into the Colbert interview Congressman Westmoreland did on T V recently. I had a difficult time doing it, but I finally reached Lynn's Newnan office.

I learned that Colbert interviewed Lynn for two hours. He then cut and spliced the parts he wanted to air. Lynn Westmoreland correctly cited 8 of the ten commandments, and the part you were shown where Lynn finally said "I can't repeat anymore" was done after reciting the 8 correctly. It was a deliberate move on the part of Colbert to try and embarass Lynn and that is no surprise to anyone but the extremely naive.

Having experience with the media, I can assure that this kind of "reporting" is not at all unusual, as a matter of fact, more the rule than not. I hope everyone understands that the media, ie, print, radio or T V will spin virtually everything they can to fit their own agenda. They aren't referred to as the fourth estate for no reason.

Nobody every accused Lynn of being the sharpest knife in the drawer but this one is over the top. Hey, he doesn’t know government and he doesn’t know his Bible.

But, Lynn, how can you muddle the memory of the greatest baseball player in Georgia history--- Tyrus Raymond Cobb. He was awesome. He still holds the records for highest major-league career batting average with .366 and most career batting titles with 12. (Wikipedia).

Westmoreland said that the term “Georgia Peach is a FEMALE term.”
Whoops...Ty Cobb’s nickname was (and is) "THE GEORGIA PEACH”. Lynn—you owe Royston, Georgia an apology.

Well, maybe he doesn't know his baseball history, but perhaps he had this line from Charlie Daniels (and Little Feat) "Oh Atlanta" in mind:

Oh Atlanta I wish that I was down on Peachtree Street
Oh Atlanta them little Georgia peaches sure are sweet
You've got more pretty girls than any other place I've been
I can't wait to let your bright lights shine on me again Atlanta

-----

"Every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
--Duane Allman

Westmoreland embarrasses Fayette County. Imagine you have relatives that live in another state. You have to tell him that this guy was joking--- high school education and he is obviously doing nothing to learn the job (except where the free perks are). Really, I know many high school students that could do better.

Have you seen channel 57 on DISH? This is amateurism in reality when compared to Hinn and Praise the Lord. Some of those guys own arabian stallions, huge farms, jet aircraft, more tailored clothes than a movie star needs, and obvious jackasses as aids. Pat Robertson is a billionaire and has the ability to kill supreme court justices!!! Who sends them money? Are some that desperate?

Regarding the Telefreaks on TV. Gotta agree with you on this one Highgreen. The way these people act and portray Christianity is disgusting and embarassing. Let's say that if they are the real representation of what a follower of Christ is then please leave me out of it. I don't want to be like them. Thankfully they don't accurately represent Christs church. But to those who see them on tv one could easily understand why people think Christians are idiots.

It always amazes me how people who see Christians that are wealthy and think they must be some kind of crooks. The Bible doesn't say that a Christian should be poor. Why would someone who sees a Christian who is poor, never having anything, want to become one and serve this God who doesn't provide anything for them?

Sure some of the televangelists that I see on tv bother me but some are true genuine God-fearing Christians who do awesome things for the world. Sure Pat Robertson has said some things that were not wise. He is wealthy because he is very smart in investments with his own money, he is the president of one of the top universities in the country. Not because he has stolen from anyone.

Have you ever bothered to watch the 770 Club and see all of the millions of things that they do for people across the world through Operation Blessing? Or the things the Joyce Meyer Ministries does to help people in need? Or do you see these programs and sceptically assume that it's some sort of front to make money and these things that you can see that they're doing with you're own 2 eyes are somehow made up?

Yes, I do give to some of these ministries. And so do millions of others. Because it is better to give than to receive. My God tells me that if I give, He will take care of me no matter what. If I hold my wallet tight and choose to be a skeptical closeminded judge, I will be tying God's hands from doing what He promised; taking care of me and my family and causing those in need to be blessed by my obedience.

It always amazes me how people who see Christians that are wealthy and think they must be some kind of crooks. The Bible doesn't say that a Christian should be poor. Why would someone who sees a Christian who is poor, never having anything, want to become one and serve this God who doesn't provide anything for them?

That is false. I have been a Christian for 45 years and know of no Biblical Christians that believe all Christians are poor.

I see exremely rich people in the Bible as being very Godly. I have know some rich who are very Godly.

But, the Bible does say more poor will come to him than rich. The rich live for, and worship, their material wealth far more than they do not.

Further, NO Christian is poor in truth. They have a heavenly treasure and blessings laid up that will be with them for eternity. No Christian will lack anything in eternity.

Your problem is you are materialistic. Not looking at the spiritual reality that outweighs the material.

All material wealth will be lost. No spiritual gain will every be lost.

God most assuredly provides. It is just your demand of what and when he provides that is flawed. You want it now.

Where is the issues of sin, repentence and forgiveness in your statement? All I see is greed and a lack of admission you don't deserve any blessings from God. None of us do.

But he gives them anyway. How much more generousity can you expect? But all you do is criticize God for not giving more materialistically.

Sure some of the televangelists that I see on tv bother me but some are true genuine God-fearing Christians who do awesome things for the world. Sure Pat Robertson has said some things that were not wise. He is wealthy because he is very smart in investments with his own money, he is the president of one of the top universities in the country. Not because he has stolen from anyone.

You better do some research. Robertson has done some very shaddy deals and has hurt people in their doing.

He does not exemplify what a preacher is suppose to be about in any form of the meaning. And he holds to Kingdom Now, Health, Wealth and Prosperity and other COMPLETELY non-Biblical doctrines.

As do the WoF crowd. In their arrogance they are now saying we will become gods in eternity. Equal to Christ.

Have you ever bothered to watch the 770 Club and see all of the millions of things that they do for people across the world through Operation Blessing? Or the things the Joyce Meyer Ministries does to help people in need? Or do you see these programs and sceptically assume that it's some sort of front to make money and these things that you can see that they're doing with you're own 2 eyes are somehow made up?

I know all about them.

Look on the CTZ link and read up on these false teachers. Then post there how wrong it is to criticize them.

Yes, I do give to some of these ministries. And so do millions of others. Because it is better to give than to receive. My God tells me that if I give, He will take care of me no matter what. If I hold my wallet tight and choose to be a skeptical closeminded judge, I will be tying God's hands from doing what He promised; taking care of me and my family and causing those in need to be blessed by my obedience.

Giving to get is to not give at all. Which is what you are doing.

You have fully bitten into the 1,000 Fold return. Which you are not going to get.

Many have given all and turned to WoF ministers when they desperately needed help. They got shoved aside.

Giving to get has no reward. Giving because it is right does... but in heaven is more rewarding than on the earth.

God does bless those who love and obey him with right hearts in this world. But that does not mean getting mansions and estates.

Most blessings are in heaven for eternity. Where they hold the most value.

I doubt you are going to see many WoF conpeople in Heaven.

Read on CTZ. Then tell me how Biblical and loving these people are in fact.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Of course I think your money and allegiance could be much better spent locally. However, freedom of "religion" is necessary in the USA in order to keep one particular religion from trying to run things as the Christian Crusaders and original Muslims did. I certainly wouldn't want to take that away from you or anyone. As to whether someone can be rich and a humble Christian: of course. It depends on who gave them the money (and someone had to do so) and what they do with it. So many of these "good works" as shown by the televangelists are of so few dollars collected, it might be better spent giving it directly to those in need, it is so little of the total. It has been investigated time after time and has never been found to be legitimate except in a very minor way. What wonders you could do with your money locally. I will disagree with you on whether God will make you rich if you give to a televangelist. It ain't gonna happen, anyway for that reason.

I agree giving locally gives more bang for your buck, and for God.

These people either do not understand these crooks mansions, jewels and personal millions came from those donoation to help the needy.

Or, they do not care, and are after the 1,000 fold return these crooks promise to those who donate to them.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I never said that God would make me rich by giving to televangelists or make me rich at all for that matter. His providing for my needs, spiritually, emotionally and financially is what I was talking about. My tithes I give locally. Sometimes, I give offerings elsewhere to benefit the world. I think that I would be very selfish to only give locally, when this country is so much better off than most of the world. So I spread it out.

Then why did you only mention those into WoF and the Pentecostal Health, Wealth and Prosperity Movements that promize the 1,000 fold return for giving to them?

There are other ministries that do not squander donoations on themselves. They live modestly and are devoted to reaching out to those in cults, feeding the needy and so on. But always with the purpose of bringing people to Christ, not themselves.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Yep. This guys are so far from Biblical Christianity it is sickening.

Yet, as the WoF (Word of Faith Movement)shows, for many people, God,Christ, salvation and the Bible are not their concerns. Give me and get are.

Blessing come in the color of green and happiness in power.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Because no one in their right mind would want the 10 commandments or any religious symbolism to take center stage in our legislative or judicial branches.

I mean gee willikers (sic) Everyone knows the 10 commandments are but the first of 619 laid down by God in the Old Testament. These first ten got better PR than the other 609, but thats it.

I say if you want to say the 10 commandments should be our guide, then so also is stoning Gays, or stoning women who rebuke their husbands. Oh my God, you don't want to miss a Sabbath, because you would surely die.

I have nothing but respect for people that want to live moral, spiritual and dignified lives. But don't act ethical because you're scared God is gonna burn you in hells fire. Love one another, do good to one another, do these things because we know they are how we should live. We don't need to have somebody read and interpret something from some old book that supposedly was voted on in the 5th Century-can you say politics- to be recognized as the "true word of God".

If so, if the 10 commandments are "still" the law we should live by, then you better get rid of the "graven" images. And you better start stoning your children when they sass you.

Even the Koran recognized Jesus' illegitimate birth by Mary, does it make that book holy too?

For God's sake, the Golden Rule is a truth that transcends all religions and is quoted in many. Doing good to others need not be something we do out of fear of hell, or in hopes of going to Heaven, it should be its own Reward. I like to treat people with respect, I like to do unto others as I would like to be treated. Its a great way to live.

Heck far, women were nothing more than chattel in the Old Testament. I think you all are gonna burn who think women are anything more than possessions of the man of the house.

Please get "RELIGION" out of Government and Lets start putting Moral High Ethics for the sake of high ethics back in.

Oh, and for those that wish to condemn me to a Place you like to call Hell, go for it. I've studied more, I've been to Church more times, I've been involved more than the vast majority of you all. I say this not to brag, because trust me, its not something I'm particularly proud of, but I say this from the perspective of a person that has been there. I've been there pointing fingers at all of the sinners of the world, believing that all would perish in the fire of Hell if we didn't repent. I just have grown and learned that the God I worship is not one that would ever find his children, his creation so sinful that he would ever want us to be punished such that we would live in eternal pain and anguish. Not much of a loving God if that were true.

just have grown and learned that the God I worship is not one that would ever find his children, his creation so sinful that he would ever want us to be punished such that we would live in eternal pain and anguish. Not much of a loving God if that were true.

The god you worship. The one you created out of your own desires and motivations.

A lot of your type around. Don't like what God revealed to us? Then create a god in your own image.

Obviously you do not understand God loves everyone but is wise and will not abandon justice.

We see the fruits of that from liberals all the time. Rapists, muderers, pedophiles and more get released out of 'loving compassion' to inflict themself on more victims.

Never thought of that, did you? What is God suppose to do with the scum that will not repent of their ways and change? Turn them loose upon the rest of us for eternity?

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I frankly think it is not needed. States can handle the job, the more local the control is, the better off in my opinion. It was actually part of the platform of the Repubs (to abolish it) not all that long ago. High Time they cut the Govt. in areas.

Perhaps you should both look at this again. Perhaps the laughter in the background will give you a hint. This is a COMEDY.
Peter Pfeifer

So you're saying that Westmoreland was sticking to a script in the name of laughs? Surely you can't be serious.

Believe it or not, the Colbert Report is just as much a news show as the O'Reilly Report, even if part of the goal is to bag some laughs along the way. Instead of laughs, O'Reilly wants to create moral outrage. That's about the only difference.

I admire the Congressman for having the courage to open himself up to such criticism. Some folks might duck and cover, working only with news outlets they think will get their point across.

I agree with you that the Colbert Report is just as much a news show as O'Reilly - one is for laughs, and one is to create over-the-top moral outrage. Neither is unbiased, and neither should be anyone's source for serious news.

Anyone who can't spar really well with someone like Colbert should stay off his show - do they think they are smart enough and witty enough to handle it (few are), or are they so flattered to be invited they are willing to be made fools of?

I’m a little unsure about how to say this. I’ve been trying to be a better person and a better Christian. I’ve been trying hard to be less sarcastic.

Now, It’s possible that I am being too serious and that I am not seeing it if you are pulling my leg. If so, it’s ha ha on me. But I’ll play along.

One show is on Fox NEWS Channel (O’Reilly). The other is on COMEDY Central (Colbert). Other than the duplication of some guests and topics, they are not the same.

O’Reilly is generally about HARD news, although there could be some amusing moments. Colbert has a laugh track.

Colbert could be a parody of O’Reilly. (For those in Rio Linda, calling something a parody is not an insult, it’s a description). From “Dictionary.com” Parody: a literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.”

I truly hope that you do not believe that they are the same and that you were just kidding. But, your last post makes me wonder. I’ll go with the benefit of the doubt. Ha Ha?

Peter

I am embarrassed at your tepid attempt to defend Westmoreland. I don't know him personally so I won't comment on his intellect (although I have some strong suspicions). But if you think Lynn Westmoreland went on this show to do "comedy", your fooling yourself. He went on completely unprepared for the oncoming train that was about to smack him in the face.

You may like the guy...that's up to you. But he was not doing comedy (intentionally anyway).

Mr Westmoreland is symbolic of a congress full of members on both sides that think there are "wedge issues" in their district that will return them to office over and over again.

I couldn't care less about the 10 commandments in public buildings currently. What I do care about is an exploding federal deficit, and education system that would embarrass a 3rd world nation, and how we get out troops home safe and sound when their mission is over.

When Mr. Westmoreland and friends on capitol hill address these issues, we can THEN have the debate on whether displaying the 10 commandments (hopefully, he'll know all of them by that point) in government buildings.

I won’t comment on this issue after this.

I’d just like to say that I feel sorrow for all of you who don’t understand humor when you see it. You don’t have to think something is funny yourself (that’s something that makes one person different from the next), but it’s unfortunate that you cannot to see the difference between seriousness and non-seriousness.

Likewise, you don’t have to like or admire a particular individual to see this. But, when you are unable to filter facetious from serious, bad from good and fiction from truth, I believe that you are unable to make good decisions.

While it’s good to know which of you has this condition (even though many of you hide behind those made up names), I was just disappointed to see that John seemed to be placing himself in this group.

Sincerely,

Peter Pfeifer

It is true it is a comedy program. But Lynn set himself with the quote I believe is accurately paraphrased, the 8th is a conservative district with family values. As if family values don’t exist in other districts. Further, when asked to quote the 10 Commandments and where he they should be placed, he could only respond with help for three.
Honor God, Keep Holy the Sabbath, Honoring Father and Mother and need now to lust after a neighbors’ wife or good never hit his consciousness.
And he could only but the 10 Commandment in a court house. What about a place of worship???!!!
No legislation presented and in a district with many military bases he has NOT sign on for a single bill for the military. (Source American Legion Post in Georgia.)
I usually with you Peter but on this one I have to take a pass.

I just saw the Political Insider that reported Lynn's disaster. It's entitled "Turn Your Bible to Exodus, Chapter 20". If you leave out adultery (since most politicians under the Gold Dome don’t count that one) Westmoreland got 3 out of 9 Commandments. Even on the Governor Perdoofus grading curve, that’s not enough to pass.

Lynn looked like a fool. Lynn got elected by repeating the same old worn out Republican cliches that allow him to sit in "sweet spot" of the voters issues. Problem is that all you guys do is repeat those same cliches without enacting them with any substance. Lynn is just a pretty face (sock puppet) that got dressed up, elected, and as long as he tows the RINO party line of the RNC they will back him regardless of whether he is an empty shell or not. Heck, he could have been funny without exposing his hypocrisy and stupidity on the 10 commandments by at least knowing the subject he pushes. Makes me wonder how well he understands the REST of the issues he votes on. But then again you don't have to understand anything these day in Washington. Just "go along and git along". Lynn proves that the RINO party has just as many fools as the left does in congress.

Please note that my reasons for criticizing Lynn on this are far different that those of Basmati the Christian Hater. Boy did Lynn give his kind lots of ammo. Personally I support the 10 commandments being posted. They are wise rules to follow whether you are a believer or not. But good grief Peter.....look at Lynn....no wonder people think Christians are idiots.

John Munford uncharacteristically critiques an incumbent when he says Lynn "looked like a deer in the headlights". Hats off to ya Munford--- agree. His main job--- to consult his campaign literature? You couldn't memorize a 4 x 6 mail piece ? Peter the Cheerleader's attempts to say "Lynn was just joking" were feeble. I think Munford got this one right.

Interesting that this is the man who wants to be Governor, and in this state he has a good chance. Scary to think that it won't be too long before Fayette Schools hit the skids, end up like just the rest and our children will have the education of a Lynn.

Although some can't appreciate it, many Americans would rather receive their "political" news with a humorous bent.

That's because politics is so bad these days that most of us common taxpayers would prefer to laugh instead of cry.

For the record, I'm not the biggest Westmoreland fan but I admire him for tilting against the windmill that is the U.S. Capitol's political machine (if we want to cut global warming, we should shut off that hot air factory first!). A shame there aren't more out there like him.

Quite honestly, I wonder if all the U.S. Dept. of Ed. does is make sure schools are 'racially balanced' and hand out various grants. Looks like a good place to cut to me.

Don't be disappointed, Peter. I can tell the difference between humor, satire and real "hard" news. Otherwise my news stories would have a perverted twist to them each and every time.

Then again, maybe you think they have been twisted pervertedly.

Just wanted to make you feel better. Cheers and have a good weekend!

John M.

You are certainly right about the Dept of Education. Just another layer of government that is not needed. Local control of the schools is one of the Republicans planks in their platform. Westmoreland was right to mention that this could be a savings for the citizens. I guess it is overwhelming to get to congress and observe all the waste. Don't judge him too harshly. I wonder how many of the Christians out there could quote the ten commandments if asked unprepared. It is like all those theories that we all learned in college. We may not be able to quote them, but the theory is in our brain somewhere. Do we stop to think, now is this the theory of substitution or supply and demand? Glad to see you admitted you are not a fan of Westmoreland. We would never have guessed. (that is humor).

The subject person, Ms. Cox, has about 800 people who work for her. They have absolutely no influence to my knowledge concerning improving local schools' education. Yet they campaign every time on that basis about how much they are going to do to improve our students and local school management. The few things the schools need from them could be done by County officials just as well.

has nothing to do with the US Dept of Education. You should check the record before you post such nonsense. Kathy Cox has made great improvements in the State Dept of Education that was left in shambles after Linda Schranko. Check it out.

Vox is right--- Westmoreland meant that the Federal DOE should be abolished. He read that on the Capitol washroom wall. Ask him to explain his rationale and he will show you that wonderful Georgia public high school education. ("Theirselves"; "Donothinger").

Actually the State DOE should be abolished too. Kathy Cox--- way, way in over her head in a state wide agency that is ineffectual and wasteful. Her campaign was spearheaded by who ? Commercial developers? Schrenko left the place in a shambles? Hmmmm....Schrenko leaves--- Georgia schools are the lowest rank (50 out of 50 [thank goodness for the District of Columbia]) in the country. 4 years of Kathy "Be a Verb" Cox and Georgia schools are still the worst in the country. Vince Dooley couldn't have kept his job.

Abolish both...Let the counties handles their own school systems.

I think the post was about Georgia's dept. of education. It has about 800 employees and does nothing at PTC's schools to my knowledge. What have they done for Atlanta's schools? The feds are even worse.

Peter, you have frankly disappointed me greatly in these postings. Be objective---- Mr. Westmoreland embarrassed himself, his district and the Congress. No, I see no humor at all in a supposed Christian soldier for the Ten Commandments unable to recite more than 3 of the 10 and drawing a blank on the most important and most intuitive commandments, numbers 1 and 2 ("Love thy God"; "No Graven Images"). I can overlook Mr. Westmoreland's lack of education. I cannot overlook his lack of knowledge of the Bible. He is a typical politican who manipulates his church for photo ops, face time and votes. It is shameful and he was caught in strikingly obvious fashion.

You also said that "I’ve been trying to be a better person and a better Christian." You also patronize us with the comment "I feel sorrow for all of you who don’t understand humor when you see it."
You suggest that the entire incident was the product of humor. I find this greatly disheatening and not humorous. In defending this debacle as mere humor, you too have failed to stand up and witness for God. It appears that your priority is the same---- spin before spiritiuality.

My disappointment with you Peter and with Lynn is that each of you will wrap yourself in the flag and in religion (and yes, any other "wedge issues" you can score with) to win elections. And yet each of you are shallow and are, as Corinthians says, you are "like the clinking of cimbals."

Kudos to Basmati, despite his/her liberality, for taking the effort to prove information.

According to Exodus 20, 2: # 1 is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", and

# 2 "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain".

So before you chastize Peter or Lynn, perhaps you should brush up yourself. Frankly, the commandments 6 through 10 have always been a part of American culture, er, uh, until the pagan universalists began to teach and preach situational ethics after WW2.

I personally am a Christian that is comfortable with the manufactured term "separation of church and state" (those are not words found in our constitution, by the way), but virtually every USSC ruling on this issue has ignored that part of the constitution that denies the government "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"!

Why is it impossible, especially here, that nothing can be discussed without a bunch starting to quote the Christian Bible, which they only know what some jake-leg preacher has told them, or what they have tried to read on their own? They can believe what they want, this being the USA, but they take an awful lot on their hands trying to tell the world who to vote for or how to apply our laws by quoting some obscure Bible verse that has been interpreted forty ways by forty people. We are not a Theocracy. They don't work.

Why is it impossible, especially here, that nothing can be discussed without a bunch starting to quote the Christian Bible, which they only know what some jake-leg preacher has told them, or what they have tried to read on their own?

What an arrogant statement. And your religion has all the right answers?

Our beliefs, meaning YOURS as well, are central to ones view of Truth and reality.

They can believe what they want, this being the USA, but they take an awful lot on their hands trying to tell the world who to vote for or how to apply our laws by quoting some obscure Bible verse that has been interpreted forty ways by forty people. We are not a Theocracy. They don't work.

If you knew what you were talking about you would know this country was founded on Christian Biblical principles. Meaning the right of religious freedom and personal freedom.

Try reading the Constitution, including the Preamble, sometime.

The verses DO work when one is wise enough to live by them. And read them for what they say and not what they want to find.

Right, we are not a Theocracy. Wrong, Christianity is a historical core to the this country's success. And the moving away from it a big reason for our present day decline.

Just love you Secularists acting like government has to be in your vision.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man”
Thomas Jefferson

I disagree with the claim that the US Constitution or the formation of the country had anything to do with Christianity.

NUK

In addition to the points I made, in another post, about the first acts of Congress being very Christian, try reading these quotes.

Your one quote stated as if it defines the issue is extremely misleading and just flat out biased.

Yep. There were Deists as well. But no, no Deist would quote the Bible, talk about inalienable rights from God or any such thing.

It defies what they believe to do so.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

This is obviously not true (easily demonstrated)

Politicians will say anything.

It helps to compare public statements with private letters.

On top of that, people don't fit into clean cut boxes. Deist is a rather broad classification.

Many of the founding fathers were deists.

But to say that the founding of the nation had nothing to do with Christianity is to lack subtlety. Deism was a stopping place between Christian theism and garden-variety naturalism/atheism. It arose as a by-product of the Enlightenment and a sustained attack on the Christian worldview by the likes of Hume, Spinoza and others.

What deists and Christians have in common is the belief in a Creator.
The language made its way directly into the original American documents. We are "endowed" with certain "inalienable rights" and the endowment is at the hands of the Creator.

Deism is largely a museum piece now--I rarely discuss it in my classes. The live options are a robust variety of theism and straight-out atheism. But try to make sense of the notion of natural (and inalienable) rights on atheism. On what basis might one assert the existence of such given that worldview?

Natural (as opposed to civil) rights are grounded in the notion of human dignity. But the latter finds a hostile environment given an atheistic perspective.

Oxford philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe wrote a long time ago that our current moral wisdom is a by-product of a worldview (Christianity) that is now endangered.

I'll put it this way: Jefferson and Franklin were not churchgoing Christians (though Adams was). But a possible world in which Christianity had never emerged is a world that would also have been impoverished with respect to the U.S. Constitution.

-----

"Every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
--Duane Allman

What were the two first acts of Congress? Appointing CHRISTIAN Chaplains to the military and the Congress.

Who built the first schools financed by the government? Churches.

Yes, there were Deists around. But it is a false notion to portray them as in the majority.

They struggled with States establishing official denominational State Religions. But NEVER said Christianity had no place in government.

The principle was government could not set up any denomination as the official national religion. Which was what they were escaping in the form of Catholicism and the Church of England in Europe.

But they fully endorsed Christianity impacting government.

To say the foundational principles found in the Constitution is not Christian based is a red herring argument.

Deists did not believe in an actively involved god. They believe he created it all, set back and watched where it took itself to. Which flies in the vace of a Creator endowing us with inalienable rights.

It is complex. But the efforts to squeeze Christianity out of being crucial to the nature of the American society and culture established at the nation's founding is truly a lie or misinformation.

Here is a good, quick read on Deism. Clearly the god of Deism assigned no inalienable rights nor gave Man any guiding devine principles to live by.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Here is a quote from Adams:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, from George Seldes, The Great Quotations, also from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Jefferson and Franklin were not Christians at all actually let alone church going.

Interestingly President Lincoln neither belonged to a church or accepted Christianity. In fact, many churches encouraged paritioners not to vote for Lincoln because he was "not a Christian" Lincoln used Christianity just as he used the race issue to placate the masses. Lincoln was a politician through and through, a man of contradictions.

Look, ***I*** do not presently "belong to a church." I hope to mend this situation soon. But assuming that anyone years from now would give a damn about me, they would get it wrong if they thought that this was an indication that my worldview was anything but Christian. *Everything* is interpreted by me in that light. I *think* "Christianly." So I'm not impressed by citations of Lincoln's non-attendance at services.

But, beyond the details, what is your point? Really, in the big picure, who should *care* about what any of the founding fathers thought about religion? The question is not a matter of historical fact, but whether important values can be sustained on just any old worldview.

And...Don't I know you?

-----

"Every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
--Duane Allman

Isn't it amazing that so many people define you by the church you attend?

Especially when Paul said have no divisions among you? Which denominations are.

You ask a person what religion they are and you get told they are Baptist, Methodist and so on. Not good.

And the looks I get when I tell them Biblical Christian, as if that was not an answer.

Christians are members of the Church not churches, when it comes to identity. Sadly, most don't know the difference.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Yes, but I would like to be able to tell you which building I go to on Sundays. I'm in the absurd situation of being an "unchurched theologian" (well....I'm a philosopher who happens to think a lot about theology). If someone could point the way for me to the right church I would be much obliged.

Until then, I have joined the "COWS": The "Company of Wandering Saints"--an organization created by two of my professors in my Wisconsin-Madison Ph.D program.

HELP!!!

-----

"Every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
--Duane Allman

Since you know what it means, living in the times when the 7th church is dominate means few of the 6th church are to be found.

Which means few churches holding them still exist.

Sadly, every knowledgable Biblical Christian, who stand for Sound Doctrine, I know, is in the same situation.

You either end up a permanent guest somewhere or you try to find other avenues for fellowship, learning and so on.

Even the Secular World has redefined Christian to mean things it never use to mean.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Try the Orthodox church.

They are one of the few denominations that don't attack scientific concensus.

Oh, its not just his non-attendance. Here is a quote:

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
-- Abraham Lincoln, to Judge J. S. Wakefield, after Willie Lincoln's death (Willie died in 1862), quoted by Joseph Lewis in "Lincoln the Freethinker," also appearing in Remsburg's "Six Historic Americans"

This is just one of many Lincoln quotes which casts doubt on his faith.

We may know each other. I am really bad with names. I don't cause quite so much trouble when I am offline. I like to stir things up a little.. he he he

You are a prof right? What do you teach anyway? I speak occasionally on technology (rather niche) and energy issues (rather broad) . I also provide research to profs and help with syllabus steering.

Look at the link of quotes I posted. Are you referring to the John Adams that wrote this?

“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

Sure sounds like he like he says God and his Bible were the source. And sure sounds like an absolute endorsement to me.

Now, can you provide the full context that quote is lifted from? Instead of just throwing it out there as a condemnation on all of Christianity?

Or, maybe, he was referring to the reasons this country was settled to begin with? To escape the perversion and evils done by Catholicism and such in the name of the cross and Christ?

Either Adams was using it in the context I suggested or he was one might contradictgory person. One times embracing Christianity as core and essential then condemning it outright and completely.

Note the other things he said the Jefferson as well. Obiviously, the two did not agree.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Maybe he was. You can research it yourself. There are plenty of quotes from his personal letters that shed doubt on Adams faith.

Lincoln was definitely contradictory. You should read the campaign speeches he gave in the south. Definitely comes across as a racist. Lincoln also was pretty disingenuine when it came to his faith. He would say anything in a speech.

One rule of interpretation is to set context.

Anyone can pull a quote, which happens a lot in theological debates, that seems to say one thing when in context it says something else entirely.

So, unless you can demonstrate the context of quotes that are not fully self defining, then you should not venture to state what the context means.

Lincoln was indeed a different animal. And I agree he was very ambiguous on his beliefs.

Like you saying you are Christian and then doing nothing but attacking it.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Yes, context, exactly my point. Didn't you read my last post? Lincoln knew who is audience was and tailored his messages to that audience.

I've already done the work. I'm not going to research all over again for you. I have nothing to prove. I don't really care what you think about Lincoln. I like some things about him, and I don't like some things about him. I'm not trying to make a point about Lincoln, just sharing what I know about him.

Uh... How is attacking Lincoln's piety attacking Christianity? I think the truth is that you feel threatened by the facts. Why are Christians so obsessed with the "Christian roots of America?"

I'm glad to see you are done ignoring me.

Adams was what I was talking about. Not Lincoln, who was just a side note.

Licoln has nothing to do about the foundation of the Constitution, which WAS the subject.

As for ignoring, you said something worth addressing, as in trying to evade you don't have a clue on the context of that Adam's quote. It shows how you cannot stay on topic and deal with facts.

And totally dodged the clear and strong PRO Christianity statements from Adams.

Say something else worth dealing with and I will respond again.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

The main author of the Constitution was James Madison who was very clear about not mixing any religion with civil government. The phrase "separation of church and State" comes directly from his writings. He and Jefferson had dim views of religion in general. Adams was more aligned with *Christianity*, though his letters to Jefferson seem to indicate that he too was very wary of the dangers of religion.

Heading back into the present, if Christianity+government was such a great idea, why does the US prefer a SECULAR government in Iraq and about anywhere else?

NUK

Main author? One of a number of authors. And he most assurdly did not get all he wanted.

His writings? Are not the tools of interpretation of the Constitution. They are his personal feelings.

Adams was not wary of the dangerous of Christianity. He was wary of people abusing it like the Catholics and Church if England did.

There is NO wall of separation in the Constitution. It says NO State religion may be established. But at the same time says the State CANNOT hamper the free exercise thereof.

This argument has gotten way too far in the US. It is a false one brought on by Human Secularism, which IS a legal religion.

And who every said Iraq has formed a secular government? Anyone who believes that is not paying attention.

There is a distinction between a nation holding to a certain religion and that religion, or a sect thereof, dominating the country.

Spain is supposedly secular. But you better believe Islam is the religion of the nation that influences and dominates. As Islam will influence and dominate Iraq. And as in US history Christianity has been the major influence and dominate relgion.

But now Secular Humanism is taking over.

Anyone who believes anyone or any nation can be free of religion does not understand what religion is or means. It is impossible to escape.

Again, the first two acts of Congress were to appoint Christian Chaplains.

Why? Because they believed that was the number one priority. Getting God in proper place and relationship to the military, government and nation.

Then financing and appointing Christian churches to build and run schools for the government.

I cannot believe people shutting their eyes to the simple realities of history.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

You can apply what said to Adams or Lincoln.

Try reading my last two posts again. Slowly this time so that you won't miss the points yet again.

Focus on the following sections:
1) doing your own research
2) taking audience into context

Don't forget to breath

I think I remember reading, a long time ago, that Lincoln was a Melungeon. That may have something to do with his religious affiliation, or lack thereof. It was, I would wager, the reason that many churches encouraged their congregation not to vote for him. Melungeons were considered, well, animals. They weren't included on the census and they were not allowed to go to school. It's all very sad, but when one considers his possible Melungeon background, it does provide an explanation for his politics.

Yeah, some people think that his mother was Melungeon. His mother was rather devout so I don't think that explains it.

I don't see how his racial heritage would have anything to do with his politics. Especially since he was still rather white.

Yes, he was rather white, but he still had the (dreaded) Melugeon features. Maybe he was treated differently, in a negative manner, by others while growning up. I don't know and I'm not up on his politics either. I'm only suggesting that perhaps his "possible" racial heritage had something to do with his political thinking.

A LOT of families from Kentucky Licoln's birth state) were Indian and white mixes.

My family were first in settlers. And the family name dates back even farther than the beginning of the 1800s when they settled there.

Back to probably the Hudson Bay Comany times when a lot of Dit names were created, which I believe mine is.

But, a lot of these folk were very solid Christians. Many were Hard Shell Baptists for generations.

So, one should be careful about misinterpreting such mixes. The acceptances and such varied widely and greatly depending on geographical areas. And accounted for why many families became settlers, I believe.

Kentucky to Indiana was a pretty normal path that was taken at those times.

Being about half Indian, I still draw attention at times. And am aware of what coming from a different kind of family line and geography means.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I had been told for years on Christian radio that Benjamin Franklin was a Christian.

Imagine my suprise to find out he was actually a deist. Ha ha ha..

It is abundantly clear when you said you were a Christian, kohesion, that you lied.

Every word out of your mouth has been anti-Christian. And you never answered if you believed Christ was God incarnate and so on.

What was the point of lying? It just makes you look untrustable in anything you say because it is agenda driven at all costs.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Actually, there are alot of points/questions in your postings that I didn't answer, just as you did not answer all of my points. I am not required to answer every point in your posting.

Only a very silly person would draw a conclusion (especially such a pivital one) from a LACK of information.

Since you continue to harp on the question, Yes, I believe Christ was God incarnate.

I do hope you realize that just saying Christ was God incarnate does not make you a Christian?

A bit more too it than that.

Many cults will say the same thing. But the details show their Christ, god, salvation and more bear no resemblance to the Biblical God and Christ.

Your disdain for what the Bible says is plainly suspect. Which is data, not a lack there of.

To put it another way, your faith in science over the Bible tends to conflict with the notion of salvation by repentence by grace through faith.

And your hestitation to state that. Troubling.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

To many being a good Christian is not bad mouthing God or Christ. Or going to church, doing a quick read of denominational doctrines and having a Bible on the desk at home.

Don't forget the touchie feelie PC thinking.

But actually studying, learning and knowing what the Bible is saying? Too much trouble. Not worth it.

And don't even go there on living it.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I hope the Westmoreland campaign is paying you well, but all the "don't understand humor when you see it" in the world won't cover up that interview.

Let's all raise a toast to Mr. Westmoreland who allowed himself to look like a buffoon on national TV in an election year all in the name of "humor".

Good thing he's in a safe district........this year.