‘WWJD?’: Who would Jesus deceive?

Well, as long as they don’t suggest the war is immoral during the service I don’t see any problem.

Did she go on to suggest the fake polsters note everyone who said they would vote Democratic and sew a large red “D” onto all of their clothing?

How is it that anyone leads any creedence to this crap.

I would be happy to emulate Jesus, but I think using my knotted rope to drive out Christians might be construed as assault.

You know, if God smote sinners as much as these hypocrites say He does, they would so many tons of smoked pork products. But as GWB said the rules don’t apply to these schmucks. They’re “forgiven” and nothing they do can be a sin. How accepting Jesus Christ as one’s saviour translates into the ability to violate his rules is just one more mystery about the Fundy mind set and one more reason they should be on terrorist watch lists the world over.

This being my first comment on this blog, I’ll try not to be too inflamatory. I agree with the general consensus of commentors here that we’re not dealing with ‘real’ christians. However, I never say that in conversation with any of them.

I don’t say that because I am extremely angry with the majority of christians who have sat on their hands and averted their eyes while this group of nutjobs have corrupted christian teachings for their own gain.

Now, of course, some of them are standing up and saying “this isn’t REAL christianity,” or “this isn’t REAL conservatism.” But, as far as I’m concerned it’s too late.

If you sit on the sidelines while your belief-system is being used in a cynical attempt to gain and keep power at the expense of society’s weakest, you don’t deserve to be listened to, or respected, when those tactics start to make you look bad.

I just look them in the eye and tell them their Kristian Nationalism will not be tolerated.

BTW, I’m not a christian. I think, like Bush, Jesus was likely a cool guy to have a beer with, but I’m not going to worship either of them.

They are going to make baby Jesus cry.

Which is no surprise. The poor guy has been red-eyed from weeping for years because of his ‘followers’.

Seperation of Church & State. or seperating the Loonies from nation-state

Raised as we are on the doctrine of separation of powers, we can easily forget that the church and government do, in fact, work together. The nature of this cooperation, and the various forms it takes, are what we mean by the term dialectic. It is a dynamic relationship, ever-changing, whose every nuance has a profound effect on how we express civility — or civilization.

The church has an inherent energy — a potential for social and political influence — that makes it a magnet for political activism, and which renders it vulnerable to every form of political manipulation. It is therefore necessary that church leaders have sufficient political savvy to know when they are being manipulated, and the character to resist the temptation. Because government has the power to enforce, it will always be attractive to any church that believes redemption is achieved by works (as it well may be). Therefore, church leaders will always find themselves politically involved, insofar as their congregations represent little ?earthly kingdoms? that are made up of real, flesh-and-blood persons, not disembodied spirits.

The idea of a ?secular priest? may be discomforting to many, who see in their church a purely spiritual experience. Yet, should a church divest itself entirely of secular concern (such as care of the poor, education, morals and dogma, the raising of children and support of the traditional family) it would most likely transform itself into an apocalyptic cult, removing its members from any outside contact or interference.

Likewise, a state that divests itself of every religious artifact, or acknowledgment, will become Godless, worldly, mechanical and amoral, having substituted a self-seeking code of ethics for the spiritual presence of an unifying, national, moral purpose … something that only religion can provide.

?The nations are not bodies-politic alone, but also souls-politic; and woe to the people which, seeking the material only, forgets that it has a soul. … A free people, forgetting that it has a soul to be cared for, devotes all its energies to its material advancement. If it makes war, it is to subserve its commercial interests.?

Albert Pike
Morals and Dogma
I .: Apprentice

Perhaps fortunately, no matter how hard we try to separate church and state, or religion and politics, there will always be a secular involvement of the church, and a religious aspect to the state. Therefore, issues of religious tolerance, intolerance, exclusion and favoritism will always be an open question, and a valid political concern — contrary to our received wisdom that infinite religious tolerance and limitless ?inclusion? by the state, together with a total separation of religion from politics (i.e., religion may not be discussed), is the only conceivable policy. As stated, we assert that total separation of church and state is impossible, and therefore ?religious discrimination? can be a valid political outcome, acknowledging that some churches may, in deed, be working contrary to the public interest.

Further, we observe that religious diversity can be very burdensome to the state, forcing compromises and arrangements that impede the state’s ability to function. As various sects compete for power, the state becomes entangled as the arbiter of religious dispute, and comes under pressure to demonstrate its impartiality by divesting itself of every religious artifact. Thus a small but politically active , religion(s)for example, can effectively destroy the religious aspect of a Christian government, to the detriment of its people and their community.

we acknowledge that there is no perfect religion (or religious creed), and that we cannot build an impregnable wall of legality between church and government, we are led inexorably toward the conclusion that geographic separation between churches and cultures, as between states according to their dominant language, culture or church, is necessary to preserve the structure of civilization. We assert that each community has the God-given right to establish and defend its own standards, institutions and its territory. The theory of Parochialism holds that there must be a limit to anyone’s moral and legal domain, and that these limits are best made geographically. Nothing makes for better neighbors than a good fence, and sufficient space between them. Let each rule where appropriate.

Take, for example, the controversy over abortion. Some people believe that abortion is murder, and this places them under a moral obligation to enforce their faith (belief) upon others. Should they fail in this, their moral authority will collapse, and with it their community standards. It is imperative that they prevent abortion (murder) from occurring under their very noses, even as they would prosecute murderers in their midst. But they have neither the obligation, nor the right, to make this into a crusade to be carried-off unto distant peoples and far-off states, anymore than we should be prosecuting criminals in Kosovo or cannibals in Sierra Leone.

It is wrong to expect all peoples everywhere to adhere to the same standards of language, culture, religion, politics or education, as it would be to demand that all farmers everywhere cultivate the same strain of rice or potato. There are different environments, cultures and peoples. What one can do successfully, another cannot. We were never intended to be all alike, nor to develop the same solutions, even when the problems we face appear to be the same. Civilization is based on compromise, trade-offs, and a degree of experimentation. Where something is gained, something else will be lost. Some preferences are material, others are religious or cultural. Even the same political or religious system, left to itself, will evolve differently in two different places.

The principle of seeking diverse, multiple solutions to similar problems can be applied to virtually any area of public policy. For example, some people regard guns, alcohol, drugs, tobacco and nudity as abhorrent, and they have a right to protect their way of life and the exposures to their children. Without this moral authority, their community standards — and their civilization — will collapse. But we must respect the fact that other people, in other places, will find different ways of dealing with these facts of life which, to ourselves at least, may be every bit as valid.

Some people believe in communal property-rights, wishing to embark on all sorts of idealistic social experiments. Let them build their new Utopias, for what good they may discover. Such were the Pilgrims, the Mennonites, the Mormons, the Shakers, … or the Hebrews ect, America was once a haven for idealists with good hearts. Lately, it seems only those with evil hearts are able to prosper. Nevertheless, there are many social and political alternatives still unexplored, ideas yet untried, or things that deserve to be tried again. There are different lives to be led, and some of them may be very interesting. Isn’t that what ?diversity? was supposed to mean?

There may be people who view community enterprise as something different from community property (in the ordinary sense), and realize that they can unite — as a community — to resist the encroachment in their lives by ?globalism? and multinational corporations. In fact, it is only as a community that we can hope to resist the displacement and disruption caused by this new ?global economy.? Those who wish to build a strong and vital ?city-state? (or county-state, a semi-autonomous zone) will find that the theory of Economic Parochialism is ideally suited to their desire for self-sufficiency. To such people, the freedom gained through independence (as in the ability to manufacture their own toothpaste) is worth the economic risk involved.

Nevertheless, it would appear that most regions — metropolitan areas in particular — are caught up in this ?global economy? of laissez faire materialism (in their limited view, the only option), and endure the attendant problems of immigration, crime, social instability and loss of sovereignty, trusting their new corporate managers to attend to their needs. Each community will suffer according to its own failings.

For example, the problems of ?Urban Sprawl? are largely the result of massive social engineering programs that had attempted to enforce a flawed ideology of universal ?inclusion.? At first people bought into it, believing, as they had been told, that it was ?the right thing to do,? … but as the system began to fail, they opted out and fled to the simpler life of the suburbs. Such behavior gained them nothing but a little time, and see how they squander that! They travel faster and farther, consuming much, much more, depleting our precious resources, and leaving a gaping urban void that draws still more resource-consuming aliens hither.

Neither should we overlook the significance of culture in shaping a community, its institutions, and its attitudes toward its environment — both in what it creates and what it leaves alone. Some people may perceive the need to vigorously defend their cultural and educational institutions. They may find a moral value in separating pubescent boys and girls at school, for example, and in providing their young men with military training.

There is no one perfect solution to the problems of civil and moral government, the distribution of wealth and opportunity, and the relationship of religion, culture and virtue: one system will work here and not there, while another there but not here. Different people, in different places, will work out their problems in different ways, and all of humanity is involved in some form of social experiment. There no more exists a ?perfect plan? for social harmony than a ?perfect? musical tune, to the exclusion of all others.

What’s right for one is not right for all.

In other words, Parochialism recognizes that civilization is a trade-off, a political compromise, and it seeks to satisfy all parties in a political or idealogical dispute by finding a way to put space between them, and to allow each to live where appropriate, and each to rule where appropriate. In return for respecting a community’s right to enforce its own social, political, cultural and moral standards, we place a geographic limitation on that authority.
The Theory of Limited Appeals
Returning to our example of the abortion dispute, Parochialism would suggest that individual towns and counties do have the right to declare themselves ?abortion-free zones?, and that neither state nor federal government can overrule the local authority on such an issue, which is essentially moral and religious in nature. We would further argue that Roe v. Wade should be overturned on the grounds that abortion is not a federal (or state) concern. By way of contrast, a Globalist (World Federalist) would argue for resolution of this dispute at the highest possible level, once and for all, either banning or condoning it altogether, he cares not which: so long as the dispute is pushed to a ?higher? appeal, it will serve his purpose of centralizing all political and judicial power. It follows that the partisan (on whichever side of the issue) who seeks victory in a federal court is, in fact, playing into the Federalist hand — oy veh!

In this respect, Parochialism is very much the same as Antifederalism. Whereas the Federalist (Globalist) will resort to invoking a ?higher power? of appeal, eventually centralizing all authority and lumping all similar disputes together into a single Grand Judgment, the Antifederalist will allow (even seek) a multiplicity of different solutions, geographically apart.

Whenever a local decision is appealed to a ?higher court? — as in a state appellate division or a federal circuit — what is surrendered is not merely the adjudication of this single dispute, but rather the venue, or the authority, to oversee similar issues in the future. Local sovereignty is abdicated to others, who invariably rule from a greater distance. Tyranny follows. The very concept of a ?higher court? is the centralization of power, and this nullifies ?consent of the governed?, the foundation of all constitutional powers [i.e. those created by agreement]. We can therefore see how neither ?rights? nor powers ever stem from any ?higher authority? (excepting God) — and especially not the Constitution of any ?United? States, or any Charter of ?United? Nations. The terms themselves are self-contradictory: as soon as they become ?United?, they cease to be sovereign…..read more

So…

assuming this person knows and understands the golden rule, we can assume that he/she would not mind if someone else did that to them.

Hello, this is ABC news, did you know Bush lied us into Iraq, and now wants us to invade Iran? Do you approve of his reinstituting the draft to invade Iran? Do you approve of him giving you the finger?

etc.