Practicing prejudice

See, there's a slight problem. No one is saying people with a strong belief in god can't say it, there is no prejudice against those with faith. At least the way I see it, perhaps you see it different. No one is saying people with faith can't express their faith. Its just government endorsement of a deity is against the law, and until now no one has bothered keeping it in check. The Christian can still pray, the Jewish don't have to eat pork, et cetera. But the government can't endorse one of these over another. If the badge said "Allah be with us" would you be in a fit if they took it off? The only way to offend no one is to keep any deity out of it. It's not like they're saying "there is no god". Personally, I think that they should allow them to choose whether they want god on their badge or not, Christians are happy then, and those who don't believe aren't forced to wear it. No government endorsement, only personal choice. But, I'm not in charge. I'm sure the Christian fighters are not forced to remove their cross necklaces, so they can still have their faith on them, no worries. Still, I would like them to be able to choose.

Excellent letter to the Editor. Heaven forbid if an atheist is ever offended.

Unfortunately all the unbelievers shout "separation of Church and State" and really don't know what the Constitution says. The first Amendment reads:

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.

The respondent above totally missed the significance between God (big G) and god (little g). The original letter writer understands that God refers to the one and only almighty God.

Oh I'm sorry, but do you realize not everyone believes in your God (notice the big G, just for you). And if you were to look up what the founding fathers said about the first amendment, you would read a Thomas Jefferson quote saying that the part about religion is to be interpreted as "a wall of separation between church and state". Once again, not trying to say you can't have your faith. Just recognize others have other beliefs, and we should not persecute others for their beliefs, no matter what they are. Which is why I suggested that perhaps they should be able to choose what their particular badge or patch says on it, everyone can have it say what they want.

Remember Thomas Jefferson was not involved in the writing of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The Jefferson quote "a wall of seperation between chruch and state" came from a letter to the Danbury Church affirming there would be no federal church denomination. The actual quote "a wall of separation between chruch and state" is found no where in the US constitution.

"Remember Thomas Jefferson was not involved in the writing of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. "

History class called, they want you back.

bberry,

What involvement of Jefferson in writing the First Amendment were you taught in history class?

Just some history trivia for everyone today. :)

Jefferson was not part of the Constitutional Convention. He was in France, and John Adams was in England.

James Madison (sometimes referred to as the Father of the Constitution) and George Washington agreed that the principles of the Revolution of 1776 were in danger due to a weak continental arrangement in the current Articles of Confederation.

Madison pesuaded the Virgina Legislature to implement the Annapolis Convention and invite all the other states with the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. At the Annapolis Convention,the states agreed to send delegates to a 'Grand' Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in May 1787 to begin the process.

These assemblies were not without Jefferson's influence though. One might well ask, "Who or what authorized the Virginia Legislature to call the Annapolis Convention and who or what authorized the Annapolis Convention to call for a 'Grand Convention'?" The answer is to be found in the Declaration of Independence: "The people have the right to choose the form of government under which they shall live and to install such government as they deem appropriate to secure their liberty, security, and happiness."

The USAF is not the government. The USAF is an organization whose mission is simply put "The mission of the United States Air Force is to fly, fight and win ... in air, space and cyberspace."

The First Amendment deals with Congress taking a "hands-off" approach to religion. Atheists may believe in cosmic accidents, while 85% to 93% of all other people in America can believe in a Supreme Being in various forms of deity.

Bruce makes a good point that the people serving in the USAF know what they are getting into when they enlist - much as young people who join the Scouts know that there is a code of ethics and morality expected of them. If they don't want to conform to the standards of that organization - they have the freedom to start their own organization that shares their values.

McCookBaby55,

I was hoping someone like you wouldn't come in and answer for bberry. I find the information "sticks" better if one does his own research rather than being told by someone else.

But thank you for your historical insights.

I wonder if there are any "real" atheists in the cockpits?

Truth be known, it isn't God that offends the atheist. It's those who believe in God that offends them.

If, I should be wrong, which I'm not, I would rather meet 'nothingness,' with a light in my heart (which may never go out, if there is nothing there to extinguish it), than to have nothingness, in my heart, when I meet the 'Light;' where I would have Eternity to wish that I had had that light where it belonged, when I needed it to be lit bright. Right?

CPB says well, it is the Believer that makes everyone so mad, atheist, other religions, and such. Truth does upset folks, a bunch.

We'll know soon enough, me-thinks. Ponder, please.

"I was hoping someone like you wouldn't come in and answer for bberry. I find the information "sticks" better if one does his own research rather than being told by someone else."

If I didn't already know, I wouldn't have said anything. You can take in account Jeffersons letter to Madison about the constitution.

Ref: Dec 20, 1787

Perhaps before you question me, you yourself should do a little research.

bberry,

You are still wrong in your criticism of Chunky Peanut Butter in this case. I don't think anyone said Jefferson disagreed with the ideas of the Bill of Rights. Your words indicated that he was involved in WRITING the Amendments, not that he was supportive of them. I'd imagine a survey of all founders would find almost all would agree with the ideals of the Bill of Rights, even if they didn't think it was the Federal government's role.

Perhaps before you decide to mock others, you should look at what was said that you are trying to mock.

SwNebr,

Jeffereson wrote to Madison about the lack of bill of rights and listed those rights within the letter to Madison. Sure he wasnt there to actually draft the constitution, but he certainly had influence and involvement.

As far as mocking CPB, it was just a suitable as your response was about mine.

Pot meet kettle.

Here's a link:

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/lessons/continuity-change/madison...

I've come up with an analogy, to help people understand how I personally see the situation.

There is a baby sitter (government) that takes care of lots of different kids. Two of which are Chris (Christians) and Athena (Atheists). While they are the same age, Chris is very strong while Athena doesn't have too much power, but Athena tends to think a lot about things Chris doesn't like to. But that's beside the point. One day, the babysitter brings over a new toy (air force) for all the kids to play with. Chris immediately takes it and writes his name on it. No one thinks much of this for a while, and everyone plays with the toy. Eventually, Athena thinks to herself "gee, it doesn't seem fair that Chris has his name written on the toy we all play with." Athena brings this up to the babysitter, who agrees with Athena, and washes Chris's name off it. Chris then proceeds to have a temper tantrum, yelling, crying, saying things like "Well we wouldn't want to offend Athena just because my name is on the toy we all play with". (Reference to ksfarmer's "Heaven forbid if an atheist is ever offended.")

Unfortunately, the babysitter will probably cave to Chris's tantrum and let Chris put his name back on the toy. It's a wonderful story isn't it?

Once again, just my personal opinions on the matter.

McCook SAx is right here. The government shouldn't favor one religion over another. Or, vouch for credibility of one over another. Or, endorse one faith or belief system as apposed to others. It's offensive to those in the religion or belief system that is not favored, vouched for or endorsed. I wish i had a really good reason to attack Chunky Peanut Butter. But, he has awkwardly stumbled into saying something that's right. Obviously if a person does not believe in a god , then he can't think that the god is offensive. Everything else he has said is no doubt wrong.

Government is favoring one religion over another. The courts have ruled atheism, along with secularism and human secularism are in fact religions. It is their beliefs that are imposed on us.

the main thing here is that the badge or logo has a reference to god on it. after that,of course, bruce rattles off the normal , and to be expected, tirade of christian psychobabble. anyway, to remove the god thing is to make it neutral. doesnt favor christians, buddist. hindus. wiccans, jews, non believers, taoist, etc.

The thing is, bob s, this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. It can be found throughout our founding documents. Plus, an overwhelming majority supports keeping God in those badges and logo's.

Nowhere in our Constitution and Bill of Rights does it say a minority can impose it's will on the majority.

bberry,

Thanks for the link.I especially liked when Jefferson said, "I know your own judgment has been formed on all these points after having heard every thing which could be urged on them."

Very supportive.

SWNEbr,

Not quite, while Jefferson offered his opinion about the bill of rights, Madison still had his doubts. The statement simply recognizes Madison's opinion on the matter.

This didn't mean all the ideas in Jefferson's letter had already been considered and drafted. Especially since they would not be introduced for another two years after the formentioned letter from Jefferson.

I'm quite certain this is not a Christian nation. The majority of Americans are Christian, yes, but as the Treaty of Tripoli states in Article 11, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...". I think that's pretty clear. And seeing that the president at that time, John Adams, and the Senate unanimously agreed on this treaty, including all parts, our founding fathers seem to agree.

And about the minority imposing their will on the majority, the Constitution also protects the minority so the majority can't impose its will on them. So Christians (the majority) can't impose it's god (or God, as I've learned you get rather fussy about) on the rest of us, be that through government agency logos, money (which I firmly believe "In God We Trust" should never have been added in the 1950's. Yeah, the 1950's), or any other form. The minority is just as protected as the majority, or at least it is supposed to be.

It is true, the federal government, as stated in the Treaty of Tripoli, is not founded on Christian beliefs. Why else would it operate the way it does? But, the founding documents are.

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution does have a clause that protects the rights of the minority from the majority, it's called due process of the law. No where is there any mention of the minority imposing it's will on the majority, as we see now with Christianity. It should also be noted, there is no due process of the law involved here at all.

Getting back to Bruce's letter, the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs has a Chapel. It sits on ground not owned by the federal government, specifically so that free expressions of religion or faith can be practiced. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions, can be practiced there. The exception is Wicca, which it is my understanding must be expressed outdoors with a fire, also has it's site on federal land. Why no outrage?

The problem we as Christians have with the Military, is that we are the ones being singled out. Chaplins, even the ones at the Air Force Academy, are required to submit their prayers to military and civilian lawyer before they can be spoken. As far as I know, no other religions are not required to do so.

Is not the purpose of atheism the non-expression of faith or religion? Then how can the expression of faith and religion be even considered offensive? Simple answer, HYPOCRISY!

A government does not define a nation's identity.

I wish CPB had listed those "court rulings" which established secularism and atheism as religions. It would have been most interesting to study the jurists and their logical processes as defined by their opinions in those rulings,but he didn't and I expect I know why.

Religionists are always seeking to define anything that opposes them as a religion so they can then try to withdraw the same protections their belief system enjoys from those opposing perspectives.

davis_x_machina,

I hope this answers your questions.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10402140183334789701&hl=en&as_sdt=2&...

"Oh help! We Christians are being oppressed because....you aren't letting us put our God absolutely everywhere!" I would like to bring your attention to the fact that Christians burned and stoned people of other faiths. Including people with no faith. So don't give me "I'm being oppressed as the majority" because you aren't. You're being kept in check. Because you having YOUR GOD in EVERYONE'S LOGO is wrong. Plain and simple. And, if you'd like to go back to the olden days of burning people if they are different, I'd like to be the person you kill. Because I'm going to die one day, and I'd like my death to be the cause that puts your IGNORANCE and INTOLERANCE behind bars. I have tried to get you to see another side of it, I have given a compromise. I have bent a little, but you have to bend too. Show me where, EXACTLY WHERE the minority is forcing something on the majority. Because taking your God off the logo is keeping everyone out of the logo. No one put "Atheism Rules" on it. No one put "There is no God" on it. NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING THAT IMPOSES OUR WILL ON YOU! We are just trying to keep it so no one is offended, but apparently, as of lately, trying to offend no one OFFENDS CHRISTIANS! Why? Cause they need everything. Let's look at Happy Holidays. Outrages Christians. Because they have to recognize other people have other holidays. Christmas is included in "Holidays". But noooooo, you lot have to get mad if someone says that, you expect everyone to know exactly what holiday you celebrate the moment they meet you. This is the same thing. You have to have absolutely everything. You NEED your God on the logo because if not, then you have to remember that there are other people who believe in other things. Tell you what, instead of non inclusive, let's go all inclusive. We put your God back on the logo. But we also put Allah. And Thor. And Zeus. And Neptune. And Rah. And every god or goddess that has ever been believed in. And at the bottom, in a tiiiiiinnnnnnyyyyy space, because the rest of it will be filled up, it will say "There probably isn't a deity at all." Or, we could just take all the gods and goddesses (Including your God) off the logo all together, and just leave leave it as it is now that God is off of it. Blank. Free of all beliefs. I'm tired of trying to be nice and bending a little in my thinking so that you might be happier, because it gets me no where. Thank you for helping me realize that Christians are never going to compromise.

the courts do not say that atheism is a religion - just that they will treat it as though it were when needed for legal analysis.

Interesting reading.

Amazing how quickly over the cliff some will go to demand that there is no God -- at least none that may be recognized, even if by the generic "God."

Amusing as their protestations may be, the mental contortion to expunge any mention of one greater than ourselves -- and really, that is the heart of the matter, PRIDE -- cannot escape this pertinent phrase of our Declaration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now, who should we suppose this "Creator" to be? (Note: the capitalization indicates the principle, who is the Initial Cause of all being and action -- is understood by use of a proper noun -- thus we denote "God," the principle First Cause, with a big 'G')

The language recognizes that there exists "something out there" greater than Man. Thus the drafters of the American Declaration of Independence sought to provide, as a basis for their reasoning and purpose, a "generic" all-inclusive "God" -- without giving this "Creator" to a specific creed. Why? So that any individual may decide for themselves the identity and meaning of THEIR "Creator." -- And that anonymity is THE salient point -- Their definition fits perfectly the principles of the First Amendment: No PARTICULAR CHURCH or DENOMINATION is being ESTABLISHED by the government; i.e.: No STATE Church; but neither is the FREE EXPRESSION THEREOF to be prohibited by the government. "God" is not a RELIGION, but an ENTITY -- and THE principle from whom our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS are derived.

The founders of this nation did not mean to insinuate "There is no God" -- else they would not have so often recollected themselves to "Divine Providence" in their endeavors, as they were often wont to do. Nor, absent this context, would it make sense for them to ascribe UNALIENABLE RIGHTS (Look THAT up!) if the "end all and be all" were Man ... For men often use whatever capricious logic they find expedient, so to contort the plain meaning of words, that they may justify the denial of transcendent truths -- those that our founders acknowledged to be "self-evident" -- and thus declare other men of inferior value.

No, the only individuals whom find it advantageous to deny God -- and thus handily dispose of all the inconvenient transcendent moral principles that raise men above animals, and thus give source to UNALIENABLE RIGHTS and the reason to differentiate and protect human worth -- are those who care little for the plight of men, save what they might extort by force: for they covet men's lives, men's liberty and men's happiness (rights of private property). This has always been the case with those whom find belief in anything beyond themselves to be an "offense" to reason.

More do these crafty individuals resort to fallacious arguments about the "injustices" suffered at the hands of those bigoted "Christian" folk -- burning and torturing, etc, etc. Truth be told, such were acts of evil, committed by men -- not God, who were far from practicing the charity that is the Christian faith, fell more into the category of those whose ambitions far exceed their cause for "religion" -- any religion. In fact, if such men were of "no religion" they would act with the same callous disregard for others -- not "because" of religion, but rather in spite of it.

And what answer is given these "outrages," by those charlatans who would without hesitancy cleanse the world of all religion -- particularly the Jewish and Christian faiths? Oh! Let us remove "God" from the realm of Man altogether -- Yes, and then upon what unchanging principles shall we construct this secular utopia we have "created," where no right exists but that which may be taken through any expedient that serves the exigency of the moment?! Welcome to Hell on Earth, my dear little children ... Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Idi Amin, etc., etc., etc ... Where human value is judged not by we who are "Created" in God's image, but only by one's worth to the "godless" state. Oh, yes ... Atheism is a religion -- it is the "religion of the jungle" -- where men are nothing more than animals -- and even of lesser worth, if needs be.

"Thank you for helping me realize that Christians are never going to compromise."

Compromising faith would not be faith at all.

You realize first of all, in your argument towards the end, Hitler was a die hard Christian who believed he was doing God's work. But besides the point. The point is that people aren't trying to remove God from your life. People are just trying to make it so people who don't believe in your God don't have to be subjected to it. And if there is a God, don't you think he'd be a bit ****** his name was on the side of a jet plane in the Air Force used to kill lots of people? The only thing I'm trying to get you to do is recognize other people have different faiths, and they deserve as much recognition and acceptance as your own. And as for human value in accordance with Christians...homosexuals. Are they less valuable or good in the eyes of your God? And please, feel free to answer truthfully, bearing in mind the person you are talking with is homosexual.

Adolph Hitler was no Christian. His actions prove it. So do his words;

By John Baskette - but the information came from Marty Helgesen in a soc.religion.christian post.

The claim is sometimes made that Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic until the day he died. In fact, Hitler rejected Christianity.

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

A reader asks,"Where did the quotes from Hitler's Secret Conversations come from? How do we know that they are accurate?"

Hitler's Secret Conversations is a translation of a document called the "Bormann-Vermerke" or Borrman endorsements. They are a collection of hand written notes made by Martin Bormann who was Hitler's personal secretary during the war. Bormann is known to have been an extraordinarily powerful figure in Nazi Germany and a notorious opponent of Christianity.

Towards the end? Please read;

What follows is an excerpt from "Inside the Third Reich" by Hitler's chief architect and minister of Armaments, Albert Speer. It illuminates how Hitler "adapted his remarks to his surroundings", thus making himself a friend of the church when it was convenient. It is also another independent witness to Hitler's true feeling regarding Christianity -- it was meek and flabby, Germany would have been better off if Islam had conquered Europe after the battle of Tours, and that Germany had the misfortune of having the wrong religion.

From Inside the Third Reich, Memiors by Albert Speer, Translated from the German by Richard and Clara Winston, Avon Publishers, 1970:

What remains in my memory of social life at Obersalzberg is a curious vacuity. Fortunately, during my first years of imprisonment, while my recollections were still fresh, I noted down a few scraps of conversations which I can now regard as reasonably authentic....

Amid his political associates in Berlin, Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church, but in the presence of women he adopted a milder tone -- one of the instances where he adapted his remarks to his surroundings.

"The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong and conservative element," he might say at one time or another in this private circle. However, he conceived of the church as an instrument that could be useful to him. "If only Reibi [this was his nickname for Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller] had some kind of stature. But why do they appoint a nobody of an army chaplain? I'd be glad to give him my full support. Think of all he could do with that. Through me the Evangelical [Protestant] Church could become the established church, as in England."

Even after 1942 Hitler went on maintaining that he regarded the church as indispensable in political life. He would be happy, he said in one of those teatime talks at Obersalzberg, if someday a prominent churchman turned up who was suited to lead one of the churches -- or if possible both the Catholic and Protestant churches reunited. He still regretted that Reich Bishop Müller was not the right man to carry out his far-reaching plans. But he sharply condemned the campaign against the church, calling it a crime against the future of the nation. For it was impossible, he said, to replace the church by any "party ideology." Undoubtedly, he continued, the church would learn to adapt to the political goals of National Socialism in the long run, as it had always adapted in the course of history. A new party religion would only bring about a relapse into the mysticism of the Middle Ages. The growing SS myth showed that clearly enough, as did Rosenburg's unreadable Myth of the Twentieth Century.

If in the course of such a monologue Hitler had pronounced a more negative judgment upon the church, Bormann would undoubtedly have taken from his jacket pocket one of the white cards he always carried with him. For he noted down all Hitler's remarks that seemed to him important; and there was hardly anything he wrote down more eagerly than deprecating comments on the church. At the time I assumed that he was gathering material for a biography of Hitler.

Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Goebbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.

Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eight century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become the heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japaneses, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to use than Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

This can all be found at: http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

Yes, I know, facts do get in the way.

You speak of tolerance, live it or be a hypocrite.

Show the world you are more tolerant of others beliefs. Yes, there are other beliefs and religions out there, and let them prove why they are a better choice. Just don't demand one choice tie their hands and shut their mouths so others can be heard.

Homosexuals are every bit as valuable to God, as are atheist, agnostics, secularist, etc. He will use them to His will as He uses me. While God has spoken out to His followers and believers not to participate in such activities, not all will listen. Those who chose not to follow or believe in God, are not bound by Him. Your homosexuality is your choice, not mine, and I will follow the example set forth by Jesus Chirst, the 11th Commandment.

I'm just going to ignore the blatant lies about Hitler because if I continue arguing with someone who wants to be ignorant I'm going to have an anuerism. Let the beliefs show themselves then. Don't have your God absolutely everywhere and suffocate people with your belief in every aspect of society. If you want beliefs to be proven by why they are better, start with yours. "If you want to make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make a change." Prove that your beliefs are best not because your God is on everything ever made ever, but because you are a belief of tolerance of others. And please, start with Islam. They get a very bad reputation in America and they deserve respect.

And my homosexuality is most certainly not my choice. Who on earth would choose to be one of the most hated groups of people, to be ostracized and outcasted, to think that they are an abomination and when they turn to anyone in your faith they are immediatly shown the passage that says so, I ask of you who? Homosexuality occurs naturally in several species, including dogs, cats, penguins, sheep (the bible's metaphor for people, and perhaps the most gay species! how ironic), and dolphins, which is the only known example of "nose sex" as the homosexual dolphin will stick his "thingy" in a partners blowhole. Homosexuality happens. Not by choice, it just happens.

Hitler was a christian. The vast majority of his troops were christian. The kkk was a christian group. Neo nazis are christians both here in the usa and also at present in germany. Christians have an ugly history to them. I dont see how anyone can deny that.

bob s, prove it. Show me where the teachings of Christ can be found in nazism or racism. Here is your chance.

http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm About Hitler and his Christianity.

I particularly like how nazi soldiers had "God with us" in German on their belt buckles.

They did have that on their belt buckles. The nazis were basically a group of christians. Germany was a christian nation. Their leaders - including hitler - were of the same background and beliefs as were the soldiers. Hitler was a christian. This undertaking by the germans led to a big decline in christianity in europe. Because of the bad things the german christians did. I find it hard to believe people dont see this. The new usa problem for christians is abortion. In the usa abortion is actually a christian phenomena. Approx 80% of christians are ok with it or very much approve of it or participate in it. But just as gencide by christians in europe led to a decline in christianity in europe, the chritians preference for this new type of genocide is causing a big christian fallout in the usa. people ask ' what are these christians really like? should i stay and remain a member or become a member?" Another big problem for them. It's another thing almost unbelievably hypocritical.

But the real issue that we started out with is having God on the Air Force logo.....do we want God on our belt buckles too?

I think you are right. I had assumed the christians were all at martyr classes and for that reason could not reply. But, i guess it's really because things have gotten off topic.

McCookSax/bob s,

I can see I am dealing with hostility, or can we call this a hatred, of the believers and followers, of Jesus Christ. I can also see they are more than willing to use examples of charlatans, those who have twisted the words and teachings of Jesus Christ, just to further their justification of hatred, over the message of love and compassion for which Christianity is named. You have placed the early writings of a genocidal madman over the documented witness of those closest to him at his moment of glory. One thing is clear, rather than to engage in meaningful dialogue, two of the debaters (I believe the number is actually one), have resorted to lies. I will debunk them.

First, the claim Adolph Hitler was a Christian. You have failed completely in that link, for you would have to link the New Testament, the life of Jesus Christ, to Hitler's life. That is the only standard that can be used for anyone. I read your link to nobeliefs and could only find twisted and taken completely out of context, texts of the Holy Bible used to justify Hitler's belief system. Hitler was a charlatan, as defined above, and history is not very kind to them. Could God have something to do with that? That, however is in the past, we are discussing what is going on today.

Eighty percent of Christians approving or participating in abortions? Where did you get those numbers? Gallup shows between 15 and 20 %,http://www.gallup.com/poll/22222/religion-politics-inform-americans-views-abortion.aspx . We can, therefore, disregard your number as false and made up.

bob s, your last thought is just jumbled, so jumbled it strangely resembles McCookSax. I wish you could define what being a Christian means to you, that could go a long ways. But Christianity is not a membership, it's not even a religion, it is a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

the 80% is correct. Abortion and a general inching away from biblical teachings - a sort of un tethering from the bible - are huge problems for christians and the christian religion. Christians like to imagine their faith being attacked by outside forces. But, the religion is dieing from within. That's the only way it possibly could die off.

Hitler believed in God. The Christian God. And Jesus. He is a believer. You are trying to distance yourself from him because he is widely viewed as a terrible person and the thought of him also being Christian makes you upset. Don't worry. We aren't trying to associate you with Hitler. Well, I'm not at least. I'm just trying to keep facts out there. Like Hitler's own words. And the fact that the current pope was involved in Hitler Youth. This is not to make you look like Hitler. It's just if we ignore history or try to say something wasn't like it was, we'll be doomed to repeat it.

Oh, and here's a little video for you. If you don't want to watch it that's fine.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-13-2012/the-******-ideologues---s...

Christians are awesome. If someone who says they are a christian yet do something that others consider bad, christians will respond with well they aren't true christians. So you can't be apart of the club unless you act exactly right at all times apparently.

It is funny how many things throughout history were done in the name of chistianity and agreed with by the christians at the time. But, as the years go by and people of other beliefs, or lack of refer to these things as a negative towards christianity, christians will quickly dismiss it as being done by "Not Real Christians". This allows them to do these things without taking direct critisism for the actions. Got to love that one.

As for a gov't and the military there shouldn't be reference to any god on anything, other then legal documents that need the reference for the law. To be a free country you can't be bound by the reference of one group on government items.

To those worried that they are being imposed on by athiest beliefs, I couldn't disagree more. You have your churches, businesses and private property to express you faith all you want. We aren't trying to take that from you.

Basically, a good example would be: lets say in 50 years a majority of the US population was athiest and we no longer wanted to be "opressed" by the now minority. So we decided to put "In no God we trust" on money. I do believe the Christians, Jews, Muslims, ect would be in absolute uproar.

Remember before getting upset about something that is brought up or suggested, look at it from the other side of the coin. The best way to avoid people being offended from any side is not to reference god in any way. Not referring to a god do not show support for non believers. What it shows is the government is truely backing freedom, specifically the choice of ones own religion.

for chunky - see the last line of this - http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/06/committed-to-availability-conflicted-... --- or see this - http://www.pewforum.org/Abortion/Abortion-Views-by-Religious-Affiliation.aspx --- These type of numbers are common. It's the inching away thing - a substituting of biblical standards with man made ones. Making the bible irrelevant. And ,I think ,killing the religion.

"It is funny how many things throughout history were done in the name of chistianity and agreed with by the christians at the time. But, as the years go by and people of other beliefs, or lack of refer to these things as a negative towards christianity, christians will quickly dismiss it as being done by "Not Real Christians". This allows them to do these things without taking direct critisism for the actions. Got to love that one."

With all your high-powered intellect and vast time to google on the internet - I'm sure you can back this statement up. One could substitute "secular humanists" or "liberals" or "birthers" instead of "Christians" and would sound just as credible.

"The best way to avoid people being offended from any side is not to reference god in any way." See, now I find that offensive. But "so what" you say...after all...what rights do I have? I'm a Christian.

McCookSax - so? Darwin's father was a preacher - Darwin himself was a washed up preacher - Darwin believed in God. Satan believes in God...much harm has been done in the name of God. That doesn't mean that it was God's will or that God approves. Your prideful little statement shows disdain for God...does He approve of that?

Once again - The USAF is not the government. Ergo the foundation of your premise is false, ergo your arguement is pointless.

See - Look how Mickel is not persuaded by anything non belivers have to say. He becomes even more resolute. More bound to his faith. Do i need more proof here? The christian religion - if it dies out - will die from the inside.

Please, in your own words and thought, what is a Christian?

In my own words? A Christian someone who believes in the Judeo-Christian God and also believes that Jesus is their savior.

USAF may not be THE government but it is a part of the government. Therefore, it must represent a government that in part was put in place to allow people the freedom to worship or not worship the religion of their choice. With this is mind the USAF should not show favor to one religion over others.

It doesn't matter if the first settlers were christians or even the founding fathers. The point is they wanted the people to have the freedom to choose without a government backing or pushing one religion.

Besides, technically this country was first settled by the Native Americans. But, them good ole christians pushed them out. Just another example of christian persicution. But, I suppose I will be told that these weren't true christians. If you go with that backing then your logic that this country was started by christians is invalid. If you back that they were then your previous arguements over horrific acts as not being that of a christian is void.

I guess in the end it is up to you christians to decide which side of the fence you will be on in this arguement. Either way you will be seen as hypocritical and your words will lose weight. Good Luck.

Same with their idea of being a christian country. If they omit all the people they consider bad christians ( the ones who are really not true christians) , then they are only about 15% of the population. They lose the idea that christians are a majority or that it is a christian country. They will argue both ways. Whichever way is convenient at the time.

The US was a Christian nation from the beginning. Before the sessions of the Constitutional Convention, they had prayers lasting as long as 90 minutes, asking for the guidance of God.

I read condemnation of the Holocaust deniers on a regular basis in the press. The God deniers are much more prevalent, and just as foolish.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1:7.

A Christian is someone who has heard and understands the testimony of Jesus Christ, who by definition is God. This person believes this testimony as the truth and it is the intention of God, that we obediently live our lives accordingly. This person then places their total faith in the belief and obedience of the testimony of Jesus Christ, that our sins are, and will be forgiven, and our lives will live on eternally, here on earth, and in Heaven.

The term Judea-Christian is a false one. The God that Jesus Christ is, is not the God of the Jewish.

Yes, it is true, the Biblically defined followers are very small in numbers. And we are equally despised by the general Christian population as well.

CPB your posting of the link to one judge's opinion certainly answers the question of whether or not such a document exists. It does,however raise several other questions such as how is it that this one judge becomes the arbiter of what constitutes a religion especially a perspective that exists solely to reject the existence of a supreme being, and how is it that this opinion does not stand as an example of "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench"?Also why is it so important to believers that unbelief be labeled as religion? I'd take it you do not believe in the existence of Zeus, Hera,Poseidon,Demeter, Artemis,Appollon, Ares, Athene,Aphrodite,Hephaistos,Hermes,Dionysos,and Hestia or in Annapurna,Ganesha,Maya,Balrama, Garuda, Ram, Shiva, Kali,Haruman, or Shakti or in Odin, Thor, Loki, Freyr, Freyja.

Neither do I.Therefore I submit we are both atheists I just believe in one fewer gods than you do, and when you understand why you reject all those other possible deities you'll understand why I reject yours.

Wow John comparing your God to the Holocaust. When really the holocaust doesn't even compare when you consider the amount of people killed in the name of God.

Glad to see that chunky sees what most people see - that those that follow the bible teachings are indeed a very small group.

"Wow John comparing your God to the Holocaust. When really the holocaust doesn't even compare when you consider the amount of people killed in the name of God."

Swing and a miss.

"Glad to see that chunky sees what most people see - that those that follow the bible teachings are indeed a very small group."

There are lots who follow the bible. Just very few who believe they follow it better than the rest, though I do not believe so.

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Romans 3: 22-24

"The righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile. For all have sinned and fall short in the glory of God, and all are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

A little context.

My understanding is that there are 3 - maybe 4 - christian gods -- 1st is yahweh the god of war. 2nd is the chief god of the pantheon of gods of which yahweh way a member--- 3rd is the spirit god that pervades the earth. -- 4th - the man type jesus god. i think christians are moving away from this grouping. i think their ignoring of bible teaching shows that they do not think the bible relevant. or, that some other type of religion suits them better. or, that the religion needs revision in light of modern thinking on things. a lot of christians view other christians as maybe falling from a certain perfect state or falling short of certain ideal conduct. i can see what they are saying. but, what i'm saying is that that is wrong. i see christians as scraping the whole god-bible thing and moving on. that's how i interpret it.

To put the christian thought process plainly is very simple.

If you agree with my ideals and follow my same path you are a true christian.

If you don't agree or follow my path you are not a true christian.

There must be thousands people take the bible and each teachings, and all think they are right and the others are wrong. Athiests just provide every christian with a group they can all agree on together.

bob s,

What are your sources?

Let me answer the question for you, it's not from the Holy Bible. The Bible lists only one God, in three forms, the Creator, the Savior, and the Spirit within. We as Christians believe and follow God as he revealed Himself on earth, Jesus Christ. It is His words, His actions, and His inspiration, that guides us. Nothing else.