We are NOT YET A Secular Nation

But we might be headed that way....

Published on June 13, 2007 By Moderateman In Religion

The most common Polls show that over 90 Percent of the country Believes in God, that alone shows we are NOT yet a secular nation.

The far left Secular Progressives {gag} continue to try and push the country into a secular mindset, but so far they continue to fail. Why you might ask. See above. 90% of the country believes in GOD.

Europe has become a collection of Secular nations and we see the results, Poor economies, Poor morals, lousy ethics and most of all the people have a huge sense of ENTITLEMENT. Give me! is the watch word of the day. Give me food, Give me shelter, Guarantee me that I will have a place to live and shelter myself if I NEVER WORK A SINGLE DAY IN MY LIFE. This attitude of Secular Progression {gag} is crippling the countries of Europe, with huge taxes to pay for the bums and malcontents, it causes a huge drain of the governments ability to do things like defend themselves, prosper and grow.

The result of this attitude resulted in 15,000 deaths in 2003 in France when the power went out in August and the workers were on the traditional Month vacation and refused to come back to repair the electrical grid, Which powered the air conditioners in a summer that saw record heat waves..

Living on the "DOLE" is a way of life in England. Worse than our welfare.

As long as we have a country where the Majority of people believe in GOD the force feeding of Secular progressive {gag} Ideals and Ideas will NOT take hold.

God help us if somehow the far left loons and their secular progressive {gag} Agenda takes over the country, who knows where it will lead to, possibly the banning of religion. Some proof of this is how religion has become an anathema in politics {courthouses, statehouses, government owned lands, Schools}.More proof is the many suits against states, counties with crosses on the flags, the pledge of allegiance {they want it gone} The money we use {they want in God we trust removed} God is being attacked from the loony left secular progressives {gag} and we people of faith in GOD must fight back.

Comments (Page 2)

lulapilgrim

on Jun 15, 2007

Ah, but which one (and isn't that the point of the separation of Church and State)??

Did you know that there's a bill in the Senate right now to limit Pastors teaching against Homosexuality. It's called the Hate Crimes Bill. In the House it passed and was called HR1592. So the bill was introduced, debated and passed...now onto the Senate.

If it passes the Senate S 1105 it will go against the law for preachers to preach the bible in certain parts. I'm sure Bush will veto it but my "prophetic guts" tell me that it will be reintroduced soon, maybe under a new Leftist President and it will pass.

Now what does this mean? Separation of Church and State ONLY works one way?

Good point, KFC, you knocked this one out of the ball park.

also....even the demons believe in God and tremble. Even if 90% believe in God (which seems kinda of high to me), only a very small fraction of that number follow him.

Another valid point.

MasonM

on Jun 15, 2007

While I think that religious leaders are a good thing, their religion SHOULD NOT come into play when making decisions. IMO.

I disagree. I think that a person's core beliefs absolutely should steer their decisions instead of the politics that normally does.

Moderateman

on Jun 16, 2007

Reply By: MasonMPosted: Friday, June 15, 2007

While I think that religious leaders are a good thing, their religion SHOULD NOT come into play when making decisions. IMO.

I disagree. I think that a person's core beliefs absolutely should steer their decisions instead of the politics that normally does.

core beliefs, yes, his religious beliefs, no.

If I was President would you want me banning crab, pork, shellfish, bottom feeders of any kind? Make law that all male children MUST be circumcised? that's what I mean mason.

Moderateman

on Jun 16, 2007

To Lula And KFC, I love reading the two of you, but again you are both way over my head.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 16, 2007

Sorry MM...don't mean to.

I thought you may be interested in the OT Jewish History regarding the second temple (after Solomon's) and applied it to the compromise of today. I find it all very interesting.

Moderateman

on Jun 16, 2007

(Citizen)KFC Kickin For ChristJune 16, 2007 12:09:37

no.no, you misunderstood, I love reading you two, I just never have anything to add, due to my lack of knowledge. I find the amount of stuff you two know very very interesting.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 16, 2007

MM posts:

core beliefs, yes, his religious beliefs, no.

What's the difference?

lulapilgrim

on Jun 16, 2007

If I was President would you want me banning crab, pork, shellfish, bottom feeders of any kind? Make law that all male children MUST be circumcised? that's what I mean mason.

Sorry, MM, never mind. This adequately explains the difference and i hadn't read this part of your answer to mason b-4 I posted #22.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 16, 2007

MM,
I'm curious what you think of my reply # 12. Did that make any sense to you? I challenged you a bit.

MM POSTS:

no.no, you misunderstood, I love reading you two, I just never have anything to add, due to my lack of knowledge. I find the amount of stuff you two know very very interesting.

Thank you MM, for the very nice compliment.

MasonM posts:

I think that a person's core beliefs absolutely should steer their decisions instead of the politics that normally does.

I'm with you on this. I mean my core beliefs ARE my religious beliefs OR based directly on them.

Moderateman

on Jun 19, 2007

Reply By: lulapilgrimPosted: Saturday, June 16, 2007
MM,
I'm curious what you think of my reply # 12. Did that make any sense to you? I challenged you a bit.

I think using your core beliefs even derived from religion is a good thing, but using the beliefs instilled from a particular religion is NOT.

I GAVE EXAMPLES, Using the part of the religion that praises HONESTY as a value is GOOD, using the part of a religion that commands you to bring others into YOUR specific religion is not good, while in office.

Now if an Atheist was a moral man, an honest man, a good man with the best of intentions for America, and with no agenda of destroying religion or denigrating religion, you still WOULD NOT VOTE FOR HIM?

HANOIJOHN KERRY CLAIMS TO BE RELIGIOUS, HE IS A CATHOLIC, BUT HE IS ALSO A TRAITOR TO THE COUNTRY, PUTS THE MILITARY DOWN, CALLS THEM STUPID, BELIEVES IN RAISING TAXES, is a proven liar, would you vote for him instead of the Atheist I pointed out?

lulapilgrim

on Jun 19, 2007

MM POSTS:

You see, MM, I'm old fashioned, I think atheism is a bad thing. Think Communism which is based an atheism, a bad thing. I would not vote for an atheist. Believing in God and holding up life, from conception to natural death, is my litmus test for voting for all candidates running for any office.

Just asking, how can a Godless man deep down be a moral, honest, good man? The two just don't match up for if he does not believe in God, what are he basing his morality, his honesty and goodness on? Man's idea of it???? Yuk!

Wasn't it an atheist who got prayer taken out of school in 1962? or an atheist who is calling for the words "under God" to be removed from the pledge of allegience and from our currency? The sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's gave us the stamp of approval to pornography, fornication, unmarried cohabitiation, no-fault divorce, abortion and homosexuality has been the most striking instance of practical atheism at work.

I see practical atheism continuing but will be supplemented by theoretical defenses of atheism and attacks upon Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's already happening. The culture is becoming more friendly to sexual liberty which of course includes abortion and homosex 'marriage' while becoming correspondingly unfriendly to Christianity.

Texas Wahine

on Jun 19, 2007

FYI: There was more to Pace's replacement than his comments re: homosexuality. And on a totally tangential note, I actually met General Pace this month, shook his hand, and got a hug, smooch, and a thank you from his wife.

Politicians may be guided by their religious beliefs and I don't think there is a way (nor would it be appropriate) to stop it. We depend on politicians to represent us and reflect our beliefs and values in their decision-making.

HOWEVER, religion itself should not legislated nor should it be a part of the political process.

In order to protect our freedom to belief (or not believe) and worship (or not worship) as we wish, our government must remain secular and remain committed to protecting our religious freedoms (as well as our freedom to be free from religion).

I don't know if I am articulating my POV very well but I hope you all understand what I mean.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 19, 2007

MM POSTS:

Oh, man, don't even get me going on JFKerry. He is what I call Catholic in name only. Added to all the things you say, he's a Catholic hypocrite taboot. I must have a file an half-inch thick of letters to him asking him to check his conscience and turn around on his pro-abortion and pro-sodomy stance. I've written his parish priest in Massachusetts and asked that Kerry not be given the Holy Eucharist when he unworthily presents himself at the altar.

My conscience would not allow me to vote for either Kerry or an atheist. I would either leave the space blank or write-in my candidate's name.

Texas Wahine

on Jun 19, 2007

I've written his parish priest in Massachusetts and asked that Kerry not be given the Holy Eucharist when he unworthily presents himself at the altar.

Wow. Too bad we don't have a barfing smiley.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 19, 2007

Exactly, and this is one of the attributes of our system of voting and tells us how important our one vote is.

HOWEVER, religion itself should not legislated nor should it be a part of the political process.

I disagree with the second part of what you say. The First AMendment stipulates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof.."

I read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" as meaning the US government must be blind to, stay out of and not interfere with religion.

I read the second part "Congress shall make no law ....prohibiting free exercise thereof.." as meaning the government shall not prohibit religion from effecting government, either its officials or the lawmaking process.

In other words, government is restricted as far as religion is concerned, yet religion is not restricted as far as government is concerned. US government does not prohibit or restrict lawmakers' and voters' religious beliefs from the political process.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!