Our Father, Who Art In Washington.

[twyacht]

A short well written article that needs to be spread. Historical, literate, concise and spot on.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/our_father_who_art_in_washington.html

February 19, 2012
Our Father, Who Art in Washington
By Ebben Raves

Images can be powerful.  We have all seen films of the Nuremburg rallies.  The torchlight processions, the banners, the chanting crowds: all purposely staged to elevate one man to a status as something more than human, a benevolent leader who promised fairness and payback against the evil enemies of the people.  All things were possible through him.  The trains would run on time, the capitalists and bankers would pay for taking advantage of the people.  Social justice would finally be achieved if only the people would pledge themselves to him.

Juxtapose those images with a 2008 party rally in a Denver stadium.  The Greek columns, the giant television screens, the laser light show: all dedicated to elevate a man who promised the wars would end, the earth would heal, and the oceans would halt their rise.  Peace and justice at last.  He was the one we were waiting for.  Goebbels would have been proud.

Il Duce's portrait was ubiquitous in 1930's Italy.  The stolid face with the up thrust chin, looking down over the nose became symbolic of Mussolini's fascism.  "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."   "State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management."  Does any of this look or sound familiar?

Some images are meant to be powerful.  From the works of master painters, to stained glass, to the inexpensive, gilded frame picture in many homes, Christ is frequently depicted with a halo.  From background lighting, to a campaign symbol, to the presidential seal, a certain public servant is also frequently depicted with the appearance of a halo.  Can we guess what image the latter's halo is meant to convey?

Words can be powerful, too, either spoken or written on paper.  "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"  Some words are even carved in stone.   "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."  What were the Jesuits at Georgetown thinking?

Fascists, communists and other dictators discredited, if not outlawed, religion.  The state was the ultimate authority, moral or otherwise.  The state in many cases was personified by an individual from whom all things flowed.  What did Christians do to keep them from power?  The same as today, not enough.  From the "feel good, rock and roll, light show" mega churches to the original Bride of Christ, only token, unorganized resistance has come forth.  In fact, past devout Christians were better organized and more numerous than today and were still unsuccessful.

What happened to the Christians that faced lions for their faith?  Real lions, not the talking cartoon characters.  Were they co-opted by promises of government social welfare?  Or were they cowed by the threat of the loss of their 501(c)3 status?  Judging from the watered down socialism coming from today's pulpit, either is possible.  Protest church funded abortion via the Affordable Health Care Act?  Contact your congressman.  Lobby for the government to provide forced charity?  Sure.  Deny Communion, let alone excommunicate those who promulgate mortal sin?  Nah, too controversial.  Pathetic.  Don't think this administration doesn't know it, either.  They think this a fight they can win.

Government is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless.  The mistake that Christians, or any other religion for that matter, make when they accept and encourage government social justice is that all modern government is eventually at the point of a gun.  Look at other formerly Christian countries.  Preach what is in the Bible, go to jail for hate speech.  Resist hard enough, meet the point of a gun.  Remember, we're no longer a Christian country.  The state said so.  Oh, something else to think about.  Refuse to pay taxes of which part go to the government charity programs that your church lobbied for and approved of?  Meet the same end.  That blood is on somebody's hands.

"But the Constitution protects our freedom of religion!"  Really?  We haven't seen the Constitution jump up out of its glass case and do anything.  It's just a piece of paper.  Its only power comes from citizens acting on its behalf.  Don't think the administration doesn't know this, either.

Many have argued that the left is fighting for freedom from religion.  No, there will always be religion.  Fundamental change was promised; change from God given rights to state granted rights are being delivered.  When the state eliminates God, the state becomes god.  And the state is a jealous god, especially when it takes guidance from a book dedicated to Lucifer.

[Pathfinder]

Great read. The money quote for me:

FTA: "Government is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless.  The mistake that Christians, or any other religion for that matter, make when they accept and encourage government social justice is that all modern government is eventually at the point of a gun.  Look at other formerly Christian countries.  Preach what is in the Bible, go to jail for hate speech.  Resist hard enough, meet the point of a gun.  Remember, we're no longer a Christian country.  The state said so.  Oh, something else to think about.  Refuse to pay taxes of which part go to the government charity programs that your church lobbied for and approved of?  Meet the same end.  That blood is on somebody's hands.

"But the Constitution protects our freedom of religion!"  Really?  We haven't seen the Constitution jump up out of its glass case and do anything.  It's just a piece of paper.  Its only power comes from citizens acting on its behalf.  Don't think the administration doesn't know this, either.

Many have argued that the left is fighting for freedom from religion.  No, there will always be religion. Fundamental change was promised; change from God given rights to state granted rights are being delivered.  When the state eliminates God, the state becomes god.  And the state is a jealous god, especially when it takes guidance from a book dedicated to Lucifer."

[tombogan03884]

" Government is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless.  The mistake that Christians, or any other religion for that matter, make when they accept and encourage government social justice is that all modern government is eventually at the point of a gun."

You asked for it, You got it.

Start off blaming the Bible thumping abolitionists, "The GOVT needs to stop slavery"
Then you can blame the Temperance old maids, of both genders, "Demon Rum should be outlawed "
Then move onto to the other azzhole "do gooders" "Sp*cks, ni**ers, and Hippies use drugs, We need a war on drugs."

Well, You wanted govt to do "something".
They did, and now you don't like the results.
Like the saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for. You might get it."

[Rastus]

That is not what did it Tom.  You are what it feels like to be a bitter old man.  

You are a God hater.  You have a dysfunctional family at best....if they ever contact you at all.  Maybe the problem is not everyone else.    

You are living the life you want.  You are not anymore a victim than anyone else here.  

You do not have to be the way you are.  Your life is your choice.  You can choose to not be the way you are.

Or you can continue to be miserable and wallow in self-pity.

There are people on this board who want to be your friend, but you drive them away.  You do it because you want to do it; for whatever reasons seem good and noble to you.  You cling to a Constitution who the authors thereof confimed in their communications should have it's words defined in Judges, Leviticus and Deutoronmy from the Bible.  You have free will to do what you want to do and believe what you want to believe.  If you want to shake your fist at God and make silly statements like you made above that's your call.  Don't expect to not be called out when you do it.

Do expect for some of us on the board to help you when you're ready for it.

[tombogan03884]

Rastus, You don't get it.
It isn't self pity, it's disgust at what the sheeple are dumb enough to fall for.
As an example, the left wants to take attention off "fast and Furious" or some other method they are screwing the public, all they have to do is say "abortion" and the "oh so righteous" go so bat shit crazy they even miss "Dancing with the stars".
It's long past time to put down the King James Bible, and pick up one of Beecher's.

[Sponsor]

[twyacht]

The way "some" faiths have allowed more liberal policies and ideologies to get into "main stream" religion is not going to end well.

Gay and Lesbian Marriages, G&L Pastors/Preachers/Reverends,....has not helped. Especially those certain faiths that also incorporate social justice.

[twyacht]

I had some computer "fu" I had to upload it, but here is a response from my Father, a former Atheist to the Charlotte Observer regarding modern religion and politics. He now does missionary work around the world for the Nehemiah Ministries he founded.
(and back in the day, he used to be a good Aheist)...



" Same-Sex Marriage"
THE REASONS THEY PUT FORTH
by Tom Watchorn

   An article appeared in The Charlotte Observer , Saturday, February 4, 2012, featuring an interview with the widely known Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Bishop Robinson is widely known as being the first openly gay man to hold such a church leadership position. I stress the word "openly", because I'm quite confident there have been in the past, and presently are,  men and women who are practicing homosexuals, that have held or currently hold important church leadership positions. Many admire Bishop Robinson for having the courage to make himself such a visible spokesman for same-sex marriages. I was saddened to learn from the article that Bishop Robinson wore a bullet proof vest to his ordination in 2004, and has had to endure numerous threats against his life since then. I have also heard of other church leaders who oppose same-sex marriages also being threatened and harassed. This is most unfortunate and this hateful behavior should be condemned by both sides. I also learned from the article that Robinson was once married to a woman and was both a husband and a father. I gathered from the facts presented in the article that Bishop Robinson has had a homosexual relationship with his present partner since 1988.

   During the interview, during which Robinson answered various questions regarding "same-sex marriage" and "homosexuality",  I identified six (6) major points or reasons put forth by him in an attempt to justify both and to define  the role church leaders should play in the legalization of same-sex marriages. I would like to review each point Robinson raised and by doing so, determine if these "made-made cisterns"  of logic and reasoning "hold any water" against historical and biblical evidence to the contrary.  Robinson's  points, if I have correctly identified each of them, are presented below in the order they appeared in the news article. I understand that for sake of space, the reporter had to edit or shorten Robinson's responses to his questions. Nevertheless, I think I can deal which each of Robinson's responses fairly and objectively.

1.     Robinson states, "the much respected principal of the separation of church and state".  Robinson would have been more accurate in his reply if he had said, the much misunderstood principle of the separation of church and state.  Obviously, his bias is showing by him suggesting that his interpretation of this principle is much respected. It's not. His interpretation is widely discarded as being wrong.

   Those that raise "the separation principle", want us to accept the notion that "the church" should not impose its religious beliefs upon the law of the land. Carrying the idea even further, they would like us to believe there is no role that a church leader should play in politics or in trying to influence the outcomes of elections or in the passing of laws.  The proponents of this position believe the two, that is, church and state,  should have nothing to do with each other. They believe that's what our nation's Founding Fathers wanted and that's what the Constitution says.   Nothing could be further from the truth.

   It seem odd that Robinson should raise the separation of church and state issue, when it is clear he was here in Charlotte speaking on behalf of the homosexual community and the Episcopal Church in an attempt to influence the May 8th vote regarding a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

1 of  6

   Those that point to the First Amendment of the Constitution as proof text for removing God from the affairs of the state neither understand what the Amendment actually states or our early American history.

   The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."  It says nothing of separating church from state. It says nothing of removing all references to God from all official functions and government affairs. The sole purpose was to make sure that the government did not interfere with or impose its demands upon the religious affairs of the people. That's true religious freedom. Our Founding Fathers did not want to see another "Church of England" situation where the government outlawed and persecuted any religion that was not "state-approved."  To promote the absolute separation of church and state,  is to demand that the government be allowed to govern outside the influence of the church. But if a government is truly, "of the people, for the people and by the people," and the majority of the people it represents believe in the Judeo-Christian values as set forth in the Bible, how could that government be allowed to govern in a manner contrary to those beliefs? The answer is - it couldn't.  The Judeo-Christian values and principles taught in the Bible are at the very heart of why the United States of America was founded. George Washington said, "It is impossible to govern...without God and the Bible." Robinson and others need to be reminded that of the fifty-five men who wrote and signed the Constitution in 1787, all but three were orthodox members of the established Christian churches at the time. Two were Methodists, two were Roman Catholic, two were Lutheran, and the rest were Anglicans (Church of England) which were later identified as Protestant Episcopalians, Quakers, Puritans, American Presbyterians and Baptists. An American government operating outside the influence of the values expounded by the Christian church and the Bible would be a dangerous thing.
 
   If space and time allowed, I  could spend the next several paragraphs describing how Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany began with him marginalizing the church's influence in government policy. School prayers were banned, carols and Nativity plays were forbidden in schools. In 1938 the name Christmas was changed to Yuletide and Easter was turned into Spring Festival. Anyone see anything closely resembling what's been happening in America in the past fifty or so years to what occurred in Nazi Germany?  The point is, first you separate church from the state and then you're free to pass laws that make what the church does - illegal. This has already happened in Europe and we are seeing it happen in America.  

   Thomas Jefferson has been credited by the promoters of the "separation of church and state principle", (when they're not trying to convince us it's in the Constitution) with first using the term. Jefferson, in fact did use the term  in a letter to a church, wherein he strongly objected to the government trying to impose laws on how people should worship. Jefferson was advocating keeping government out of religious affairs, not the other way around. Jefferson never promoted the concept of a secular state. While serving in the Virginia House of Burgesses he was the one who personally introduced a resolution for a Day of Fasting and Prayer in 1774. While serving as President, he helped authorize the use of government funds to print Bibles for use in schools, build churches and support clergymen. He set apart space in the Capitol Rotunda for chapel services. He praised the use of local courthouses in his hometown for religious services.  Was Jefferson a fundamentalist Christian? Hardly, he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. But he understood how vital it was to constantly exert the values promoted in the Bible and  Christianity upon the government and its leaders.



2 of  6

2.      Robinson says that "no one is suggesting that any church, any religious body, change what it believes." Really?  Has the Episcopal Church always believed that homosexuality was "okay" and that same-sex marriages are acceptable in the eyes of the Lord?  Hardly.

   Someone's changed this church's mind and beliefs on the subject of homosexuality in the past decade or so. If no one's "suggesting" that the Lutherans, or United Methodists, or Presbyterians change what they've believed in for more than 200 years, then how is it that these denominations have all recently altered their church's doctrinal statements concerning homosexuality, particularly regarding the conducting of same-sex marriages and gays serving in their ministries?

   Again, if space allowed, I could spend the next several paragraphs talking about the apostasy of the church which is described in 1 Timothy 4: 1, "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,"  We also read in 2 Timothy 4:3, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires..." and in 2 Timothy 3:1, "But know this, that in the last days, perilous times will come; For men will be lovers of themselves...without self-control...lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power..."

3.    When Robinson brings up the issue of "marriage equality" he asks the question, "What is appropriate and fair under the law? What are the equal rights that should be available to all citizens?"  You would think a Bishop of a mainline Christian denomination would ask instead, "What does God's Word say about homosexual behavior, sexual immorality and sodomites?" As Christians, our first priority in this matter (as in all matters) should be to understand what the Bible says about homosexual behavior and marriage. Not what does society think is appropriate. Or even what politicians, church leaders or the scientific community think about it. What should be our only point of reference is what does God's Word say about the marriage relationship between a man and a woman. Most importantly, does God anywhere, at any time in His Word make a provision for a same-sex marriage and does He bless it and place it on equal status with the traditional marriage. The answer is - absolutely not!
 
4.     Robinson is concerned about " imposing religious beliefs on a state that promises equal rights for all," and asks "Is that right?"  I suppose it depends on what particular religious beliefs one is trying to impose. For instance, God's commandments found in the Bible, such as "Thou shall not murder, thou shall not steal, thou shall not bear false witness, are particular religious beliefs that have somehow found their way into America's legal system. Robinson probably doesn't have a problem with these "impositions." David J. Brewer, a US Supreme Court Justice stated in 1910 that, "The American nation from its first settlement to this hour is based upon and permeated by the principles of the Bible."  Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court (1953-1969), Earl Warren stated, "America is a Christian land governed by Christian principles...I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible..."  Therefore, it seems Robinson wants to pick and choose what particular beliefs from the Bible we can impose on the state, and which particular beliefs we cannot. According to Robinson, the beliefs he doesn't like, such as calling homosexuality and sodomy an abomination and a sin, should not be "imposed on the state" by the church.  Robinson and others need to be reminded that the Founding Fathers believed that the  inalienable rights protected by the Constitution, were granted by God, not by man.

 3 of  6

It is a fundamental function of the American judicial system to take certain rights away from those citizens that practice lawlessness.  Thank God for that.  

5.  The reporter for The Charlotte Observer asked Robinson to respond to the quoting of Leviticus  by the opponents to same-sex marriage. His response was, "we all interpret (the Bible.)"  Robinson is making the claim that, each of us interpret verses from the Bible differently, and therefore some of us, particularly the opponents of homosexuality and same-sex marriages, have simply interpreted this verse from Leviticus incorrectly. The actual verse from Leviticus is not disclosed in the article.  So let's do that. The verse is found in the Old Testament in Leviticus 18:22. It reads, " Thou shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."  Now what part of "it's an abomination" does Robinson not understand?  This verse is simple and straight-forward. Neither the reporter or Robinson mention the many other verses which appear throughout the Bible that condemn homosexuality. A man having sexual intercourse with another man ( and this must also apply to lesbian women as well ) is abominable behavior according to God.  Robinson says at the time this verse (from the Old Testament book - Leviticus ) was written, everyone was presumed to be heterosexual. I wonder where he gets that idea?  

Wouldn't it be safer for Robinson to assume that God knew at this time that men were committing this abominable act and He wanted to make it absolutely clear that He considered it "disgusting, vile, loathsome and hateful."  Incidentally, these are the words used to describe "a-bom-i-na-tion" that are found in the English dictionary. Look it up. We find no stronger negative word in the Bible used to describe a particular human behavior. The word appears about 150 times in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments.  Because it is used so often throughout the Scriptures, there cannot be any "wiggle room" for any misunderstanding for lack of context. I wonder if the folks living in Sodom & Gomorrah had a different interpretation of the meaning of abomination? If an activity is attached to the word, "abomination" in the Bible, it is clearly something you do not want to do for fear of suffering the wrath of an angry God.

   Robinson's notion that because this verse from Leviticus was written before mankind knew about the scientific reasons that make homosexual behavior "natural for a small minority of us,"  is just a form of denial on his part. He wants to "pick and choose" again, the verses in the Bible he likes, and dismiss those verses he finds objectionable. As if God didn't know what the nature of man was back in the Old Testament days. On the contrary, God knows what the nature of man was then, and what it is now. It's man nature to be sinful. Therefore, God calls us to resist doing evil. It's called "walking in the flesh" and anyone calling themselves a Bishop or a church leader ought to understand this concept better than most Christians.  Robinson should know that God's truth transcends time and culture.

6.  Robinson states that its regretful that many Episcopalians are leaving the church over the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and that "we have far more in common than what separates us."   I suppose that's a matter of opinion and I for one don't weigh similarities on beliefs by quantity, but rather by quality.  Apparently Robinson believes that two people who believe in the Trinity, and believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, can maintain a Christian-based fellowship.  Even if one of them practices sodomy and the other believes it to be an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.  As if the common beliefs in the "major" tenets of the Christian faith, somehow outweigh or overcome the fact that one of them is mocking God's Word and selectively rejecting portions of the Bible and substituting their own reasoning to justify their sinful behavior.  
4 of  6
The Bible instructs Christians what to do in such situations. From men who are lovers of themselves, from blasphemers, from those without self-control, from those who love pleasure more than they love God, even from those who have the appearance of being godly, the Bible tells us, "And from such people turn away!"

We read in 1 Corinthians 6:18, "Flee sexual immorality...he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body"  and in 2 Corinthians 6:14, "...For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?  The issue of same-sex marriages, homosexuality and gays serving as church leaders and in the ministry is tearing apart congregations of many Christian denominations across the nation. Life-long members of the Evangelical Lutheran, Presbyterian (USA), United Methodist, Baptist and Episcopal churches are questioning the biblical basis for their church's decisions in these matters and many are following the Bible's instructions to "turn away from such people."

Robinson says he was born an alcoholic, but doesn't say in the article whether he believes he was born a homosexual. Does it matter? I must assume that Robinson knows that the behavior of an alcoholic is self-destructive.  He is therefore,  ( I hope) controlling his "natural" desire to drink excessively. I must also assume that he is not trying to justify behaving like a drunk, simply because he was "born an alcoholic." In other words, he is not a practicing alcoholic and constantly drunk because he was born with an insatiable desire for alcohol.  I think you can see where I'm going with this line of thinking. Can Robinson justify being a practicing homosexual, on the basis that he was born a homosexual? If he is, then why not use the same logic to justify getting drunk each day? He can't have it both ways.

Usually, in matters where there's a difference of opinion involving a minority, in this case homosexuals and those wishing to have a same-sex marriage, it's not a matter of if the "race card" will be played, but when it will be played.  Robinson waits until the end of the interview to play it, by comparing how America's discriminatory attitude towards African-Americans changed over time, to how America's discriminatory attitude towards homosexuals will change over time. He's of course right. Americans are changing their opinions towards homosexuals. In fact, in 1978, 85% of Americans believed that homosexuality was a sin. Today, some surveys suggest that less than 50% of Americans believe that way. That however, doesn't make  homosexuality any less detestable to God. Just because the majority thinks a certain way, doesn't make it right. Just because the majority of white Americans discriminated against African-Americans for many years, didn't make what they believed about this minority - true. Therefore, just because the majority of all Americans may now believe that homosexuality is not a sin - doesn't make it so. To repeat what's been said earlier. What's important is what does God say about homosexuality, as revealed to us in the Bible.    

I totally reject the arguments on religious grounds that attempt to justify homosexuality and to institutionalize same-sex marriages in order to give them equality with sexual behavior that is blessed by God and with marriages blessed by God.  According to the Word of God - the Bible, homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. I have listened carefully to all the social, psychological, and even biological reasons presented to justify same-sex marriages and homosexuality.  They are all "man-made cisterns" that do not hold water against the Word of God. I know from God's Word that all things can be overcome through Christ our Lord. No temptation, whether encouraged by society, or the result of one's upbringing, or even the result of hormonal imbalances and DNA, can prevent a person from seeking God's forgiveness and receiving the strength from our Lord to overcome all temptations and lusts of the flesh.


5 of  6

Let me close by saying a few words about the accusations of hatred, bigotry, and divisiveness that always seem to be thrown out against ministers of correction. Please be reminded that according to the Bible, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction for instruction in righteousness..." ( 2 Timothy 3: 16. )

Just because I openly convict those that commit what the Bible calls "abominations", and just because I openly rebuke those false teachers and hirelings who pervert the meaning of Scripture and bend the truth to satisfy their own desires, does not make me a bigot, a hate monger, or a homophobic. As a missionary, I have eaten with, cleaned up after and held the hand and counseled too many homosexuals of all color, race and religions that were dying of AIDS, to succumb to the argument that I need to "love more and hate less." I do not need to be "more compassionate and less critical." "I do not need to be more tolerant and less dogmatic."  Spare me your incriminations! If you agree with, and support the notion of same-sex marriage, your position is irreconcilable with mine. Much more importantly, it is irreconcilable with the Word of God. It is not a matter to be negotiated. Homosexuals are not being called upon to reform - they are being called upon to repent. The same goes for the heretics, and "the wolves in sheep's clothing" that call evil good, and good evil.  Peter warns us, "...that false teachers will come...who secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them...And many will follow their destructive ways." (2 Peter 2:1-2)









Written by:
Tom Watchorn
Nehemiah Ministries
P.O. Box 1165
Cornelius, NC 28031
watchornnc@aol.com


February 6, 2012

[tombogan03884]

Calling a homosexual a pervert is not "hatred", bigotry", or "homophobia".
It is a simple statement of fact.
Political Correctness is another one of those things the sheep have embraced, The 1st amendment now grants the right of free speech as long as no one is offended, then it becomes a "hate crime".

[twyacht]

Calling a homosexual a pervert is not "hatred", bigotry", or "homophobia".
It is a simple statement of fact.
Political Correctness is another one of those things the sheep have embraced, The 1st amendment now grants the right of free speech as long as no one is offended, then it becomes a "hate crime".

and when taken in the context that our country was founded by religious men of faith,....renders it even more seditious, and to the PC/MSM/Progressive folks an even bigger target for elimination.


   If space and time allowed, I  could spend the next several paragraphs describing how Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany began with him marginalizing the church's influence in government policy. School prayers were banned, carols and Nativity plays were forbidden in schools. In 1938 the name Christmas was changed to Yuletide and Easter was turned into Spring Festival. Anyone see anything closely resembling what's been happening in America in the past fifty or so years to what occurred in Nazi Germany?  The point is, first you separate church from the state and then you're free to pass laws that make what the church does - illegal. This has already happened in Europe and we are seeing it happen in America.   

sounds like current times.....

[tombogan03884]

and when taken in the context that our country was founded by religious men of faith,....renders it even more seditious, and to the PC/MSM/Progressive folks an even bigger target for elimination.


   If space and time allowed, I  could spend the next several paragraphs describing how Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany began with him marginalizing the church's influence in government policy. School prayers were banned, carols and Nativity plays were forbidden in schools. In 1938 the name Christmas was changed to Yuletide and Easter was turned into Spring Festival. Anyone see anything closely resembling what's been happening in America in the past fifty or so years to what occurred in Nazi Germany?  The point is, first you separate church from the state and then you're free to pass laws that make what the church does - illegal. This has already happened in Europe and we are seeing it happen in America.   

sounds like current times.....

Of course it does. These people may be the enemy but they are not stupid, what is stupid is concentrating on the religious side and ignoring the fact they have been using the same tactics in every aspect of life, education, law, politics, media.
"Red Scare", "Red baiting", McCarthy, HUAC, these are portrayed as bad things, they were our last hope of avoiding the modern US and BHO.
Most on here think Saul Alinsky was some evil SOB. The truth is regardless of his politics he was a very smart and observant person.
Any one who has not read, and under stood his "Rules for Radicals" is not qualified to vote in a modern election.

http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/summary-of-saul-alinskys-rules-for.html

Rules for Power Tactics:

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Because Alinsky was sensitive to criticism that he wasn't ethical, he also included a set of rules for the ethics of power tactics. You can see from these why his ethics were so frequently questioned.

Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:

1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.
2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.
11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

These are just the highlights. There's obviously a lot more to it. Alinsky's book is still available in most college bookstores and on Amazon and is worth reading.