Religious Conservative vs Political Conservative

My Recent Posts

The right is not religious.  This is where religious conservatives go off the rail.  There is a mile of difference between religious conservatives and political conservatives.  Both are not the same.  Moreso, historically, they have been diametrically opposed to each other given Thomas Jefferson's win (oh ya, he was a secularist) with the first amendment (Bill of Rights).  
 
You religious people, please have your religion.  More power to you.  But for god's sake (and yes I think there is a God), please get it right.  A conservative does not by fact mean that you are religious.  A religious conservative historically has meant that you want your morals compulsory for the rest of society . . . which is where the word "conservative" gets its inglorious stature by many.

 

If you want your morals forced onto the rest of society go screw yourself.  I will be your biggest foe even though you falsely label yourself a "political conservative".  You are the same evil as the modern left IMO who do exactly the same.

Comments

Ryan Messano Added Jul 5, 2018 - 8:16pm
Well, maybe you are part of the problem, Bill.  Actually, the pseudo conservatives are a bigger part of the problem than the actual liberals are.  Fake conservatives stab us real conservatives in the back all the time. 
 
Exactly where do you find that freedom and liberty are possible without virtue?  And where in human  history is virtue possible without Christianity?
 
I'd suggest you brush up on your history. 
William Stockton Added Jul 5, 2018 - 8:18pm
Take it up with Thomas Jefferson, Ryan
 
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 5, 2018 - 8:31pm
You mean the Jefferson that said this, Bill?
 
Thomas JeffersonSIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; DIPLOMAT; GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA; SECRETARY OF STATE; THIRD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.63
 
The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.64
I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.65
I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.66
 
The Founders were pretty clear on what they thought of Christianity. They quoted the Bible more than any other document, and unlike you and I, they never viewed porn or television and read voraciously.  Not sure if you used drugs, but I certainly haven't, and the Founders never did either.  So, they were wiser, and more virtuous than us, and had a far greater grasp of history.  I'd be humble if I were you.  Humility comes before honor, pride goes before destruction. 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 5, 2018 - 8:33pm
Also, I'm afraid you cherrypicked that quote from Jefferson just as SCOTUS did long ago.  They were dead wrong.
 
If you read the entire letters between the Danbury Baptists and Jefferson, you realize that he never intended it to mean a justification of the suppression of religion.  We have freedom of religion not from it. 
 
Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson

(For the latest FBI forensic research on Thomas Jefferson’s letter click target="wb">here. For an analysis of the context of this exchange between the Danbury Baptists and Jefferson, see Daniel Dreisbach’s “‘Sowing Useful Truths and Principles’: The Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson, and the ‘Wall of Separation'” in the Journal of Church and State, Vol. 39, Summer 1997; or see David Barton’s article “target="wb">The Separation of Church and State“)
Letter from the Danbury Baptists:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut,
assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America
Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election
to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective
capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your
appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode
of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe
their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion
is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man
ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions,
[and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than
to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution
of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws
made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at
the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such
still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation,
and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State)
we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors
we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent
with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those
who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion,
should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate,
as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not,
assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the
National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot
destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment
of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like
the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States–and
all the world–until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir,
when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and
goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason
to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State
out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over.
May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice
of the people have called you–to sustain and support you and your Administration
against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth
and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last
to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association,
Neh,h Dodge }
Eph’m Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson }

*A cite for this letter could read:
Letter of Oct. 7, 1801 from Danbury (CT) Baptist Assoc. to Thomas Jefferson,
Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division,
Library of Congress, Wash. D.C.

President Jefferson’s Reply:

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim
Ryan Messano Added Jul 5, 2018 - 8:33pm

 


Washington, January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,–The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you
are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association,
give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous
pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are
persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more
and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man
and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall
of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the
supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall
see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend
to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right
in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common
Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious
association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

Ryan Messano Added Jul 5, 2018 - 8:34pm
William Stockton Added Jul 5, 2018 - 8:43pm
What's with the wall of text Ryan?  
You are making my point.  You are diametrically opposed to the constitution and the Bill of Rights.  These are the only documents or "exchange" we should be discussing.
 
The Bill of Rights was formed exactly because of people like you.   To protect our government from religious "opinions" which should never be compulsory for the rest of American society.
 
See, you are a conditional political conservative.  You are misguided in thinking that because someone is religious, they share your same desire to make new laws enforcing your moral proclivities. 
 
Christians to the Right are like Islam is to the Left.  These two religions only share one desire with their political affiliation and that is to politically drive their morals across the lands.  That's it.  On most other topics, both these religious groups are actually at odds with their political parties.  If either religion actually gained enough political power, they would quickly disband their party and call it something like, "Islamocratic" . . . or "ChristTheRepublic"
Even A Broken Clock Added Jul 5, 2018 - 8:43pm
William - you and I don't agree on a lot of subjects. But on this one, you are spot on. The definition of conservatism has been corrupted through the alliance with religious / cultural conservatives. Now with the current administration having coopted religious conservatives, there is no longer a conservative party in the US which the Republican's represented.
 
I grew up in Nebraska. My father was a Republican until the day he died. I went with my parents out to the Lincoln airport in 1968 to see Richard Nixon arrive for a campaign event, and I remember writing to a penpal in Australia how I hoped he would be able to bring peace to Southeast Asia. That was the last communication I ever had with that penpal. By the time I became eligible to vote in 1972, as an 18 year old, I was so disillusioned by the Watergate story that I voted for McGovern. Since that time, I have tried to vote my conscience against voting for party labels. But the current iteration of the Republican party is so far beyond any sense of reality, I am now voting on the basis of party. And seriously hoping for a new party to upset the balance and reflect the real personality of the American public.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 5, 2018 - 8:54pm
 
No, Bill, you can't understand the Creation unless you understand the Creator.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights make zero sense unless you understand the lives of the men who created them. 
 
Unfortunately, you appear to content yourself with a knowledge of the Founders that does not extend outside of Google.  That is the root of nearly Every Democrats problem, and many conservatives as well. 
 
You seem to love freedom and liberty, but hate the virtue that are the roots of it.  Make up your mind, do you want to be a slave or do you want liberty?  The latter is impossible unless Christianity dominates in the land.  Hopefully you won't have to learn that from experience.  History is littered with examples.  Ann Coulter just described one of them.   I'd recommend reading Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".  Though he hated Christianity, he understood the role of virtue in a free society. 
 
The Bill of Rights was designed by Christian men, for Christian men.
Christianity is nothing close to Islam. 
 
"The Constitution was created for a moral and a religious people.  It cannot govern any other".  John Adams.
 
A lack of morality is what we have to blame for being $21 trillion in debt, having 110 million Americans with an STD, having 70 million Americans on psychotropic drugs, having all our crime rates dramatically increase since 1960, having 20 million employed by local, state, and federal governments, having 42 million on welfare, having student debt become the biggest business in America at $1.4 trillion, having fatherlessness become a national epidemic, and a host of other problems.  But you still think the problem is morality.  Very sad. 
 
 
William Stockton Added Jul 5, 2018 - 9:00pm
EABC,  Thanks for the reply.
I agree with your historical perspective.  People, on both sides, have lost a key understanding of American values.  Keep morals out of politics.  
 
This is my take.  Ok, my apologetic:
Trump is not a religious conservative.  He is a political conservative.
That is key for me.  He does respect people's religious beliefs, as I do, and has a value for traditions.  
You will always find me at odds with whomever here when I sense their motive is to make morals compulsory through politics.  It really boils down to this for me.
When people run their morals into government, corruption and abuse ensue.  This has been the case for eons. 
 
Far too many examples.  Socialism is designed and built to make a specific moral code of "sharing" and "equality" compulsory.  That is why I will always be against socialism and communism (the modern Left).  The left in America was not always this way.  They used to believe, as I do, in keeping morals out of the jurisdiction of a government.  Things have changed.  I think that is what I also read in your comments.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 5, 2018 - 9:07pm
*Ann Coulter just described one of them.  Bad link above.  As I was.
 
Bill, you keep morals out of politics and we have a Marxist nation.  What is so  hard to understand about 100 million people having just been slaughtered by godless, secular, humanism in the last century? 
William Stockton Added Jul 5, 2018 - 9:12pm
No, Bill, you can't understand the Creation unless you understand the Creator.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights make zero sense unless you understand the lives of the men who created them. 
 
Ryan, this is a common excuse used by the religious right to revise the constitution and the bill of rights to fit their moral doctrines.  You are doing exactly the same thing as the modern left. 
 
You view the constitution and bill of rights as a "supplementary" document to your religion.  You do not view the constitution as original text which captured, in detail, everything the formers of that document intended to document.  You think, misguidedly so, that for some reason, those document creators missed key religious morals stipulations that you now believe should be added  . . . because that is what they were thinking but didn't write it down  (LOL). 
 
 You view the constitution as lore.  Not as canon.  Not as "scripture" because you already have your scripture and your canon.
William Stockton Added Jul 5, 2018 - 9:14pm
Bill, you keep morals out of politics and we have a Marxist nation.  
 
Ryan, you are so completely wrong here.  Marxism IS about morals and creating an entire government around those morals.  Sharing.  Equality.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 5, 2018 - 9:28pm
Porn, sex outside of marriage, contraception, abortion, hellivision, and psychotropic drugs were nearly completely unheard of in the Founders days, Bill, so they never dreamed of people like you coming around.  You think their views are weird, yet if they operated with your beliefs, our nation would have been destroyed in less than 3 decades.  The French Revolution operated under your ideas.  If you 've read "A Tale of Two Cities" you  know how that turned out. It's sad you fight so hard against that which gives the greatest potential to our nation. 
 
Marxism is about the government being God, our Founders envisioned a people who rightly worshiped God, being governed by a strong but small government. 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 5, 2018 - 9:32pm
William Stockton Added Jul 5, 2018 - 9:41pm
The French Revolution operated under your ideas. 
 
Can you at least get history correct, Ryan?  The French Revolution was a revolt against the aristocracy.  The problem is that the revolt had many different factions which battled each other after the king and queen lost their heads.  If you read anything about the French Revolution, you would have noticed how many revolutionists lost their heads too . . . after the aristocracy was destroyed.  Have you ever asked yourself why were the revolutionists killing each other?  LOL
 
When all was said and done, the socialists took the hill.  The extreme revolutionists won the day.  In contrast, the American revolution did not have these same warring factions after they had beaten the British.  Why, you ask?  Well, because they already had a document written and signed.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 5, 2018 - 9:58pm
Not really, Bill, it was a revolt against Christianity.   Putting prostitutes in cathedrals and exalting atheism are what it was about.  Yes, the initial atheist leaders of the Revolution lost their heads, literally. 
 
The American Revolution was led by Christians, the French by atheists.
 
Honestly, have you read much of the leaders of the American Revolution, from literature at that time.  You hardly sound like it.  Google searches don't count.  I'm quoting men from that time.  You quoted Jefferson out of context already, and have really nothing to substantiate your view that the Founders were secularists and were trying to keep our government free from religion.
 
We do agree that they were trying to avoid the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants that had torn apart Europe.  But they WERE NOT trying to remove morality from the government AT ALL. 
William Stockton Added Jul 5, 2018 - 10:45pm
Ryan, your link is a modern opinion piece.  That is not history.  It is an opinion about history.
 
Listen, we can debate ad nauseam about moral values and if governments are formed by morals or vise versa.  And quite frankly, it's probably both.  But the truth of the matter is that our government, the USA, whether you like it or not, made it very clear that a wall needed to be "built" between government and religion.  That separation was not just to protect religious people from the government, it was also to protect the government from religion.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 5, 2018 - 11:14pm
Bill, that is not what the letters said at all.  The Danbury Baptists wrote to Thomas Jefferson to ensure they wouldn’t be persecuted by Catholics.  Jefferson affirmed that the government would never oppress the church, and neither would the theocracies of Europe be coming here.  HE DID NOT SAY THAT MORALS WERE OF NO VALUE AND HAD NO PLACE IN THE GOVERNMENT.  How could you think that when abortion, porn, homosexuality, and contraception were all illegal when Jefferson wrote his letter? 
William Stockton Added Jul 5, 2018 - 11:49pm
How could you think that when abortion, porn, homosexuality, and contraception were all illegal when Jefferson wrote his letter? 
 
This is not true.  At the time of the founding of our nation, there were no federal laws.  
Over time, the states wrote laws on these subjects.  Some states were more lenient about abortion, some not (for example).  It was the SCOTUS job to review these laws, if appeals were made, to rule on these cases federally.  That exactly what happened in all the cases you mentioned.
Now, I'm no expert on federal legality, but that is how the originators of the constitution and the legal branch of the government elected to manage "moral" issues and disputes.   
 
This contrasts with what YOU want . . . YOU want the federal government to write laws on these topics which is completely un-American and unconstitutional.
Ryan, you are not a conservative, politically.  You are exactly the same as the left.
 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 12:10am
It is absolutely true.
 
All that I mentioned was illegal at the time.   
 
We cannot have liberty and freedom if we have a corrupt citizenry.  We are descending to the levels of third world countries because we know no virtue and Wisdom,  
Flying Junior Added Jul 6, 2018 - 4:32am
William,
 
I agree with you that religion should not inform political thought.
 
Of course it is not that difficult to make a case that the words of Christ support a green agenda.
 
I don't believe that you are coming from a Christian bias.  Perhaps that is why you make an impartial observer upon this question.
 
I have distrusted secular rightists the last ten to twelve years as if perhaps the reverence of the Christ would prove an ameliorating and positive influence on their harsh political views.  At least the RW crazies had their church and the voting guide to blame.  But the most influential member of the RW secular movement that I have met gradually defected to the center or even open support of the democratic party.
 
Of course I was wrong as has been proven so viciously the last four years.  Political thought will always be free from religious and faith-based constraints at least from the American RW.  They will claim the mantle of Christ whilst at the same time decrying Jews and Muslims.  They will profess a belief in the Christ whilst defaming and persecuting those of other races and nationalities.
 
You are thankfully free from such delusions.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 8:28am
FJ, 
 
Kindly study Islamic history and the Quran.  As usual, you are woefully uninformed.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jul 6, 2018 - 8:32am
Bill who built the wall between church and state we now have?  A card carrying KKK member, a Jew hater, and a Catholic hater Supreme Court Judge Hugo Black.  He was a Democratic congressman prior and was appointed by FDR.   The problem is that people like you see this wall that should never be there.  The founders quoted the Bible more then any other document.  I believe John Lock came next.  The founders were religious people but not the same religion.  They all shared societies moral of the day. 
 
Bill without virtue and honor a government based on the Constitution can not stand.  Virtue and honor comes from a foundation of Judaeo-Christian Morals.  The Constitution says a particular religion can not be placed above other, state religion.  Which is far different that banning religion.  That is what Conservatives believe including the division you make.  The founders disagreed with the details and so do Conservatives.  What binds conservatives together is much more then the differences.
 
Now this is a crazy statement Bill, "Marxism IS about morals and creating an entire government around those morals.  Sharing.  Equality."  I would add Islam next to Marxism a branch of Socialism.   The citizens under these governments SERVE THE STATE.  Individuals are not important.   One only needs to see the holocaust associated with them.   We have a holocaust in America that is approved and supported by the socialist in government, abortion on demand.  Judaeo-Christian Morals is against murder.  Marxism to a lesser extent other socialist groups and Muslims divide the world into classes and the lesser classes are lesser humans with lesser rights.  The lives of a lesser class are expendable for the common good determined by the upper classes.
William Stockton Added Jul 6, 2018 - 8:44am
Ryan:  We cannot have liberty and freedom if we have a corrupt citizenry. 
 
I agree that a society must have a uniform moral fabric to operate.  Otherwise, chaos.  
Here's the deal:  Who chooses what is "corrupt" in your version of moral justice?  Who?  God?  You?
 
This is an interesting document, written in 1945 from the NC Law Review regarding this very topic about ethics/morals in society and how United States law matures around a society operating fundamentally at its very base with moral codes and ethics.  This is how the US law matures and represents a society where every individual has different morals and ethics.  Laws change to represent changing moral values. 
 
This is the American way, Ryan.  Take it or leave it.  
To change it, you will need to have alliances.  You can't do that on your own . . . no matter how vitriol your position.
William Stockton Added Jul 6, 2018 - 9:03am
Thomas: 
The problem is that people like you see this wall that should never be there.
Are you arguing against the first amendment?
 
Virtue and honor come from a foundation of Judaeo-Christian Morals.
See, this is one of the problems with the religious conservatives.  They preposterously think that if anyone does not share their morals/values, then they don't have moral/values.  That is ridiculous.
 
The founding patriots created a legal system, under the constitution to arbitrate morals/ethics outside of the influence of religion.  This is our moral jurisprudence system.  The separation of church & state was to ensure we had a system where religion was NOT the arbitrator of justice.   They formed a legal system which WOULD represent the majority of common values/ethics and could adapt to changes.  Of course, the founding patriots had morals and ethics much of which was based on Judaeo-Christian morals.  They created a legal system that could represent their values but stopped short of having bishops, priests, pastors being the arbiters of justice.  
 
Thomas, you're making my point.  Religious conservatives know very little about our justice system, why it was created, and how it protects us from religious doctrines that have historically destroyed societies.
William Stockton Added Jul 6, 2018 - 9:18am
Of course it is not that difficult to make a case that the words of Christ support a green agenda.
 
I laughed FJ.  Perhaps humor was your intention.  But there is some truth to the argument that Christ was a socialist.  LOL 
Seriously, however, I think the Christ didn't care about politics.  Yet his proclaimed values and ethics are used as an argument for socialism.  I know this because some of my good friends are religious conservative progressives and voted for Hillary.  haha  And yes, we get along just fine.  I take care of their yard and they have my family over for dinners.  We just tread carefully on politics as we respect one another's differences and desire our relationship over politics.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jul 6, 2018 - 9:48am
Bill the wall that Hugo Black build is against the first amendment.  I see it used to prevent freedom of religion. And so do you.  Be honest.
>>The problem is that people like you see this wall that should never be there.
Are you arguing against the first amendment?>>  The Constitution only forbids the Federal government from defining a state religions and giving it PRIVILEGES.    At the adoption of the Constitution the new states retained the laws and governments of the colonies which met that the state actually had state sponsored religion.  And local communities had governments that were based on religion.  Those Bill are the FACTS.  
 
The wall Supreme Court built results in the federal government's restriction on religion being applied to the citizens of the nation, their  local governments, and their state governments which is absolutely a violation of the Bill of Rights (of the Citizens of the nation) first Amendment to the Constitution.   Obviously Bill your not a Conservative is you do not understand the very fundamental principle that the colonies did not approve the Constitution without a prevision that individual rights be spelled out in amendments. 
 
So Bill please explain the virtue and honor taught by Hitler, Stalin, Mo Sa Tung, caliphates, etc.?   We really want to understand how the murder of hundreds of thousand of people are virtuous or honorable?  Since they all abandoned religious morals.  The placed man above God, man's laws are supreme.
 
Sorry Bill you do not understand conservatism >>The founding patriots created a legal system, under the constitution to arbitrate morals/ethics outside of the influence of religion.>>  The laws created by the local, state, and federal government are presumed to be created by virtuous and moral individual chosen by the citizens.  The law reflect the common laws of society.  That is stated in the Declaration of Independence as the 'law of nature and of natures God.'   >>outside of the influence of religion.>>  The laws are the shared morals of religion in general, that are common.  Since society is influenced by religion the laws of society are also influenced by religion.
 
Bill I consider myself a Constitutional Conservative not a Religious Conservative.  Which I thing is a generic Conservative.  Go through everything I have written and you will be hard pressed to find quotes from the bible or other thing associated with Religious Conservatives as you define them. 
opher goodwin Added Jul 6, 2018 - 10:01am
I agree with you William. In my view religion (or no religion) is a personal choice. It should not have anything to do with politics. The separation of religion and State was one of the best thing that happened.
All too often we see religious people attempting to force their views on others. When it comes to matters of morality, education, abortion, pornography, homosexuality and drugs these are matters that should be decided without reference to religion. A person is quite entitled to their own views but not to foist them on others.
It always seems hypocritical to me that religious conservatives often bleat about freedom but are quite willing to impose their draconian views on others and take away their freedom. This is particularly true when it comes to the indoctrination of children. I regard that as child abuse.
Conservatism and liberalism are two different views on how a country is best run. Religion has no place in either.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 10:56am
 
Badlose, you know nothing of the Bible or history.  You constantly comment on American politics when you don't know beans about our Founders. 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 10:57am
Thank you Thomas, well said!
opher goodwin Added Jul 6, 2018 - 11:04am
Child - stop whining. You need your diaper changing. All that homosexual repression of yours has melted your brains.
Bill H. Added Jul 6, 2018 - 11:12am
 
I totally agree that religion has no place whatsoever in Politics, just as it has no place in public schools. Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want and practice whatever version of religion they please, but it in no way should be part of politics or general education. There are many versions of religions in the world that worship many versions of gods. To state that one is right and the others are wrong is ludicrous.
To each his own.
I think we know who is going to throw a tissy fit in 3, 2, 1---
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 11:24am
Badlose, it's a pity you've never known the joy and peace of self control.  It's never too late to be what you should have been.
 
Well, that's a surprise, Bill.  You liberals are lucky there are so many conservatives who don't understand the Bible or history.  You'd be smoked if that weren't the case.  On top of William, 90% of America's Christians don't know their Bibles as they do their hellivisions.  That allows scoundrels like you to get away unscathed while saying the most absurd nonsense.
Dino Manalis Added Jul 6, 2018 - 11:54am
 Religious and political conservatives sometimes agree, sometimes they don't, we have to avoid extremes and let people make their own moral decisions!
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 12:07pm
opher goodwin Added Jul 6, 2018 - 1:00pm
You were spot on Bill - our juvenile uptight gay boy popped up on cue with his 7th grade puerility.
It's like one of those pimply kids hanging around with the big boys in the playground.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jul 6, 2018 - 1:10pm
William, Bill H., and opher you men miss the whole point.  Liberty which is presented as the foundation in the Declaration of Independence is based on individualism.  Individuals can have liberty. Classes, groups, etc. treated as a whole do not have liberty.  That is obvious by the simple fact that people vote with their feet and lives to obtain liberty.  Escape attempts by INDIVIDUALS from the iron curtain or other totalitarian governments were a vote to achieve liberty that the class or group could not achieve otherwise.  You earlier brought up the French revolution.  Individuals objected to being treated as a group by the state.  Being placed in a class and being bound to that class for life.  All revolutions occur for the same reason.  It is natural to want liberty.  Iran is facing resistance from it's people for the lack of liberty.  Those solders that escaped from North Korea were voting with their feet for liberty.  Immigration to America and other liberty based nations.
 
The Constitution defines a government of laws that try to codify the principals in the Declaration of Independence and other documents of that era like the Virginia Bill of Rights that Thomas Jefferson barrow liberally from.  The goal of conservatism is to codify principles of the declaration into present day law. 
 
Judaeo- Christian theology is the salvation of individuals and an individual has free choice, liberty, to achieve or fail at their salvation.  Other religions and cultures have had similar stands as far as individual responsibility.  The founders lumped this into the law of nature and of nature's God, and all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

 
The other choice is the law of men which always has meant Individuals objected to being treated as a group by the state.  Being placed in a class and being bound to that class for life.
 
The choice is simple man's laws where the people serve the state or consensus laws of responsible individual where the state serves the people?   Ryan and many others choose the second.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jul 6, 2018 - 1:18pm
You may say that socialism, communism, Fascism always comes about with the consent of large groups of people.  However; have you compared the promises made to the people at the beginning of the revolution.  Go back to other revolutions like the French.  No one of those original followers would have chosen the resulting governments that did not even come close to the image painted at the start. 
 
The Declaration of Independence and even earlier statements for the American revolution match reasonable the resulting government.
opher goodwin Added Jul 6, 2018 - 1:24pm
Thomas - a man or woman living completely on their own, apart from all interaction from other people, can have liberty. As soon as they interact with another then liberty has to be compromised. Civilisation is the formalisation of that compromise. It is there to protect peoples rights through laws otherwise liberty for murderers, paedophiles, rapists, arsonists, thieves and such would be free to do what they liked. This cult of individualism is morally wrong if it impacts on the rights of others. It is irresponsible anarchy where the strong exploit and prey off the weak.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 1:59pm
Well said, Thomas, and no Badlose, people aren't free when living alone.  Slavery to self is the worst slavery, and one can be a slave to oneself perfectly fine when they are alone. When one cannot harness their basic desires, and the sex desire is the strongest in many, one is not free. 
 
All sex outside of marriage has a deleterious effect on the individual and the society.  It's crazy to suggest otherwise when one views the massive STD's and familial dysfunction, all occurring AFTER the sexual revolution, that is common in Britain and America. 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 2:06pm
William, how do your views coincide with the Founders?
John Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS
OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
 
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1
Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.2
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.3
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!4
I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.5
Samuel AdamsSIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; “FATHER OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION”; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS
I . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.9
 
The name of the Lord (says the Scripture) is a strong tower; thither the righteous flee and are safe [Proverbs 18:10]. Let us secure His favor and He will lead us through the journey of this life and at length receive us to a better.10
I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace.11
He also called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . .

the peaceful and glorious reign of our Divine Redeemer may be known and enjoyed throughout the whole family of mankind.12
we may with one heart and voice humbly implore His gracious and free pardon through Jesus Christ, supplicating His Divine aid . . . [and] above all to cause the religion of Jesus Christ, in its true spirit, to spread far and wide till the whole earth shall be filled with His glory.13
with true contrition of heart to confess their sins to God and implore forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ our Savior.14

 
 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 2:06pm
Elias BoudinotPRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; SIGNED THE PEACE TREATY TO END THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; FIRST ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO THE U. S. SUPREME COURT BAR; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; DIRECTOR OF THE U. S. MINT
Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.17
 
A letter to his daughter:

You have been instructed from your childhood in the knowledge of your lost state by nature – the absolute necessity of a change of heart and an entire renovation of soul to the image of Jesus Christ – of salvation through His meritorious righteousness only – and the indispensable necessity of personal holiness without which no man shall see the Lord [Hebrews 12:14]. You are well acquainted that the most perfect and consummate doctrinal knowledge is of no avail without it operates on and sincerely affects the heart, changes the practice, and totally influences the will – and that without the almighty power of the Spirit of God enlightening your mind, subduing your will, and continually drawing you to Himself, you can do nothing. . . . And may the God of your parents (for many generations past) seal instruction to your soul and lead you to Himself through the blood of His too greatly despised Son, Who notwithstanding, is still reclaiming the world to God through that blood, not imputing to them their sins. To Him be glory forever!18

For nearly half a century have I anxiously and critically studied that invaluable treasure [the Bible]; and I still scarcely ever take it up that I do not find something new – that I do not receive some valuable addition to my stock of knowledge or perceive some instructive fact never observed before. In short, were you to ask me to recommend the most valuable book in the world, I should fix on the Bible as the most instructive both to the wise and ignorant. Were you to ask me for one affording the most rational and pleasing entertainment to the inquiring mind, I should repeat, it is the Bible; and should you renew the inquiry for the best philosophy or the most interesting history, I should still urge you to look into your Bible. I would make it, in short, the Alpha and Omega of knowledge.19
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 2:06pm
Benjamin FranklinSIGNER OF THE DECLARATION; DIPLOMAT; PRINTER; SCIENTIST;
SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.29
 
The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out and stripped of its lettering and guilding, lies here, food for worms. Yet the work itself shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more beatiful edition, corrected and amended by the Author.30 (FRANKLIN’S EULOGY THAT HE WROTE FOR HIMSELF)
Jeff Michka Added Jul 6, 2018 - 4:15pm
I guess this Ryan crap is just trying to prove how Ryan's foundering fathers reall wanted a state church, you know "Believe this way or die."  Seems a little out of step for men of the enlightenment.  Ryan, OTOH want a church of darkness and shaming its members.  Same old shit.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 7:01pm
More where that came from.
 
"[V]irtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government."
George Washington

"Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? "
George Washington

"[T]here is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists . . . an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness."
George Washington

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"The aggregate happiness of the society, which is best promoted by the practice of a virtuous policy, is, or ought to be, the end of all government . . . ."
George Washington

"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppresive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

"Laws without morals are in vain."
Benjamin Franklin (Motto of the University of Pennsylvania)

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Benjamin Franklin

"A nation as a society forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society."
Thomas Jefferson

"No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and . . . . their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice . . . . These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government."
Thomas Jefferson

"It is in the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour. . . . degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats into the heart of its laws and constitution."
Thomas Jefferson

"[In a republic, according to Montesquieu in Spirit of the Laws, IV,ch.5,] 'virtue may be defined as the love of the laws and of our country. As such love requires a constant preference of public to private interest, it is the source of all private virtue; for they are nothing more than this very preference itself... Now a government is like everything else: to preserve it we must love it . . . Everything, therefore, depends on establishing this love in a republic; and to inspire it ought to be the principal business of education; but the surest way of instilling it into children is for parents to set them an example.'"
Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

"When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community."
Montesquieu (written by Thomas Jefferson in his Common Place Book).

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Thomas Jefferson

"Liberty . . . is the great parent of science and of virtue; and . . . a nation will be great in both always in proportion as it is free."
Thomas Jefferson

"The order of nature [is] that individual happiness shall be inseparable from the practice of virtue."
Thomas Jefferson

"Without virtue, happiness cannot be."
Thomas Jefferson
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 7:38pm
 
Hey Jeff, the vocabulary of the Founders is quite a bit different from the nonsensical drivel you constantly utter.  Wonder why that is? 
 
"The order of nature [is] that individual happiness shall be inseparable from the practice of virtue."
Thomas Jefferson

"Without virtue, happiness cannot be."
Thomas Jefferson

"The institution of delegated power implies that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence."
Alexander Hamilton

"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea."
James Madison

"The aim of every political Constitution, is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."
James Madison

". . . Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed . . . so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger."
Patrick Henry

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
Patrick Henry

"The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.
John Adams

"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."
John Adams

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

"Liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence than the body can live and move without a soul."
John Adams
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 7:39pm
Prolly because Jeff doesn't read much, and parrots what the hellivision tells him and the Founders never had those issues.
 
"Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics."
John Adams

"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
John Adams

"The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy."
John Adams

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty."
John Adams

"Honor is truly sacred, but holds a lower rank in the scale of moral excellence than virtue. Indeed the former is part of the latter, and consequently has not equal pretensions to support a frame of government productive of human happiness."
John Adams

"Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the "latent spark"... If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?"
John Adams

"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."
Fisher Ames

"It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people."
Richard Henry Lee

"Whenever we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary."
Thomas Paine

"[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen onto any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man."
Samuel Adams

"The diminution of public virtue is usually attended with that of public happiness, and the public liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals."
Samuel Adams

"[M]en will be free no longer then while they remain virtuous."
Samuel Adams

"If virtue & knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslav'd. This will be their great security."
Samuel Adams

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."
Samuel Adams

"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security."
Samuel Adams

"No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous."
Samuel Johnson

"No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
George Mason

"[A] free government . . . cannot be supported without Virtue."
Samuel Williams
William Stockton Added Jul 6, 2018 - 8:22pm
The Constitution only forbids the Federal government from defining a state religions and giving it PRIVILEGES.
 
Thomas, I agree.  However, the wall works both ways while also protecting the government from religion.  The argument from religious conservatives always goes like this:  But the founding fathers were Christians!  They wanted the government to be Christian based.
 
The short response to this is no.  The wanted an impartial federal government, secular, where no laws were formed other than by the will of Congress (or the state's legislators).  They purposely separated the functions of the government from religion at the very beginning.  Only later with the Bill of Rights did they add more specific language.
Did the founding patriots have their religion and did they want their morals and values represented in law . . . yes!  But only through a system where votes establish laws.
 
Bringing the discussion back to the point of the article.  There is a difference between religious conservatives and political conservatives.  I see it.  I know it.  I don't trust religious motived politics from any source because I know what religion requires -- complete adherence from 100% of the public without reservation and without mercy. 
This applies to the modern left who would also use their religion to completely take over the government.  An example:  Recently some of the left want to throw out the entire constitutional order, and delegitimize the court itself.  Harvard lecturer Ian Samuel is the champion of this cause.  When people put their religion above the constitution and push for its surrender, I can only be in hard opposition.
 
William Stockton Added Jul 6, 2018 - 8:24pm
. . . we have to avoid extremes and let people make their own moral decisions!
 
Totally agree, Dino.
William Stockton Added Jul 6, 2018 - 8:27pm
Ryan, more text does not make your argument more compelling.  Perhaps just whittle your quotes down to one or two which succinctly makes your point . . . people might then read what you say.  Honestly, I don't have the time to read a wall of text like that.
William Stockton Added Jul 6, 2018 - 8:36pm
Opher, I do appreciate your words.  Just so you know, and perhaps you do, I view the modern political left today exactly the same as I view religious conservative.  I trust neither.  Both are religions, in my opinion, putting their own values and morals above the constitution -- designed to protect the sanctity of an individual to choose their own morals and ethics on matters not pertaining to safety and property rights.
When you call people names, just as the left is doing, like a bigot, racist, etc, you are performing exactly like a religion.  Driving guilt and fear into people to get them to do what your political party wants.  This is why I oppose you fervently.  This is why I call the modern left a cult.  People who are legitimately bigots and racists have every damn right to be that way.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 9:09pm
Au Contraire, William.  The Constitution does not protect the government from the morals of religion.  Without the morals of Christianity, we never could have had our nation or it's rights.  We can't have our cake and eat it too.  Either you want the right to commit whatever you feel like doing, or you man up, practice self discipline, govern yourself, and by doing so ensure liberty to yourself and your posterity.  A nation that cannot govern itself virtuously does not deserve freedom and liberty and will soon be enslaved, which is where we are headed. 
 
How can you be so sure of what the Founders wanted, William, when it's highly unlikely you've taken the time to read their words or biographies?  Inquiring minds want to know? 
 
The Federalist papers aren't religious at all, but they were written by three men who devoutly knew the Bible, Hamilton, Jay, and Madison.  Their ideals are very much what Christian conservatives today want.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 9:10pm
William, If you don't have the time to read these quotes, where do you find the time to read actual biographies of the Founders to be able to focus and comprehend their lives and the meaning they intended for the Constitution?
Ryan Messano Added Jul 6, 2018 - 9:13pm
If we don't have the time to be researching what the Founders said, then that is apathy, and that leads to disaster.
 
"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men".
Plato
 
Apathy: Definition: Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference.
 
"If men are not governed by the rules of God, they will be governed by tyrants" William Penn
William Stockton Added Jul 6, 2018 - 9:40pm
The Constitution does not protect the government from the morals of religion.
 
Ryan, I never said that.  What I have said is the government is designed to protect itself from the tyranny of religion.   Specifically from folk like yourself who would put your own morals and values above your fellow citizens who would choose differently.  You consistently are making my point here.
 
A nation that cannot govern itself virtuously does not deserve freedom and liberty and will soon be enslaved, which is where we are headed. 
 
Ya, no.  Virtuous people, acting with consideration for the goodwill of their fellow citizens is the highest regard.  Responsibility, diligence, honesty -- these are all virtues upon which I try to live and I have faith in people that most have similar ethics. 
You, on the other hand, do not believe people are generally good.  That is because your scripture tells you that people are evil unless they believe exactly like you.  That is why you need the government to be 100% biblically based.  That is why you don't base your political beliefs in the constitution any more than a foreigner from another country.  That is why I write this article.
Bill H. Added Jul 6, 2018 - 11:01pm
 
William - Why do you waste time with this fool?
I gave you more credit than that.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 7, 2018 - 12:32am
Bill and his normal snide comments, as if anyone cares about your uninformed opinion, keep flattering yourself.
 
William, not one moral I mentioned is any different from the ones we practiced from The inception of the Constitution in 1787, Until 1940 at least.  Yet you act as if this is innovative stuff and rocking the boat severely.  
 
You are espousing morals that have historically destroyed nations, and then act as if I’m a problem.  Not so, brother.
 
Yes, William, men are naturally evil.  The best are those who see the most evil about themselves, that’s called humility.  
 
The Founders believed men were evil too. They understood Plutarch and the lessons Gibbon talked about in the “The decline and fall of the Roman Empire”.
 
Thats why they gave us three branches of government.  They knew “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts”.  Look who is supporting your post.  The wicked and blind Democrat males.  That should tell you something.
 
 
 
 
 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 7, 2018 - 12:33am
“Absolute power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
opher goodwin Added Jul 7, 2018 - 7:01am
Good heavens - that silly repressed child is certainly clogging up this thread with his ranting puerile stupidity. His brainwashing is all the more evident.
 
William - I understand what you are saying even though I do not agree with it. The left is a vision of how to run a country. It is different to how capitalists would run it. I am sure that both are sincere about what they think is best.
I do not support racism or bigotry from anyone and I do not think that scapegoating, encouraging aggression or using religion are valid ways to gain and exert power.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 7, 2018 - 7:15am
The separation of church and state was not an ideological separation, it was an administrative separation. The USA is thoroughly Christian in its political structure and is an example of applied Biblical doctrine. I have written about this elsewhere on this forum.
There is no better Christian scholar than Immanual Kant.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 7, 2018 - 7:18am
Mixing the water with the wine is forbidden except when necessary. The wine is the word of God (reason) and gets finer with age. Men do not change at all and this is represented by the water. Separation of powers has always been a key aspect of political doctrine in the West.
There are a few exceptions, holy matrimony takes place with both the water and the wine, as necessary. Marriage is a state and religious institution.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 7, 2018 - 7:56am
re "Thats why they gave us three branches of government. " The Trinity.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 7, 2018 - 9:21am
Badlose, what an implacable and degenerate scoundrel you are.  When America was founded, evil men like you were placed in prison.  But you are stupidly unaware of history, so you don't know that.  You blindly march on, supported by your fellow clueless liberal sycophants. 
 
How awful to be brainwashed like you.  You think you are good, but every person with sense and historical comprehension knows you are a humbug fraud. 
 
One of the worst punishments for any human is to be thoroughly deluded, so that you think of yourself one way, and the world sees you another.  Sadly, that's exactly what has happened to you, and YOU LOVE IT.
opher goodwin Added Jul 7, 2018 - 9:22am
Ryan - silly brainwashed boy - run along and play.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 7, 2018 - 10:14am
Nah, Badlose, go take your academic fraud self to the library and go educate yourself.  It's preposterous a nitwit like you was allowed to teach children.  I easily demolish your silly arguments in a debate and I'm a high school dropout.  I love doing it too.  It gives me great satisfaction to stomp you intellectual pretenders. 
opher goodwin Added Jul 7, 2018 - 5:36pm
Of course you're a dropout. That's obvious. But High School?? Are you sure?? Surely you're still at kindergarten level?? 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 7, 2018 - 6:36pm
I have more education than Washington and Lincoln, and they both are moral and intellectual giants compared to moral midgets like you and your fellow perverted pusillanimous pygmies. 
 
Formal education these days, and for the past sixty years, is nearly a curse.   Not only is it the biggest business in America, at $1.4 trillion, but they teach you so much nonsense, as you are living proof of.  You know practically nothing of real  history, and can't intelligently discuss the American Revolutionary War, Plutarch, the Civil War, Thucydides, Alcibiades, Alexander, Caesar, Gibbon, or a host of other essential figures in history, but you know a bunch about total nobodies, who do nothing for anyone.   
Ryan Messano Added Jul 7, 2018 - 6:37pm
Further, Badlose, please explain what anyone can't learn for free in the library that they teach in college and charge a fortune for? 
 
That's what I thought.  Crickets.
opher goodwin Added Jul 7, 2018 - 6:58pm
A library?? I doubt you've been further than the end of your road. I'm surprised you can read. It must have been all that bible-bashing you were brainwashed with. Sad case!!
Better wear boxing gloves when you go to bed and beware the terror of wet dreams.
You are an amusement.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 7, 2018 - 7:10pm
More lies.  You are a veritable lie volcano.  At least you avoided your perverted imagination with your last comment.  You liberals are like hedgehogs.   Your filthy minds are like the quills that make people want to stay far away from you. 
 
As I was, you couldn't help yourself.  Your mind is so filthy you just can't help yourself.  Blind to reason and a brute beast.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 7, 2018 - 7:11pm
Go help yourself, Badlose.  Go clean up that filthy garbage mind of yours.  You can't give anyone else anything until you heal yourself.
Jeff Michka Added Jul 7, 2018 - 8:02pm
Ah, so once again mango worm Messano does want folks to know about his husband, Vinny and the turds they've had together.  Lyin Ryan's repressed homosexual feelings have been a real trial in his same sex marriage. 
Ryan Messano Added Jul 8, 2018 - 12:25am
Cleanup on aisle seven.  Michka made a mess again.
opher goodwin Added Jul 8, 2018 - 6:54am
Child - your hypocrisy and out of control rants are symptomatic of child abuse. Was it just enforced bible-bashing or something worse? Whatever it was it has made you the silly wimp you've become. Your repressed sexuality is making you a retard. Give vent child!
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 8, 2018 - 9:37am
Spot on as usual, William. I hope like hell you are charging Ryan rent for all of the space he gobbles up on this thread! :)
Ryan Messano Added Jul 8, 2018 - 10:02am
It’s necessary, since too many choose to fill their heads with nonsense, and are allergic to common sense.  
 
Badlose, Freud was a fraud.  The sooner you figure that out, the better shape you’ll be in.  Many of you lefties have gone cuckoo due to psycho babble.  You appear to be one of them.
opher goodwin Added Jul 8, 2018 - 11:43am
Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies Bleat bleat - 5 biographies
Ryan Messano Added Jul 8, 2018 - 12:29pm
Stop gish galloping all over WB, Badlose.  Normally you liberals don't go crazy this fast.  You are an exception to the rule.
 
I already have you stuttering badly.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 8, 2018 - 12:30pm
Instead of stupidly refusing to read those biographies, go sit down and educate that uninformed brain of yours.  That way, we will be spared your delusional ideas on a daily basis. 
William Stockton Added Jul 8, 2018 - 5:13pm
Burghal, thanks very much for reading!
 
My responses to Ryan are not really for Ryan but used to support the point of the article.  He represents an ideological, entrenched defensive position which is always the easiest to route.  His error is his loud pot-banging which reveals his position -- bringing a barrage of enemy fire onto his base.  haha
Ryan Messano Added Jul 8, 2018 - 5:51pm
“He represents An ideological, entrenched defensive position”
 
Same one as the Founders of your nation, William, and your forays onto Google wont reveal that to you.  
 
Its absurd I’m viewed as some sort of radical but case when my views align perfectly with the Writers of the Constitution, whose lives you adamantly refuse to learn about.  
 
Actually, your radical apathy is the problem, and only because so many others share it, is why you haven’t been corrected and severely reprimanded before for it.  
William Stockton Added Jul 8, 2018 - 6:16pm
Ryan, thanks for the reprimand.
 
Having an opinion and defending that opinion with others is a very good thing.  Sometimes, you make good points.
 
Not trying to give you a lesson here, maybe another opinion for your benefit, you could try a different tactic.  One is to allow people to disagree with you and move on.  I have to do this all the time.  Make my point, allow people to disagree with me, and have faith the general viewer will draw my same conclusions if I have made a decent argument.
 
As I see it, you cannot allow for anyone to have a different opinion than you and you plow head-first into conflict -- incessantly.  This is most of the irritation from people here.
As I see it, you represent hardcore religion perfectly.  They cannot allow anyone to have a different opinion in a uni-moral utopia which you desire.
Ryan Messano Added Jul 8, 2018 - 6:55pm
You’re welcome, William.  I agree with 90% of what you say, we really largely differ only on Americas religious roots being in Christianity and what that means for today.  
 
Thank you for your compliment.  They are rare on here, and if I were doing this for compliments I would have starved and left long ago.
 
Occasionally, I do move on.  Rarely though.  By refusing to concede a time tried truth, and defending it no matter the opposition, allows the validity of the position to be considered.  If this were a private interaction, and you and I, or others differed, I would have politely gone my way long ago.  However, in a public forum, where ideas are open to criticism, if an idea is not only true, but critical to a successful future, it must be doggedly defended no matter what.  It is a fine line, to determine what is ego, and what is necessary for others, and while I have not always been perfect in suppressing the former and promoting the latter, that is my motivation.  
 
The average viewer will often not draw the right conclusion from a well reasoned argument.  Witness how some liberals articles on here are the most liked.  I think Wendell’s articles on Trump and climate change, two of the biggest pieces of fiction on WB, are the two most liked and viewed.  So obviously, good arguments alone won’t do the trick, because bad arguments are doing quite well.  
 
When a person disagrees with me on a crucial point, and it is clear that a fundamental basic of the argument is missing from their reasoning structure, then I hone in on that.  It’s actually not personal, as many of these traits in drawing conclusions without considering all the evidence, are widely shared, and by homing in on it explicitly and intensely with a few, it allows others to learn, and minimizes the overall work necessary to ensure an idea prevails.  
 
While some of the exchanges on WB are fierce, yet, they have the capability of correcting wrong ideas that can lead to death and murder later, and so I prefer the verbal tonguelashing, as a last resort, than the escalation to a Civil War that Americans are headed for.
 
Later, when the full scale of the evil of the left is exposed, you will understand that I did what I did out of love.  If a threat is not fiercely assailed, it’s true malignancy is often not fully understood.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jul 9, 2018 - 3:46pm
"The right is not religious.  This is where religious conservatives go off the rail.  There is a mile of difference between religious conservatives and political conservatives."
 
I do not see that you have shown this to be true and as such the statement is nonsense. 
 
Why not offer proof for you comments?
Thomas Sutrina Added Jul 9, 2018 - 7:14pm
Ryan I have a very similar approach to people that seem to lack any capacity to be logical.   As an engineer history was not a major component of my education, however; as a elective for a grade I took one full year of European history that started in the Greece period in college where the major students were future history teachers.  Yep, the teaches the did a poor job with the younger American participants here on WB.  
 
Declaration of Independence is the outline for the law created by the Constitution.  All the reasons for the break with Britain are contained in Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Conservatism by its nature of 'conserving the Constitution' has to be political.  So the break down is a sub group that thinks religion is important.  And they point to the passages in the Declaration on natural's God and the final statement from those that signed.   Those that fought the Revolutionary War which was the bloodiest war after the Civil War.  Were involved in the creation and passage of the Constitution.  So we must believe that the oath made by the signers of the Declaration apply to the majority of the people in the 1780's and 1790's.   "Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our
Fortunes and our sacred Honor."   
 
Judaeo-Christian that believe in salvation theology.  Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor are intertwined in salvation theology so intertwined with conservatism.  In the time of the founders human existed when the pregnant woman felt the baby moving.  Our present abortion laws with this being the definition of a citizen under the law would make abortion a murder.  Old testament and Islamic judgmental theology the conclusion would be obvious, abortion is murder.   Salvation is forgiveness so the point of abortion being murder is not as clear.  This William I see at the major division between Conservatives. 
Pardero Added Jul 13, 2018 - 12:31am
William Stockton,
I am glad you wrote this. 
rycK the JFK Democrat offered a valid criticism, but I feel that you handled yourself admirably in your comments, some of which were quite impressive. You did defend the separation of church and state smartly.
 
The Tea Party movement began as entirely secular, but was infiltrated by neocons and the religious right. I believed that the Tea Party was composed of fiscal conservatives and non-intervention Paleoconservatives, originally.
 
At the least, we have fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, Paleoconservatives, Evangelical conservatives, and Jeffersonian liberals, who can appear to be conservatives, along with some libertarians.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 13, 2018 - 10:10am
versus the polyglot of banking, high tech, unions, environmentalist, LGBTQ warriors, socialists, communists, feminists, academics, trial lawyers, big phone/cable, big pharma, big, big, big....
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 13, 2018 - 10:12am
Two restaurants across the street from one another.....one calls it filet, the other calls theirs salmon. By the time either gets hijacked it all becomes horse shit
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jul 13, 2018 - 3:22pm
Pandero
 
"You did defend the separation of church and state smartly."
 
No such  thing. The law reads "Congress shall make no law........" and there it  ends. Only an activist  court would conjure up  the 'separation" as an excuse to attack Christians and support Islam and more. 
 
As for Stockton:
 
"As I see it, you represent hardcore religion perfectly.  They cannot allow anyone to have a different opinion in a uni-moral utopia which you desire."
 
And the left-wing that cannot stand the religious right is not  hardcore in its own demands and politics?? Liberal Democrats and tolerate others who oppose them?
 
Really?
Pardero Added Jul 13, 2018 - 6:53pm
rycK the JFK Democrat,
You are correct.
I was suffering from my school days progressive indoctrination.
 
I oppose the Islamization of America and Europe, myself. It is infinitely worse than what Ryan is selling.
 
I have been polarized away from where Ryan is, recently. He is not exactly a good ambassador for fundamentalism. In theory, I am as conservative as he is, though I have a bit of tolerance, and don't have a problem with those not too far left of me.
 
I consider myself a paleoconservative, and therefore oppose foreign intervention and wars, which puts me at odds with neo-conservatives and their allies, such as Evangelicals and the rest of the Amen corner. 
 
Most pacifists are liberals. Some conservative Christians are anti-war, but their numbers are small compared to Evangelicals, Baptists, Mormons, and others who are intervention and war friendly. 
 
I can possibly expect some help from libertarians and Jeffersonian liberals, but tend to soften my sharpest conservative edges when attempting to build anti-war alliances.
 
William stockton is conservative, but not a Christian Zionist, so he does not necessarily believe that God promised Palestine to Israel. Besides, Scripture says the Jews get Israel after they all convert to Christianity. He is a potential anti-war ally.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Jul 14, 2018 - 1:56pm
Pandero
 
"I consider myself a paleoconservative, and therefore oppose foreign intervention and wars, which puts me at odds with neo-conservatives and their allies, such as Evangelicals and the rest of the Amen corner. "
 
I consider myself to be, firstly, an anti-liberal. I was able to shed off my school days progressive indoctrination  because as, in Marxism, it made no sense to me and tended to push society backward rather than opening up opportunities. 
 
My  view for success in the US and limited parts of the globe is to:
 
[1] get the best education [not indoctrination]   you possible can.. 
[2] stay away from crime 
[3] stay away from drugs
[4] always perform at  your best at work or whatever you do.
[5]  refute the leftist nostrums wherever they are apparent. 
[6] to adopt a religion is best but not mandatory to being a good parent or citizen. 
 
These tenets have served me well in my long life as I became a scientist with many papers and an inventor with several patents and, hopefully, a good parent and spouse. 
William Stockton Added Jul 17, 2018 - 7:10am
And the left-wing that cannot stand the religious right is not hardcore in its own demands and politics??
 
ryck. I stated, many times here, that I believe the far left is also hell-bent in forcing their moral statutes onto everyone else.  That is why I think the left has turned into a cult.  They object to free-speech.  They will be the first to condemn anyone to social purgatory by calling them bigots, racists, etc when they disagree.  
 
Where the religious conservative is much less of a problem is that they offer people a way to penance where the cult-left offer none.  Once labeled a bigot, racists, or one having white privilege, there is no path offered to redemption.
William Stockton Added Jul 17, 2018 - 7:15am
William Stockton is conservative, but not a Christian Zionist, so he does not necessarily believe that God promised Palestine to Israel. 
 
I believe God's business is his own.  It is of no consequence to "believe" or not any presumed intentions or his/her plans.  I used to be very religious until I realized that being a religious person is of no consequence other than detrimental to my decision-making.  My morals and ideals are not subject to any written text which I did not create.

Recent Articles by Writers William Stockton follows.