The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung deleted:

Kurt_Lochner restored the original text/context:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:
- - - - - --
The original claim was not that these men are building empires,
but that the Republicans had the corner on Christianity,

Ask yourself this.. How many non-christians are involved
in the Republican party? Are they a majority, or a minority..

--Get back to me when you can quibble that..

From what I have seen, non-Christians are a majority of both parties.

That presupposes that the so-called "christians" involved in both the
GOP and 'evangelical' churches aren't really "christians", correct?

I gave you a response based upon my own observation

Somehow, your 'observations' are not of an objective observer,
at least in my experiences, David. Having experienced the
results of 'religious politics' here in Oklahoma, I have a
little more than most to say about that, too..

My observations were never meant to be objective.

So I've pointed out, in many instances and postings..

Here is an article which goes into the subject in some detail:

http://tinyurl.com/6ktvtk

An evangelical press association member, eh?

--As such, I do not trust their statistics. or numbers..

Your choice

Indeed, and it's the result of critical reasoning..

--You should try it sometime..

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

David Hartung deleted, again:

Kurt_Lochner restored, both context and formatting:

David Hartung deleted:

Kurt_Lochner restored, both context and formatting:

David Hartung deleted:

Kurt_Lochner again restored:

David Hartung wrote:

wrote:

David Hartung deleted:

Kurt_Lochner restored the omitted text/context:
- - - - - - - - - --
"I've been told the Republican Party has exclusive franchise
on Christianity; it is easier for a camel to pass through
the eye of a needle than a non-Republican to enter the Kingdom
of God."

So you don't agree with the observation that Robertson, Falwell
and Dobson's alleged "churches" are predominantly involved in
politics, particularly the Republican party?

May I once again suggest that yo learn to read? your understanding of
the quote I provided is completely wrong.

If YOU don't understand that Falwell, Dobson, and
Robertson are as influential as they are in GOP
politics, promotes the basic belief that republicans
are the More "moral" party, how in **** can you make
conclusions credibly?

I fully understand the influence of Dobson, Falwell(deceased)
and Robertson. A previous poster made a statement which led me
to believe that the three had claimed that only Republicans
could be Christians.

That's incorrect, and yet another deliberate mis-statement of
what was actually posted, which you also deliberately deleted
from the quote-backs of your message..

What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..

You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..

--Otherwise, you can expect the usual pogroms of the Dark Ages..

You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement,
although for different reasons.

So? Why do you not elaborate on that, instead of avoiding
the matter of the damnable influence of religion on our
national politics?

Oh, that's because the "moral majority" isn't either..

Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with
the government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster
for the Church.

Not to mention that such a government has failed to keep
the consent of the governed.. Whole nations have risen from
that alone, David..

That's something a real "libertarian" would know from the start..

It would be a different topic of discussion, but the concept of
government with the consent of the governed is a relatively new
one,

I do not agree with that, at all..

In this case "new" is 200 years old..

No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church
was politically active.

That era of Mankind's history was also known as the "Dark Ages" too..

Are you referring to the middle ages

Nope. Why do you even ask that?

These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church
to have nothing to do with the government.

Yet, you quibble the details of present religious leaders
attempting to hijack our national government. Why is that?

You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a
different category from Robertson and Falwell.

You will also notice that I'm not accepting that excuse any longer..

Not my problem.

Nor mine..

Dobson's group, on the other hand, seems to be designed as a political
group who's members happen to be Christians, and who's purpose is to
advance the moral values of the church. Even though I might not always
agree 100% with Dobson, I see his group as essentially a good thing.
Should they cross the line from advancing a moral code based upon the
Scriptures, to advancing the idea that Christianity should become the
national faith, then I will oppose them.

You shouldn't wait that long, David. They've already become the
leaders of what has manifested itself as a theocratic fascism..

--As Frank Zappa pointed out a couple of dozen years ago..

Yet our nation still has a throughly secular government

Not if you can help it, hunh..

--Your 'libertarian' party is but an excuse for right-wing extremism..

You really need to pay attention to what people say.

*LOL!* And not question the basic premises that what 'they'
say is based upon, especially if it's completely wrong..

--Not my problems, David..

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung deleted:
Kurt_Lochner restored the original text/context:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
- - - - - --
The original claim was not that these men are building empires,
but that the Republicans had the corner on Christianity,
Ask yourself this.. How many non-christians are involved
in the Republican party? Are they a majority, or a minority..

--Get back to me when you can quibble that..
From what I have seen, non-Christians are a majority of both parties.

That presupposes that the so-called "christians" involved in both the
GOP and 'evangelical' churches aren't really "christians", correct?
I gave you a response based upon my own observation
Somehow, your 'observations' are not of an objective observer,
at least in my experiences, David. Having experienced the
results of 'religious politics' here in Oklahoma, I have a
little more than most to say about that, too..
My observations were never meant to be objective.

So I've pointed out, in many instances and postings..

But then neither are yours.


Here is an article which goes into the subject in some detail:

http://tinyurl.com/6ktvtk
An evangelical press association member, eh?

--As such, I do not trust their statistics. or numbers..
Your choice

Indeed, and it's the result of critical reasoning..

Something which you have never demonstrated.

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung deleted:

Kurt_Lochner restored the original text/context:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:
- - - - - - - --
The original claim was not that these men are building empires,
but that the Republicans had the corner on Christianity,

Ask yourself this.. How many non-christians are involved
in the Republican party? Are they a majority, or a minority..

--Get back to me when you can quibble that..

From what I have seen, non-Christians are a majority of both parties.

That presupposes that the so-called "christians" involved in both the
GOP and 'evangelical' churches aren't really "christians", correct?

I gave you a response based upon my own observation

Somehow, your 'observations' are not of an objective observer,
at least in my experiences, David. Having experienced the
results of 'religious politics' here in Oklahoma, I have a
little more than most to say about that, too..

My observations were never meant to be objective.

So I've pointed out, in many instances and postings..

But then neither are yours.

Incorrect. My training, education and experience requires
a great deal of dispassionate observation technique..

You would be hard-pressed to prove otherwise, to be certain..

Here is an article which goes into the subject in some detail:

http://tinyurl.com/6ktvtk

An evangelical press association member, eh?

--As such, I do not trust their statistics. or numbers..

Your choice

Indeed, and it's the result of critical reasoning..

--You should try it sometime..

Something which you have never demonstrated.

That would be a 'negative claim', yet another example of your
partisan blindness in fact. Have you even approached a textbook
on the subject of logic and critical reasoning?

--That would also require a library card, if necessary for more study..

(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and Statein America Today.]
 

On Nov 28, 7:16*am, David Hartung wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:29:47 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

Dobson has/had enough control over the GOP platform
committee to have had the power to summon Neut Gingrich
and the entire GOP leadership before him and threaten
them with retaliation unless his "agenda" was included
in legislation pending before government.
When, specifically did this happen?

Fall of 1994, setting up the vetoes by Clinton in 1995
over the budgets, eventally leading to the GOP shutdown

ALL of the major networks covered the event---(not the
meeting itself, but the fact it was called)

A leak from that meeting was published in various
internet sites describing Dobson's threats to refuse
funding to GOP candidates, to run candidates against
incumbents, and to use his media empire to campaign
against them

Okay, the meeting took place. There are several questions:

1. Was the meeting called, or requested by Dobson?

2. What is wrong with applying political pressure? The Left does it all
the time.

While I am skeptical of Dobson's group, I do pout him in a different
category, simply because he is not an ordained minister, and does not
seem to be trying to build himself an empire.



Gingrich complied.

The Liberals 'believe' that a Person who is Religious
should STFU when it comes to Politics and Political
Activism : For the Left; People-of-Faith should have
"NO" Right to Participate in Politics.

Real Americans support Equal Political Rights for
both Believers {Persons-of-Faith} and Non-Believers
{Secularist}.

equal rights in all things for one -is- equal rights for all ~ RHF

(OT) : Are the Democrat Party's Doors Locked and Shut to Conservative"Traditional" Religious Members ?
 

On Nov 28, 7:16*am, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:25:08 -0600, David Hartung

wrote:
So you don't agree with the observation that Robertson, Falwell
and Dobson's alleged "churches" are predominantly involved in
politics, particularly the Republican party?

May I once again suggest that yo learn to read? your understanding of
the quote I provided is completely wrong.

- If YOU don't understand that Falwell, Dobson, and
- Robertson are as influential as they are in GOP
- politics, promotes the basic belief that republicans
- are the More "moral" party, how in **** can you make
- conclusions credibly?

Knick...,

It is not a question of 'morality' between the Political
Parties : However the is the Issue of Individual Rights
and "Family Values" {Being Family Friendly} -versus-
Big Government Know Best and Government Intrusion
into the Rights and Responsibilities of Parents and
Families : Religious Beliefs and Traditional Teachings.

It is not only that the Conservative "Traditional" Religious
members are Drawn to the Republican Party -as-much-as-
There is a Hostel Attitude in the Democrat Party toward
Conservative "Traditional" Religious members and they
'feel' unwelcome in the Democrat Party : The Democrat
Party's Big Tent has "NO" Room in it for an Active Voice
of Conservative "Traditional" Religious members - So much
for Diversity and Inclusion.

(OT) : Are the Democrat Party's Doors Locked and Shut
to Conservative "Traditional" Religious Members ?

yes - i said that ~ RHF

(OT) : The Honest Original Fundamental Meaning of theSeparation-of-Church-and-State
 

On Nov 28, 8:19*am, Kurt_Lochner
wrote:
David Hartung wrote:

wrote:

David Hartung deleted:

Kurt_Lochner restored the omitted text/context:
- - - - -
"I've been told the Republican Party has exclusive franchise
on Christianity; it is easier for a camel to pass through
the eye of a needle than a non-Republican to enter the Kingdom
of God."

So you don't agree with the observation that Robertson, Falwell
and Dobson's alleged "churches" are predominantly involved in
politics, particularly the Republican party?

May I once again suggest that yo learn to read? your understanding of
the quote I provided is completely wrong.

If YOU don't understand that Falwell, Dobson, and
Robertson are as influential as they are in GOP
politics, promotes the basic belief that republicans
are the More "moral" party, how in **** can you make
conclusions credibly?

I fully understand the influence of Dobson, Falwell(deceased)
and Robertson. A previous poster made a statement which led me
to believe that the three had claimed that only Republicans
could be Christians.

That's incorrect, and yet another deliberate mis-statement of
what was actually posted, which you also deliberately deleted
from the quote-backs of your message..

What's become of the Republican Party? *Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..

You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..

--Otherwise, you can expect the usual pogroms of the Dark Ages..

You have an distorted {over-blown} 'concept' of the
Separation-of-Church-and-State which simply has
to do with Estabishment of a State Religion and
the Oppression of 'other' Religions.

The Separation-of-Church-and-State is about an Equal
Playing Field for All Religions : Along with an Equal Right
NOT TO BE RELIGIOUS IF YOU CHOOSE TO BE -and-
an Equal Right TO BE RELIGIOUS IF YOU CHOOSE
TO BE [.] -but- Today the Left and Liberals distort this
to mean that the Government is Openly Hostel to Religion
and actively acts to surpress Religions and the Activities
of Persons-of-Faith.

(OT) : The Honest Original Fundamental Meaning
of the Separation-of-Church-and-State

yes - i said that ~ RHF

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung deleted:
Kurt_Lochner restored the original text/context:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
- - - - - - - --
The original claim was not that these men are building empires,
but that the Republicans had the corner on Christianity,
Ask yourself this.. How many non-christians are involved
in the Republican party? Are they a majority, or a minority..

--Get back to me when you can quibble that..
From what I have seen, non-Christians are a majority of both parties.

That presupposes that the so-called "christians" involved in both the
GOP and 'evangelical' churches aren't really "christians", correct?
I gave you a response based upon my own observation
Somehow, your 'observations' are not of an objective observer,
at least in my experiences, David. Having experienced the
results of 'religious politics' here in Oklahoma, I have a
little more than most to say about that, too..
My observations were never meant to be objective.
So I've pointed out, in many instances and postings..
But then neither are yours.

Incorrect. My training, education and experience requires
a great deal of dispassionate observation technique..

All of which you seem to put aside when engaging in political discourse.


--That would also require a library card, if necessary for more study..

something which I have possessed and used for the past 40 years.

(OT) : The Honest Original Fundamental Meaning of the Separation-of-Church-and-State
 

"RHF" wrote in message
...
On Nov 28, 8:19 am, Kurt_Lochner
wrote:
David Hartung wrote:

wrote:

David Hartung deleted:

Kurt_Lochner restored the omitted text/context:
- - - - -
"I've been told the Republican Party has exclusive franchise
on Christianity; it is easier for a camel to pass through
the eye of a needle than a non-Republican to enter the Kingdom
of God."

So you don't agree with the observation that Robertson, Falwell
and Dobson's alleged "churches" are predominantly involved in
politics, particularly the Republican party?

May I once again suggest that yo learn to read? your understanding of
the quote I provided is completely wrong.

If YOU don't understand that Falwell, Dobson, and
Robertson are as influential as they are in GOP
politics, promotes the basic belief that republicans
are the More "moral" party, how in **** can you make
conclusions credibly?

I fully understand the influence of Dobson, Falwell(deceased)
and Robertson. A previous poster made a statement which led me
to believe that the three had claimed that only Republicans
could be Christians.

That's incorrect, and yet another deliberate mis-statement of
what was actually posted, which you also deliberately deleted
from the quote-backs of your message..

What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..

You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..

--Otherwise, you can expect the usual pogroms of the Dark Ages..

You have an distorted {over-blown} 'concept' of the
Separation-of-Church-and-State which simply has
to do with Estabishment of a State Religion and
the Oppression of 'other' Religions.

The Separation-of-Church-and-State is about an Equal
Playing Field for All Religions : Along with an Equal Right
NOT TO BE RELIGIOUS IF YOU CHOOSE TO BE -and-
an Equal Right TO BE RELIGIOUS IF YOU CHOOSE
TO BE [.] -but- Today the Left and Liberals distort this
to mean that the Government is Openly Hostel to Religion
and actively acts to surpress Religions and the Activities
of Persons-of-Faith.

(OT) : The Honest Original Fundamental Meaning
of the Separation-of-Church-and-State

yes - i said that ~ RHF

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question-Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
 

On Nov 28, 8:41*am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? *Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..

You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..

You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement, although
for different reasons.

Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the Church. The
church.

No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church was
politically active.

These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to have
nothing to do with the government.

You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a different
category from Robertson and Falwell.

- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.

So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .

- Dobson's group, on the other hand, seems to be designed as
- a political group who's members happen to be Christians, and
- who's purpose is to advance the moral values of the church.

The basic American {Human Individual and Collective} Right
to be involved in the Business {Art} of Politics and Be Party
of the Political Process as Equal with/to Every Other US
Citizen.

- Even though I might not always agree 100% with Dobson,
- I see his group as essentially a good thing.

Yes Americans {US Citizens} Exercising Their Rights
is a Good Thing for One and All of Us.

- Should they cross the line from advancing a moral code
- based upon the Scriptures,

D'Oh! - That is their Right as it is the Right of Each
and Every American {US Citizen} to Advance their
own Ideas as Part of the Political Process.
Rights For One -are- Rights For All = Equality.

- to advancing the idea that Christianity should become the
- national faith, then I will oppose them.

Yes - That Would Be A Bad Thing - Indeed [.]

In Europe and else where where there are many more
Political Parties : You can have the National Democrats;
Social Democrats; and Christian Democrats; plus
Conservatives; Labor {Unions}; Green; Progressive . . .
-and- That works well in a Parlamentry System
-but- We are basically a Two Party System and that
has a tendency for things to get Bi-Polar {Polarized}
between the limitations of just two Parties.