Do any other Christians dislike Christian politics?

Puddle Jumper · Dec 16, 2005

Any more it seems that the Republican party has become a Christian party and the Democratic party has become a Non-Christian party. I'm not saying that everyone who is a republican or votes republican is a Christian, but where in the past the biggest difference between the parties was the socialist vs. capitalist, now it's all these different moral issues - namely homosexuality and abortion.

The one thing I really don't like about my church is how strongly the senior pastor preaches at us about voting. The general consensus I get from the news and church leaders involved in politics is this...

We Christians need to vote to preserve our rights as Christians in this country - to worship freely, etc...

I don't have a problem voting my conscious if given the opportunity, but that's just it, I only vote to vote my conscious, not because I think we need to preserve Christian rights.

The reason why is simple, I look at the Bible...

When Jesus came, He never went to the Romans demanding that they have laws which gave His people rights in this world.

Jesus's message was this:

"Follow me. Leave this world behind. It's not your home anymore, you don't belong to it. You give up all rights and ownership in this world to follow me. You WILL BE persecuted because of this. But keep the faith, keep your eyes on me, listen to what I tell you, my words will comfort you, and you'll be okay. Let them pass laws to try and destroy your faith - I will use it to strengthen you so that at last when you reach the end of your journey in this foreign, hostile world, I will bring you Home where you will have all the comforts you never had in this world, where my justice will reign and you will feel no conflict."

I don't want to vote to "preserver Christian rights." That's so unbiblical. We give up all rights in this world when we choose to follow Christ.

So why are so many "Christians" so adament about this? Honestly, the feeling I get from them is that they are power-hungry. Either that or they're hoping that this fight will make God proud of their unwillingness to let the world walk all over them and other Christians.

The world walked all over Jesus and look where it brought Him - eternal glory and praise. Jesus could have spoken out about His rights, He could have claimed rights in this world. He gave them up and He told us to do the same. He told us to live just as He lived.

So why are so many Christians being so political, demanding things of this world that Jesus told us aren't ours to demand?

Robin Bayne · Dec 16, 2005

Wow, you raise good questions. It does seem like most of the Christians I know end up with the Republican party-- but they don't agree with everything they stand for, either.

I agree with you--we are supposed to "not be of this world." But it's tough to do, because we are also supposed to be good citizens. And when we hear our rights to worship as we choose may be dwindling, I think, well, if we don't take a stand now some day it may be too late. I think that is why you hear Christians out there demanding their rights.

But yes, to answer your question, I get very tired of politics.

Puddle Jumper · Dec 16, 2005

I'm not afraid of Christians losing all rights. I'm not afraid of them passing laws to forbid Christianity, worship, etc... Because I feel that if they did that, the true believers would become obvious from those who go to church for years and are unchanged or claim to be Christian but really aren't. History has proven that when people tried to put an end to Christianity, it only grew.

I see persecution as a powerful tool of God to sharpen His children into little fire-starters.

Unique · Dec 16, 2005

Funny You Should Mention This -

I wrote an essay about this subject this summer past.

I heartily resent (<<< that's me being polite) the Republican right wing acting as if they have a monopoly on Christianity; that a Democratic Christian is an oxymoron. If you want to know the truth - it totally pisses me off!

ahem.

I think that these two words don't belong in the same sentence - ever :

Christianity and politics

Puddle Jumper · Dec 16, 2005

Unique said:
I wrote an essay about this subject this summer past.

I heartily resent (<<< that's me being polite) the Republican right wing acting as if they have a monopoly on Christianity; that a Democratic Christian is an oxymoron. If you want to know the truth - it totally pisses me off!

ahem.

I think that these two words don't belong in the same sentence - ever :

Christianity and politics

The religious right certainly makes it look and sound like you can't be a democrat and Christian.

But then again, when you have people like Michael Moore acting as spokesmen for the Democratic Party it doesn't help either.

If I look at what the core difference has always been between the two parties - socialism vs. capitalism - I would think living as Christ has called us to would be more socialist than capitalist. From my limited understanding of those two terms - socialism believes in taking more money (ie. taxes) to help others whereas capitalism believes in letting the person who earned the money keep more of it.

Is it any wonder then why churches struggle to get by financially? Bunch of republican capitalists filling up the sanctuary saying, "Don't tell me to tithe 10%! That's my God-given money!"

Though I don't always give 10% either.

I also think it's ridiculous when people make a huge cry about 10 Commandment monuments being removed. But then again I think the people who demand they be removed are just as ridiculous as well. IT'S A PIECE OF STONE! IT'S ARTWORK! IT'S NOT THE REAL 10 COMMANDMENTS! People who get offended by it are just nutcases with not enough things to do. People who get angry about them being removed must not understand that God writes His law on our hearts and every stone in this world will one day be destroyed anyway.

I think I saw on the news one time when they made a big fuss over a 10 commandment monument at a courthouse, some guy was shouting, "You won't take my 10 Commandments away!" This is also a catholic thing - putting so much emphasis on things like statues.

Which I think the issue of these 10 commandment monuments also falls in with politics because it' s ALL political, huge political statements being made from both sides. Again, Christian politicians making statements concerning Christian "rights."

As for me, I like the words of the song that say, "I won't bend and I won't break, I won't water down my faith, I won't compromise in a world of desperation. What has been I cannot change but for tomorrow and today, I must be a light for future generations."

I think if Christians started living in the same manner Jesus lived and are more concerned with reaching out one on one to lost souls instead of trying to force their "agendas" on the worldly governments of this world, I think we'd see more change for the good. No one likes the government forcing things upon them. There's a huge portion of the population who doesn't want any aspect of Christianity to be in the goverment. Those people aren't going to change their minds by bull-headed "Christians" forcing their beliefs down their throats.

Jesus went to people humbly and full of love, He became a servant to all mankind. He wouldn't back down from his position, but he wouldn't force his views on anyone. He shared them, people were free to come and go, he earned people's love and respect, he didn't demand them. Yet Christian politicians seem to be demanding that a lost world love and respect Jesus, something Jesus never did nor tell His followers to do. Their lost, you can't expect that of them and people become Christian through personal interactions with loving Christians.

But isn't this all characteristic of the prophecy regarding the church of Laodicea? Laodicea was the 7th and final church that was addressed in the book of Revelation. I've heard some scholars say that the seven churchs are representative of the Church through time from the time the Revelation was given to the time of Christ's return. Which means that the church of Laodicea will be the church in the world when Jesus returns.

Which then means that we very well could be living now in those times and we are the Church of Laodicea - which is so lukewarm that we are a bitter taste in the mouth of God and whom He is about ready to spit out of His mouth.

When I look at the church in general, I see a lot of lukewarmness. We push our views in politics and yet our church's fire is barely alive. We have so many people, I'm one, I've met many others online, who feel that going to church is a burden - a very unpleasant experience - and it should be the one place where we feel safe and loved, a refuge, a sanctuary - a safe place where we can be revived and refreshed and encouraged by other Christians.

I think this has a lot to do with why we are living in a post-Christian era and why there is a growing intolerance for Christianity. We push our views on people and demand they show respect to our Savior, treating them in a manner Jesus never would, and they look at us and reply, "Why would your God love me when you don't love me?"

Ralyks · Dec 28, 2005

Well, I now go to a "mainstream" church full of Democrats who are Christians...and it is the most politically active denomination I have ever been a part of. The denomination actually lobbies the government to do the work of the church (feeding the poor, healing the sick, senidng money to this nation or that nation, etc.) by making official political statements, writing letters, and even having an "advocacy committee" that makes political pronouncements on behalf of the church on issues that have NOTHING to do with Christianity or scripture (like gun control).

I have been to a lot of conservative churches, but I have actually never been to one that was particularly political in action; the individual members had their very strong political opinions, but there was never, in any of the conservative churches I have attended, any kind of church-wide push to be involved in any way in politics or any kind of purely political statements made from committees or even the pulpit. I find that happens much more often in the mainstream/liberal churches I have attended.

Admitedly, I'm not comfortable with my current denomination's involvement in politics, as I'm a bit of a liberetarian myself and believe the church should do its work and the government its, and the government shouldn't force Christian values on people by taking thier money from them via the force of law and redistributing it for "good works." (That, I think, sould be a free will work of the church.) But I'm in the church I'm in for reasons that have nothing to do with politics, and I tolerate the political activism I don't happen to agree with for the time being.

kelker11 · Dec 28, 2005

I'll preface this by saying that this is just my opinion, and I'm not attacking anyone here. But...

I believe, as Christians, we have an obligation to do everything in our power to preserve our religious freedom in this country. When I read or hear things like:

--In California, children are 'required' to learn about Islam teachings in public schools. One course included the following requirements:

· To pray in the name of Allah, the compassionate the merciful

· To chant praise to Allah, lord of creation
· To pretend they are Muslims, wearing Muslim clothing in class
· To select a Muslim name from a list to replace their own name.
· To stage their own jihad
But this same school forbids to mention of Jesus or Christianity while on school grounds. Our tax dollars are paying for this 'required class' while kids are not allowed to mention the name of Jesus. No, I'm not 'okay' with that.

--In Kentucky, a woman was fired from the county library system for wearing a necklace to work that had a cross on it. In Pennsylvania, a teachers aide was fired for wearing a cross pendant to work.

--A Virginia Christian college has been denied accreditation (thereby, ending the possibility of students receiving Stafford student loans and research money) due to the fact that the college teaches creationism.

My point is that each of these circumstances were wrong. And because someone stood up for their beliefs, each one of these circumstances were changed...which is for the better for all of us.

The arguments in defense of doing nothing for our rights don't stand the test of rationalism. We can say, "Jesus was a peace lover"--which he was. We can say, "Jesus didn't force anyone to change or accept him"--which he didn't. And we can say, "Jesus was a humble man"--which he was. But he was on fire for God and Gods' laws. Was it a humble man who took a whip and drove the money changers from the temple? Do you think Jesus would have kept quiet about people violating or trying to overturn any of God's laws? In fact, have you read Matthew 23?

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

If that isn't a verbal attack against the government of His day, I don't know what is.

But if I stood up in Congress today and called the political elite on the sins they're doing to our country by passing laws that go against God's Word...if I called them snakes and hypocrites and sinners to their faces...Well what kind of Christian would I be? After all, Christians are passive...not agressive in their beliefs. And if they are aggressive, then they don't REALLY have the Spirit of the Lord in them, now do they?

But isn't that exactly what Jesus did to the Pharisees? He called them on their sins to their faces.

How can we, as His disciples...as His followers, do any less than the Master Himself did while He was here?

There's a saying I heard years ago that seems to apply here...and with it I will close. But I do look forward to a continued discussion of this subject.

Edmund Burke said, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'

mdin · Dec 28, 2005

kelker11 said:
--In California, children are 'required' to learn about Islam teachings in public schools. One course included the following requirements:

· To pray in the name of Allah, the compassionate the merciful
· To chant praise to Allah, lord of creation
· To pretend they are Muslims, wearing Muslim clothing in class
· To select a Muslim name from a list to replace their own name.
· To stage their own jihad
But this same school forbids to mention of Jesus or Christianity while on school grounds. Our tax dollars are paying for this 'required class' while kids are not allowed to mention the name of Jesus. No, I'm not 'okay' with that.
'

This is not true. It's not even close to being true. This was a nasty internet rumor from three years ago, and if you read the state of California's social studies standards for the class in question (7th grade social studies) you'll see that it's not true.

kelker11 said:
A Virginia Christian college has been denied accreditation (thereby, ending the possibility of students receiving Stafford student loans and research money) due to the fact that the college teaches creationism.

Also from around 2002. That was Patrick Henry College, and it wasn't just because of creationism. It was about the wording of their requirements for professors, iirc. They changed the wording and were given accreditation less than six months later.

kelker11 · Dec 28, 2005

Both cases were taken directly from the pages of the American Center for Law and Justice. Since BOTH of those cases were cases that this firm handled, I would assume that they knew what their own cases were about.

And in both instances, I never said they were current cases, I merely used them for illustration purposes...even to the point of telling that the outcomes had been resolved in favor of the biblical standpoint.

If you still feel the cases were misrepresented or even misquoted after reviewing their site, you might consider taking the inconsistencies or inaccuracies you perceive up with the lawyers that actually handled the cases.

mdin · Dec 28, 2005

kelker11 said:
Both cases were taken directly from the pages of the American Center for Law and Justice. Since BOTH of those cases were cases that this firm handled, I would assume that they knew what their own cases were about.

And in both instances, I never said they were current cases, I merely used them for illustration purposes...even to the point of telling that the outcomes had been resolved in favor of the biblical standpoint.

If you still feel the cases were misrepresented or even misquoted after reviewing their site, you might consider taking the inconsistencies or inaccuracies you perceive up with the lawyers that actually handled the cases.

The first case, the Islam one, the ACLJ first expressed their outrage based on news reports, which were in turn based on the internet rumors. Nothing happened after their first letter to the school because it wasn't true. They were very ready to sue every one in sight, but they never did.

The Patrick Henry College situation fixed itself because PHC changed the wording of their mission statement. If the ACLJ had anything to do with it, it was to probably help them reword it. It had nothing to do with religious discrimination. Hundreds of creationism-teaching colleges are accredited with no problems.

You want people to believe there's this vast conspiracy by the left wing to stifle religious freedoms. Maybe there is, but it doesn't help your cause to post inaccurate or misleading facts, especially when they're inflammatory.

Peace

kelker11 · Dec 28, 2005

Navigator,

I don't know what your problem with me or my posts are...nor why you seem inclined to doubt that I would check my facts before posting information on a public forum where any Tom, Dick or Harry could freely check my information for accuracy.

Concerning the Islamic classes in the California schools...here's the link about the letter writing campaign the ACLJ organized. I'll copy this section for those interested:

Since the story in Byron, California generated so much attention and raised serious constitutional questions from several organizations -- including the American Center for Law and Justice -- the California state superintendent of public instruction and the president of California’s State Board of Education have sent a letter of clarification to all district and county superintendents in the state of California. The letter quoted from the State Board of Education’s 2001 History/Social Science Curriculum Framework, which states: “The school’s approach to religion is academic, not devotional” and “the school may inform students about various beliefs, but should not seek to conform students to any particular belief.” The letter went on to say, “Any classroom activities should be of a serious and academic nature, emphasizing reading, research, writing, and focused, well-planned discussion.

The schools guidelines were changed as a result of the letter writing campaign...so any links to the schools guidelines that you post are AFTER the fact and completely pointless when used to try and illustrate that this event never happened.

The point is not, and never was, whether this went to court. The point is, and always will be, that the activities of a few changed the law.

You want people to believe there's this vast conspiracy by the left wing to stifle religious freedoms.

Did I use the words "vast conspiracy"? No, but even a simpleton can see that religious rights in this country are being eroded. Or do you deny that too?

Maybe there is, but it doesn't help your cause to post inaccurate or misleading facts, especially when they're inflammatory.

I've given you links, copied information, and done everything in my power to prove that the information I put on this forum was correct, yet you continue to make unfounded accusations questioning my word and my intentions.

You're the one who said the Islam thing was a myth. You obviously didn't bother to check anything before you made that unfounded accusation. You're the one who is putting words in my mouth. You obviously didn't bother to do more than skim my original post or you'd know what I had actually said.

So let's see...you misquote me, you make accusations that I'm posting myths as fact (without having any real information yourself), and then try to quote the outcome of a case you obviously didn't even read the information on...yet I'm the one posting inaccurate and misleading facts that are inflammatory?

Yeah...better be plucking that plank out of your own eye my friend.

Peace

Puddle Jumper · Dec 28, 2005

I find it a bit hard to believe that a public school would teach students Islam on that level. Just reading that it doesn't sound true. But even if all you write is true, it doesn't change my position for the reasons I listed.

kelker11 · Dec 28, 2005

Whether the articles are true, or not, is not the point I intended to make. The whole point is that Jesus wasn't a limp wristed Messiah. He stood up for His beliefs--whether by action or by words.

That's not a passive, leave the world behind, personality.

Pat~ · Dec 28, 2005

kelker11 said:
The arguments in defense of doing nothing for our rights don't stand the test of rationalism. We can say, "Jesus was a peace lover"--which he was. We can say, "Jesus didn't force anyone to change or accept him"--which he didn't. And we can say, "Jesus was a humble man"--which he was. But he was on fire for God and Gods' laws. Was it a humble man who took a whip and drove the money changers from the temple? Do you think Jesus would have kept quiet about people violating or trying to overturn any of God's laws? In fact, have you read Matthew 23?

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

If that isn't a verbal attack against the government of His day, I don't know what is.

Actually, I think it was not a verbal attack on the government of His day (which was Roman). All of Matthew 23, and all of Jesus' harshest words were for the religious hypocrites of His day. It was the religious leaders, the scribes and Pharisees, that He was attacking, not the pagan government. If He were to visit us today, I think hypocritical 'religious' leaders would still be the ones to most provoke His wrath.

kelker11 · Dec 28, 2005

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was speaking of the religious leaders as their government. After all, the priests/Pharisees/Saducees were the keepers of the Law at that time.

I wasn't referring to the Romans at all.

Puddle Jumper · Dec 28, 2005

kelker11 said:
Whether the articles are true, or not, is not the point I intended to make. The whole point is that Jesus wasn't a limp wristed Messiah. He stood up for His beliefs--whether by action or by words.

That's not a passive, leave the world behind, personality.

In answer, I would just have to echo Pat's response...

pb10220 said:
Actually, I think it was not a verbal attack on the government of His day (which was Roman). All of Matthew 23, and all of Jesus' harshest words were for the religious hypocrites of His day. It was the religious leaders, the scribes and Pharisees, that He was attacking, not the pagan government. If He were to visit us today, I think hypocritical 'religious' leaders would still be the ones to most provoke His wrath.

kelker11 said:
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I was speaking of the religious leaders as their government. After all, the priests/Pharisees/Saducees were the keepers of the Law at that time.

I wasn't referring to the Romans at all.

You're comparing the United States government to the Jewish leaders of Jesus's day and I don't think that is at all an accurate comparison. The United States government is comparable to the Romans of Jesus's day. Jewish leaders of Jesus's day are comparable to church leaders of today. The one I think of the most being the Catholic Church because of the their size and structure.

Again, agreeing with Pat, if Jesus came to the United States today as He did to Israel when he came roughly 2000 years ago, I absolutely believe He would not get involved in government politcs, his strongest words like He used against the Pharisees, would be directed against church leaders who are misleading His people.

And the reason why is very simple. Jesus was not trying to set up an earthly kingdom. When He was arrested He said that if His kingdom were on earth, His followers would have been fighting to free Him. The fact is, if Jesus had wanted to go that route, He wouldn't have bothered trying to change the secular world's politics. He would have established His kingdom on earth, had an angelic army and become the dominant force on the planet who no one had a prayer to come close to defeating. He would have forced His will on an unsuspecting world and forced His hand.

He didn't do that and I think it's wrong for us to think it's our obligation to do the opposite of what Jesus would do. Isn't that what makes something sinful?

It doesn't upset me if the government restricts my freedom as a Christian, I find that worth celebrating. It upsets me when I see church leaders misguide people, when they promote sin as holiness and stuff like that.

mdin · Dec 28, 2005

kelker11 said:
Navigator,

I don't know what your problem with me...

I don't have a problem with you, your religion, or anything of the sort. I don't even know you, and I hope the conversation can continue.

I'm going to respond out of order:

Concerning the Islamic classes in the California schools...here's the link about the letter writing campaign the ACLJ organized. I'll copy this section for those interested:
...
The schools guidelines were changed as a result of the letter writing campaign...so any links to the schools guidelines that you post are AFTER the fact and completely pointless when used to try and illustrate that this event never happened.

Your source, The ACLJ, can't exactly be considered impartial.

1) The guidelines weren't changed. The superintendent of schools "clarified" the rules, stating the obvious, which was actually a subtle slam on the Christian groups attacking her, which everyone acknowledged at the time.

2) The guidelines I linked you to were a link to the web archive of the rules when this happened.

So let's see...you misquote me, you make accusations that I'm posting myths as fact (without having any real information yourself), and then try to quote the outcome of a case you obviously didn't even read the information on..

You implied children are being taught Islam in schools, that they were required to participate, and they're forbidden from saying the word "Jesus" in the same class. That's not true. It never happened. That very same class taught some about Christianity and the Christian influences on the world. It's a social studies class. The whole thing was one unit from an entire year.

The principal of the school, Nancie Castro, says there were no required activities as implied by your sources. There was one chance for extra credit where students could dress up, and traditional Islamic garb was only one choice.

You also implied the college in Virginia still hasn't received accreditation. That's a myth. It was all about semantics, not religion anyways.

Did I use the words "vast conspiracy"? No, but even a simpleton can see that religious rights in this country are being eroded. Or do you deny that too?

I apologize for saying "vast conspiracy."

Yes I do deny it. Your rights are not being eroded. It's a myth.

I completely agree with you over the woman being fired for wearing her cross. However that's not an erosion of your rights. That's one county library instituting a stupid rule in a misguided attempt to be politically correct, and the courts agreed. Rights upheld.

Christianity has always been the status quo in the United States. Some equalizing forces have been brought to bear against Christian groups who feel their rights outweigh the rights of non-christians, and suddenly they're being persecuted. We could talk about this subject for hours and hours.

In the end, it comes back to the mixing of religion and politics and the point of this thread. It shouldn't be done.

Peace

Do any other Christians dislike Christian politics?

Puddle Jumper

Robin Bayne

~writes for Him~

Puddle Jumper

Unique

Agent of Doom

Puddle Jumper

Ralyks

Untold stories inside

kelker11

mdin

The late, the great XThe NavigatorX

kelker11

mdin

The late, the great XThe NavigatorX

kelker11

Puddle Jumper

kelker11

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

kelker11

Puddle Jumper

mdin

The late, the great XThe NavigatorX