On Nov 28, 1:47*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF

wrote:
Real Americans support Equal Political Rights for
both Believers {Persons-of-Faith} and Non-Believers
{Secularist}.

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.

Their mission is to replace all secularists with
"believers" and to change the function of government
from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
course)

Pat Robertson chalkboarded his entire strategy for
doing so after his last defeat in a primary
Presidential election.

Jerry Falwell funded/paid for a video smearing Clinton

- CPAC (aging white, wealthy class religious republicans)
- funded various smears against Clinton, or moderate
- republicans, funded the OIC Kenny Starr, and paid
- witnesses to lie in the Jones, Willey, etal, civil
- accusations.

Ah Yes - The Attack of The Great Right-Wing {Religious} Conspiracy.
* They're Evil cause they are Aging
* They're Evil cause they are White
* They're Evil cause they are Wealthy
* They're Evil cause they are Believers {Religious Class}
* They're Evil cause most of all they are Republicans
PREACH ALL THAT "HATE THEM" CLASS WARFARE POLITICS

(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and State in
America Today : They Attack The Great Right-Wing {Religious}
Conspiracy.

Brenda Ann wrote:
"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
How can a provate entity, which has zero legal authority, violate the
constitution?

It's done all the time. Those sorts of things generally result in tort
claims or other civil penalties (i.e., OJ, having been acquitted in his
criminal trial, was then tried for violating the civil (Constitutional)
rights of his victims.

The Constitution (including state constitutions) is a basic document of law
(like the Ten Commandments) and every citizen is subject to it, it is not
reserved only for the government. (though it is generally so that you hear
more about government entities violating it, because it affects so many more
people when they do.)

As I see it, a private entity has no power to force their way upon
people, therefore, it is impossible for a private entity to violate the
constitution.

wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 11:41:37 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

That era of Mankind's history was also known as the "Dark Ages" too..
Are you referring to the middle ages, where the Pope was seen as
superior to the temporal government, or are you referring to the period
of Paul's ministry covered in the New Testament?

What "temporal government"

The only government until the reformation was Roman
Catholic.

I strongly suspect that the princes and emperors of the day would take
issue with that statement.

I also suspect that Constantine and the emperors who followed him would
disagree. Not to mention the rulers of Moorish Spain, and the Byzantines.

Brenda Ann wrote:
"Kurt_Lochner" wrote in message
...
No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church
was politically active.
That era of Mankind's history was also known as the "Dark Ages" too..

The Dark Ages came much later, after the Crusades, when crusaders burned and
pillaged the (Muslim built) libraries and universities throughout Europe.
This basically put an end to education for quite some time.

The term "Dark Ages" is no longer as widely used as in the past, but
generally, the Dark ages are considered to be the early middle age. The
early middle age ran from the early fifth century to the late eleventh
century. The first crusade was in 1095, or right at the end of the
eleventh century.

http://tinyurl.com/6463ea

Also, the only "Muslim universities" in Europe were probably in Spain.
The Muslims were run out of Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella in the
fifteenth century.

RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement, although
for different reasons.

Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the Church. The
church.

No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church was
politically active.

These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to have
nothing to do with the government.

You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a different
category from Robertson and Falwell.

- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.

So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .

I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same rights
as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in partisan
politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry.
Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the purpose of
proclaiming His kingdom. Partisan politics is outside their scope.

This is my belief, others differ.

Brenda Ann wrote:
"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
Kurt_Lochner wrote:

What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..

You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement, although for
different reasons.

Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the government,
it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the Church. The church.

No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church was
politically active.

This one's good enough for me:

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things
that are God's" Matthew 22:21

Yes, the doctrine of Two Kingdoms.

wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:23:21 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:25:08 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

So you don't agree with the observation that Robertson, Falwell
and Dobson's alleged "churches" are predominantly involved in
politics, particularly the Republican party?
May I once again suggest that yo learn to read? your understanding of
the quote I provided is completely wrong.
If YOU don't understand that Falwell, Dobson, and
Robertson are as influential as they are in GOP
politics, promotes the basic belief that republicans
are the More "moral" party, how in **** can you make
conclusions credibly?
I fully understand the influence of Dobson, Falwell(deceased) and
Robertson. A previous poster made a statement which led me to believe
that the three had claimed that only Republicans could be Christians. I
was asking for someone to support that claim.

How about daily babbling from enfeebled Pat Robertson?

Quote please?

wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

Real Americans support Equal Political Rights for
both Believers {Persons-of-Faith} and Non-Believers
{Secularist}.

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.

Evidence?

Their mission is to replace all secularists with
"believers" and to change the function of government
from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
course)

On this we likely agree.

Pat Robertson chalkboarded his entire strategy for
doing so after his last defeat in a primary
Presidential election.

Cite?

Jerry Falwell funded/paid for a video smearing Clinton

Cite please?

wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:16:30 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:29:47 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

Dobson has/had enough control over the GOP platform
committee to have had the power to summon Neut Gingrich
and the entire GOP leadership before him and threaten
them with retaliation unless his "agenda" was included
in legislation pending before government.
When, specifically did this happen?
Fall of 1994, setting up the vetoes by Clinton in 1995
over the budgets, eventally leading to the GOP shutdown

ALL of the major networks covered the event---(not the
meeting itself, but the fact it was called)

A leak from that meeting was published in various
internet sites describing Dobson's threats to refuse
funding to GOP candidates, to run candidates against
incumbents, and to use his media empire to campaign
against them
Okay, the meeting took place. There are several questions:

1. Was the meeting called, or requested by Dobson?

It was DEMANDED by Dobson. Dobson control(ed) the GOP
platform committee. THEY have the ability to control
who is sanctioned to run for public office---and how
much funding they get.

2. What is wrong with applying political pressure? The Left does it all
the time.

It is patently wrong for a religious dominated person
to control public officials with threats and
retaliation. Immoral as hell, BTW

Why would it be more immoral for a "religious dominated person" to
control public officials with threats, and okay for a "non-religious
dominated person" to do so?

While I am skeptical of Dobson's group, I do pout him in a different
category, simply because he is not an ordained minister, and does not
seem to be trying to build himself an empire.

You're joking?

You have evidence to the contrary?

RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 7:16 am, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:25:08 -0600, David Hartung

wrote:
So you don't agree with the observation that Robertson, Falwell
and Dobson's alleged "churches" are predominantly involved in
politics, particularly the Republican party?
May I once again suggest that yo learn to read? your understanding of
the quote I provided is completely wrong.
- If YOU don't understand that Falwell, Dobson, and
- Robertson are as influential as they are in GOP
- politics, promotes the basic belief that republicans
- are the More "moral" party, how in **** can you make
- conclusions credibly?

Knick...,

It is not a question of 'morality' between the Political
Parties : However the is the Issue of Individual Rights
and "Family Values" {Being Family Friendly} -versus-
Big Government Know Best and Government Intrusion
into the Rights and Responsibilities of Parents and
Families : Religious Beliefs and Traditional Teachings.

It is not only that the Conservative "Traditional" Religious
members are Drawn to the Republican Party -as-much-as-
There is a Hostel Attitude in the Democrat Party toward
Conservative "Traditional" Religious members and they
'feel' unwelcome in the Democrat Party : The Democrat
Party's Big Tent has "NO" Room in it for an Active Voice
of Conservative "Traditional" Religious members - So much
for Diversity and Inclusion.

(OT) : Are the Democrat Party's Doors Locked and Shut
to Conservative "Traditional" Religious Members ?

yes - i said that ~ RHF
.
Huh? Wesley Clark is bat-****-crazy religious and they let him hang around.