I want to compliment you on your post, which shows you are able and intent to expose the sinfully elected and unelected. Where to start elaborating.

To many this indeed may/will sound like poppycock, but unfortunately that is the state of affairs, and the independent press isnt there to cover this.

That's basically the beginning and end of it. Unless chariots of fire will come down and will knock down these evil empires for the nth time.

I'm not really comfortable as a relative powerless observer and researcher.

I'd go one step further and considering the blood that has been shed in name of religion must make one wary of letting religious leaders influence, let alone carve out, policy for a nation. Conservatism imo in its essence refers to the Constitution, formulated/strengthened through the Bill of Rights. That is what needs to be <conserved.> Since those rights have been deemed inalienable. Of course we may carry "the Bible" in our hearts and minds, and christian principles may have inspired those who drafted the Constitution for the united States, but precisely that is the whole point: in order to govern and unite people from diverse back-grounds and beliefs, belief systems, you need a guiding document that states what those principles are, irrespective of religious convictions and back-ground.

Personally it is my conviction that until the Kingdom of Heaven will come and rule the Earth in all its splendor and power, see Revelation 21, it might prove a testament to our Christian conscience, legacy, and teachings, to <not> force it onto other people by force of a nation's government, but instead study the bible, talk about it to as many people as you can, and if anything stay OUT of politics, if you consider that all governments on Earth, <until>, the coming of Christ, are of Satan.

Seems confusing, contradictory, but it isn't. It *is* a very complex and difficult set of propositions. Separation of Church and State, the easily coined phrase, may, and I'll put it as forceful as I can, may be in fact what the Bible tells us to endure. To NOT go and sit on God's throne and waltz in "our" preferred Almighty's plan and intentions, and prematurely dictate it to people through forms of man-made government.

To paraphrase you, as a complementary proposition, just as factual:

"Separation of Church and State is in fact what the US Constitution instructs its citizens- legally- to observe."

Second- and I know you didn't actually present this as your opinion- I'm leery of anyone who characterizes all government to be of Satan.

Although reading the post <hms123> gave me on John Edwards, this is a perennially tempting thing to believe.

If you guys haven't read Augustine's <City of God> I urge you to consider reading it.

St. Augustine explains that it's the ethical duty of people to construct a polity that's as close to a "heavenly ideal" as humanly possible- with the understanding that humanity is fallen.

For Augustine, however, the fact that humanity is fallen does not mean it's therefore automatically in the hands of Satan. We all have free choice, individually *and* collectively, this is a foundational principle not only of Augustine's doctrine, but, arguably, of all Christian ethical doctrine.

I find Augustine particularly interesting in the light of your current debate here- he could be cited to support both of your positions.

At any rate, I'm not a theologian. I didn't get where I am today by being a theologian.

I'm reminded of a <Calvin and Hobbes> comic:

<Calvin's Dad> "What are you doing?

<Calvin> "I'm praying to the Snow Demons to make it snow."

Just a quick confirmation or two:

<"Separation of Church and State is in fact what the US Constitution instructs its citizens- legally- to observe."> Exactly. That's how I read it.

<Jess>: <At any rate, I'm not a theologian. I didn't get where I am today by being a theologian.> That puts you in an overwhelmingly fortuitous, advantagous, position. heh

<Esteemed colleagues> Contrary to widespread popular belief fed by dishonest media and so-called educators, the words "separation of church and state" occur nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. The intent of the First Amendment is to prevent Congress from establishing a state church, such as the Church of England. The intent never was to drive Christianity out of the public square and replace it with the pseudoreligion of secular humanism.

The things that are good about America are all the product of its Christian origin and heritage. There were no Muslims aboard the Mayflower, nor at the Constitutional Convention. As for the people killed in religious wars--well, in the 20th century alone, non-Christian totalitarian governments put those totals in the shade. In just four years, 1958-1962, Mao Tse-tung wiped out at least 40 million of his own countrymen.

When he founded the National Review, William F. Buckley Jr.--considered by most people to be the founder of the modern conservative movement in America--said that as a conservative, he recognized only these sources of authority, in descending order: the Word of God, traditional religious teaching, Constitution of the United States, and American historical tradition. I think that's a good definition of what American conservatism ought to be--but alas it does not define what it has become.

For some reason I don't think I'm expressing myself clearly today, so I think I'll break now and try again tomorrow. Let <achieve> be assured that I don't propose to force "Christian law" on America. But I pray for the day when the American people will want God's law and seek it out with all their hearts.

There's little "middle ground" to play with, it seems, but let me preserve that for a later time. Supreme court rulings have surprised me, not only in a negative way.

<Let <achieve> be assured that I don't propose to force "Christian law" on America. But I pray for the day when the American people will want God's law and seek it out with all their hearts.> I share that with all my heart and mind. It appears needed that America lives up to its last remaining ideal, ancient meanwhile, that freedom, true freedom, means freedom of choice of religion as well, as long as you adhere to the values of the constitution that are on OFFER. Take it or leave. Christ will come in and take care of bidness, after that.

Same with the Geneva Convention. It's all poppycock if we do not have a tool to control power grabbers and beat corruption.

I'll probably choose <not> to get too technical, but I'll accept a challenge, and respect and am interested and curious in, and accept, anything you have to say. That's what "respect, honour, kindness and altruism" mean to me.

I also do realize that our conversation might be inappropriate or handicapped by taking place here.

My main influences in my life have been my mother, how she regarded life, respect, norms, and for some reason I found that those were instilled in me, before my physical birth or at least upbringing; Christian values as I came to know them later, and then I adopted many of those and placed them high on my list, denouncing organized religion that in my view made a mockery of- and betrayed- Christian values and core teachings.

Humans have always caused wars and always will, for a wide variety of reasons. Crusading dictators in the 20th century racked up the most staggering numbers, to be sure.

But I'll say this- people don't need "extra reasons" to go to war.

One religious war is one too many.

The fact that other kinds of war have higher death tolls in no way detracts from the appalling nature of religious wars such as the Crusades, or the Catholic/Protestant war that raged in Europe for almost two centuries.

As for the Mayflower and Constitutional Conventions, there were no Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, women, or blacks either.

However, America has become a nation that embraces such diversity and protects its citizens- not by "affirmative action" (I didn't get where I am today through affirmative action programs) but by the <Rule of Law>, which, arguably, is the most important cultural guarantor of individual freedom in your <still great> country. <Bill Buckley> never once argued that any of these groups should enjoy "fewer rights" than any other, or fewer benefits of US citizenry. I'm not accusing you of saying this either, mind you.

That said, I'd like to add that personally, I was shocked that there was not a massive national protest about building a Muslim "cultural center" near Ground Zero.

That seems like a no-brainer- you don't poke a wounded bear after you've blasted it in the face with a shot gun.

Plain common sense. You just don't do it.

One last thing, in case you weren't aware- the most staunch "small government" advocate among the Founding Fathers- by far- was <Thomas Jefferson>, whose politics may fairly be termed <libertarian> in that and many other respects.

Were you aware that he was a Deist, as opposed to a Biblical Christian?

Did you know that he actually rewrote the Bible, taking out everything that was against the laws of physics (supernatural)? He didn't necessarily do this for publication, he did it mainly for his own personal edification. Another advocate of small government among the "FFs" was <Thomas Paine> who wrote "The Rights of Man." <Paine> was an atheist.

You should remember that libertarian political values don't derive primarily from Christianity= quite the contrary, they derive mainly from Enlightenment values. The intellectual elite of the Founding Fathers were sons of the Enlightenment, not Biblical Christians per se.

I'm not saying that libertarian politics can't go together with Biblical Christianity- but the two are not historically conflated in American history.

I mention this partly because it's not well known.

Finally- I don't agree with re-writing the Bible.

I feel I should make one last point, so as not to be misunderstood.

I'm not suggesting that Biblical Christianity and social conservatism are incompatible with the US Constitution.

I'm pointing out that the actual genesis of the Constitution derives mainly from core political values of the European Enlightenment- unequivocally and without question.

I have a feeling we can all agree that one of the most important intended functions of the US Constitution was- and is- the protection of the civil/political rights and freedoms of the individual against unreasonable control by government?

This idea was new. It by no means derived from European Christian culture history. Far from it. There is no hint of democratic ideals or talk of individual civil liberties or protection from unreasonable government interference in Europe prior to the Enlightenment.

In fact, the European Enlightenment was explicitly anticlerical.

This doesn't mean, however that we have to be anticlerical to adopt its core political values. To suggest this would be ridiculous. The notion of individual liberty and human rights is not contradicted by the Bible. The notion is not "owned" by liberals or conservatives, or any other "group." That's one of the reasons it's such a great idea.

But we should recall how these core political values came to America= how, where, when, and why.

The phrase and concept of Separation of Church and State, may have a powerful ring to it, but is an off-shoot from a phrase used by FF T Jefferson in a letter he wrote.

Of course the two are closely tied, and a Black and White type approach is not helpful, the word separation may even be deceptive, in that regard, if you counter it with "homogenization" -- neither do justice to what I and from what I've read sofar other scholars and court rulings appear to make clear, which is what the <intent> was of the FFs in their amendments of the Constitution.

<Separation> imo must therefore be viewed as a shield, not a sword, in the great struggle to achieve religious liberty for all. One of the great benefits of living in the U.S. is that Americans are allowed to pick a religion to practice or not partake in any religion.

- - - -

Actually, there were huge and passionate grass-roots protests against the Muslim "cultural center" at Ground Zero--those of us who protested called it the "Victory Mosque." The media ignored the protest movement, but we prevailed. That Victory Mosque will never be built.

I am currently reading "A God Who Hates" by Wafa Sultan. If you think I'm hard on Islam, you should read what she has to say about it. While I deplore her conversion to atheism, I'm in no position to judge her, and I'm sure God understands her and will be patient with her.

<achieve> I think as long as Christians stick to the Bible, they're safe. We get into trouble when we starting trying to improve on God's Word. This is what most of the institutional churches have done throughout history.

It should be obvious to anyone who reads the New Testament that there is absolutely no Biblical warrant for forcing anyone to convert to Christianity. When it was done in the past, it was always contrary to God's Word. Anyone who wants to do it now is not speaking for Christ.

Calvinists who supported a Parliamentary democracy and, perhaps even better, believed in a more radical, grass-roots form of localized self-government by the people.

I don't know why I have this blind spot, it's not the first time I "forgot about the Protestants." Possibly I'm secretly a Catholic supporter, although I can't imagine why. Watched <The Godfather Trilogy> too many times?

At any rate yes the first radical ideas about democracy do in fact come from England during the revolutionary period, and from a deeply Christian culture to boot.

I find the Pilgrims fascinating so I'd be happy to discuss them with you at your leisure.

Hats off to you for your involvement in the anti-Victory mosque protest.

I'm no fan of Islam- I'm no fan of any organized religion in fact, but nowadays it seems that Islam poses the greatest threat to world peace and to civilization itself, from the religious perspective.

These roles were reversed during the Crusades, of course, when the Christians represented the barbaric terrorists much more than the Muslims, who in fact presided over the most sophisticated, and tolerant, civilization of the West at this time.

However I didn't come here today to start an argument about the Crusades.

But I want to say this- "moderate Muslim leaders" world wide should be strenuously arguing against their radical bretheren at all times.

They don't, in fact. And they lie about it too. They pretend they are as opposed to radical Islam as much as those outside their faith.

They're not.

And until they are, nobody can- or should- trust them.

That's what I think at the moment anyways.

I've never heard that word before. What do you mean by that term, exactly?

But "Chrislam" looks like something that ought to have a definition. Should it refer to those Christians who insist on calling Islam "the religion of peace" when it isn't? Or to Muslims who become enamored of Western culture to the point where they're hardly identifiable as Muslims anymore? (Wafa Sultan would deny that such persons exist.)

That's who said "Chrislam," it's just two posts above yours.

<Esteemed host> I doubt you typed the word "Chrislam" before. You didn't get where you are today by typing the word "Chrislam."

To tell you the truth I had kind of a bad feeling that "God from the Alekhine" meant that my post was so critical of Islam that I was turning "Christianity" into "Islamofascism" by being intolerant of Islam.

I'm not intolerant of Islam per se. I didn't get where I am today by not being able to stop typing I didn't get where I am today.

I'm intolerant of something much more specific- the lack of any kind of real opposition towards radical Islamofascism by today's so-called "moderate" Imams with congregations across America, Canada, Europe and the rest of the Free World.

And yes there is a still a Free World.

However I don't want to put words in <God from the Alekhine's> mouth, I expect he'll tell us what he meant.

I think he assumed I'm a Christian.

I doubt he got where he is today by conflating Christianity with Islamofascism, if that's what he was doing.

Apart from Aaron, can you think of another Burr?

<Van Impe> eh? I'm guessing he doesn't approve of this blending. I find it hard to believe it even happens. Does <Van Impe> supply any proof?

I must say he's got an unfortunate name for a Televangelist.

It means, in one connotation at least,
"Son of the Devil."

"Van" means born of, and "The Imp" is one of the many, many nicknames given to the Devil in European history.

It can also mean Demon, as in the story "The Imp of the Perverse."

Ironically, "Nick" or "Old Nick" is also a "nick"name for the Devil.

Does this mean all nicknames are evil?

YOU BE THE JUDGE.

<pgp> I'm sorry to hear of your computer problems- I wish your machine a speedy recovery.

<cormier> tks mstr for update and your definition "Chris Islam." He sounds like he might be a folk-singer or something.