embrace it, but he didn’t stand up an oppose it either — disgusting!

At least Mike Huckabee supports the FairTax, which would get rid of the lovely (not) Income Tax.

What pain is Patie Boy talking about?

Sure Eddie. I generally base my scientific and political beliefs on data.

Adaptation is proven in science. Darwinian evolution is not.
A virus, for instance, can adapt to medicine by losing genetic information. And that’s the key to the next part of my answer. It has to lose information. It is incapable of gaining genetic information.

That is why Darwinian evolution is almost certainly impossible. In all the experiments in every country in the modern scientific era, no person has been able to produce data of a gain in genetic information. (Necessary for a primordial soup to become, say, a fish, then an amphibian, then a mammal.)

Entropy, thermodynamics and statistics are all against Darwinian evolution in all my study. (To say NOTHING about the fossil record.)

Cheers.

I think that once someone embraces Socialism it’s time to toss them into a big hole and cover’em with dirt.

This is a real shame.

Here's one Christian that believes God views socialism just as he does hard drugs.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Please note (at least in the quotes provided):

Robertson didn't say God /liked/ or wanted socialism in the US, or is even OK with it, he just said it's coming. He said Americans would embrace it; did say He did.

(Leaving aside the question of whether Pat and God are hanging out together…)

Conservatism has both fiscal and social implications. Personal responsibility extends further than economics.

Gay marriage is about conservatism and at the same time sociological. It just happens that the vast majority of conservatives agree that the structure of marriage, it's historical significance, benefits to society, as well as its traditional and religious value should prevent any sort of new definition of marriage. Especially when done to accommodate the demands of an extremely small minority.

The conservative arguments against redefining marriage stem from the natural law arguments against homosexuality. Procreation, perversion of natural sexual desire, and the family argue against homosexuality as a social norm and therefore concludes same sex marriage perverts an institution that is currently in accord with natural law political theory.

You're entitled to your beliefs, but if you think for a minute that outlawing gay marriage is going to dissuade homosexual behavior, changing the "moral compass" of our society, you're a fool. Our beliefs as a country are not represented entirely by our legislators.

Gay marriage is outlawed in most states. It is not intended to dissuade homosexual behavior but to preserve the institution of marriage as I already noted. Changing the moral compass of our society is not the job of the government. Persuading people of the benefits of God-given unalienable rights from which our American political liberty comes is the best way to secure and advance conservatism.

You're reading too much into my comments.

Naw. Robertson is the weirdo.

I like FairTax, in theory, but I'm very wary about the ramifications of totally upsetting the balance of our tax code, with an unproven method (there aren't other countries that follow something similar are there?)

Eddie,

I disagree. Those benefits are being extended through avenues other than a marriage to homosexual partners. It is not necessary to change marriage to extend legal and tax benefits.

You got it right, the rest, including HG just want to attack Robertson, the idea he talks with God and Christianity generally. Great job getting to the point of Pat's comments!

Erm… no.

I'm sure you've surmised by now that I'm a Christian myself, Neiman.

As a christian, I'm allowed to believe that Robertson is using his longstanding followers faith in his his reason to express his political views.

Who knows? The guy might actually think that God's telling him Americans will embrace socialism, and will be happier for it, and consequently, when things go to hell and a handbasket, I'll be the last one in the bread line, handing out free "I-told-you-so"s.

HG – agree with much of what you said.
But "religion has no place in our federal government"? Depending on how you meant that, yes and no.
The federal government has no business establishing religion, but neither has it any business prohibiting it. Id est, the free exercise clause.

"True religion," George Washington said, "affords government its surest support. The future of this nation depends on the Christian training of our youth. It is impossible to govern without the Bible." (from Erwin's The Faith of Our Founding Fathers)

I believe one of the Continental Congresses opened with a few hours of prayer.

For just 2 examples.
If you did happen to mean your statement to suggest all religion in the public square is wrong, then I might suggest that this is a view borne of a humanist historical outlook, which is quite different from the worldview of late 18th century America.

If not, then happily disregard the previous!

Cheers.

James Kuhn: Excellent and accurate response to HG!

I will just add that intelligent Design is as false as is Evolution.

Microevolution (adaptation) is irrefutable.
Macroevolution (Darwinian origin of our species) is conjecture. (Which I
believe to be false.) And the chances of it approach zero.

Can I ask you why you believe in Microevolution (and exactly what you entail by "adaptation") and why you don't believe in Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?