Why do so many zealots live in the land of darkness?<br><br> Whatever they believe, those consumed by truth rarely understand how anyone of good faith can possibly fail to see their particular light. Those who refuse "the truth" must be wicked, willful, or somehow uninstructed, and become the target of fervid evangelism, whether with soothing words or avenging fire.<br><br> Our President uses both, as he showed in his Easter message.<br>For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16.<br><br>I send greetings to all those celebrating Easter, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Through His sacrifice and triumph over death, Christ lifted the sights of humanity forever. In His teachings, the poor have heard hope, the proud have been challenged, and the weak and dying have found assurance. Today, the words of Jesus continue to comfort and strengthen Christians around the world.<br> <br> Many - though by no means anywhere near a majority - who believe in these words will find it wonderful that the President has repeated them in the exercise of his public office. Mr. Bush and his political advisors know this, and clearly used the opportunity of his weekly radio address to further cement the bond between the President and those who want to turn America into "a Christian nation."<br><br> Nor does the president or his flock necessarly mean to hurt or exclude those of us who follow other paths - or no religious path at all. He is only bringing us the Word, and what could be a greater gift?<br><br> Well, thanks, but no thanks. The dangers are far too real. By so publicly rejecting the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state - and throwing off the good manners of millions of Americans who exercise their freedom of belief in private - Mr. Bush threatens to lead America down the road to open religious conflict. We've seen where that leads from South Asia to the Middle East, and in the bloody history of Europe's religious wars. Is that what we want for America? Is that what we want for the world?<br><br> From his first use of the word "Crusade" to describe his "War on Terror," Mr. Bush has led Muslims everywhere to see America as fighting a holy war against them. This only builds support for Osama bin Laden and others who would fight a holy war, or jihad, against those who fail to salute their religious banner. Why, in his self-righteous blindness, does Mr. Bush persist in being their recruiting sergeant?<br><br> No doubt,many will dismiss Mr. Bush's Easter antics as merely pandering to or emboldening his supporters on the religious right. I fear worse. I could be wrong, and hope I am. But I see our preacher-president raising the flag of Christian nationalism over the Oval Office.colleague the religious right openly, even seditiously, calls for the creation of a United States of Jesus. >http://<http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/3/25/10383/0260> With his Easter message, Mr. Bush has come perilously close to publicly joining their ranks.<br><br><br><br>

hear hear.<br><br><br><br>

"By so publicly rejecting the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state..."<br><br>You're an idiot, CE. I can put up with most people, but dude, you're such a fool that I can hardly stand it. <br><br>Not only that, but you're stupid. Had you pulled your head out of your butt for a minute you'd have found that the seperation of church and state doesn't exist.<br>"On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." link<br><br>"This concept and these particular words were invented by an ACLU attorney named Leo Pfeffer in 1947 in the Supreme Court case of Everson versus Board of Education of Ewing Township. That liberal supreme court imposed it on the nation by a 5 to 4 vote. The ACLU and other anti-Christian organizations and individuals have used it to harass Christians with ever since."Link<br><br>But of course you won't read these links, nor will you respond to my post because you'd have to back up your idiot argument with facts, which there aren't any.<br><br>Brother, you speak like an old woman who's been in the sun too long. Go home. Be with the human beings. <br><br>

Looking at the vast majority of human history leaders have been chosen on a basis of strength. In a mirror to the animal kingdom, the strongest rules, and exerts his influence over the rest of the tribe. Without law to prevent otherwise, the loss of strength preluded the over throw of the leader. Thus leadership usually results in the biggest and strongest subjegating the weakest, and forcing them to work for him.<br><br>The form of subjugation does take many forms - violence, the threat of violence, and fear. Fear can come from what a leader might do to you in this life or what they may do to "curse" your spirit in the next. With the advent of law and monarchy a right of succession is established and thus the leader maintains power by promising favours to those with strength. Playing the lordlings against each other to keep a balance of power and keep them distracted from usurping the throne.<br><br>You have the Catholic church weilding fear of the spiritual over most of Europe during the dark ages. They subjugated science because they see it as a threat, they restricted education, because a simple unthinking population is easier to control. But was this an act of the religion of itself, or an act of power hungry men seeking to control others? Of the aims of the expansion of the spanish empire was gaining in wealth, at the expense of the natives who owned that wealth. And the subjugation of their populations by exertion of power (strength of might) and fear (religion and fear of spiritual consequences of not following that religion), and of course the death of heretics (who were undermining the control that the church had over the population).<br><br>While many attrocities have been enacted in the name of a religion, a deeper understanding would show that the act wasn't necessarily perpetrated because the religion demanded it - but as a desire for corrupt men to gain advantage over others, by subverting a religion to support their acts against others. Thus getting the weak minded to follow "for their better good".<br><br>Nazism ruled by fear - fear of the jews. Communism ruled by fear. Fear is a powerful tool, and can be used to control the actions of the people. Is nuclear war a likelihood? Has fear of nuclear war been used to manipulate the people? Whilst there were many reasons that the US went to war against Iraq, which one was used to manipulate the people into supporting the war?<br><br>This country has come a long way along the road. The white man is not going to leave the land to the native american and "go home". The black man has not been anyones slave for many years. Technically everyone has opportunity to be what they choose. But the leadership of this country is pushing the victim mentallity. We're all victims of someone else. This is used to keep the population in check. This creates resentment between sectors of the population and distracts people from what is important. Unlike the Greek model of government, our leaders are not servants of the people. They are egoists seeking power and authority over others. They subjugate the racial minorities, the native americans, the weak and the poor. Government handouts make for a weak people, they come to depend upon the handouts rather than achieving their potential.<br><br>It is not Mr Bush's fault, he is just maintaining a long tradition of control by fear. There is no indication that Mr Kerry would have been any different. They, and all of the senators and representatives, play sectors of the population one against the other, while trying to maximize their influence over their followers and attempting to raise more followers. Which candidate in the previous presidential campaign spent the most time campaigning from the pulpit? They use every tool to further their cause - up to and including subverting a religious message to support their cause.<br><br>Religion in and of itself is not evil........how man uses it as a tool of influence is.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Religion in and of itself is not evil........how man uses it as a tool of influence is.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Probably this was all you needed have said<br><br><br>

While 'separation of church and state' does not appear within the Constitution's Bill of Rights, Jefferson does address the issue in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut(1802), which contains the phrase 'wall of separation between church and state'.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.<p><hr></blockquote><p>http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html<br><br><br>First Amendment<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note<br><br>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.<p><hr></blockquote><p>http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1<br><br><br>PS. Be careful defending the Constitution<br><br>

So by your own argument these rules only apply to government. How do schools get drawn in or even individuals. This whole "separation" thing really has gotten out of hand.<br><br>Churches cannot pray for the President during an election campaign? Teachers cannot lead voluntary prayer meetings during lunch hour? Surely these are convictions of an individual not congress making a law respecting a religion. How about members of congress having a private prayer meeting prior to going into the main chamber of the house?<br><br>There's this whole attack wing that seeks to prevent christians from meeting in government property, why? If they have paid the rent (if required) to use a room, then they really have as much right to meet as, say, AA, a prenatal class, or a yoga class.<br><br>Also just occurred to me.....Is Mr Bush in the habit of ONLY giving a Christmas and Easter message or does he also give messages during religious observations of other faiths? (sorry I've not been paying that much attention - but the way I see it, equal "observance of others beliefs" does not make "establishmen of religion")<br><br>

Sorry Llewelyn, I just don't have an answer for you.<br><br>

Not being paying attention either eh? =)<br><br>Truth is a 3 edged sword.