WHAT THE HELL !!

[T.P.]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100818/D9HM55S00.html

[Brad]

Yeah saw that on the news last night.  It is his forth trip that we the taxpayers have funded.  Nothing our government does anymore surprises me.   

[Hoser]

Hope it's a one way ticket! Hoser 

[Psychotic Bovine]

Outreach?  I hope it's not a terrorist fund raising trip.
Also, technically, isn't this a violation of separation of church and state?  Or does that only apply to Christians?

[Chrisj CMA]

I personally think all these good will trips are a waste of money but as far as I know sending the Imam is no more scandalous than all the other religious big wigs of other religions we send all over the world.........like our enemies will magically start liking us.........right.......stop the waste, but this is nothing new or even a WTH really it happens all the time

[Bobbo]

I personally think all these good will trips are a waste of money but as far as I know sending the Imam is no more scanalous than all the other religious big wigs of other religions we send all over the world.........like our enemies will magically start liking us.........right.......stop the waste, but this is nothing new or even a WTF really it happens all the time

+1 

[3fan4life]

I personally think all these good will trips are a waste of money but as far as I know sending the Imam is no more scanalous than all the other religious big wigs of other religions we send all over the world.........like our enemies will magically start liking us.........right.......stop the waste, but this is nothing new or even a WTF really it happens all the time

+1 

Whoah!!!!!!

Bobbo you just agreed with Chris...................

You know what that means....



           

[Skinhead]

I think I'll apply to see if I can travel and promote my "Church of What's Happinin' Now"  That's not bad coin for per diem.

[Bobbo]

Outreach?  I hope it's not a terrorist fund raising trip.
Also, technically, isn't this a violation of separation of church and state?  Or does that only apply to Christians?

It doesn't violate the Separation of Church and State, since it is a diplomatic mission, not a religious one.

From the article:

The department said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will get a daily $200 honorarium for the 15-day tour to Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which is intended to promote religious tolerance.

If the last two words in that statement were changed to "the <insert any religion here> religion", then there would be a problem.

Religious tolerance is something expressed in the First Amendment.  The actions of a few "religious" people aren't necessarily to be tolerated.

[Bobbo]

Whoah!!!!!!

Bobbo you just agreed with Chris...................

You know what that means....

           

He gets it right occasionally!      

[KW]

There is NO separation of Church and State in the Constitution. I don't know why people continually misrepreaent our Constitution . . . Perhaps because that's what the "free" media (secular humanist)  wants us to believe in order to bash Christianity?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. In part, the amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion." That's it. All of it. There's no other reference to "religion." And, my friends, when it was written, it ONLY applied to the Congress . . not you and me, not the schools we sent our children to, or the courthouse lawns where we place Christmas trees.

This is a Christian Country, founded by Believes. That's the historical fact and no amount of stating otherwise will change it or our Constitution which was written to PROTECT Christians. If you don't like that and want to change it, have at it. Our Constitution allows for changes. It's called 'amendments' (Re: Bill of Rights) and the Framers deliberately made it difficult, knowing our liberties would be attacked if they didn't. What they didn't foresee was the court system being allowed to legislate from the bench. 

This post isn't meant to be political and if read properly, it isn't. It's historical. So, have at it.

[Chrisj CMA]

KW......many people will continue to refuse to see that Christianity is not a Religion.  And making a reference to God......the God of the Bible, Jehova God or the Bible (God's Word), is not a religious act in and of itself.  It really is the basis for most of the religious fights here at home with Christians and other groups

And I agree with you Christians of several religions founded this country on Godly principles..........principles we need to return to before its too late

[RuthlessRider]

I hate to be the one to burst the bubble of those of you who are "holier than thou", as my grandmother used to say, but most of the founding fathers according to historical fact were deists. Deists according to their own webpage define Deism as, the "knowledge of God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature. The designs presuppose a Designer. Deism is therefore a natural religion and is not a "revealed" religion. The natural religion/philosophy of Deism frees those who embrace it from the inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the "revealed" religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam." Sure they believed in God, but not because of their belief in the revealed word of God as expressed in the bible. Most of them realized the need for the free expression of one's religious beliefs without interference from anyone else, especially government, and consequently, in the first amendment created the "establishment" clause. Most of us see this as a desire for the separation of church and state. If you want to see real havoc, all you need to do is look at nations that have not created solid barriers to promote religious freedom: Northern Ireland, Iraq, Iran, Israel, etc., etc. There have probably been more people killed in this world promoting one religion over another than for any other reason. Why is that so difficult to see?

[Willow]

Why is that so difficult to see?

Because it's false.

There is so much error in your post that addressing it all would be like herding cats.

The last line though is addressable unless you consider Stalin, Hitler, and the Khmer Rouge to be religious zealots.  

As for the rest of it, believe what you will.  Belief does not define truth.      

[KW]

Mr. Ruthlessrider, Nice saying your Grandfather had, but I don't see where it applies here. My Grandfather - who was born in Scotland - had a saying as well. It was; "You can have any opinion you want, but we have to share the same set of facts."

Here's a list of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (the true 'founding fathers of our Country) and their Religious Affiliation. Of the 56 signers, 54 were Church going members of a Christian religion. Thomas Jefferson actually translated his own Bible (I've read it, it's no KJB, but it's close.) The simple statement "The Founding Fathers were all deists" is a good example of a liberal fable. Ben Franklin was a deist in his youth, but his views changed as he grew older.  He saw Christianity as valuable, noting the positive effects of George Whitefield's preaching to the colonists, and expressed his admiration of Christ's moral teachings. Liberals insisting that Franklin was a deist towards the end of his life are astounding and false (he requested divine intervention at the Constitutional Convention.)


Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton Georgia Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian
Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian
William Paca Maryland Episcopalian
Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian
William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian
Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian 
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian
Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian
John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian
Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
William Floyd New York Presbyterian
Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian
James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian
George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian


The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group.  They were so dedicated to the "Cause" of freedom, MOST paid with their fortunes and life. You have the right to HATE Christians. You can label us something we're not. You can even put words in our mouths to vilify a morality you don't share . . . but cannot and WILL NOT change historical fact.

[MP]

+1

Thanks for the research.

MP

[Bobbo]

There is NO separation of Church and State in the Constitution. I don't know why people continually misrepreaent our Constitution . . . Perhaps because that's what the "free" media (secular humanist)  wants us to believe in order to bash Christianity?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. In part, the amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion." That's it. All of it. There's no other reference to "religion." And, my friends, when it was written, it ONLY applied to the Congress . . not you and me, not the schools we sent our children to, or the courthouse lawns where we place Christmas trees.

You are using a narrow interpretation of the Bill of Rights.  That is the same tactic used by the anti-gun crowd to declare that arms were to be possessed by people ONLY as part of a state regulated militia.  They further say that modern high capacity handguns and "assault weapons" weren't foreseen by the writers, and thus should be not be legal.  I prefer the broad interpretation of our Bill of Rights, which allows liberal ownership and use of arms by the people at any time they legally see fit.  Same for the First Amendment, a ban on any government involvement in religion, which is a personal matter, not a government function.  You are partially correct on the protection statement, since they wanted to protect all religions, not specifically Christian.  The writer's intent was to restrict government involvement in Church affairs, and vice-versa.  That's where the concept of "a wall of separation" came from.

This is a Christian Country, founded by Believes. That's the historical fact and no amount of stating otherwise will change it or our Constitution which was written to PROTECT Christians. If you don't like that and want to change it, have at it. Our Constitution allows for changes. It's called 'amendments' (Re: Bill of Rights) and the Framers deliberately made it difficult, knowing our liberties would be attacked if they didn't. What they didn't foresee was the court system being allowed to legislate from the bench. 

This post isn't meant to be political and if read properly, it isn't. It's historical. So, have at it. [/color]

Could you please post the section of the constitution that declares this country as Christian?