The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

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..

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..

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..

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..

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:
- -
David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

wrote:

David Hartung deleted and then bleated:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The claim was that Robertson, Falwell and Dobson have claimed that
Republicans have the corner on Christianity.

You are again dishonestly trying to reframe what was said..

From earlier in the thread:

Soumay Nonay wrote:

"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?

How quaint..

May I once again suggest that yo learn to read?

No.. May I again suggest that "yo" learn to proof-read?

Point taken.

Good.. You've made several typos which I could almost
qualify as Freudian Slips in the past 72 hours..

your understanding of the quote I provided is completely wrong.

Nope, the context which you're trying to misrepresent that quote
with is lacking a few details that I find amusing..

--And typical of a right-wing zealot..

From what I see, you are making excuses.

No, you're the one making excuses, David. You've again deliberately
tried to 'reframe' this discussion to suit your opinion, rather than
openly discussing how the churches led by Dobson, Falwell and
Robertson (eg "Moral Majority", "religious right") have violated
the separation of church and state..

How can a provate entity, which has zero legal authority,
violate the constitution?

It's not a "provate entity", David..

Focus on the Family is a multi-media empire now..

You're even blindly assuming that these 'religious' figures
haven't been trying to build themselves 'empires' that have
attempted to force the Republican party candidates to accept
some of Dobson, Robertson, et al's religious agenda..

In truth, I am absolutely convinced that Robertson and Falwell
would like to build a religious empire, with them in charge.

And so, you think that they haven't? How did you conclude that?

Perhaps I should have been more explicit.

That would be refreshing, in your case specifically..

I believe that these men, and others like them would like to return
to the days when the temporal government was subservient to the Church,
and they would like to be the one in charge of the Church.

And I repeat, why do you think that they haven't already
been trying, as a concerted effort of many decades, to do
just exactly that?

Don't get me wrong, as I am glad to hear that you do not
support a theocratic fascist government, but you do seem
to be quite the apologist for such taking place now..

In Dobson's case, I am a little more uncertain.

Henh! Heisenberg didn't come into play here, right?

If you're going to quibble those facts, then you're not only
being dishonest with me, you're being dishonest with yourself..

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?

--Us Democratic 'heathen' would never attempt such a travesty..

The Separation of Church and Statein America Today..
 

David Hartung wrote:

wrote:

David Hartung wrote:
- ---
ANd I pointed you to the three top christofascists
operating massive media outlets and you claim you've
never heard of their views.

I am not aware that any of the better known "televangelists"
are "fascists" of any brand.

We know why you're not, Hartung

Because you have shown NO intellectual capability, no
awareness of public events, little awareness of
historical facts, and little knowledge of American
civics and government.

Actually, it is you who demonstrates a distinct lack of
intellectual effort

No, David.. You're the one that has difficulties with
reviewing the 'cites' provided to you to confirm and
support the ideas, opinions and statements that refute
what you have posted..

--Reminder: Be sure to proof-read your own posts..

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:

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

http://tinyurl.com/6ktvtk

This is an interesting article. According to the article 51% of
respondents qualify as "born-again" Christians. Truthfully, I am not
100% certain what this means as all Christians are born again in the
waters of Holy Baptism. I may have to hearken back to my days as a
Baptist to sort out the answer.

In any case, let me know what you think of the article.

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

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..

It would be a different topic of discussion, but the concept of
government with the consent of the governed is a relatively new one, and
not as widespread as perhaps it should be. During the Middle ages, such
a concept was likely unknown.

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

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, where the Pope was seen as
superior to the temporal government, or are you referring to the period
of Paul's ministry covered in the New Testament?

These two 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.

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..

Yet our nation still has a throughly secular government, freely elected
by the people. Robertson and company have had little success.

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

David Hartung deleted:

Kurt_Lochner restored the original text/context:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt_Lochner wrote:
- - - - -
You're even blindly assuming that these 'religious' figures
haven't been trying to build themselves 'empires' that have
attempted to force the Republican party candidates to accept
some of Dobson, Robertson, et al's religious agenda..

In truth, I am absolutely convinced that Robertson and Falwell
would like to build a religious empire, with them in charge.

And so, you think that they haven't? How did you conclude that?

Perhaps I should have been more explicit.

That would be refreshing, in your case specifically..

I believe that these men, and others like them would like to return
to the days when the temporal government was subservient to the Church,
and they would like to be the one in charge of the Church.

And I repeat, why do you think that they haven't already
been trying, as a concerted effort of many decades, to do
just exactly that?

Don't get me wrong, as I am glad to hear that you do not
support a theocratic fascist government, but you do seem
to be quite the apologist for such taking place now..

In Dobson's case, I am a little more uncertain.

Henh! Heisenberg didn't come into play here, right?

If you're going to quibble those facts, then you're not only
being dishonest with me, you're being dishonest with yourself..

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..

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..

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:

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

http://tinyurl.com/6ktvtk

This is an interesting article. According to the article 51% of
respondents qualify as "born-again" Christians. Truthfully, I am not
100% certain what this means as all Christians are born again in the
waters of Holy Baptism. I may have to hearken back to my days as a
Baptist to sort out the answer.

In any case, let me know what you think of the article.

Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian
1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified
2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...us.html#People

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

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..

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung deleted:
Kurt_Lochner restored the original text/context:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
- - - - -
You're even blindly assuming that these 'religious' figures
haven't been trying to build themselves 'empires' that have
attempted to force the Republican party candidates to accept
some of Dobson, Robertson, et al's religious agenda..
In truth, I am absolutely convinced that Robertson and Falwell
would like to build a religious empire, with them in charge.
And so, you think that they haven't? How did you conclude that?
Perhaps I should have been more explicit.
That would be refreshing, in your case specifically..

I believe that these men, and others like them would like to return
to the days when the temporal government was subservient to the Church,
and they would like to be the one in charge of the Church.
And I repeat, why do you think that they haven't already
been trying, as a concerted effort of many decades, to do
just exactly that?

Don't get me wrong, as I am glad to hear that you do not
support a theocratic fascist government, but you do seem
to be quite the apologist for such taking place now..

In Dobson's case, I am a little more uncertain.
Henh! Heisenberg didn't come into play here, right?

If you're going to quibble those facts, then you're not only
being dishonest with me, you're being dishonest with yourself..
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.

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. This is still a free country.

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

Kurt_Lochner wrote:
David Hartung deleted:

Yet our nation still has a throughly secular government

Not if you can help it, hunh..

You really need to pay attention to what people say.

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.

(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and State in
 

On Nov 28, 1:47*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF

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

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.

Their mission is to replace all secularists with
"believers" and to change the function of government
from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
course)

Pat Robertson chalkboarded his entire strategy for
doing so after his last defeat in a primary
Presidential election.

Jerry Falwell funded/paid for a video smearing Clinton

- CPAC (aging white, wealthy class religious republicans)
- funded various smears against Clinton, or moderate
- republicans, funded the OIC Kenny Starr, and paid
- witnesses to lie in the Jones, Willey, etal, civil
- accusations.

Ah Yes - The Attack of The Great Right-Wing {Religious} Conspiracy.
* They're Evil cause they are Aging
* They're Evil cause they are White
* They're Evil cause they are Wealthy
* They're Evil cause they are Believers {Religious Class}
* They're Evil cause most of all they are Republicans
PREACH ALL THAT "HATE THEM" CLASS WARFARE POLITICS

(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and State in
America Today : They Attack The Great Right-Wing {Religious}
Conspiracy.

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

Brenda Ann wrote:
"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
How can a provate entity, which has zero legal authority, violate the
constitution?

It's done all the time. Those sorts of things generally result in tort
claims or other civil penalties (i.e., OJ, having been acquitted in his
criminal trial, was then tried for violating the civil (Constitutional)
rights of his victims.

The Constitution (including state constitutions) is a basic document of law
(like the Ten Commandments) and every citizen is subject to it, it is not
reserved only for the government. (though it is generally so that you hear
more about government entities violating it, because it affects so many more
people when they do.)

As I see it, a private entity has no power to force their way upon
people, therefore, it is impossible for a private entity to violate the
constitution.

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

Brenda Ann wrote:
"Kurt_Lochner" wrote in message
...
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..

The Dark Ages came much later, after the Crusades, when crusaders burned and
pillaged the (Muslim built) libraries and universities throughout Europe.
This basically put an end to education for quite some time.

The term "Dark Ages" is no longer as widely used as in the past, but
generally, the Dark ages are considered to be the early middle age. The
early middle age ran from the early fifth century to the late eleventh
century. The first crusade was in 1095, or right at the end of the
eleventh century.

http://tinyurl.com/6463ea

Also, the only "Muslim universities" in Europe were probably in Spain.
The Muslims were run out of Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella in the
fifteenth century.

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

RHF wrote:
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 . . . . .

I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same rights
as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in partisan
politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry.
Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the purpose of
proclaiming His kingdom. Partisan politics is outside their scope.

This is my belief, others differ.

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

Brenda Ann wrote:
"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
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.

This one's good enough for me:

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things
that are God's" Matthew 22:21

Yes, the doctrine of Two Kingdoms.

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

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

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

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

RHF wrote:
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
.
Huh? Wesley Clark is bat-****-crazy religious and they let him hang around.

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
Brenda Ann wrote:
"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
How can a provate entity, which has zero legal authority, violate the
constitution?

It's done all the time. Those sorts of things generally result in tort
claims or other civil penalties (i.e., OJ, having been acquitted in his
criminal trial, was then tried for violating the civil (Constitutional)
rights of his victims.

The Constitution (including state constitutions) is a basic document of
law (like the Ten Commandments) and every citizen is subject to it, it is
not reserved only for the government. (though it is generally so that you
hear more about government entities violating it, because it affects so
many more people when they do.)

As I see it, a private entity has no power to force their way upon people,
therefore, it is impossible for a private entity to violate the
constitution.

But this is not the way the law sees it.

The Separation of Church and State in America Today.,
 

David Hartung wrote:

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..

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

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

That would again be a negative claim on your behalf..

Example follows..

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..

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

So, would you prefer an ISBN number to search for the textbook I've
been working from for the past dozen years, I'm certain it's been
reprinted a couple of times since I took those classes..

--Or, will a simple title/author be sufficient in this case?

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

On Nov 28, 5:22*pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
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 . . . . .

I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same rights
as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in partisan
politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry.
Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the purpose of
proclaiming His kingdom.

- Partisan politics is outside their scope.

Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?

Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?

- This is my belief, others differ.

Clearly We Differ ~ RHF

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State : It's About EqualTreatment and Equality for All
 

On Nov 28, 5:26*pm, David Hartung wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

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

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.

Evidence?

- - Their mission is to replace all secularists with
- - "believers" and to change the function of government
- - from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
- - course)

Wrong.

- On this we likely agree.

Wrong Again.

Their Mission is to Transform 'Secularist' into "Believers"
and Transform the Function of Government from a Secular
Anti-Religious Apparatus into an Entity that is Not Hostel
to Persons-of-Faith and Respect the Beliefs of All Citizens.
- - - It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All :
Believer and Non-Believer Alike.

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State :
It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All

Pat Robertson chalkboarded his entire strategy for
doing so after his last defeat in a primary
Presidential election.

Cite?

Jerry Falwell funded/paid for a video smearing Clinton

Cite please?

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

On Nov 28, 5:57*pm, Dave wrote:
RHF wrote:
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
*.

- Huh? *Wesley Clark is bat-****-crazy religious
- and they let him hang around.

Dave - It would appear that you and Wesley Clark
have much 'in-common' except for Religion. ~ RHF

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State : It's About EqualTreatment and Equality for All
 

RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:26 pm, David Hartung wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:
Real Americans support Equal Political Rights for
both Believers {Persons-of-Faith} and Non-Believers
{Secularist}.
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.
Evidence?

- - Their mission is to replace all secularists with
- - "believers" and to change the function of government
- - from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
- - course)

Wrong.

- On this we likely agree.

Wrong Again.

Their Mission is to Transform 'Secularist' into "Believers"
and Transform the Function of Government from a Secular
Anti-Religious Apparatus into an Entity that is Not Hostel
to Persons-of-Faith and Respect the Beliefs of All Citizens.
- - - It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All :
Believer and Non-Believer Alike.

I have no doubt that Robertson et al want to "transform" nonbelievers,
into believers. The question is what belief is Robertson looking for.

An evangelist does not "transform" non-Christians into Christians. All
the evangelist does is to proclaim the Kingdom of Heaven. Any
"transforming" which might be done, is done by God.

Robertson and company often seem more interested in the pursuit of the
almighty dollar, in the acquisition of political influence, and in
political power, than they do the proclamation of the Word of God.

This, in my opinion, makes them false prophets.

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

RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
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 . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same rights
as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in partisan
politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry.
Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the purpose of
proclaiming His kingdom.

- Partisan politics is outside their scope.

Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?

Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?

- This is my belief, others differ.

Clearly We Differ ~ RHF

Do you understand that something may be legal and constitutional, but
still be inappropriate?

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

RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
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 . . . . .

I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same
rights as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in
partisan politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy
Ministry. Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the
purpose of proclaiming His kingdom.

- Partisan politics is outside their scope.

Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?

Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?

- This is my belief, others differ.

Clearly We Differ ~ RHF
.

If they are to be active politically, they cannot keep tax free status.

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State : It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All
 

RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:26 pm, David Hartung wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

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

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.

Evidence?

- - Their mission is to replace all secularists with
- - "believers" and to change the function of government
- - from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
- - course)

Wrong.

- On this we likely agree.

Wrong Again.

Their Mission is to Transform 'Secularist' into "Believers"
and Transform the Function of Government from a Secular
Anti-Religious Apparatus into an Entity that is Not Hostel
to Persons-of-Faith and Respect the Beliefs of All Citizens.
- - - It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All :
Believer and Non-Believer Alike.

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State :
It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All

Pat Robertson chalkboarded his entire strategy for
doing so after his last defeat in a primary
Presidential election.

Cite?

Jerry Falwell funded/paid for a video smearing Clinton

Cite please?

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/03/cov_11news.html

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

RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:24 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
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 . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same rights
as any other group.
My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in partisan
politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry.
Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the purpose of
proclaiming His kingdom.
- Partisan politics is outside their scope.
Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?
Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?
- This is my belief, others differ.
Clearly We Differ ~ RHF

- Do you understand that something may be legal
- and constitutional, but still be inappropriate?

OK - So tell me how is exercising one's basic
human rights inappropriate ?

Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU
when it comes to Politics.



? Are People-of-Faith To Be Denied a Seat . . .
at the Table of American Politics ?
* And Thereby be Relegated to the Role of Second-Class
Political Citizens.
* Hey may be Ministers, Preachers, Rabbis, Imams,
Priests, etc should not even be allowed to Vote.

Has Religion become "The-R-Word" in American Politics ?

has god -proclaimed- thou shall not
be political and religious too ~ RHF

A question, if I may.

In you eyes, what is the job of an ordained minister?