Christian Politics

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:17 pm

As a Christian statesman, rather than churchman, I would claim that Christian citizens can freely exercise their constitutional and God-given rights to free religious speech and free exercise of religion within both church and state assemblies here in America, if not anywhere else in the world.

I'm sure there may be a few posters on this political forum who may disagree with, and object to, such a Christian political claim in their state and city government. However, I am willing to prove that they would have no more right to speak freely in government than a Christian statesman does, if they deny him his God-given and constitutional right to speak religiously and to exercise and express his religious beliefs and opinions in state government.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:56 am

1John2_26 wrote:Oh McColluch (sic), you're awesome sometimes. I need a laugh sometimes.

Glad to be of service.

1John2_26 wrote:How about every public school in the western world? And many private universities have parasitized by the secular gospel promoted by atheist prophets of Chucky D. No dissent aloud. Oops I mean allowed.

McCulloch wrote:I think that it is somewhat flippant to refer to Charles Darwin as Chucky D. Whether you agree with him or not, his importance to the development of science should not be minimized in such a way. This manner of reference is apparently confusing to some. I think that it would be some what confusing and perhaps insulting if I were to refer to Martin Luther and C. S. Lewis as Marty and Clive.

1John2_26 wrote:Did I blaspheme that leader of all things? Please excuse me. But you proved my point of the ultimate power of evolution and its "take no prisoners" motives. Exactly my point that now the intolerant ones are the secualrists. How fascinating.

Please do not read into my comment any more than what was intended. Wyvern was obviously confused by your reference. I think that in serious debate, we should refer to scholars, past and present, by the names that most others would recognize, regardless of whether we agree with them or not. Using a diminutive name, of your own invention, is a subtle form of ad hom not really in keeping with serious debate. My objection would have held if a non-theist were to refer to Martin Luther, C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer as Marty L., Clive L. and Franky S.

1John2_26 · Post by **1John2_26** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:39 am

OK McCulloch.

But please allow me the personal position to think that the vast majority of opposition to Christainity is based on old washed out bigotry. I believe that modern apologists like J.P. Holding and the guys at equip.org have done a good job of showing that skepticism is usually based on rumor.

I apologize to you in earnest, but I'd bet a buck that C.S. Lewis would get a chuckle from you and I know Schaeffer would have. Now a days, you cannot even dare to joke around about minorities, so we'll leave the Reverend King alone.

"Clive" I love it. So British.

Franky S. What another great defender of truth and the Truth.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:37 pm

1John2_26wrote:

But please allow me the personal position to think that the vast majority of opposition to Christainity is based on old washed out bigotry.

Let me hold the position that American Evangelical Christianity is largely brain washing and mind control. At least I have reasons while your seen to be largely what you must believe for fear of your soul which is part of the brainwashing process.

skepticism is usually based on rumor

Hardly, I think it is just wishful thinking on your part.
I take it you have half baked ideas concerning liberal and left wing Christianity.