September 6, 201214 yr You don't have to be a Christian to have morals, and to suggest that one is dependent upon the other is so incredibly insulting that it's almost amazing. Where my leaders get their morals and values is irrelevant. As long as they have them. :thumb: It's ironic that a country that was founded because of religious freedom is so polarized because so many want the Christian faith to be the guiding factor in policy making and choosing leaders. I, too, find it repulsive that the premise is that only Christians have morals worthy of being in a leadership position.
September 6, 201214 yr Unlike you, I do want my elected officials to have CHRISTIAN MORALS and VALUES. And yes there is a difference. I'm sure Hitler had morals and values. What about Fred Phelps (from Westboro Baptist) and Timothy McVeigh (Christian bomber of the fed building in Oklahoma city)? What about the catholic priests that were child molesters? What about Christians that cheat on their spouses? The particular faith someone has is not what makes someone moral. There are many religions that espouse moral values, but many times their followers do not demonstrate them. Likewise, it is absurd to think that just because someone does not believe in a god (or doesn't believe in the 'right' one) that he/she cannot have values and morals.
September 6, 201214 yr Unlike you, I do want my elected officials to have CHRISTIAN MORALS and VALUES. And yes there is a difference. I'm sure Hitler had morals and values. “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these (people) for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the () poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed.” Yes Adolf Hitler did have "Christian" Morals. Put Jew in where I put parenthesis and you will get a better flavor of the actual tone of the speech. [Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922
September 6, 201214 yr Which leaders might that be? I was speaking in general terms, pointing out the fact that I don't need someone to submit to a Christian litmus test to be electable.
September 6, 201214 yr I was speaking in general terms, pointing out the fact that I don't need someone to submit to a Christian litmus test to be electable. I know and I agree, I was just pointing out that they're hard to find anyway.
September 7, 201214 yr I was speaking in general terms, pointing out the fact that I don't need someone to submit to a Christian litmus test to be electable. It's interesting that you mention the above. If I'm not mistaken there is such a prohibition in the US Constitution. Article VI Paragraph 3 The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
September 7, 201214 yr It's interesting that you mention the above. If I'm not mistaken there is such a prohibition in the US Constitution. Article VI Paragraph 3 The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. It's not lawful on the books, but that doesn't mean that there aren't millions of religious right types using their own personal litmus test, much like Mountain Ref and I'm sure dozens of others on BGP who aren't as honest.
September 7, 201214 yr All I can say is that every day in grade school at the beginning of class we said a pledge. Part of it went like this: "And to the Republic for which it stands, One Nation Under God". Sad how things have changed.
September 7, 201214 yr All I can say is that every day in grade school at the beginning of class we said a pledge. Part of it went like this: "And to the Republic for which it stands, One Nation Under God". Sad how things have changed. Not if you were in school before 1954.
September 7, 201214 yr Sorry, I'm not that old. I am just saying, it was not originally written with 'under God' in it. Congress added that line. So yeah, things have changed.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.