REALLY?

OBAMA SHOULD CONTROL INDIVIDUAL SOUTH KOREANS?

DUMBASS

YES

Posted by moy23 on 2/23/2015 6:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/23/2015 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Regardless of the religions of the founding fathers, they were clear in their intent for a secular government.

You and I agree on something. Only took 325 pages

I like how it shifts from "Christian conservative myth" to "Regardless of their religion..."

While they intended for no one single CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION to exercise undue influence, they certainly believed in the Christian God of the Bible. They also CLEARLY founded the constitution on the basis of inalienable rights "endowed by their CREATOR". Yes this was the preamble to the DoI, but it was also the springboard to forming the government they ultimately hammered out with the constitution.

Their's was a belief that because we were created by GOD, we were therefore entitled to certain rights.

GOD is the bestower of rights NOT the government. The role of the government is to SECURE those rights ALREADY bestowed to the individual.

They believed that these rights PRE-EXIST the formation of a government. THAT in itself, was/and is now again apparently, a radical idea.

It is only logical that as rights are bestowed upon individuals by the God of the Bible, no "rights" should oppose the teachings therein. 

No, they were pretty clear that the government should be secular. And they didn't say that creator=biblical god.

There are plenty of rights that oppose those taught in the bible. The first amendment comes to mind. The right to a divorce. The right to have sex outside of marriage, etc. etc. etc.

That's what you WANT to believe, but it doesn't make it so.

The whole British example of a new Protestant King outlawing Catholicism and outright persecuting of Catholics and vice -versa was the impetous for the "Seperation of Church and State" idea. Never was it intended to remove Biblical principles from the rule of law. In fact to do so is absurd. Once you remove the source for absolute truth you cannot justify any law that restrictis anything at all. You may certainly pass such laws, but you have no basis to justify doing so. Your "morality" is equal to my "morality" so therefore you cannot justify telling me what I am doing is wrong. THAT's the big myth out there, that you can justify something with nothing.

The Biblical teachings, principles and influence are strewn throughout the government buildings for a reason. They STILL open with prayer during sessions of Congress. The left likes to pretend that the Christian core of this country is a "conserative Chrisytian myth", but it is absolutely evident throughout Washington DC that this is a baseless claim, that they WISH were true.

That the first amendment somehow opposes the Bible is laughable. That the next two items you mention are thought to be "rights" just amplifies my point even further.

The first amendment grants freedom of religion - believe in whatever god/gods/idol/nothing you want. Pretty sure that deviates from the teachings of the bible.

The first amendment grants freedom of speech - I can say something like, "your imaginary god can swallow my **** while he's being ***-pounded by easter bunny while the devil jerks off in the corner." Pretty sure that deviates from the teachings of the bible.

If a state passed a law prohibiting pre-marital sex, that law wouldn't hold up in court. Do we not have a right to pre-marital sex? 

So all the deist founding fathers believed in a Christian God?  Even though they explicitly proscribed to a religion that rejects fundamental tenets of Christianity?

**** BIG OIL!

NO MORE!