Members abelisle Posted August 1, 2012 Members Posted August 1, 2012 http://www.johnthebaptisttv.com/2012/07/10/why-the-tea-party-is-unchristian-comments/ Quote We are our worst enemy - sad but true. http://abelisle.blogspot.com
bonnie Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 ALEX thank you for posting this article---it had some very good points i have heard some thing similar before dgrimm60 It is interesting to see how a "christian" can mischaractize and call anyone else "unchristian.Have you checked into the background of this man? Or the so-called facts he "presents"? Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
Dr. Shane Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 The Religious Right's desire to use the civil government has always been disturbing and is nothing new. the premise of the TEA party certainly is not disturbing in itself. It is an acronym that stands for Taxed Enough Already and was formed in a response to President Obama's desire to increase taxes to pay for all his spending. It is a mistake to think that only the Religious Right threatens our freedom. The Militant Left is just as willing to use the strong arm of the civil government to force their morality on others. The current controversy surrounding the Chick-A-fil is a fine example. The radical gay-rights movement and their sympathizers are seeking to use civil governments to prevent Chick-A-fil from expanding its business. In fact, most of the gay marriage laws that these Militant Left groups support would impose on religious liberty but that doesn't stop them from pushing them. President Obama's health-care law is forcing the President's pro-abortion "morality" on to the Roman Catholic church and other faith communities that oppose abortion. Neither group has the moral high ground. Radical liberals are just as ready to force their morality on others as those in the Religious Right are. Seventh-day Adventists need to take that moral high ground and not align ourselves with such radical causes. We need to stand for true freedom where we discuss issues in the public arena of ideas - trying to persuade minds and hearts and not trying force others to agree with us by7 using the strong arm of the civil government. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity
bonnie Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 The Religious Right's desire to use the civil government has always been disturbing and is nothing new. the premise of the TEA party certainly is not disturbing in itself. It is an acronym that stands for Taxed Enough Already and was formed in a response to President Obama's desire to increase taxes to pay for all his spending. Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
Dr. Shane Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I think the concern of the author of the article pasted in the beginning of this thread is that the Religious Right is or has taken over the TEA Party movement. Of course, the TEA Party's stated goals are not religious. Personally, I do not agree with all the small government advocates. I think there is a place for some big government programs but also see how government hurts society in some areas when it gets too big. Certainly both radical ends of the spectrum want big government. Radical conservatives want big government forcing their morality on society as radical liberals want big government forcing their ideas (aka morality) on society. I think Adventists want to be some place in the middle where we try to persuade people and win hearts and minds rather trying to force others to comply with our desires. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity
Guest Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 Radical conservatives want big government forcing their morality on society Conservatives don't want big gov't forcing anybody's morality on anybody. We understand that morality cannot be legislated or enforced. Quote
Dr. Shane Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 Actually radical conservatives do want to use the strong arm of civil government to enforce their morality as much as radical liberals do. If the reader does not want that than the reader is closer to the middle than the radical fringes - left or right. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity
OzarkWoman Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 I juut want a constitutional government and we are verrrrry far away from that. Quote
Planey Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 I juut want a constitutional government and we are verrrrry far away from that. So what would define a "constitutional government"? Graeme PS And in what ways is the current government not "constitutional"? Quote Graeme____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OzarkWoman Posted August 8, 2012 Posted August 8, 2012 Originally Posted By: OzarkWoman I juut want a constitutional government and we are verrrrry far away from that. So what would define a "constitutional government"? Graeme PS And in what ways is the current government not "constitutional"? You need to read the constitution to understand. There are enumerated powers that the constitution has given the federal government and we have gone far beyond those stated powers, a very long time ago. In reality, social security is unconstitutional. Definitely, the Obamacare is unconstitutional, no matter what a Justice says or votes. The Supreme Court is political these days anyway. I could go ona and on, but what I said is enough to suffice for an answer. Quote
Moderators lazarus Posted August 9, 2012 Moderators Posted August 9, 2012 In reality, social security is unconstitutional. Definitely, the Obamacare is unconstitutional, no matter what a Justice says or votes. To say that it doesn't matter what a justice says or votes is in itself unconstitutional. It's odd to make an appeal to the constitution and then make an assertion that flies in the face of it at the same time. The constitution does not allow for the individuals to decide by themselves what is and what is not unconstitutional. In America, right now social security and the health care act ARE constitutional regardless of what any individual might say. Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
Moderators lazarus Posted August 9, 2012 Moderators Posted August 9, 2012 The Supreme Court is political these days anyway. Always has been. Abraham Lincoln nominated justices from Ohio, Illinois and Iowa with an eye on his reelection. President Taft elevated Edward White to chief justice in part because it was thought White's Confederate past symbolized cohesion. Franklin Roosevelt factored Wiley Rutledge and William O. Douglas' western background into his decision. "People thought region or state of origin had to do with interests that should be represented on the court," said Mark Tushnet, a Supreme Court historian at Harvard Law School. "At the time those things were not called identity politics, but I don't think there is any difference between those interests and today." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...ourt_96325.html Quote Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Einstein
bonnie Posted August 9, 2012 Posted August 9, 2012 Always has been. Abraham Lincoln nominated justices from Ohio, Illinois and Iowa with an eye on his reelection. President Taft elevated Edward White to chief justice in part because it was thought White's Confederate past symbolized cohesion. Franklin Roosevelt factored Wiley Rutledge and William O. Douglas' western background into his decision. "People thought region or state of origin had to do with interests that should be represented on the court," said Mark Tushnet, a Supreme Court historian at Harvard Law School. "At the time those things were not called identity politics, but I don't think there is any difference between those interests and today." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...ourt_96325.html And you have something that says "it was an eye on his re-election"? Lincoln may have said that but I would like to see it if you have acess to it.Or is that your view of history At the time it was pretty much a SC of Democrats and had to do with perserving the union. "Franklin Roosevelt factored Wiley Rutledge and William O. Douglas' western background into his decision". I think he threatened to pack the courts if I remember Quote Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
OzarkWoman Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 "Franklin Roosevelt factored Wiley Rutledge and William O. Douglas' western background into his decision". I think he threatened to pack the courts if I remember He did and that even upset many Dems back in the day. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.