PDA

View Full Version : 5 Presidential Secrets Left off the White House Tour


SteelersMongol
08-25-2008, 03:47 AM
1. Washington Wasn’t the First American President

Your teachers all said Picture 171.pngG.W. was the first American president, but George “I Cannot Tell a Lie” Washington would have told you differently. During the American Revolution in 1781, the Continental Congress elected Maryland statesman John Hanson to the post of President of the United States in Congress Assembled. After Washington defeated the British at the Battle of Yorktown, Hanson sent him a congratulatory note. Washington’s reply was addressed to the “President of the United States.” Not until he was elected in 1789 did Washington officially take his own version of the title.

To see the picture of the REAL FIRST President of the US go to the link below!

2. John Quincy Adams’ Naked Swimming Fetish

Forget secret tapes and shredded documents. Back in the early 19th century, there was a better way to get a glimpse of an American president truly exposed. All you had to do was show up at the banks of the Potomac River early in the morning during the warmer months between 1825 and 1829 to catch John Quincy Adams skinny-dipping.

3. The Fabulous Life of George Washington

As president, ol’ Georgie pulled in a salary of $25K a year. That’s roughly $1 million in today’s currency. Apparently excited by his newfound purchasing power, Washington started living it up, reportedly buying leopard-skin robes for all his horses and spending seven percent of his income on alcohol.

4. Bush Leaves His Mark on Japan

If you remember one thing from the first Bush administration, it’s probably not the 1992 state dinner during which President George H. W. Bush, ill with the flu, lost his lunch in the lap of the Japanese prime minister. Well, a lot of Japanese remember that incident a little better. Turns out, Bush’s faux pas coined a slang word, bushusuru, which translates as “to do the Bush thing,” meaning “to vomit.”

5. Thomas Jefferson Goes Missing From Office

What do you want on your tombstone? Thomas Jefferson knew, so he took the time before he died to write out the inscription. A rather lengthy memorial, the missive listed Jefferson’s many great accomplishments, from “author of the Declaration of Independence” to “founder of the University of Virginia.” However, he did forget one small achievement. The tombstone fails to mention that Jefferson was once president of the United States.

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/16576?cnn=yes

Surprise surprise. Thought you guys should read it as well.

Hapa
08-26-2008, 10:44 AM
I hate when I bushusuru

tony hipchest
08-26-2008, 11:58 AM
great stuff. "leopard robes... " :laughing:

revefsreleets
08-26-2008, 03:11 PM
Here's one. James Madison (4th POTUS) wrote "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in 1784. It's one of the most important documents ever written concerning the formation of the US Government as a purely secular government, but nobody has ever even heard of it, let alone read it.

In it, Madison argued that the only way to remain completely free of any kind of religious control, our government must completely distance itself from any religion.

He'd roll over in his grave if he could see Bush's white house vetoing stem cell research based on the word of "scientists" who think that humans and dinosaurs lives together on the Earth 4,000 years ago...

Yeah, I'm on a rant! :applaudit:

Preacher
08-26-2008, 04:35 PM
Here's one. James Madison (4th POTUS) wrote "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in 1784. It's one of the most important documents ever written concerning the formation of the US Government as a purely secular government, but nobody has ever even heard of it, let alone read it.

In it, Madison argued that the only way to remain completely free of any kind of religious control, our government must completely distance itself from any religion.

He'd roll over in his grave if he could see Bush's white house vetoing stem cell research based on the word of "scientists" who think that humans and dinosaurs lives together on the Earth 4,000 years ago...

Yeah, I'm on a rant! :applaudit:


Hmm... VERY INTERESTING GAME...


We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775] John Adams:
“ 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
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]

Samuel Adams:
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]

“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]


John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts. [/QUOTE

[QUOTE]

Thomas Jefferson

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]




And... JAMES MADISON



“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)
• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress
“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”


Amongst others.... of course...


I don't think the division between the constitution and the moral codes of Christianity and belief in faith are as divergent as modern culture wishes they were.


Furthermore, I think Madison would find Bush's faith initiatives right in line with his own actions of funding a bible society

revefsreleets
08-26-2008, 04:43 PM
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I've been very preoccupied with "Freethinking" lately...more on that later...

Preacher
08-26-2008, 04:53 PM
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I've been very preoccupied with "Freethinking" lately...more on that later...

Freethinking is fine... as long as it has a base in reality...

otherwise, as the old saying goes, it may be sound, but not valid.

tony hipchest
08-26-2008, 05:00 PM
this is your captain speaking. this is NOT a hijacking in progressSamuel Adams:
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… The Bengals suck.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]


simply amazing and thank you for flying bungles suck airlines.

Preacher
08-26-2008, 05:06 PM
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k252/RTBrooke/hijack.gif

xfl2001fan
08-26-2008, 05:20 PM
So when was Jesus born? Was it really December 25th? (my military career and family life as well as other personal interests have prevented me from doing the research myself.)

Because my understanding of it is that nobody really knows. We just so happen to celebrate it one week before the New Year (which is based on a religion not of Christian roots) speculated to be due to the Roman Catholic Church wanting to bring in a larger contingent of followers.

For all that the birth of Christ is a big deal, I'd think the resurrection of Him would be equally as big. Which is strange to me, because He's been resurrected on a great many different set of dates.

The fact that all of this follows the time honored Christian method of worship (predicated around moon cycles) seems a bit odd to me. The fact that Easter bears a strange resemblence Eostre, former Pagan religion from our Anglo-Saxon friends, is not lost upon me of the many "realities" of the religion of our founding fathers.

Something along the lines of the first Sunday after the 14th day after the March Full moon, or some crap like that. It's been a long while since I've read anything on the "realities" of these particularly big events of Christianity.

revefsreleets
08-26-2008, 06:23 PM
Freethinking is fine... as long as it has a base in reality...

otherwise, as the old saying goes, it may be sound, but not valid.

That's UBER ironic, considering that freethinking is based on empirical observations, rational thought, logic and the scientific method.

Pie in the sky hopes of better tomorrows that assuage the suffering of this world are fine as an opiate for the masses, but I live in the real and the now.

Robert Green Ingersoll said it best:

"Secularism teaches us to be good here and now. I know nothing better than goodness. Secularism teaches us to be just here and now. It is impossible to be juster than just. Secularism has no 'Castles in Spain'. It has no glorified fog. It depends upon realities, upon demonstrations; and its end and aim is to make this world better every day-to do away with poverty and crime, and to cover the world with happy and contended homes."

tony hipchest
08-26-2008, 06:29 PM
president harrison clogged the whitehouse toilet atleast 2 times a week.

the staff hated him.

xfl2001fan
08-26-2008, 06:31 PM
president harrison clogged the whitehouse toilet atleast 2 times a week.

the staff hated him.

HAHAHAHA Seriously? That is an awesome piece of trivia there!

tony hipchest
08-26-2008, 06:39 PM
HAHAHAHA Seriously? That is an awesome piece of trivia there!:chuckle: actually i was thinking of truman, but i googled it and it was president grover cleveland... hence the "term taking a growler".

(im very rarely serious) :wink02:

Preacher
08-27-2008, 05:16 PM
That's UBER ironic, considering that freethinking is based on empirical observations, rational thought, logic and the scientific method.

Pie in the sky hopes of better tomorrows that assuage the suffering of this world are fine as an opiate for the masses, but I live in the real and the now.

Robert Green Ingersoll said it best:

"Secularism teaches us to be good here and now. I know nothing better than goodness. Secularism teaches us to be just here and now. It is impossible to be juster than just. Secularism has no 'Castles in Spain'. It has no glorified fog. It depends upon realities, upon demonstrations; and its end and aim is to make this world better every day-to do away with poverty and crime, and to cover the world with happy and contended homes."

The most honest of free-thinkers would admit that there is no evidence to support OR DENY existence of a diety, a spiritual dimension, or anything else. To do so is based on cognitive leaps stemming from a belief that all there is to know is what one can empirical take in.

The problem isn't empiricism and scientific research, the problem is when observation becomes prescription and absolutism based on an anthropocentric premise that negates from the beginning anything outside man's realm. It becomes a self-fulfilling argument.

revefsreleets
08-27-2008, 05:28 PM
The most honest of free-thinkers would admit that there is no evidence to support OR DENY existence of a diety, a spiritual dimension, or anything else. To do so is based on cognitive leaps stemming from a belief that all there is to know is what one can empirical take in.

The problem isn't empiricism and scientific research, the problem is when observation becomes prescription and absolutism based on an anthropocentric premise that negates from the beginning anything outside man's realm. It becomes a self-fulfilling argument.

But you are saying that YOUR reality should be everyone's reality based on....what? And when we start talking about fundamentalists who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, that reality becomes really, well, it becomes weird. Noah's Ark? Dinosaurs and man existing together? That's not reality...

And I don't think freethinkers are as anti-deity as you are pigeonholing them as to be. Many, MANY people recognize religion as just as potentially dangerous and destructive as being helpful, yet still believe in a higher power.

It's much more about fair representation. After 9/11, everyone bent over backwards to include the 1% of practicing Jews and the .05% Buddhists (probably even smaller) and so on and so forth, but who speaks for the 30% of people who practice no religion? We aren't evil or awful, we just think differently...according to fundamentalists, we are going to burn in Hell just as fiercely as the Buddhists and the Jews and everyone else who doesn't prescribe the strict and narrow "only right way", but somehow they are more palatable to share a stage with than we are?

Odd...and so very, very wrong no matter how you view it.

Preacher
08-27-2008, 06:58 PM
But you are saying that YOUR reality should be everyone's reality based on....what? And when we start talking about fundamentalists who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, that reality becomes really, well, it becomes weird. Noah's Ark? Dinosaurs and man existing together? That's not reality...

And I don't think freethinkers are as anti-deity as you are pigeonholing them as to be. Many, MANY people recognize religion as just as potentially dangerous and destructive as being helpful, yet still believe in a higher power.

It's much more about fair representation. After 9/11, everyone bent over backwards to include the 1% of practicing Jews and the .05% Buddhists (probably even smaller) and so on and so forth, but who speaks for the 30% of people who practice no religion? We aren't evil or awful, we just think differently...according to fundamentalists, we are going to burn in Hell just as fiercely as the Buddhists and the Jews and everyone else who doesn't prescribe the strict and narrow "only right way", but somehow they are more palatable to share a stage with than we are?

Odd...and so very, very wrong no matter how you view it.

you are confusing two issues.

In the country, everyone should be able to come to the table with their views. However, tyranny of the majority is not palatable either.

However, my system of belief is just that, my system of belief. You have your system of belief. They are both defective and rankled by the human condition. However, we both hold to a central tenant of our individual beliefs.

Do I beleive there is a hell for those who do not beleive in Jesus? Yes. You beleive that what I think is so very very wrong... so be it. Are you going to give me the freedom to beleive what you think is so very very wrong?

revefsreleets
08-27-2008, 07:09 PM
I confuse nothing. This country was founded upon secularism (in the strictest sense, in that religion and politics need to be kept separate), and the apple has fallen far from the tree. I respect all views, which is the whole point of looking at the big picture.

I condemn any religion or system of belief that looks to tightly narrow or exclude or marginalize contrary views.

I'm sorry, but you will have a hard time convincing me or any other rational thinking person that the religious right in this country is doing anything BUT that.

It's been a long journey, but the religious right has founded their own universities, created their own intelligentsia, all with the intent of making the Christian religion the all-but-official religion of the United States.

That's not what was intended.

Preacher
08-27-2008, 07:24 PM
I confuse nothing. This country was founded upon secularism (in the strictest sense, in that religion and politics need to be kept separate), and the apple has fallen far from the tree. I respect all views, which is the whole point of looking at the big picture.

I condemn any religion or system of belief that looks to tightly narrow or exclude or marginalize contrary views.

I'm sorry, but you will have a hard time convincing me or any other rational thinking person that the religious right in this country is doing anything BUT that.

It's been a long journey, but the religious right has founded their own universities, created their own intelligentsia, all with the intent of making the Christian religion the all-but-official religion of the United States.

That's not what was intended.

That is actually the exact opposite of the historical record. Originally, the orthodox Christians were in the elite schools of the country. Harvard, Yale, all the Ivy league schools were founded as such, and many of them were founded to produce pastors.

However, as Enlightenment philosophy filtered into the schools, the teachings changed, as did the campuses. At one point in the 1800's, there are accounts of professing Christians being beaten and thrown off campus by other students, without any ramifications from faculty.

In light of those circumstances, seminaries and bible colleges started popping up to teach the scriptures and orthodox Christianity. The impetus was to keep pure doctrine in the church by training the pastors, not to foist Christianity on the govt.

If you are really interested in reading the history, I can send you a bibliography,

revefsreleets
08-27-2008, 07:34 PM
Please.

I'm talking about the INTENSE debates and REAL fights that occurred around the inception of this country. There was a conscious and very real effort to SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE. We succeeded in forming the first truly secular state in history...

The founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they could see all their good work being undone...

Preacher
08-27-2008, 08:17 PM
Please.

I'm talking about the INTENSE debates and REAL fights that occurred around the inception of this country. There was a conscious and very real effort to SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE. We succeeded in forming the first truly secular state in history...

The founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they could see all their good work being undone...

The intention was not a secular state as we today understand secular. It was a religiously neutral state in that it would not arbitrate nor demand religion from the citizens.

That is a far cry from an understanding of a state which is founded on the concept that there is no higher judge. EVERY founding father had at least a deistic understanding of God.

revefsreleets
08-27-2008, 09:38 PM
The intention was not a secular state as we today understand secular. It was a religiously neutral state in that it would not arbitrate nor demand religion from the citizens.

That is a far cry from an understanding of a state which is founded on the concept that there is no higher judge. EVERY founding father had at least a deistic understanding of God.

Bingo! Deist.

Preacher
08-28-2008, 12:46 AM
Bingo! Deist.

Yep... and some were theist.

However, Deism came about within the concept of the western understanding of diety, which is specifically fashioned from a judea-christian concept-- see Jefferson's bible (a redacted edition of the christian bible).

And in the end, that is my ENTIRE argument... The concept was to allow all people an EQUAL place at the table. The concept was NOT to legislate the concept of God out of society.

That concept of God is a general one, not specifically a Christian one. Matter of fact, the AA "higher Power" works just as well in this discussion.

However, the underlying concepts of freedom are founded in the idea that God (be it deist or theist) gives the freedom. Thus, a government has NO RIGHT to take away the rights of man, without the consent of the governed.

That in a nutshell is why I am so afraid of removing God from the govt. Because then the govt. believes IT is the highest power. That is too scary a thought.

revefsreleets
08-28-2008, 08:20 AM
My concern is this: The Bush White House is NOT in line with what the founding fathers had in mind. The Religious Right's aims and goals are NOT in line with what the founding fathers had in mind.

Also, this quote:
However, the underlying concepts of freedom are founded in the idea that God (be it deist or theist) gives the freedom. Thus, a government has NO RIGHT to take away the rights of man, without the consent of the governed.

Is not correct. The whole concept was that man, who was always governed by God, was now going to do the governing himself. It's the very basis of the whole idea behind our country!

Did you know that less than 10% of the population belonged to a church congregation in 1800?

It's no coincidence that there is not a single mention of the word God, Jesus or any supreme being.

This is interesting...it's from the treaty of Tripoli...article 11, 4 November, 1796:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.

It worries me tremendously when I see signs of the religious right trying to establish a religious (Christian) theocracy in this Country. The very idea of a secular state was so that man would govern man, not be governed by God.

Preacher
08-28-2008, 04:08 PM
My concern is this: The Bush White House is NOT in line with what the founding fathers had in mind. The Religious Right's aims and goals are NOT in line with what the founding fathers had in mind.

Nor the atheists and secularists of today. BTW... before throwing around "the religious right" I ask you to define it for me. Because at this point, there is no solid religious right. There is no "leader." In essence, there are millions of Christians who vote and speak their convictions...

do you want to silence them?

Also, this quote:
However, the underlying concepts of freedom are founded in the idea that God (be it deist or theist) gives the freedom. Thus, a government has NO RIGHT to take away the rights of man, without the consent of the governed.

Is not correct. The whole concept was that man, who was always governed by God, was now going to do the governing himself. It's the very basis of the whole idea behind our country!

Pretty far off the mark.

The concept was not that man was governed by God, but that man was governed by kings and queens who used religion to prop up their kingdom and denied other the ability to worship in their own way. Of those who got the brunt end of that, was the separatists and the Baptists in England, which is why two baptists wrote a letter to Jefferson encouraging him to not allow the govt. to have a state religion. Rather, let every citizen choose for themselves what method of worship they wanted. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with a denial of God and choice to govern themselves. Please refer to the quotes of the founding fathers below.

Did you know that less than 10% of the population belonged to a church congregation in 1800?

It's no coincidence that there is not a single mention of the word God, Jesus or any supreme being.

Simply put, No, it wasn't. The figure of 10% is a complete guess. The method to come up with that percentage was figured by taking the number of church members in 1850 which was 25% and projecting backwards through numbers of clergy communication. The study was done by Currie, Glibert and Horsely, and has a number of series flaws, including outright guesses for those denominations that didn't keep such records. Futhermore, the study takes no account of the fact that members was REGULARLY DENIED to people. Thus, while membership was actually set at 11.5% according to that study (18 percent according to another study), the actual numbers (based on these FAULTY baselines) may have been upwards of 30 to 50 percent of applicants turned away (those figures are off the top of my head, but I would venture are practical after readings in how the 1st Great Awakening churches dealt with new membership).

Furthermore, you also have many who attend, but to not become part of the community. Throw in the slave churches for which there are probably NO records, and those numbers change dramatically, from an artifically low baseline number.

There is no equation of that issue to the constitution concerning why it doesn't mention God. Again, please see the quotes from the founders concerning their personal beleifs on how faith intersects public.

This is interesting...it's from the treaty of Tripoli...article 11, 4 November, 1796:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.

We have no argument that Christianity wasn't an official religion. What is the point of this post? Our country didn't want to have a religious war. BIg deal. That in no way denies the fact that our nation denied any concept of God. For that, please see the dec. of indep. Our rights are said to be what? GOD GIVEN.

It worries me tremendously when I see signs of the religious right trying to establish a religious (Christian) theocracy in this Country. The very idea of a secular state was so that man would govern man, not be governed by God.


Really? The religioius right? Just who is that? American citizens? Are you saying that we should not have the same rights as the NAACP or NOW? Why shouldn't millions of Christians be able to stand up and speak about our rights and wants and desires.

Furthermore, this great and monstrous organization of the religious is hilarious. It is tantamount to the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy."

In truth, there is one theology within evangelical Christendom which beleives that the laws of the bible should be put into practice in America. That theology is called re-constructionalism or dominion theology. It is based in a post-millenial eschatology. As such, it is rejected by fundamentalists who are pre-mil or a-mil in eschatology.

The press however, has taken up the idea and painted any political act by evangelical christians with that brush. It seems you have been duped into beleiving it as well. After all, fighting to allow the ten commandments to remain HANGING on a wall in a court house is a FAR CRY from legislating BASED UPON the ten commandments. However, most don't even see the difference anymore. Kind of sad seeing how our founding fathers beleived that the laws of this country are BASED on those commandments... please see THAT quote below as well from that great thinker.... JAMES MADISON.

revefsreleets
08-28-2008, 05:06 PM
I consider the "Christian Right" as being comprised of fundamentalists, and by fundamentalist, I mean people who literally interpret the bible as gospel truth, l every word.

I don't want them silenced...they have a right to do and say as they please. But I also don't want reactionary elements of our society wielding too much power...and that's from either side of the political spectrum. There is a concerted effort, through groups like the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, Religious Roundtable Council, et al that have a VERY strong and real agenda to move this country politically far, far to the right. There was and is a very real movement to create religious right think tanks and universities to groom future leaders. Universities that are run by extremely conservative Christan groups. There is an agenda, and it can't be denied. This is not a conspiracy theory at all.

I will be happy to get into this more after I move...I'm doing this off the top of my head, and I have excellent sources to cite from...it's not fair for me to try and debate extemporaneously with a PhD without access to my references...

Preacher
08-28-2008, 06:38 PM
I consider the "Christian Right" as being comprised of fundamentalists, and by fundamentalist, I mean people who literally interpret the bible as gospel truth, l every word.

I don't want them silenced...they have a right to do and say as they please. But I also don't want reactionary elements of our society wielding too much power...and that's from either side of the political spectrum. There is a concerted effort, through groups like the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, Religious Roundtable Council, et al that have a VERY strong and real agenda to move this country politically far, far to the right. There was and is a very real movement to create religious right think tanks and universities to groom future leaders. Universities that are run by extremely conservative Christan groups. There is an agenda, and it can't be denied. This is not a conspiracy theory at all.

I will be happy to get into this more after I move...I'm doing this off the top of my head, and I have excellent sources to cite from...it's not fair for me to try and debate extemporaneously with a PhD without access to my references...


Naaa... mine was D.Min

application... not theory

revefsreleets
08-29-2008, 07:51 AM
Still, this is your area of speciality...it's a little bit of an advantage for you I'd say:sofunny:

tony hipchest
09-04-2008, 10:52 AM
I confuse nothing. This country was founded upon secularism (in the strictest sense, in that religion and politics need to be kept separate), and the apple has fallen far from the tree. I respect all views, which is the whole point of looking at the big picture.

I condemn any religion or system of belief that looks to tightly narrow or exclude or marginalize contrary views.

I'm sorry, but you will have a hard time convincing me or any other rational thinking person that the religious right in this country is doing anything BUT that.

It's been a long journey, but the religious right has founded their own universities, created their own intelligentsia, all with the intent of making the Christian religion the all-but-official religion of the United States.

That's not what was intended.is this what was intended? (fear not people. in no way have i "doctored" this article)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."

ADVERTISEMENT

In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it "God's will."

Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

A video of the speech was posted at the Wasilla Assembly of God's Web site before finding its way on to other sites on the Internet.

Palin told graduating students of the church's School of Ministry, "What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys." As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.

"God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

"I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded," she added. "But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."

Palin attended the evangelical church from the time she was a teenager until 2002, the church said in a statement posted on its Web site. She has continued to attend special conferences and meetings there. Religious conservatives have welcomed her selection as John McCain's running mate.

Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, lamented Palin's comments.

"I miss the days when pastors delivered sermons and politicians delivered political speeches," he said. "The United States is increasingly diverse religiously. The job of a president is to unify all those different people and bring them together around policy goals, not to act as a kind of national pastor and bring people to God."

The section of the church's Web site where videos of past sermons were posted was shut down Wednesday, and a message was posted saying that the site "was never intended to handle the traffic it has received in the last few days."

:toofunny: "shut down" huh? or is the biased left media just making all of this up? great job of censorship (seems like websites and postings are getting "shut down" left and right). there must5 be lots to hide. no wonder the right wants a commie style state controlled media.

God wants a natural gas pipeline? you think he'd be more concerned with world peace. :world:

:chuckle:

this is rich. this alaskan golden nugget is richer and jucier than all the "black gold" God wants to pump out of the earth (even if it comes at the expense of his creation).

revefsreleets
09-04-2008, 10:56 AM
My views are not all in line with Palin's, and I never stated that they were. She's also a Creationist, which is a VERY touchy subject for me.

But she is still a brillaint choice. McCain does not resonate with the fundamentalists at all...in fact, they simply don't care for him. But they are gonna LOVE Palin!

tony hipchest
09-04-2008, 11:13 AM
My views are not all in line with Palin's, and I never stated that they were. She's also a Creationist, which is a VERY touchy subject for me.

But she is still a brillaint choice. McCain does not resonate with the fundamentalists at all...in fact, they simply don't care for him. But they are gonna LOVE Palin!so do you agree that james madison would roll over in his grave if he saw this VP candidate on the ticket?

i believe every word in the bible taken in the context it was written. however i do not take every word literally, especially when SO much can be lost in translation. (Reed Sea, Red Sea etc.)

to me, modern scientific discovery makes the workings God even that much more magnificent.

im definitely scared of a candidate that thinks its more plausible that man walked with dinosaurs than on the moon. or who thinks its "God's will" to nuke Iran. what about the American peoples will?

*koo-koo* :screwy:

revefsreleets
09-04-2008, 11:22 AM
I gotta agree with most of what you are saying. There has been a real shift in this country, and I hjonestly believe it's because our educational system has gone to Hell in a handbasket. When my parents were growing up (Hell, when I was growing up) science and religion were easily reconciled. I knew that evolution was real, and that 7 days was largely apocryphal. I got that Noah's Ark was just a story.

But these poeple that buy into this stuff as being completely literal scare me. How does one become that indoctrinated as to think that God would deny his own Physical Laws?

tony hipchest
09-04-2008, 11:43 AM
ive always tried to tie the book of genesis with the theory of evolution and emergence of life on earth. they are strikingly similar.

Keep in mind, at the time the book of genesis was written there was no way that man couldve known anything about evolution. (w/o knowledge from a higher being).

keep in mind when God created man in "his Image, what he really gave them was the Gift of Knowledge. the cost was eternal life which was later given back.

listed from 1st("born") to last-

evolution = carbon-cells-plants-sea creatures-amphibians- reptiles/birds-mammals- man- domestication and manipulation of genetics.

creationism= carbon-cells-plants-sea creatures-birds-"beasts of the earth"-man- domesticated animals.

(God gave man the knowledge of domestication, which immediately led to the 1st civilization which is in the middle east.

history, archaeology, and the bible all support the garden of eden and the 1st civilization being in the mesopotamia valley, between the tigris and euphrates.

i still wonder about the bible saying that birds came before dinosaurs, but the smarter we become and the more scientific discovery is made, the more we find that dinosaurs may have been more closely related to birds than modern day reptiles.

again, it is my contention that the theory of evolution was spelled out in the bible hundereds of years before darwin came along.

simply amazing.

Preacher
09-04-2008, 04:05 PM
keep in mind when God created man in "his Image, what he really gave them was the Gift of Knowledge.

Hey Tony...


The problem with this... is that knowledge of good and evil was given through the fruit of the tree according to the narrative.

One could argue that knowledge came separate from knowledge of good and evil, but it may be splitting too fine a hair as well.

Just my 2cents.