Forum Thread

Is there such a thing as a "Christian Caliphate?"


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 45 of 57 Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Guy Dwyer Wrote:
    alias Wrote:
    Guy Dwyer Wrote:
    alias Wrote:
    Guy Dwyer Wrote: Alias,

    Already asked and answered. You just don't like the answer.


    There is no danger of a "Christian Caliphate" in the USA.  That's the answer.


    Still in denial, eh?

    When right-wing televangelist Pat Robertson campaigned for the presidency in 1988 he was trying to establish Christian rule.

    That was obvious because Robertson had exposed his real agenda. For example, he falsely claimed that the Founding Fathers wanted America to be "The Land of Jesus." And he even claimed, again falsely, that the Founding Fathers did not want to establish a "wall of separation between church and state," ignoring what Thomas Jefferson had clearly written about it. (See Quotes of the Founding Fathers Regarding Religion.)

    When George W. Bush was president he claimed he was "doing God's will," appeasing the "Christian Right." And he eagerly launched a preemptive attack on Iraq because his "religious" advisers had given him a good excuse. They had told him that such a war would fulfill the prophecy in the book of Revelation about the "warring angel" and the "Euphrates river."

    In fact, Bush made a secret phone call to France (which was later revealed), claiming that his war on Iraq was against "Gog and Magog," again a reference to symbolic Christian prophecy that most Christians don't understand. (See The Real Record of George W. Bush.)

    Since then, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Rich Santorum have followed suit, thumping their bible as they wave the flag. But fortunately, most of the American people see through their "religious" bigotry and hypocrisy.

    Nevertheless, the danger of right-wing theocratic "Christian" rule remains, and it will remain until the bigots and hypocrites are faced with the real truth regarding the intent of Jesus of Nazareth, and the intent of the Founding Fathers.



    Don't forget to keep the light on so the Christian boogy man doesn't get ya.  Your post reeks of Christophobic bigotry.



    Amazing. You unwittingly accuse Jesus himself, because he would say the same thing. In fact, he did say the same thing, and predicted that the modern son of man would say the same thing.

    But I can see it is fruitless to try to reason with you, or explain any more to you. So I won't.

    I hope you realize your error, and how and why you have been misled.



    Oh, yeah.  Now you're telling me what Jesus would say.  Now you've crossed over into silliness.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    alias Wrote:

    Oh, yeah.  Now you're telling me what Jesus would say.  Now you've crossed over into silliness.


    Have you ever read the bible?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Codejack Wrote:
    alias Wrote:

    It wasn't Christians who took God out of our schools. 


    No, that was the founding fathers.


    alias Wrote:
    Christians aren't the ones imposing their beliefs of what constitutes marriage. That would be the homosexuals who are trying to impose their beliefs of what marriage is.



    Who is imposing anything on you? In what possible way does 2 people you don't know getting married affect you?

    Beyond that, the opposition to homosexual marriage is fundamentally religious in nature, and so in violation of the first amendments injunction against laws respecting an establishment of religion.

    No, this is you trying to impose your outdated (and frankly detestable) morality on aeveryone else.


    If the founding fathers are responsible, why did it take almost 200 years for it to get done?

    Marriage has been a man and a woman in this nation since we were a colony.  Christians are not the ones trying to change the definition.

    That makes both of your points nothing but lies.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    alias Wrote:

    If the founding fathers are responsible, why did it take almost 200 years for it to get done?


    It didn't; it took over 160 years before god was ADDED to our institutions:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_.22under_God.22


    The phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance June 14, 1954


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust


    "In God we trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956 as an alternative or replacement to the unofficial motto of E pluribus unum, adopted when the Great Seal of the United States was created and adopted in 1782


    Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution:


    no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.






    alias Wrote:
    Marriage has been a man and a woman in this nation since we were a colony.  Christians are not the ones trying to change the definition.



    No, you are jsut trying to force YOUR definition on everyone else, as defined by your RELIGION, which makes it unconstitutional per the establishment clause of the first amendment:


    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion


    As there is no non-religious objection to homosexual union, there is no way to justify laws against it, although I would be happy to simply get the government out of the marriage business altogether, that way you wouldn't have to worry about it; your church could refuse to acknowledge gay marriages, and theuir churches would be free to not recognize yours.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Codejack Wrote:
    alias Wrote:

    Oh, yeah.  Now you're telling me what Jesus would say.  Now you've crossed over into silliness.


    Have you ever read the bible?


    Yes.  Give it your best shot.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Codejack Wrote:
    alias Wrote:

    If the founding fathers are responsible, why did it take almost 200 years for it to get done?


    It didn't; it took over 160 years before god was ADDED to our institutions:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_.22under_God.22


    The phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance June 14, 1954


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust


    "In God we trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956 as an alternative or replacement to the unofficial motto of E pluribus unum, adopted when the Great Seal of the United States was created and adopted in 1782


    Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution:


    no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.






    alias Wrote:
    Marriage has been a man and a woman in this nation since we were a colony.  Christians are not the ones trying to change the definition.



    No, you are jsut trying to force YOUR definition on everyone else, as defined by your RELIGION, which makes it unconstitutional per the establishment clause of the first amendment:


    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion


    As there is no non-religious objection to homosexual union, there is no way to justify laws against it, although I would be happy to simply get the government out of the marriage business altogether, that way you wouldn't have to worry about it; your church could refuse to acknowledge gay marriages, and theuir churches would be free to not recognize yours.


    The topic was God in schools and freedom of religious expression being removed, not what is printed on our money.

    My RELIGION doesn't pass marriage laws in the USA.  Marriage laws in the USA are passed by the States.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Codejack,

    You are correct, of course, about the insertion of "under God," and "In God We Trust" into our official lexicon. And I am in agreement with you.

    It could be said, however, that the insertion of those phrases are not inconsistent or incompatible with the views and intent of the Founding Fathers.

    Granted, the Founding Fathers wanted freedom of religion and realized that we cannot have freedom of religion unless government is impartial and neutral regarding religion, showing no favoritism. Nevertheless, even though they used generic terms like "Creator" and "Nature's God" purposely to avoid using terms specific to any particular religion, they did indeed use the terms "Creator" and "God."

    I say that neither as an atheist nor a member of any single religion,because I, like many of the Founding Fathers, see the reasonableness of Deism, which is belief in God or Deity but without superstition and rejecting supernatural myths and theocratic dogma.

    I am a member of the All Faiths Coalition for Peace, Freedom and Justice because I deeply believe in Interfaith dialogue and cooperation (including the atheistic faith in Nature). I believe that with education about the original and true purpose of religions, we can take a major step toward peace, freedom and justice in the world.

    I believe that religious bigotry during the last 30 years has become so infused into the political and geo-political conflicts that religion has become one of the biggest problems rather than the solution it can and should be.

    To me that is obvious, especially in the Mid-East and in America. That is why I keep plugging away, trying to get through to people.
    .

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    alias Wrote:

    The topic was God in schools and freedom of religious expression being removed, not what is printed on our money.


    Did god used to show up in public schools, other than the pledge of allegiance?


    alias Wrote:
    My RELIGION doesn't pass marriage laws in the USA.  Marriage laws in the USA are passed by the States.


    The LAWS are based on your RELIGION; just because it takes a while to hunt down every violation of the constitution doesn't mean that it gets to continue out of tradition.

    But you have a point; states do pass marriage laws:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause


    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.



    So, actually, because one state passed a law recognizing gay marriage, all other states have to recognize it, too. At least, for people who travel to that state to get married.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Codejack Wrote:
    alias Wrote:

    The topic was God in schools and freedom of religious expression being removed, not what is printed on our money.


    Did god used to show up in public schools, other than the pledge of allegiance?


    alias Wrote:
    My RELIGION doesn't pass marriage laws in the USA.  Marriage laws in the USA are passed by the States.


    The LAWS are based on your RELIGION; just because it takes a while to hunt down every violation of the constitution doesn't mean that it gets to continue out of tradition.

    But you have a point; states do pass marriage laws:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause


    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.



    So, actually, because one state passed a law recognizing gay marriage, all other states have to recognize it, too. At least, for people who travel to that state to get married.


    Expressions of Christianity used to be allowed in public schools.  Try putting on a Christmas play about the birth of Jesus and see what happens.

    The laws based on my RELIGION are legal in the USA.  Do you have a problem with constitutional rights?

    Theodore Roosevelt:  "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education".  Looks like Teddy Roosevelt is now cosidered a right-wing Christian fanatic in the leftist mind.

    Wikipedia is not an acceptable source since it can be edited.  College professors, the founder, and others like myself will not accept it or use it for serious discussion unless a primary source other than wiki is used.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    alias Wrote:
    Expressions of Christianity used to be allowed in public schools.  Try putting on a Christmas play about the birth of Jesus and see what happens.


    They had one at my younger son's school this past year.


    alias Wrote:
    The laws based on my RELIGION are legal in the USA.  Do you have a problem with constitutional rights?


    No, but apparently you do; you cannot have a law based on your religion. So says the first amendment. Period.


    alias Wrote:
    Theodore Roosevelt:  "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education".  Looks like Teddy Roosevelt is now cosidered a right-wing Christian fanatic in the leftist mind.


    Nice straw man; TR wasn't going to let schools force children to either pray or be ostracized, which is the current issue with instructor-led prayer in schools.

    Note that most schools still observe a moment of silence every morning, explicitly so that children who wish to pray by themselves are allowed to.


    alias Wrote:
    Wikipedia is not an acceptable source since it can be edited.  College professors, the founder, and others like myself will not accept it or use it for serious discussion unless a primary source other than wiki is used.


    I was quoting the f'ing constitution! Nice way to change the subject away from you being patently WRONG again, though.

    As for wikipedia, most modern college professors WILL allow one citation from it per paper, as long as the point is well supported within the document.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    All we have is your mythical son's school here.  All we have is your word, no evidence.  On the other hand, I can cite numerous instances of schools banning Christian presentations.

    You've erected a colossal glittering straw man, nothing more.  Pfft.  I gave you Roosevelt's words, and you give me what you claim he would have said and done.  Pfft.  Fail.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The following was copied and pasted from http://messenger2.cjcmp.org/foundingfathers.html It is not the whole article, but most of it.


    Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it would read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion,’ the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Muslim, the Hindu and Infidel of every denomination.” -Thomas Jefferson

    The Founding Fathers not only wanted to establish freedom from the monarchial religious military industrial empire of the theocratic King of England (the Head of the Church of England). They also wanted to establish freedom from the theocratic political ideology of the Calvinists and Puritans and other theocratic clergy in America.

    That is why on the Supreme Court building, the South Wall Frieze includes figures of lawgivers from the ancient world and includes Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, and Augustus. The North Wall Frieze shows lawgivers from the Middle Ages on and includes representations of Justinian, Muhammad, Charlemagne, John of England, Louis IX of France, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon. And Muhammad was included in the court's pantheon of 18 prominent lawgivers of history to recognize him, among many other lawgivers, as an important figure in the history of law.

    Despite the facts, and despite the truth, "fundamentalist Christians" on the "religious right" in America distort the intent of the Founding Fathers, and simply ignore the full context of what the Founding Fathers actually said, wrote, and intended.

    If we consider the actual words of the Founding Fathers, it becomes very clear that the political agenda of the "Fundamentalist Christian Religious Right" in America today is not at all compatible with the fundamental ideals of the Founding Fathers, nor is it compatible with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or with the obligations of truly democratic government or true servants of God.


    More Quotes from the Founding Fathers On Religion

    "We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition ... In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States." -- George Washington (letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793

    "I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country." -- George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ,

    "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 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." – Thomas Jefferson

    "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by [Religious] Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in history." – James Madison

    "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." – Thomas Jefferson

    "Religious controversies always produce more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." – George Washington

    "I wish Christianity were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity." – Benjamin Franklin

    "The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious [doctrine claiming] miracles?" – John Adams

    "If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Roman Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. The Puritans found it wrong in the Bishops of the Church of England, but fell into the same practice themselves in New England [in America]."– Benjamin Franklin, in an essay on "Toleration"

    "Experience witnesses that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." – James Madison

    "Religious establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects." "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect." – James Madison

    "Soon after I had published the pamphlet, ‘Common Sense’ [on Feb. 14, 1776] in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion." – Thomas Paine

    "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." – Benjamin Franklin

    "The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills." --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

    "Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Jesus by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." – Thomas Jefferson

    "But a short time elapsed after the death of [Jesus] the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --- Thomas Jefferson

    "Among the sayings and discourses imputed to [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the [refuse]; restore him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus." --- Thomas Jefferson (See "The Jefferson Bible," which is his edited version of the New Testament, removing the "corruptions.")

    "The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those calling themselves [preachers], who have perverted them ... without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation [birth] of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation [birth] of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." – Thomas Jefferson

    "What influence, in fact, have religious establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." – James Madison

    "Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly-marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity." – Thomas Paine

    "They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me." – Thomas Jefferson

    "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a clergy-ridden people maintaining a free civil government." – Thomas Jefferson

    "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" – John Adams

    "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." – Declaration of the U.S. Congress in 1797

    "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years..." – Abraham Lincoln, 1862 (Note: Lincoln believed in God, and in the teachings of Jesus around the Golden Rule, but like Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln was not in agreement with the theocratic dogmatism of those who used religion for political purposes.)

    *    *    *    *    *

    Considering all those words and many others too numerous to quote here, it becomes very clear that the political agenda of the modern "Religious Right," which claims to be Christian, is simply misguided and wrong not only with respect to government, but with respect to their religion. They betray the ideals and true purpose of both.

    Remember, the theocratic dogmatism of the Protestant Church of England necessitated the initial American Revolution. Therefore, even though the Protestant Reformation in Europe put an end to the Dark Ages of oppressive theocratic rule by the military imperialist Roman Church many centuries ago, it did not sufficiently reform Christianity.

    In other words, to have real religious freedom, all religions must be respected as equal in the realm of government. And Theocracy, in any form, is not really based on true religion.

    Thomas Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom recognized that. It was greatly admired not only in America. In fact, Jefferson's Bill was reproduced in France three years before their Revolution and convinced the French that separation of church and state was a great idea.

    When Jefferson’s Bill became U.S. Law in 1786, in part thanks to James Madison's advocacy, it was welcomed as innovative because it fostered the ideals of freedom of conscience and the neutrality of the state. It abolished tithes collected by Anglican clergy. It freed public employees from having to take religious oaths of allegiance (as Article 6 of the Constitution did too). It established natural rights and freed people from “tyrannical" theocratic rule, and it intended to put an end to the kind of theocratic political military industrial imperialistic ideology that had plagued the world since the fourth century.

    Jefferson’s Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom declared that "our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions,” and it concluded that “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.”

    In 1947 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Jefferson, and it still defends Article 6 and the establishment clause of the First Amendment as establishing a "wall of separation between church and state" and the idea of state neutrality in matters of religion.

    Let us settle this issue now, once and for all, to stop and prevent hypocrites from being able to fight for and gain political power in the name or their religion.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There is a bible buried in the cornerstone of the Washington Monument and there are Christian scriptures written on the walls.  When is that going to be fixed?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    When faced with overwhelming facts, American Theocrats are always at a loss for words.

    Thank God, the day will come when it will be socially unacceptable for any people to claim that their religion is superior to all others, or that their race or nation or culture is superior to all others.

    The day will come when bigotry in all its forms --- religious bigotry, racial bigotry, etc. --- will be considered wrong, and socially unacceptable.

    Unfortunately, those with very deluded, self-important, self-righteous egos who still believe that their religion or race or nation or culture IS superior fight the truth tooth and nail. They call the truth a lie. They try not to lose face. And they know not what they do.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Guy Dwyer Wrote:
    gymrat22 Wrote: For all those so called "religious right" folks who claim,as did Robertson,that America "used" to be a Christian nation...apparently they don't teach either history or word comprehension. America was founded on principles of certain freedoms,to wit:freedom of speech,freedom of assembly,freedom of religion.I could go on,but you get the point.We were NEVER a "Christian" nation...that by the very definition is a theocracy.We have freedom of religion,we also have,as one's own choice...freedom FROM religion.A theocracy would never permit freedom from the state sanctioned religion.(see:Iran)And that is exactly what our founding fathers wanted to avoid.We have freedom of, and we have freedom from.Go down the list.It's freedom,not compulsion.A theocracy does not permit such actions.
       I guess the point I'm trying(badly) to make...yes,there can be a "religious caliphate",but there can never be a Christian one.
       I made those points badly,didn't I? Oh well, guess that explains the lack of comments I get on my threads.Gotta start plagiarizing schmidt...lol. Good thread!


    Don't worry, you made your point very well. The only thing I would differ about is your statement that there could "never be a Christian Caliphate." And I am a bit confused about why you think there could be a "religious caliphate" but not a Christian one.

    The point I have made, which agrees with the message at http://messenger.cjcmp.org, is that America was in danger of having a "Christian Caliphate" when Pat Robertson ran for president. America DID have a "Christian Caliphate" when Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were president, and it was in danger of having one again with the campaigns of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, because those hypocrites tried to deceive the American people about the intent of the Founding Fathers, just as Pat Robertson has.

    I think after considering it a little more(and the use of a dictionary)I'm going to have to deffer to Guy.OK,a "Christian Caliphate" is possible and Guy is correct,we have already had two,and if good ole Pat had won...three.
    But I still think,the vast majority of these "Christians" are in name only.Reagan certainly went to church...but Jesus Himself told us to pay that no attention.Instead,look at their DEEDS (Jesus phrased it as "By their fruits you will know them".And Reagan's deeds did NOT dovetail with the teachings of either the Old or New Testament.Reagan was all for the rich.that is 100% against any scripture I know of.  We don't have to discuss George the second,do we??  I think I tried to draw a distinction between Christian and religious.And didn't do a very good job with either description.  Thanks for the kind words and reply Guy.You make good points. I really like this site!