Tennessee Lt. Gov. (and Republican gubernatorial candidate) Ron Ramsey has added an alarming new position to the race. He has stated that he is not convinced the Constitution protects Muslims under the guarantee of freedom of religion.
In the video below, Ramsey was asked at a campaign event about the “threat that’s invading our country from the Muslims.” While acknowledging the protections for religion, Ramsey noted that Islam is more of a cult rather than a true religion: “Now, you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult whatever you want to call it. Now certainly we do protect our religions, but at the same time this is something we are going to have to face.”
He insisted, however, that “you know, I’m all about freedom of religion.” Except that is for the world’s second largest religion.
Source: TPM
Hmmm, well maybe if we classify islam as a cult, we can then classify christianity, judaism, etc as cults too!
GregD,
Why stop there?
We could classify party affiliation as a cult too.
Cults of personality (or lack thereof as in this clown’s case) are still a form of cult.
As I understand, islam is the second largest religion by # of followers. Am I mistaken?
I’ve referenced this site and data in the past.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
All religions are cults, though, there is no disputing that.
This is disturbing. If I recall by history at the time the Turks were taking over the east and many different country’s, I seem to recall that in Italy alone there were 54 or 55 different monarchy’s alone and unification became the norm to join forces to repel the turk invasion.
But hey, who is to say that one religion is better than the other and that you should die if you don’t subscribe to our way, oh yeah, the tuks, catholics, even Henry got into the act of dismembering unrequited members…..
The point is, I think that the US was founded upon freedom of religion from governmental influences, one way or the other. After all we know how understanding the Quakers and others were when they escaped from Englands’ religious persecution….Dip on a Stick anyone?
I think the guy is wrong and pandering to the fears of the audience….
This reminds me of Pat Condell’s recent comments, a well known UK atheist and comedian.
I don’t remember his perspective on the Ground Zero Mosque and religious freedom being covered on this blog. He lays out a passionate argument against construction of this mosque, including the history around the construction of the Córdoba mosque.
This version has 2 million views.
I’m not endorsing or refuting his claims here, but think this statement is pertinent to the current discussion of religious protections in a free society.
@ 2:45:
What he really wants is an official “no competition” order from the govt. But then, who will our govt. engage in a very profitable crusade? Maybe he should rethink this plan for the sake of all the money at stake.
Gee, I don’t know Lt. Gov. Ramsey. Is what you’re saying really “speech” covered by the 1st Amendment, or is it just diarrhea of the mouth?
Until this kind of speech , using religeon for politically motivated gain, is found universally repugnant by the American populace we can look forward to more of it and a stimatizing and victimization of decent Muslims emigrating to this Country.
Could not this be cited as an attempt to deny Muslim citizens of their constitutionally protected civil rights and if so why isn’t that happening to stop this nonsense from going further?
I commented on this story in HuffPo yesterday. Basically, this learned gentleman’s thesis is that religious groups that seek to have their doctrines incorporated into civil law are engaged in a sort of fanaticism deserving of the “cult” label. His fear, of course, is that as Muslims increase in number, there will be pressure to introduce sharia law. He appears not to recognize that his own definition of “cult” embraces Christianity as well, an unintended consequence of delusional thinking. He then takes a flying leap into the great Sea of Illogic to conclude that cults are not protected under the Free Exercise clause. There must be some serpent handling pastors in rural Tennessee feeling a bit uneasy about this view.
Of course, thoughtful Tennessee Republicans can always opt to vote for Zach Wamp, the loyal C Streeter who clearly has no problems with cults.
In response to budda is laughing: please do not refer to politicians as “clowns”. it is an insult to clowns around the world. thank you
Now donn, wait a minute….clowns can be scary too…
I am still trying to figure out what Obama is doing different than the Bushs or RWR……
But yet he gets blasted for trying to keep peace at some cost. I am not an Obama supporter, I did not vote for him and I take no responsibility for his actions. I generally vote “Conservative Democratic Values” Obama was left with 3/4s of the ship below water and he had to do something. What would you suppose be done? Get a real great Teabagger in office? Come on, where do you find one. They are generally single issue yes people. I want someone that can think. And even think when the box is open.
Remember folks, all religions seem equally insane to those who aren’t members.
Sounds suspiciously like a code-play on one of the republican party’s sub-themes this election cycle, that everybody else is attempting to make good conservative christians second class citizens … liberals are attempting to make secularism a religion (I know, I know … but we’re talking about some really dumb conservative christians), muslims are really cultists, and the end result will be that YOU, a conservative christian, will be relegated to 2nd class citizenship and all the minorities in the country will then take everything you’ve got ’cause you’re no longer first class. Be frightened white, conservative, christians!!!!
I think someone should ask this learned gentleman to list other cults disguised as religions. He might sputter a bit so I would start listing some to specifically answer: Mormon? Unification (Sun Yung Moon)? Scientology? Christian Science? Snake Handlers? Catholic?
No matter how he answers any of those he will piss off some subset on morons and it will help clarify why the founders were so intent on not letting religious crackpots take control of the government. They had seen how easily these morons start killing each other given half a chance.
“Now, you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult whatever you want to call it…”
That isn’t remotely a description of being a Muslim, but if you replace the word “Muslim” with the word “Jew” you have a classic argument for de-legitimizing Judaism.
These people can’t even keep their bigotries straight.
the religeous ‘wedge’ is being used to start and stoke wars that allow for unprecedented Corporate profits and political corruption and control.
and to keep the inflamed populaces eyes diverted….
blech
My prediction is that once the number of Muslim immigrants reaches a critical mass in this country (Slarti, Byron and the other mathematicians can start work on an appropriate equation now), a reformed school of evangelical theology will emerge proclaiming the newly revealed truth that separation of church and state is biblically mandated.
Mike A,
A sane prediction
I wonder what the odds in Vegas are or Off Shore? I know in 2004 the Det Lions were a 600 to 1 odds to make it to the super bowl in 05 that was in Det. I bet a 100.
So I am sure somebody someplace has a set of books for this….
There are between 2 and 7 million Muslims in the USA and 77% are citizens.
So there are between about 1,5 million and 6 million Muslim citizens.
I can’t do arithmetic without taking off my socks so I can’t guarantee the math, but the statistics are from:
http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2008/December/20081222090246jmnamdeirf0.4547083.html
Mike Appleton 1, July 28, 2010 at 12:18 pm
“My prediction is that once ………a reformed school of evangelical theology will emerge proclaiming the newly revealed truth that separation of church and state is biblically mandated.”
———————————–
In other words, we are not likely to see this ideal state again for a very long time?
Do any of these hysterical jerks actually know any Muslims personally? It reminds me of the fact that there are anti-Semites in Japan, who obviously have never met a single Jewish person…
This is pale in comparison to the two emails I received today.
The first is a copy of the Human Events rant by Newt Gingrich about the “Ground Zero Mosque” and how we’re all going to be under Sharia law, if we don’t watch out!.
The second is a rant about how Muslims are going to be exempt from the US Health Insurance taxes (for those that don’t subscribe – they aren’t exempt). And of course Pres. Obama is a (no longer closet) Muslim.
I mean it’s scary to think that these perfectly nice people, before Obama became president, can accept this foolishness. Fourth Reich, here we come.
Hopefully when we get past the elections, this crap will slow down. Hopefully.
Right wingers are positively hysterical about Muslims who are only less than one percent of the entire US population.
That said, Muslims should be banned from immigration to this country, like avowed Nazis would be.
Sedition is still illegal and it is silly to invite people here who plan sedition (by replacing US law with Sharia).
The religion issue is practically moot. Sharia sedition is the problem.
It would be nice for left wingers to give a damn about this, but it is unlikely. They would like to see America destroyed as long as Christians don’t do it. Anyone but Christians.
Oh you so wong. We have number of calfolicks and jewish dodo’s here. My Kaasan was a Jewish woman that married my Tousan while he was study at CPT in California.
Single Jewish Japanese Male 1, July 28, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Oh you so wong. We have number of calfolicks and jewish dodo’s here. My Kaasan was a Jewish woman that married my Tousan while he was study at CPT in California.
——————————–
SJJM….what are you some kind of an ahso?
Oh no, me no ahso, you bend over backwards and take a picture of your momma. You have a family portrait hanging on.
Tootie, I respectfully suggest that a desire to replace “U.S. law with sharia law” is not seditious. Muslim citizens are free to undertake the process of seeking an amendment to the Constitution to require the adoption of sharia law in all or part of the country, just as Christians are free to seek a Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is a divine institution limited to heterosexual couples. Both efforts would be stupid, but completely lawful.
Should Muslims seek to impose sharia law by unlawful means, or Christians attempt to impose a new marriage law through resort to “Second Amendment remedies,” then we can have a discussion about sedition.
sjjm,
I tried really hard to picture this but gee whiz, my body just will not match the preversity of your mind. darn
Mike A:
His fear, of course, is that as Muslims increase in number, there will be pressure to introduce sharia law. He appears not to recognize that his own definition of “cult” embraces Christianity as well, an unintended consequence of delusional thinking.
Mike A asks, and, right on time, Tootie delivers:
Sedition is still illegal and it is silly to invite people here who plan sedition (by replacing US law with Sharia).
The religion issue is practically moot. Sharia sedition is the problem.
The logical disconnects of religious born self-righteousness never fails to amaze me.
That’s why Gyges knows,
all religions seem equally insane to those who aren’t members.
…and around and around we go, everybody.
Now, the Japanese, those little punks are treachorous. They’ve been trying to impose bushido on us for years.
I’ve always wondered if there isn’t some animal communication/trance thing going on with those people. The snake whiperers.
It’s almost a form of folk dance.
I think this Tennessee gentlemen must have gotten his legal opinion from John Yoo.
As a Tennessean, I can assure you that Mr. Ramsey is playing to his base. He has three primary opponents. One if filthy stinking rich from oil money and the other is even more out there than Ramsey.
His name is Zach Wamp and this link is for Blouise:
There’s one other feller running and he is gaining momentum. Basil Marceaux is the dark horse who is promising us guns and freedom from all traffic stops. Please help us here in TN.
Je Presente, Basil Marceaux:
P.S. This is my first post here and I admire Mr. Turley and have especially enjoyed Buddah’s posts. Thank you BIL for the insightful dialogue.
GrinningBarrett,
Thank you very much.
One lives to be of service.
Tootie
Have you ever considered running for a state or a national office? Which party would you choose if you did?
I would be interested in knowing what groups, other than Nazis and Muslims, you would ban from emigrating to the U.S. And which should be deported, if any. And why.
And what amendments to the constitution do you think would be proper (if passable). Or do you think we’ve reached the limit and need only to stick to the ones we have – as your previous posts seem to indicate?
Buddha,
Have you sent the check to GB yet?! Welcome GrinningBarrett!
lol
Um, no, Raff, I haven’t. Thanks for the reminder.
Buckeye: LOL. U R FUNNY
According to some here I AM a very large group of people already (I guess you could say this is an inside joke and if you don’t get it, I’m sorry I mentioned it).
Anyway, I cannot associate with any political party that advocates killing the innocent. So that eliminates the dems and the reps. I voted the Constitution Party (naturally) in the last presidential election. Chuck Baldwin (the CP party candidate) was endorsed by Ron Paul. But I am an unaffiliated voter: no party.
I’m not sure what you mean about any amendments. The Constitution already gives congress the authority to legislate and monitor immigration. So no further amendments are needed, only good law. Like I say, sedition is already illegal and we have a right to keep out foreigner who come over bringing with them intent to overthrow our government. That alone could work to keep out Muslims, Communists, Nazis, and all other political subversives.
It don’t think it is too much to ask those we invite here to cherish our form of government (however diligently our leaders mistreat it).
We do not need ONE more Hispanic immigrant ever and they should be permanently banned. This is mainly because of the intense loyalty they retain to their former nearby lands and families. It is suicide to swamp our country with nearby foreigners who do not intend to be loyal to this country and cannot get beyond their own ethnocentrism to put the best interests of this country first.
The proof that Hispanics cannot be loyal or put the country’s interests first is their inability to admit and ask for a ban on Hispanics. Unless that ban occurs it will be impossible to preserve the unique character of the American people and their government as bequeathed to them by their ancestors. The more Hispanics we have the less we will retain our unique character among the family of nations. In fact, the more we are “diverse” internally the less diversity there will be overall in the world.
Uniqueness creates diversity and multiculturalism reduces diversity.
I think we should return our immigration system to the way it was before the Immigration Act of 1965 when our government began to commit genocide by immigration (after it promised us that NO noticeable difference in the ethnic makeup of the American people would occur).
Until then, I suggest a moratorium on immigration. Naturally, democrats “hate” America so that won’t happen.
I’m afraid secession could happen. It is time to pray.
Mike Appleton:
Muslims, unlike Christians, don’t want to work within our system except to subvert and replace it. Christians are working (however badly) to preserve it. You seem to have compared these apples to oranges by mistaking a Christians’ right to lobby for laws and participate in the political process (as Christians) with a desire for theocracy.
Be Forewarned: I do not mean to give any credence to what the honerable Lt. Gov from Tennessee is saying, I also do not agree with it.
Let’s look at how much “leniency” States like Illinois have with the 2nd amendment… something as clear as “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” in Illinois means that you can’t bear arms anywhere, and can only keep them if no one sees it… plus you have to pay for special license called a FOID in order to purchase arms in the state… sounds like complete infringement to me that has yet to be overturned.
In this case we’re obviously talking about the first amendment… and I say, if no one made a big deal about Illinois’ infringement of the 2nd… why is TN’s equally as severe ‘potential’ infringement on the 1st amendment kicking up so much controversy? Why not require Muslims simply to get a MRID (Muslim Religion ID) in order to practice that is registered through the state police, just like IL’s FOID? Obviously since that has been around since the 1960′s and not successfully challenged that means it’s not an infringement of one amendment in one state… TN could certainly take the same measures with another amendment… right?
savaship,
Muslim Religion ID’s would be a violation of the Establishment Clause as they would not meet the test set forth in Lemon v Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
Although you could maybe argue it doesn’t fail the first prong of the test, it would fail prongs two and three.
The FOID’s are well within the established case law allowing regulation of firearms just like states that use waiting periods and background checks. SCOTUS has ruled that the right is not absolute and is subject to legislative controls, though it mentioned reasonableness preventing access to firearms by felons and the insane as valid public policy for the good of the community. They aren’t prohibiting your 2nd Amendment right to bear with an FOID, just making you get ID which is not an undue burden.
Tootie,
You seem to forgetting the dozens if not hundreds of posts where you’ve advocated laws that wouldn’t pass the above Lemon test based on your view of Christian dogma. You don’t get to insert Christianity into the secular laws of the country any more than Muslims get to insert Islam into the secular laws of the country. You’re still a demonstrated theocrat just like you’re a demonstrated homophobe, so trying to back peddle is a waste of time. Funny. But a waste of time. Unless you realized the logic I presented to you the other day showing that hatred isn’t a Christ-like behavior in regards to homophobia, but being that you responded to that by saying I was being hateful when I was being much nicer about your nonsense than usual and trying to help you? I kinda doubt it.
Tootie, I try, I really do, but your last comments reflect such a woeful lack of understanding of the history of this country, the history of immigration policy and cultural assimilation, the history of religion and of fundamental Constitutional rights and protections that there is simply not enough time to respond. The only plot you haven’t mentioned to date is the old Communist plan to steal our precious bodily fluids. You are one scared, and scary, lady.
Tootie
I just looked at the Constitution Party platform for 2008 and can see why it would suit you right down to the ground. Also Chuck Baldwin, their presidential candidate, is certainly unique (or was until recently – I think he has some competition, now).
You will forgive me, I’m sure, if I say I’m happy that so few voters (199,314 out of 131 million voters) approved of that party platform.
I’m still wondering what you mean by the “unique character of the American people” and wondering how multiculturalism reduces diversity.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/07/28/128828467/what-is-the-american-constitution-party-tom-tancredo-s-new-home Is it the same as the American Constitution Party?
Buddha Is Laughing:
If you read the ILCS code for “Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon” you’ll find that Illinois actually has no right to “bear arms” at all. This does not sound reasonable to anyone who considers constitutional rights important in the least. If not a religious ID, why not a political party ID? Or anything else that there is no contradictory case law for? You can have your political opinions, but can’t talk about them out of your house without a DPID (Democratic Party ID). My point is, if one right can be infringed, why not the rest? What makes the 1st amendment more sacred than the 2nd, and 4th?
savaship, it’s because a crazy person or a convicted felon can’t kill me with words, political speak or otherwise. A crazy person or felon can get a gun and kill me, though, if there is no impediment to them being able to get said gun.
Its a “your rights end where the protection of my rights begin” and vice-versa thing, I believe.
Also, Illinois citizens do have the “right to bear arms,” as all American citizens do, but those arms are subject to the laws of the state and federal regulation.
When will government stop trying to impede my right to a Howitzer, already??? I’ve got to defend myself!
BF,
What do you do when a Blond throws a grenade at you?
Pull the pin and toss it back……
AY, that reminds me, when will Obama stop trouncing my right to grenades?!?
He’s read the constitution. Its my right!!
Can’t wait to see the faces at target practice when I pull the pin and toss some explosives down-range. They’ll know I’m 2nd amendment through and through.
Just remember if you pull then pin and forget where you put it, don’t just stand there. Run like a lion…..
Savaship,
Oh, I’ve got it, we could make them all wear some kind of symbol on their cloths. Something yellow, and pointy.
Swathmore Mom
Yes, the American Constitution Party was absorbed into the Constitution Party in 1999.
Their platform is a blast.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
And Mr. Baldwin is almost a cartoon (but not funny, of course).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin
In 2008 Baldwin endorsed Ron Paul and later Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin. This should put to bed any doubts anyone had about Mr. Paul.
Oh Sweetness(Colbert ref),
Maybe Chuck Baldwin, since he’s a baptist pastor; potus candidate; and both NRA member and Gun owners of America member, he can answer the age-old question, “What gun would jesus use?”
…or maybe he’s just a pandering ass-hat.
BF:
You misinterpret and mislead. Illinois says you have the right to keep and “bear arms” then in another breath says our state restricts you from “bearing arms”… how is this a right if the state can restrict it? I am also not for restrictions of the 1st amendment, I’d simply like people to treat all our rights as sacred, instead of just the ones they like to use.
Muslims hijacked airplanes based on misguided religion and killed more people than any single person with a gun, to me this makes religion a more powerful weapon than any handgun.
savaship,
Those in Illinois do have a right to bear arms.
The 2nd Amendment applies to the states as does the rest of the Constitution.
And rights can be restricted. They are called rights, not absolute rights. They can be modified, but not removed from the citizenry as a whole absent amendment. But there is a Constitutional way to restrict them such as the 1st Amendment restriction on panic speech (yelling fire in a crowded theater) and an Unconstitutional way to restrict them (see this thread: http://jonathanturley.org/2010/07/28/d-c-judge-hits-nlj-with-prior-restraint-order/).
Also for another example of unconstitutional restrictions of rights, Google “Constitution Free Zones”. You want to get upset about something restricting rights illegally? There’s your boy right there.
Savaship, I’m no expert on IL gun laws. You don’t seem to be one either. I’m interested in finding out more, so please link to the “bearing arms” codes that you’ve described, please.
The things that I do know about IL gun law is that ownership is permitted but a purchaser does have to obtain a FOID. Is this the problem you have with the state mandates involving gun ownership. Registration and ID?
When you say “How is this a right if the state can restrict it?”, I’m not sure what you’re asking. You have the right to vote but you must be registered. Is this also a infringement of your right?
Are you possibly suggesting that all weapons should be purchased, sold and owned without any type of regulation on the weapons themselves or owners? If so, have you thought about the implications of such a policy? I think that this is where my tongue-in-cheek “Where’s my Howitzer” statement comes in.
Sorry if you feel I’ve “misinterpret[ed] and mislead”. You haven’t made a clear point, so it is possible. Not sure where you feel I did, either, but you are free to point it out more clearly so I can explain myself. And if you’re implying that I am only interested in some, but not all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, I would only ask you to refrain from making such inaccurate assertions without some sort of proof.
Anyway, bring all of your concerns(with links, pls) out on the table so we can look and discuss. Right now, you seem to be arguing with folks that aren’t even aware of the issue or point you’d like to make.
One last point about your general writing style. Don’t bother with the analogies(the MRID thing isn’t working) or the “no one who reads this agrees” stuff, like the ones in your first post. Obviously, not everyone shares your viewpoint on the subject, so, you only come off sounding self-righteous and unable to have any perspective except your own, IMO. What I’m asking of you is to try to make a case so that we can all follow along. Leave your assumptions out and educate people who aren’t you as to how you got to your opinion.
Tootie is a Poe, right? Admit it, already, Tootie.
BF:
I think I’ve made it clear. This article was about the ability to restrict the 1st amendment. Since as Buddha is Laughing stated that “And rights can be restricted”. When the first amendment is involved, a lot of people are quick to shout out how wrong it is, and I completely agree, it’s completely wrong… unless you compare it to other rights, then it seems perfectly in-line with what this country currently stands for.
My comparative was the 2nd amendment, which is completely restricted in states like Illinois, link is here:
http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K24-1.6
It stays on the books with little or no fanfare for years. If it’s too wordy a summary of it states that it’s a felony if a person with a FOID card carries a loaded firearm on them unless they are in their house, or own business. There’s no caveat for law enforcement, so I can only assume every LEO in this state is an untried felon.
There’s already a group of people out there that buy and sell arms with no regulations… they’re called criminals. The only people affected by gun control laws, are people who are law abiding.
My main point is: Unless people hold all our rights to the same standard, there isn’t a point to fighting for just one of them, it has already been worn away by the erosion of the other rights.
Savaship,
In other words, “I don’t know what the words ‘well regulated’ mean, nor do I have a basic working knowledge of past Supreme Court rulings”?
Gingerbaker:
Bless you, not only are you a hall of fame drummer, but EUREKA
you’ve cracked the Tootie code wide open! Here I thought Tootie was, “Barking up a dead horse,” or “Suffering from a detached rectum.” It’s Poe’s Law plain as day.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law
Buckeye:
As I said, I’m not a member of the CP. I voted the nearest I could to Ron Paul so I voted for who he endorsed. I agree with most of the non-religious planks in the CP platform but find the religious aspects completely unnecessary and counterproductive. They might as well have called it the Christian Party. I still wouldn’t be a member of it.
Our unique character as a people is Western (civilization) and Christian. It is uniquely pro-liberty and pro-individualism (Democrats hate these things).
These unique features of liberty and individualism come from two sources in America: Christianity and the Enlightenment. Unfortunately, we are bringing in immigrants who have no interest in our unique principles nor are they interested in upholding the western or Christian values which make us most unique.
Naturally, this excites the leftist who despises our Western heritage (especially because it is so Christian). “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ has got to go!” Comes to mind. The immigrant stands up and cheers this. I’m thinking of the marchers waving Mexican flags as stadiums in LA and on the streets of my beloved country during the amnesty protest marches. These people are dangerous subversives.
And this is not nice.
By bringing in such diverse peoples who feel no obligation to honor our values, we are eliminating diversity within the human family. It works like this, the more we become like the people who immigrate here (instead of them becoming like us) the less America will remain unique among the rest of the world and the world will be less diverse because America will be like everyone else.
You do not see (except maybe for Singapore) any other non-western country or civilization intentionally destroying itself with foreigners. In fact, there is no such example in the history of the world on this scale.
The Council on Foreign Relations doesn’t want people to be different (the CFR runs America). They want everyone the same and controlled by a few elite. This destruction of the uniqueness of the American people is essential to their goal of destroying the nation-state and creating a one world government.
Gingerbaker:
I think I’m embarrassed. What is a Poe?
Tootie,
Poe’s law is internet short hand for the idea that there can be no satire of a subject so extreme that it couldn’t be mistaken for someone’s real belief. They’re saying you’re only pretending to believe what you say because you get a kick out of getting us to respond.
If it makes you feel any better, I believe you’re being honest and sincere expressing your beliefs. I just happen to think your beliefs are almost always dead wrong.
Blind Faithiness:
God tends to use things like lightening bolts and tectonic plates. Um, and something that turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt and killed the people of Sodom and environs.
Ah. And then there is that big flood. Who needs a puny little gun?
Not God, I guess.
When He comes again (this is called the 2nd coming), there will be majestic white stead, a sword proceeding from His mouth, and He will be slaying the wicked with His words. (Who needs a puny little gun when you can command a person to die?)
The Children of Israel always had the right to defend themselves and Jehovah organized a military for that nation in ancient times. Clearly, this proves that God is not opposed to people who believe in Him using weapons. Oh, they didn’t have guns in the Bible era (just in case you did not know it). (Ergo guns and tanks were not mentioned in scripture).
Even if you don’t believe that God approved of His people having weapons to defend themselves, you can be sure the Old Testament at least said He did, for nearly 3000 years.
Jesus was meek and mild but wasn’t a wimp. He used a whip to violently remove the money changers from the Temple.
Can we use whips then?
Luke 22:36 has Christ telling His apostles:
… he that hath a purse [money bag], let him take it, and likewise his scrip [wallet or provisions] : and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Gosh is there a NSA I could join up with?
You know, a National Sword Association or something similar?
So…”turn the other cheek” is just a bunch of rubbish?
Anyway, I know your god is a child-murdering monster. That’s why I asked specifically about its more benevolent son/zombie. I don’t think your money-changers example suffices, though, since this is one occasion that is meant to be the one and only time jesus lost his cool. You know, the whole “god’s house” thing.
Jesus taught love thy enemies, blessed are the peacemakers(not the gun kind either), and blah, blah, blah.
I love christian logic gymnastics. So, flexible.
BF,
Where is you christian virtue….Turn the other cheek…..FYI, I could not agree more. But then again you are aware how reserved that I am and its just not in my nature to instigate anything…….roflmao….
What Gyges said.
Blind Faithiness:
Who says you cannot love an enemy and defend your life or the life of your children from that enemy? You? LOL!
If a mad man is raping a child I’m to just stand there are remind the child to turn the other cheek? That is the solution according to your interpretation of Luke 6:29?
The New Testament teaches no such thing as you suggest. The passage you refer to deals with petty crimes, hitting, and other similar conflicts. Christians are not to handle these matters themselves and create a scene. God establishes governments to handle matters of infringement. He wants these handled in an orderly fashion.
Government is to punish the evil doer, not the private citizen. We are not to take things into our own hands unless it is self-defense or defense of the innocent.
Luke 6: 29 doesn’t ask Christians to not defend their lives. It does tell them to take a hit (no first strike).
The same passage says let someone take your coat. It does not say that person is not a thief or that the law may not deal with the thief.
Christ wants His people to deal through the government (no anarchy).
In the same section of scripture you refer to are verses relating to giving. Are we to give such that we die?
How did that work for the apostles? Well, they ran for their lives so they could live, and they provided for themselves in order to survive. People stole from them but God didn’t expect them to stand around letting it continue. He wanted them on the move, working, and providing for themselves and others. They didn’t have to stand around a die because people had gross misinterpretations of scripture that they should let themselves be robbed to death.
Furthermore, God tells us that if a Christian does not take care of his own family and provide for them he is worse than an infidel and isn’t a believer! So how could it be that the Christian is to give up everything everyone asks of him? This is how you have to read the passage if you are reading the turn the other cheek passage as you suggest.
In another section of scripture, 1 Timothy 5:8, reads:
“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
How can he avoid being an infidel if he has given everything to everyone who asks such that it pleases the twisted interpretations of those who mishandle the word of God or hate Christians?
You are not making sense. You apparently don’t know the other verses in the Bible which make the verse you took out of context makes sense.
Gyges:
Oh, so that is what it means. Thanks anyway for being kind.
I don’t feel bad anyway. The passage Blind Faithiness quotes from says woe to those everyone likes. So there is an upside to not being popular. That’s no excuse for me being a bad person either. Which I try to avoid.
Jesus was as sweet as it gets, they tortured and murdered him anyway.
Mundus vult decipi.
Tootie,
I asked nothing more than “What gun would jesus use?” Your defensive stance tells me everything I need to know about your faith and understanding of jesus.
Also, the apostle paul’s tales of travel and spreading the gospel tells of him being almost beaten to death and taken prisoner on several occasions. God protected him just like god heals the people in those faith healing cults, right?
Where is your faith in the lord, dear? It seems to be a bit thin.