A New American Holy War

There are people who abuse the term or concept ???freedom of religion??? without really understanding the true depth of the words involved. Lets start with the word religion. What is a religion: the belief, habit, ritual, thought, or faith? I believe all synonyms would apply to the definition of the word. Religion could be how I tie my shoes, my political ideas, my thoughts on science, or my feelings toward a particular brand name (in some cases consumerism qualify as religion). Many only argue that religion is strictly a word with a monopoly pertaining only to God or the Church. If you can make the argument that even atheistic approaches that of a religion; then one has to accept that my views on foreign policy or free trade qualify as a religion. Religion is a single or series of repeated behaviors and or thought. That is why we have a freedom of speech, privacy, and the freedom of religion within the constitution. All the concepts of the document from our revolutionary era uphold one another. They cannot exist without the other. These rights are all a form or relative or thought. They are all an attempt to protect the freedom of thought. Such wording of the constitution has to be interpreted with the full meaning of the word. For words are ideas, concepts, or theologies in and of themselves. Now think about the word freedom. I hope we all understand what freedom is. As well we should also think about what we do not have the freedom to do. There are many thoughts that are originated within Biblical religion that people do not have the right to do; consider many verses of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Revelation, and other books of the Bible. (I would hope we all know which verses they are) We do not have a total freedom for Biblical Church based religion. If we did, we would be living in a world of chaos, torture, and general madness including witch burnings, stoning, forced conversion, or beheadings. There are concepts in the secular world that are beliefs which are illegal they are the current laws on the books. Those laws are a record of what belief or thoughts you shall not hold. So beware when Biblical religion claims they have the power, the right, or the protection to conduct their actions when in conjunction with the government. There are some who would claim that Biblical religion has the freedom of religion as to fuse with the government or take on the responsibilities/functions of government with tax dollar support. My faith-based program is the issue and unconstitutionality of faith based programs and any vicarious use of those programs for the potential of converts via the heading of people to faith based services. The Church should function independently from government at all times. This serves the society in protection of the true freedom of religion, our freedom of thought.

I'm backtracking quite a ways, but Mormonism isn't a cult, if a cult is defined as "anything that diverts from historical orthodox Christianity," I pose the question, who can define "historical orthodox Christianity?" The Church of Jesus Christ considers itself a restoration of original Christianity, as in, the doctrines taught by Christ and His Apostles. The Trinitarian doctrine was invented by the Nicean Creed in the times of Constantine, (at that time the Pagan emp. who presided over that counsel). That's one of many doctrinal misconceptions. Main stream Christianity has been polluted by papal theocrats, paganism, and biblical mistranslations. The Bible is the word of God, as long as it is translated correctly. Many plain and precious truths have been lost over the centuries. Therefore the bandwagon fallacy which transports the common contention that "Mormonism is a cult" merely denotes that "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it..."(St. Matthew. 7:14).

The Russel Trust is a secret society. This subjects them to many Conspiracy Theories. Since our President and many others in government are assoiated with this organization it would be wrong for me to read into things that cannot be proven. I just want to show who owns the world's capital(VERY FEW) and how they influence every government in the world directly or indirectly. We are becoming a GLOBAL COMMUNITY; and eventually there will BE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. George Sorros manages the Queens investments. These powerful families FUND CLUBS LIKE THE PARIS CLUB; THIS ORGANIZATION ALONG WITH OTHERS FUND THE IMF AND WB. We need to support a policy of Peace and Prosperity For ALL. Many people from these families have made tremendous contributions to American Society. Bloodlines are very important in American Society because they determine what fraternity you belong too. I see nothing wrong with that. My purpose is to eduate the electorate. The more the "voter knows"; the more honest, and less scripted politicians will be. And then maybe we will realize that leaving people behing does not work; WE need a President who won't forget about us. A President that can convince these powers to use their wealth and ownership for the better good of ALL and not just for their own narrow interests.

Do you know that 80% of the world's capital is owned by 12 families. They already run the world the organizations like the Paris Club; who inturn fund the IMF and World Bank. Look at the power oil companies have on the world. You are confusing conspiracy with reality. You have to prove what you say if not it means nothing. But thank you for your commentary EUB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft_family-If you go to this website or url, you will notice the development of the Taft family one of the most poweful families in America. Along with a few other families, they were able to establish a number of fraternities which contorl both parties political machinery. THE LINK BETWEEN THE BUSH FAMILY AND ROMNEY IS THE COMMON FRATERNITY THEY SHARE WITH HENRY TAFT BENSON.

nbrhi60624:You will see after visiting the links below and a little research that these families dominate both political parties.Remember, that George Bush is a Russel Trust member. Research the
Astor, Bundy, Collins, DuPont , Freeman, Kennedy Li Onassis Reynolds Rockefeller Rothschild
Russell, Van Duyn families.
Bush's fraternity now dominates his administration. You will find no matter who is in power, these fraternities are represented by a family member in any administration CAN ANY of these Candidates Bring these fraternal orders together in order to improve the LIVES OF ALL AMERICANS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_G._Collins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jacob_Astor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bundy
TYPE IN ALL THE FAMILY NAMES AND YOU WILL SEE THE CONNECTION. A FEW FRATERNITIES CONTROL BOTH PARTIES CAPITAL.
William Putnam "Bill" Bundy
Raised in Boston, Massachusetts he came from a family long involved in politics. His father, Harvey Hollister Bundy, was a diplomat who helped implement the Marshall Plan. Bill was raised in a highly accomplished, highly intellectual family. After attending the Groton School and Yale University (where he was one of the first presidents of the Yale Political Union), he entered Harvard Law School but left to join the Army Signal Corps during World War II. During this time he worked at Bletchley Park in Britain as part of the top secret ULTRA operation to break Nazi codes.
During the 1950s he worked as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency. During the Kennedy years he worked for the Secretary of the Navy and during much of the LBJ era was an Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affairs. After resigning from the executive branch in 1969 he taught at MIT and then edited the influential journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (of which he was a member), Foreign Affairs, from 1972 to 1984, after declining the offer of the Council's chairman, David Rockefeller, to be the Council's president.
His brother, McGeorge Bundy, was also an integral part of the both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Bill was married to Mary Acheson, the daughter of Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Bill and Mary had three children, Michael, Christopher, and Carol.
Bill was somewhat to the left of his brother politically, and was a spirited opponent of Joseph McCarthy. He was also considered one of the administration's more dovish members on Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_G._Collins
Please note that Henry Taft Benson(Mormon president) and members of the Russel family started the Russel Trust(Skull and Bones Society. Benson was a fan of the John Birch Society.

i think with out reading the artical it self
holly wars are done by holly people like prophits
these days wars are not suppose to be called wars because war is also holly
i think they should be called fights

RE: Justice Scalia's dissent...
The references to God, the Almighty, a Being, etc.--I don't have a problem with that. Christmas trees, displays of the Ten Commandments, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, etc, whatever. I don't have a problem with 'em.
However, to suggest the Founding Fathers intended for the government to be driven by these ideas/beliefs isn't consistent with our Constitution. They made it clear in both the Constitution and their correspondences afterward there was no adherence to a specific orthodoxy suggested, intended or implied. Ultimately, the 'major' religions we know today primarily follow the same rules/strictures--do no harm to your fellow man, do not steal, kill, injure, etc etc. These are not restricted to Christianity, nor did the Founders (in my opinion) intend to specifically limit their teachings/opinions/words to the Christian doctrine.
While it's obvious some people, both here and in our government, believe religious teachings and adherence are REQUIRED to provide 'we the people' with a moral compass, there are those of us out here who, while acknowledging historically "The Church" (pick one) has done a great deal of good in teaching many the difference between right and wrong (in my case, my parents--without a church), many don't require that type of direction (religion) to discern the difference. I know what's right and what's wrong. I don't require a "book" to be my moral compass. True, for many this book (again, pick one) has been the foundation for their education from early childhood, but adequate parenting has served that role for many others.
Sorry, now I'm off topic. My apologies.
Ultimately, I don't see why so many believe the 'word of God' (Allah, Jehovah...pick one) needs to come into play. The rules are simple. We, as adults, know the difference between right and wrong, and pass on this knowledge to our children.

TO hoopes_az

Thanks for the link. Interesting stuff. Also, OK. Washington's teeth weren't made of wood. :)

I think it's unfortunate and absurd that Newsweek would run 3 stories on Huckabee in the same issue in which all 3 stories focused on religion. It's right there in the article titles. Why is Newsweek essentially focusing voters on religion and related issues to decide on a candidate? Newsweek and other media outlets are so wrapped up in the religious aspect that they are making it THE MOST important issue. And people WILL increasingly use religion as a basis for their vote by reading such articles. Isn't there supposed to be separation of church and state? Why do candidates religions matter? What about the national issues: social, economic, foreign policy? Please stop making religion a focus.

I think it's absurd that Newsweek would run 3 stories on Huckabee in the same issue in which all 3 stories focused on religion. It's right there in the article titles. Why is Newsweek essentially focusing voters on religion and related issues to decide on a candidate? Newsweek and other media outlets are so wrapped up in the religious aspect that they are making it THE MOST important issue. And people WILL increasingly use religion as a basis for their vote by reading such articles. Isn't there supposed to be separation of church and state? Why do candidates religions matter? What about the national issues: social, economic, foreign policy? Please stop making religion a focus.

To TruthTeller (talk about false advertising in an name):

You don't like the John Jay quote, then try this one:

"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

- George Washington, Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, (August 18, 1790); reprinted in George Washington, Writings (Library of America, 1997), page767 (emphasis added).

So, the "Father of our Country" and our first President, certainly "believed in the right of everybody to practice whatever religion they believed in". If it was good enough for him, it's good enough for me! (Plus there's the little matter that the Constitution supports his point of view, and utterly refutes yours.)

To TruthTeller (talk about false advertising in an name):

You don't like the John Jay quote, then try this one:

"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

- George Washington, Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, (August 18, 1790); reprinted in George Washington, Writings (Library of America, 1997), page767 (emphasis added).

So, the "Father of our Country" and our first President, certainly "believed in the right of everybody to practice whatever religion they believed in". If it was good enough for him, it's good enough for me! (Plus there's the little matter that the Constitution supports his point of view, and utterly refutes yours.)

So by stating Jay's comment is taken out of context, you imply...what? As I've mentioned before, our founders (a substantial number of which were NOT Christian, none of which were John Jay, who was Christian) made clear when writing the Constitution there was to be no preference, nor was there to be a religious litmus test when electing a leader. By Christian, I presume you mean the contemporary definition, one who reveres and relies upon Christ for salvation, who regards Jesus Christ to be more than a man, the son of God. Perhaps by using the quote out of context I misinterpreted the intent of John Jay's words, albeit unintentionally. What, though, does that have to do with the intentions of our founders when establishing this republic?

What liars and deceivers! In this Newsweek story, which wants us to believe our Christians founders believed in the ???right??? of everybody to practice whatever ???religion??? they believed in -- which is a lie ??? John Jay is quoted as saying: ???Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others.??? Notice, please, the period after the word ???others.??? But, in the Jay letter being quoted there is a comma and not a period after the word ???others.??? This comma is followed by the words ???and therefore will not provoke war.??? So, what Jay was writing about was not religious tolerance but war. And speaking of religious tolerance, in this same October 12, 1816, letter to John Murray, Jay says: ???Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.??? Amen! -- that???s my kind of ???tolerance!???

John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

What liars and deceivers! In this Newsweek story, which wants us to believe our Christians founders believed in the ???right??? of everybody to practice whatever ???religion??? they believed in -- which is a lie ??? John Jay is quoted as saying: ???Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others.??? Notice, please, the period after the word ???others.??? But, in the Jay letter being quoted there is a comma and not a period after the word ???others.??? This comma is followed by the words ???and therefore will not provoke war.??? So, what Jay was writing about was not religious tolerance but war. And speaking of religious tolerance, in this same October 12, 1816, letter to John Murray, Jay says: ???Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.??? Amen! -- that???s my kind of ???tolerance!???

John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

What liars and deceivers! In this Newsweek story, which wants us to believe our Christians founders believed in the ???right??? of everybody to practice whatever ???religion??? they believed in -- which is a lie ??? John Jay is quoted as saying: ???Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others.??? Notice, please, the period after the word ???others.??? But, in the Jay letter being quoted there is a comma and not a period after the word ???others.??? This comma is followed by the words ???and therefore will not provoke war.??? So, what Jay was writing about was not religious tolerance but war. And speaking of religious tolerance, in this same October 12, 1816, letter to John Murray, Jay says: ???Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.??? Amen! -- that???s my kind of ???tolerance!???

John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com