Search this Site

  • Google


« Guest Piece: How Democrats Win Senate Seats | Main | Obamas' Self-Centeredness on Display »

October 06, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Just 2 minor thoughts at this stage:

1 if as you acknowlege you are so much in a minority, how do you propose to "convert" the rest of the population, how can you be sure you are right and your view should prevail? and

2. If you want to move to a theocratic or dominantly Christian society, which version of christianity becomes the state religion and what happens to the other followers?


I would say we are not in the minority. It is not an issue of conversion but an issue of daylight and awakenings. Although Americans are lazy and decadent they know, for the most part, the difference between right and wrong. The left has thrown out spike strips of relativism on every dark path; alas the sun's cleansing light is making them apparent. No my dear Sheila, you are in the minority.

Secondly, I hear no series clamor of a theocracy, you dream that one up as your own boogieman. America has never been a theocracy. However, the Christian faith is the basis for the ethics and morals of our nation and that should be acknowledged. Failure to acknowledge fact, is revisionism; a trait all tyrants and their regimes extol.

In Washington DC many statements pertaining to our heritage were left in granite. Just as the ancient Egyptians knew, anything other than granite would be easily lost, rotten and forgotten. The messages they left are a trail to our heritage; the roots of our Truths. You see the Bible is like a Constitution of Ethics and Faith. A Constitution is a document that supersedes the will of men or a man. Although the Bible is not a registered document in the US government it is our ethical basis; a document that can not be added to or edited without scrutiny. This is what pisses the left off so much and this is why they wish to rewrite history; because they can not (not for the lack of trying) rewrite the Bible. There have been many, many attempts to subvert doctrine by the left (most of the churches involved in the UCC), and they have quite effectively watered down and convoluted the true doctrine to suit their self serving desires; this is not a new phenomena.

As a response to our other post about school children in Australia being forced to participate in Biblical studies...well the Christian faith is a pretty big part of the Western Culture and the civilization of the world...other than that I see no reason to push it on them. It is not part of your nations foundation is it? Prison colony wasn't it? Sorry for the needless jab.


walt, presumably you have some support then for conservapedia trying to rewrite the bible (that inerrant document LOL) so that it is more conservative. secondly i voluntarily studies religious studies at university the first degree, including a major in christian ethics. i actually belive that understanding christian imagry and memes is very important i getting a full understanding of western history. I also stayed for a short period at jewish retreats, ashrams, scientolgist camps and catholic retreats. Comparative religion had been a hobby of mine and very interesting on an intellectual level, I also find some of the theories, art and prayers inutterably beautiful. despite that i can also look at the huge cathedrals in eurpoe and bemoan the sheer amount of human labour wasted in their erection particularly when they were taking from an impoverished population. so no I would not mind my child having a good grounding in religious thought, in fact I set aside one bookcase at home for religion and philosophy. However, i cannot believe that christians have the only grasp on ethics for children, as a mother of girls I particularly want them exposed to everything from epicurius to christ to ghandhi to beauviour. The head of the Anglican church in Aus has sided with the nasty african memebers of the anglican church in a very strong rightward move. The african members are pro AIDs anti gay and anti women, this has to be a factor in how women adress the church.

Soprry about the long and rambling response, it does amuse me that you have such a firm idea of what leftists are. I still have not got a strong idea from you on how you expect non-fundamentalists to behave under your new regime. Perhaps that would be a good idea for your next article.


Particularly sorry about the spelling, bear with me if you can. I'm typing with 2 broken fingers and it tends to lead to errors.


Very well put Walt.


Just a clarification on Selwyn's point of separation of church and state: He is not advocating the US government forcing a religion on the people. That is what separation truly means. He is saying the modern perversion is that a courthouse or a mayor etc cannot hang the 10 commandments in their offices because it offends people. Servants of the state have a right to proclaim a religion, and allowing that is not the same as a government instituting a specific religion. People of all walks of faith can appreciate our constitution, as long as that faith can appreciate human freedom and the right of persoanl choice.


I'm not sure what you mean by conservatives rewriting the bible. Maybe you speak of religions who don't allow dancing or teach that woman should always wear dresses, etc? I've never heard of those religions lobbying to make dancing illegal. But there are lobbyists trying to make posting of the 10 commandments illegal (see my other comment above).

I don't think anyone here has stated that ONLY Christians have a good moral understanding. The Bible even says this. Jews were judged according to their Law. When asked about non Jews, Paul stated (if I recall who correctly) that others will be judged by their conscience, or the "Law written on their hearts." This proves that the Bible and God admit that others have a moral compass as well.

When you say anti-gay and anti-women, what are you referring to? The Bible teaches us to love and respect our women. As far as gays go, the Bible teaches us to hate the sin, but love the sinner. If you child gets into drugs, you may hate the fact that they are on drugs, but you still love your child, correct? Remember, God created man in his image, but man is imperfect (to put it mildly). Many people end up creating their image of God based on man and his religion. But God is no fallen, so this is faulty logic.

And this brings us back to my point in my post above, which Walt also touched on, which it would seem you are trying to speak around: We do not advocate a rule by Christianity. We simply would like our rulers to be able to freely be Christian, and admit our Christian heritage. We advocate following the Constitution, and the Constitution gives no room for the State to institute a religion.


Johnny, Consevapedia is a bizzarre fundametalist christian response to wikipedia. Conservapedia has many many faults for example the idea that koalas travelled on rafts of fallen logs to get to australia since the "flood", they also have a rahter suspicious interest in the mechanics of gay sex - just saying. Anyway their recent trumpeted move is to rewrite the bible because they think jesus was a bit communist - all that camel through the eye of a needle and forgiving the adulterer etc. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. These are the people who deny progress and compassion because they say they believe the bible is the inerrant word of god but now they want to make it politically more palatable. Yet more reason to create some distance between religion and the policy sphere which is NOT to say i want the ten commandments removed from courts I think hisorically they have some meaning as a reminder of the fight we all have to make ethical societies. Mind you probably most of us would have some difficulty with the order and priority of the commandments these days.



Did Walt refer to you as "my dear Sheila?" Amazing! I don't know about you, but reading this guy makes me feel like my head is going to explode. I listen to him and I start to think Glenn Beck (do you know him) is smart.


Abe, although we may not agree on politics, thank you for your concern. I'm not sure walt has had a lot of contact with leftie aus women, hence the shelia comment. I suppose i should respond by calling him Randy or Butch or some other silly name but I'm pretty confident in myself and NO australians dont use shelia, well not in the last 50 years or so. (being a slim red head I'm more likely to be called bluey by old australians anyway).

back to your religion comments, I dont have a major problem with americans talking about themselves as an historically christian nation although most of the founders were deists rather than christian in the form that walt would follow.


I don't think using Conservapedia is a valid argument. You're talking about a fanatical fringe group. There are secularists who would like to have Christianity made illegal, but I wouldn't use that as a reason to run the US based on Christianity. Would you say that white's should not be in government because some are in the KKK? Would you say blacks should not have leadership positions because some are in violent gangs?

Anyway, if a group wants to change the Bible, how can you even call them Christian? I mean, if you want to create a new religion, at least take the time to name your own characters.



I am sorry if Sheila is considered a derogatory term for the fairer sex these days; disrespect was not intended. If you were an Aussie man I might end the post with- G-day Bruce. If I wanted to offend I know all the vile words and such to do so but I see no reason for that.

On another note here is the breakdown of the religious affiliations of our founding fathers. You have fallen victim to leftist revisionist history when you say, "most of the founders were deists." Here is the breakdown-

Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%

Another hint of our nation’s Christian heritage is found in Federalist paper #2 written by John Jay.

"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, PROFESSING THE SAME RELIGION, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

I am sure your deist position goes over without a hitch on Media Matters (they will not let me post BTW), but it will not here.


walt, this is an example of the danger of placing relgion too prominantly on a pedestal in the public sphere.

Yet another set of parents let's their child die due to the delusion that religion will save them and the penalty is ridiculously light due to the deference we show relgious belief.

"Shawn Peters, a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin at Madison who has studied the nexus of religion and the law, said the Neumanns’ sentencing was not unusual.

Experts said there had been at least 50 convictions in the United States since 1982 in cases where medical treatment was withheld from a child for religious reasons.

“The sentences tend to be halfway punishments where you have relatively mild penalties imposed on parents who are found to be legally guilty of having caused a child’s death,” Mr. Peters said. “It underscores how uneasy we are both politically and culturally when it comes to regulating religious conduct even when the consequences are disastrous.”



So would you, by making the point you are trying to, endorse children becoming a ward of the state? You are jumping into a giant spider web.

Also, "Experts" say most experts are hand picked for their opinion, by those who wish to perpetuate their position.

Since you changed the topic I assume you concede the former hehe


Walt no i wasn't deliberately changing the topic, I actually have some good information on founders as deists but havent had time to dig it out. Your history is not on the tip of my tongue as mine is.

Regarding the kids killed by religious parents, the issue is not removing the kids (straw man anyone?) the issue is that the sentencing of religious insane and damging parents is charged and changed by the deference we give to religion as a motivation. If these parents had refused to take their kids to doctors because they were too drug f*kd we would lock them up for years. but let the children die slowly to the sound of prayers and the parents get 30 days in jail for a few years. Huh?

just answer that issue, how do we give you your "traditional christian foundation status" without giving nutter religious a free pass?


Just as a precursor my kids do go to the doctor when sick and I strongly believe those who don't based upon "Biblical" principals are confused and should as Ayn Rand said, "...check their premises." Luke (the gospel writer) was a doctor.

I can't believe I am going to type this because I am a guy for small government and believe that the more government you have the less actual justice there will be and that we are already rowing our canoe up in-navigable waters of government minutia. Here is what I almost hate to type and I am sure to get some backlash- Perhaps we need to define religion. Not with a 1000 page bill but with one or two sentences. Perhaps this one- "Any claimed religion or doctrine that within its text or dissemination (thereof by the writers of its doctrine), that mandates or places as a condition of salvation or enhanced afterlife reward, the physical harm of another human is not a religion and will be considered a cult." I personally have a few more cult qualifiers but I do not think they would be necessary.

Next, I appreciate your concern for the dear children, I know of a couple of families that live in that belief system and it is so sad. They are tormented. I have a very good friend who was a part of this, dare I say cult. Fortunately, she fell in love with a man that had a grasp on the entire Cannon rather than a few selective verses they build their doctrine on. She has watched her other family members die of broken legs and other very treatable illnesses. Here son had a kidney failure several years ago when the child was one year old...he is alive and well strong as an ox and a disciple to her side of the family. I pray the Lord will heal those who believe salvation comes only through torment.

I wonder however, if you consider laying a survivor of a partial birth abortion on a table to die is ethical? I wonder if you consider a child that without invasive action (abortion) would otherwise survive and prosper ethical? Is it ethical to allow the sale of substances that decimate a portion of its users each day; physically, mentally and relationally (alcohol, tobacco, drugs)? Is it ethical to perpetuate a practice of body mutilation that may cause a multitude of infection and the spread of disease such as hepatitis (tattoo body piercing)? Is it ethical for a sector of society to promote promiscuity with knowledge that STDs will be passed and people will die; even some not in contempt of the protective media blitz? The house of the left is filthy with hypocrite waste. Millions and millions die each year because of greed, sexual perversion, self mutilation, and general lack of self control and responsibility. Additionally the societal traits pushed by the Gramscian ploy to demoralize America take ownership for most of the following crimes: rape, murder, child abuse (sexual and otherwise), broken families, vandalism, class envy, substance abuse, DUI, unwanted pregnancy (and ensuing abortions), spread of AIDS, and so much more. The left rejects the "Fruits of the Spirit" simply to spite the religious people; alas the ultimate masochism.


But when a mother wants to kill a child in the womb, it's her right.


Philip France

To all posters to this article, and with all due respect to the lively and intellectual debate, I quote Holy Scripture: "Ye do err; not knowing scripture, nor the power of God.".

I wish to address our dear Yoyo on the supposition that some of our Founding Fathers were "deists". I have yet to find an adequate definition of this term. The founding principles of the civil institutions of the United States of America are undoubtedly and indisputably Christian. Our current demise is in direct proportion to our society’s abandonment of these principles.

To the best of my understanding, the term “deist” refers to the position of many of our Founders, including Jefferson and Franklin as anti-Trinitarian. This means that they did not equate Jesus as God in the flesh. For the record, neither do I (I realize that I am at odds with the mass-majority of mainstream Christianity by this understanding). Jefferson, Franklin, et al; including me believe that Jesus the Nazarene is the SON of God and not God himself (cp. I Timothy 2:15).

Our Founding Fathers were prescient to exclude specific references to Christ in our founding documents. In doing so, they valued the diverging opinions of “deists” as well as left room for Jews, of whose support our fledgling Republic was deemed necessary (as well as a token of respect for which they are historically worthy).

Walt was correct in identifying the Apostle Luke (the writer of both the Book of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles) as a physician. Understanding the Greek translations, Luke used many medical terms (as well as nautical terms, as he was fascinated by seafaring and accompanied the Apostle Paul on many of his journeys (note the switch from the third person {He, they} to the second person {we} while reading the Book of Acts to know when Luke was actually present).

Christians who deny medical care to their children and others are misled. This is most unfortunate. While I applaud them for their zeal, I reprove them for their ignorance of Scripture. This is a very small minority of Christians and yet the panty-wearing leg-crossers in the MSM present them as representative of Christianity as a whole. Woe unto them.

In conclusion, I applaud Selwyn Duke for his profound article. We have an American President whose entire ideology is based on lies and deceit. He is a clear and present danger to civil society and he must be impeached for his high crimes and misdemeanors. Immediately.


johnny, you find me another place for the zygote, then fetus, then baby to grow and we'll be fine.

PS since i've actually carried a child I must claim superior knowledge on this to you.


Walt you were making a king of sense until this:

"Is it ethical for a sector of society to promote promiscuity with knowledge that STDs will be passed and people will die; even some not in contempt of the protective media blitz? The house of the left is filthy with hypocrite waste. Millions and millions die each year because of greed, sexual perversion, self mutilation, and general lack of self control and responsibility. Additionally the societal traits pushed by the Gramscian ploy to demoralize America take ownership for most of the following crimes: rape, murder, child abuse (sexual and otherwise), broken families, vandalism, class envy, substance abuse, DUI, unwanted pregnancy (and ensuing abortions), spread of AIDS, and so much more. "

I could parse the whole thing but it got too bizarre, you do know that the highest proportion of child abusers are fathers in the military (I have personal experience of this)? As for Gramscian, I have no idea what that term means - definition please.

And you cant say the left is too free and easy promoting sex and then call them hypocrits for the same (logical fallacy).

Why on earth would you link the left with murder? makes no sense and is not backed up with facts.

re AIDs and other STDs, epidemiologically the rates are miles higher in areas and countries that dont practice harm reduction (see edinburgh vs glasgow 1985-90)

look at the "delightful Mrs palin and her off spring if you want a practical demonstration of the shortfalls of abstinance based sex education, or you could just look at the southern states.

In short, your "great ideas" not only dont work in practice but actually have the opposite effect on society to your aims.

Philip France

Dear Yoyo,
“Why on earth would you link the left with murder? makes no sense and is not backed up with facts.”
I just could not let this one slip. Did you intend to say something else or you really this deluded?
To link the left with murder based on fact: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Gueverra, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez, Mugabe. The sea of the corpses of innocent lives is well over 100 million.
HOW “on earth” can you argue with these facts?



Not much time to reply but here I go. I understand the last paragraph did not at all build to a conclusion and I probably should have just left it alone. Each of the points, in order to do them justice and build a logical argument require a chapter...I don't have time for that right now.

Gramscian- Is a term used in association with Antonio Gramsci (AG). AG was an Italian Marxist that competed for power with Mussolini. Mussolini won the day and jailed AG. While in jail AG did not wile his time. He wrote a text known today as the Gramsci Plan. The summary of this plan is how to turn a religious free market society into a socialist society, slowly and peacefully over the period of a couple generations. The plan has been underway in the US for 50 years or so. Most 60's radicals knew this plan well and discussed it openly at the elite educational outfits like Columbia, UCB, Harvard and so on. Further information on the Gramsci plan can be found

Take care,


Philip I get the feeling you are very scared of liberals for some reason, whatever reason that tends to lead you to make definitional mistakes. I believe that when walt was talking about the left and murder he meant individuals liberals/progressives. maybe I missed his point to me it sounded like all the "clintons done murdered someone" stuff.

PS when you are talking about communist regimes you really cant count hitler no matter what the moron jonas claims. (you do know that his first targets were communists, socialists and unionists?)


hitler, I mean not the poxy little boy who rid on his mothers anti clinton stuff to found a career on the wingnut teet.



In reply to your statement……….. "PS when you are talking about communist regimes you really can’t count Hitler no matter what the moron jonas claims. (you do know that his first targets were communists, socialists and unionists?)"

Yes you are correct but not for the reasons you may assume. First off the "communists and socalists" Hitler attacked were not because they held a vastly different ideology, but because they were opposing groups with their own leaders. In those days Germany (as well as most of Europe) had a bunch of political parties. Most of the parties associated themselves with the left. Hitler, in order to secure total power could not allow organized groups other than the National Socialist party (Nazi) to exist; kind of like Sadam, Stalin and so many other tyrants (I will get to Sadam in the third paragraph).

Unions- Again yes, Hitler eliminated labor unions but not for the reasons you might imagine. He did not eliminate them to enhance the free market or enrich privateers; he did it to consolidate power. Again, he could not afford to allow independent groups that may have differing opinions to exist. Labor unions are a vehicle to communism but are expendable after it is mature. Many things and people are expendable once the goal of communism is reached. Those who participate in the arts, those "academic elites", lobbyists, media employees, entertainers, civic groups, activists (environmental and otherwise) and so on serve no purpose in a one party communist state.

To expound on Sadam and Hitler. Saddam was an Islamic Bathist, Hitler was an Aryan. Both of them identified themselves as such as an attempt to exploit commonality, to their own advantage, with the goal of totalitarian rule. Sadam used Islam although he did not practice, because most of the people in his nation were Moslem and Moslems have built in foes (anyone who is not Moslem). This commonality is built upon a doctrine that, if not fosters, allows hate and destruction of "infidels" as a ready made recipe for unity. The religion of Islam was designed by Mohamed for exactly that purpose and has been used for that purpose almost exclusively since Mohamed hatched the idea. Hitler was no dummy; he did the same thing. His population was not Moslem but heavily Aryan. Just as so many before him have done, he sponsored a doctrine of hate based upon the commonality of the majority. The Jews and other groups to a lesser extent were the primary target of his hate which he used to further unity. The Aryan heritage was just a vehicle for him.

Consequently understanding the dynamic of fanatic religion and the unity it may endure, Hitler outlawed religion (other than that which was state sponsored to further eliminate groups that may oppose him, and also to unify the doctrine in Germany so that the "Church" would not oppose him). This intermediary step was likely not the fulfillment of Hilter's dreams of no religion but he could not afford a full fracture of the Aryan people at the time. He knew, like Stalin and Mao, that religion and socialism are not compatible.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

April 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30