[Vision2020] Grandaddy Gary on How to Put the Fun Back inFundamentalism

[Paul Rumelhart]

> Everyone who has had it up to here with the follies of the 
> Republicrats and the Demicans, everyone who has had it up to here with 
> empire building and never-ending warfare against invisible enemies 
> like "drugs" and "terror," everyone who has had it up to here with 
> waking up in the morning and wondering whether we're all characters in 
> "1984" or "Brave New World" or "Fahrenheit 451" will be pushing for 
> Ron Paul and the ideas that he represents. That's why both my atheist 
> friends and my Bible-thumping friends are coming together in support 
> of Ron Paul. In the long run, we have huge differences, but in the 
> short run we can bury the hatchet and cooperate in throwing the bums out.

I'm behind you on this one, for the most part. Some of Ron Paul's ideas 
bother me a great deal, but I'll suck it up for 4 to 8 years just to get 
this country back on track.

However, the fact that people like myself who are not trinitarians and 
have no wish to be will one day be "disenfranchised" does not seem to 
bother you annoys the hell out of me. If someone were trying to pass a 
law that Christians could not hold office, I would be there backing you 
up. The fact that my rights mean nothing to you because I don't believe 
in some mythical god of yours is just a symptom of your arrogance. But I 
guess when God is on your side, you can do no wrong.

Get off the power trip. It doesn't go anywhere interesting. You just 
want to replace one set of tyrants with another someday down the road. 
You just happen to be a member of the new up-and-coming tyranny, so you 
can't see it's the same thing just with different uniforms.

Paul


Christopher Witmer wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Carl Westberg
>
>     While you're here, C.D., how about explaining your "trinitarian
>     test oath" thingie?
>     I'm an old-fashioned kind of guy, Carl.
>     The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 restricted public office to
>     all but Protestants by its religious test/oath.
>     The Delaware Constitution of 1776 demanded an acceptance of the
>     Trinity by its religious test/oath.
>     The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 had a similar test/oath.
>     The Maryland Constitution of 1776 had such a test/oath.
>     The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 had a test/oath that
>     restricted all but Protestants from public office.
>     The Georgia Constitution of 1777 used an oath/test to screen out
>     all but Protestants.
>     The Vermont state charter/constitution of 1777 echoed the
>     Pennsylvania Constitution regarding a test/oath.
>     The South Carolina Constitution of 1778 had such a test/oath
>     allowing only Protestants to hold office.
>     The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 and New Hampshire
>     Constitution of 1784 restricted such office holders to Protestants.
>     Only Virginia and New York did not have such religious tests/oaths
>     during this time period.
>     George Washington took his presidential oath on a Bible and said,
>     "I swear, so help me God." No one flinched or protested that it
>     was a violation of the Constitution. The inauguration was followed
>     by "divine services" that were held in St. Paul's Chapel,
>     "performed by the Chaplain of Congress." While the federal
>     Constitution does not require a religious test oath, it remains a
>     fact that an oath is required to uphold the Constitution, and if
>     it's not sworn before the God of the Bible, then it's sworn before
>     some other god or before the implicitly divinized State.
>     A person who favors a Trinitarian test oath is acknowledging that
>     the ultimate foundation and preserver of both individual freedom
>     and order in society is the Triune God. I don't expect anyone who
>     lacks faith in the Triune God to favor a Trinitarian test oath
>     because that would involve self-disfranchisement. But history
>     shows (to those willing to take the trouble to study history) that
>     the Trinitarian faith goes hand in hand with both individual
>     freedom and social order. So I'm not the least bit shy about
>     favoring Trinitarian tests. From my perspective they are greatly
>     to be preferred to the de facto anti-Trinitarian tests that we are
>     currently stuck with. It's not a question of whether they are
>     desirable, but only a question of how they are to be adopted. It
>     should be obvious that Trinitarian test oaths will never be
>     adopted until the great bulk of society has already been converted
>     to a sincere Christian faith. Grassroots evangelism and education,
>     one person at a time, is how society is transformed, and after
>     society has become largely Christian, then Trinitarian test oaths
>     will likely be re-adopted.
>     Carl, you seem to find my views on this subject to be quite
>     alarming, but right now this subject is not even on my own radar
>     screen, let alone anyone else's. If you go to Google and do a
>     search on the phrase in quotes "trinitarian test oath" you'll see
>     that's the case. Right now the main thrust of political activity
>     ought to be to oppose the steady encroachment of government
>     totalitarianism in our lives. These totalitarian encroachments are
>     largely the result of America's loss of Trinitiarian faith,
>     although probably most people who are alarmed at the growth of
>     totalitarianism are not in a position to see how these two
>     phenomena are deeply interconnected. In any case, you'll see some
>     strange bedfellows in Ron Paul's camp, you can be sure of that.
>     Everyone who has had it up to here with the follies of the
>     Republicrats and the Demicans, everyone who has had it up to here
>     with empire building and never-ending warfare against invisible
>     enemies like "drugs" and "terror," everyone who has had it up to
>     here with waking up in the morning and wondering whether we're all
>     characters in "1984" or "Brave New World" or "Fahrenheit 451" will
>     be pushing for Ron Paul and the ideas that he represents. That's
>     why both my atheist friends and my Bible-thumping friends are
>     coming together in support of Ron Paul. In the long run, we have
>     huge differences, but in the short run we can bury the hatchet and
>     cooperate in throwing the bums out. Trinitarian test oath? Sure,
>     someday. Not likely in my lifetime, however.
>     -- Chris
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================