Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Huckabee:'TAKE THIS NATION BACK FOR CHRIST'


JMS

Recommended Posts

Really....... there is seperation of church and state?? Point me to the part of the constitution where it says there is seperation of church and state?

A falsehood that has been sold to people by those who want it. The constitution does not say anywhere that there is seperation of church and state.

See Amendment I.

For closer cite, see Establishment Clause. Where is your info coming from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Amendment I.

For closer cite, see Establishment Clause. Where is your info coming from?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Care to tell me what the part in red means? Seems pretty straight forward to me. Hell, sounds to me like the part in blue makes the practice of religion OK damn near anywhere, so long as Congress isn't requiring it by law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead we have thrown it on the governments shoulders as if it needed more things to deal with.
Don't you people have your fingers in enough?:D

You knew Jefferson personally did you?

Of course I did...Thomas Jefferson and I used to hang out at church together and pontificate on what the country would be like as a theocracy.
:laugh:
His kind??? His kind???

Feel free to stereotype if you wish. But I don't want to hear a single cry of foul when someone uses a stereotype you don't like.

Been whatin' for that long, have you?:D

Personally, I think he could really pull some votes from Ron Paul after he wins the nomination and it'll open the door for one of the three to take his Presidency from him. That'll suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch out or we'll come get you and steal your kids away and brainwash them. Then we'll all share the purple Kool-Aid together.

so very true, but of few of us escaped before it was to late :). All religion is a cult, my suggestion is be spiritual without being religious.

if anyone thinks a devout Baptist minister can be president without putting his faith before government is naive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than start another new topic on Huckabee, I'll post this here since it does seem to have some relevance towards his stance on religion. Whether it was taken out of context or not remains to be seen. Either way, it looks bad for Huckabee.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316507,00.html

GOP Hopeful Mike Huckabee Asks if Mormons Believe Jesus, Devil Are Brothers

"WASHINGTON — Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks in an upcoming article, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

The article, to be published in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, says Huckabee asked the question after saying he believes Mormonism is a religion but doesn't know much about it. His rival Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, is a member of the Mormon church, which is known officially as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The authoritative Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992, does not refer to Jesus and Satan as brothers. It speaks of Jesus as the son of God and of Satan as a fallen angel, which is a Biblical account.

A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee's question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.

"We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all," said the spokeswoman, Kim Farah. "That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for."

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said Romney will not debate candidates on their faith or question their faith.

"For those who want to know how Governor Romney's faith informs his values, they can look at how he lives his life and how he has raised his family," Madden said.

Earlier this month in Iowa, Huckabee wouldn't say whether he thought Mormonism — rival Romney's religion — was a cult."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak for anyone else but I would love to hear Huckabee's policy positions.

Thus far I've only heard what would jesus do (WWJD) and Chuck Norris type stuff. It is my belief that the only reason Mr. Huckabee is so popular right now is because he is the anti-rudy and Romney.

Why don't you go to his site?

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Care to tell me what the part in red means? Seems pretty straight forward to me. Hell, sounds to me like the part in blue makes the practice of religion OK damn near anywhere, so long as Congress isn't requiring it by law.

Unfortunately, 210 years of jurisprudence play a larger role than your own subjective interpretation of those words.

I could say that the Second Amendment right to bear arms means only that you have the right to own a musket like the ones made in the 1780s, but I doubt you would accept my interpretation either. Luckily for you, I don't get to decide the true meaning of the Constitution either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than start another new topic on Huckabee, I'll post this here since it does seem to have some relevance towards his stance on religion. Whether it was taken out of context or not remains to be seen. Either way, it looks bad for Huckabee.

Well, yeah, except that the Mormon Church does teach that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers, though of course that's a rather inflammatory way of putting it, and ultimately the real beef Christians have with Mormons on this point is that they believe that Jesus was created, rather than eternal and uncreated, not necessarily the "brothers" thing per se.

Anyway, see here.

An excerpt:

This doctrine was further explained in the June 1986 LDS magazine Ensign. The question was asked "How can Jesus and Lucifer be spirit brothers when their characters and purposes are so utterly opposed?" Jess L. Christensen, Institute of Religion director at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, responded:

On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some -- especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel who was in authority in the presence of God, a son of the morning. (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25-27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer's older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)

How could two such great spirits become so totally opposite? The answer lies in the principle of agency, which has existed from all eternity. (See D&C 93:30-31.) Of Lucifer, the scripture says that because of rebellion he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies. (Moses 4:4.) Note that he was not created evil, but became Satan by his own choice.

When our Father in Heaven presented his plan of salvation, Jesus sustained the plan and his part in it, giving the glory to God, to whom it properly belonged. Lucifer, on the other hand, sought power, honor, and glory only for himself. (See Isa. 14:13-14; Moses 4:1-2.) When his modification of the Fathers plan was rejected, he rebelled against God and was subsequently cast out of heaven with those who had sided with him. (See Rev. 12:7-9; D&C 29:36-37.)

That brothers would make dramatically different choices is not unusual. It has happened time and again, as the scriptures attest: Cain chose to serve Satan; Abel chose to serve God. (See Moses 5:16-18.) . . .

We can only imagine the sorrow of our Heavenly Father as he watched a loved son incite and lead a rebellion and lose his opportunity for exaltation. But we can also imagine the Fathers love and rejoicing as he welcomed back the beloved son who had valiantly and perfectly fought the battles of life and brought about the great Atonement through his suffering and death. ("I Have a Question," Ensign, June 1986, p. 25-26 [link])

I included the context to be fair to the Mormon church, as the claim is not quite as sensational as the quote in isolation makes it sound, but you'll notice also that the Church spokesperson never really denies it, just clarifies it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, 210 years of jurisprudence play a larger role than your own subjective interpretation of those words.

I could say that the Second Amendment right to bear arms means only that you have the right to own a musket like the ones made in the 1780s, but I doubt you would accept my interpretation either. Luckily for you, I don't get to decide the true meaning of the Constitution either.

Interesting though, that those who choose to accentuate "well-regulated militia" are the same ones who ignore the Establishment Clause's qualifier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, 210 years of jurisprudence play a larger role than your own subjective interpretation of those words.

I could say that the Second Amendment right to bear arms means only that you have the right to own a musket like the ones made in the 1780s, but I doubt you would accept my interpretation either. Luckily for you, I don't get to decide the true meaning of the Constitution either.

If I read you right, your stance is that there is seperation since jurisprudence has said so, not the constitution?

If that is so, that doesn't fit with the original post that said there is such based on the constitution.

Unfortunely your wrong. Just because people believe there is separtion doesn't mean it's so. The constitution does not state there is seperation of church and state, no matter how you slice it, it just isn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I read you right, your stance is that there is seperation since jurisprudence has said so, not the constitution?

If that is so, that doesn't fit with the original post that said there is such based on the constitution.

Unfortunely your wrong. Just because people believe there is separtion doesn't mean it's so. The constitution does not state there is seperation of church and state, no matter how you slice it, it just isn't there.

Interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the fact that bill would be president again is enough, but hilary too... good lord!!

I don't want a socialist government. And I enjoy my healthcare the way it is. I don't want it taken away and given something less.

I didn't realize we had a socialist government in the 90's. I was just a kid at the time so I probably just wasn't paying attention. Thanks for the info bro!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really....... there is seperation of church and state?? Point me to the part of the constitution where it says there is seperation of church and state?

A falsehood that has been sold to people by those who want it. The constitution does not say anywhere that there is seperation of church and state.

The first ammendment of the constitution...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Literally removes the government from the religion game. Not because the founding fathers did not believe religion was important. But because the founding fathers all thought religion was very important, and yet did not agree among themselves on religion.

They therefore removed government from the religion game in order to protect peoples religion from a potential terrany of the majority which might ensue. Something that Europe had quite a bit of experience in. Something that many Americans who fleed to the US because of religious pursecution were concerned about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Care to tell me what the part in red means? Seems pretty straight forward to me. Hell, sounds to me like the part in blue makes the practice of religion OK damn near anywhere, so long as Congress isn't requiring it by law.

Exactly right. As long as congress isn't involved in financing it, requiring it, or implementing it; religion is fine anywhere.

Where it gets hard is in public schools and public areas because there the case has been made that congress hold the funding power ( power of the purse) in the entire government; and thus any benifit given to religion would be a subsidy and anti constitution.

My Church met in public school gymnasiums for decades before we could afford to build a church. We got thrown out of a few of those gymnasiums because of church and state issues. I thought that was bogus at the time, and still do. But in general I'm for erroring on the side of less government involvment with churches. Cause I don't believe such a street would ever be a one way street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first ammendment of the constitution...

Literally removes the government from the religion game. Not because the founding fathers did not believe religion was important. But because the founding fathers all thought religion was very important, and yet did not agree among themselves on religion.

They therefore removed government from the religion game in order to protect peoples religion from a potential terrany of the majority which might ensue. Something that Europe had quite a bit of experience in. Something that many Americans who fleed to the US because of religious pursecution were concerned about.

and this is intended to to do what?? Explain to me the seperation?? It didn't. There isn't any. It is you reading into it. It merely states that the gov won't sponsor or deny religion. It doesn't remove them from anything.

If you read it again it basically tells the american people that the government will not legislate in such a way to make laws pro or con in regards to religion.

an example would be the govn can't make a law saying that once a year we will celebrate Jesus day. And they also can't make a law saying christians can't worship in church on sunday.

anything beyond that, is reading into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting though, that those who choose to accentuate "well-regulated militia" are the same ones who ignore the Establishment Clause's qualifier.

Unfortunately, there isn't really 210 years of jurisprudence on the Second Amendment the way there is on the First Amendment. In fact, there is almost no Supreme Court jurisprudence on the Second Amendment at all. So that one is still open for reasonable disagreement, while the First Amendment is much more settled.

Now don't you go playing legal scholar with Me, young man :silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

an example would be the govn can't make a law saying that once a year we will celebrate Jesus day. And they also can't make a law saying christians can't worship in church on sunday.

anything beyond that, is reading into it.

Does this mean Christmas (the federal holiday) is cancelled? :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...