The First Openly Godless Member of Congress

[heishe 2]

Under the Soviet System "Creator" was replaced with "State" and the Supreme State gave "rights" to its citizens as seen fit. Perhaps this is the system that this particular politician seems to prefer - being a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

Under the ever increasing power of the "State", the "State" has assumed far greater POWERS over the citizens daily life over the last 4 decades of Democrat Party power.

Dude, I know. All this deficit spending committing us and our children to decades of taxation for debt repayment, plus the warrentless wiretapping, mass appropriation of private telecommunications records - not to mention the "Supreme State" suddenly deciding there's a whole class of people who can access our prisons but not our courts. Whatever happened to these rights endowed by the creator? It's the State in charge now, and they can do what they want to their "detainees."

40 years is too long for these Democrats. It's time to give Republicans a chance.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Communism and godlessness aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, Jesus was a communist.

Not true. Jesus wasn't advocating a form of government, he was putting forward a personal relationship with God. Remember: "Give unto Cesar what is Cesar's' and give unto God what is God's" The two were not intended to mix.

Some try to imply that it's godless liberalism that will bring this country towards being like the former Soviet Union (see the above post) which was Totalitarianism. My point is that Jesus was a communist (not in the political sense) but in terms of his ideology. That's the difference.

see Christian Communism.

[GaryC 7]

Communism and godlessness aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, Jesus was a communist.

Not true. Jesus wasn't advocating a form of government, he was putting forward a personal relationship with God. Remember: "Give unto Cesar what is Cesar's' and give unto God what is God's" The two were not intended to mix.

Some try to imply that it's godless liberalism that will bring this country towards being like the former Soviet Union (see the above post) which was Totalitarianism. My point is that Jesus was a communist (not in the political sense) but in terms of his ideology. That's the difference.

see Christian Communism.

Your trying to mix apples and oranges. Religion in general (regardless of which religion) isn't intended to be a form of government. Only a way for the politician to find his moral base. That being said I don't think having a religious background is necessary for a person to act in a moral way. That comes from the person itself.

[Ban Hammer 13,634]

Under the Soviet System "Creator" was replaced with "State" and the Supreme State gave "rights" to its citizens as seen fit. Perhaps this is the system that this particular politician seems to prefer - being a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

Communism and godlessness aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, Jesus was a communist.

doesn't communism deny god?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Communism and godlessness aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, Jesus was a communist.

Not true. Jesus wasn't advocating a form of government, he was putting forward a personal relationship with God. Remember: "Give unto Cesar what is Cesar's' and give unto God what is God's" The two were not intended to mix.

Some try to imply that it's godless liberalism that will bring this country towards being like the former Soviet Union (see the above post) which was Totalitarianism. My point is that Jesus was a communist (not in the political sense) but in terms of his ideology. That's the difference.

see Christian Communism.

Your trying to mix apples and oranges. Religion in general (regardless of which religion) isn't intended to be a form of government. Only a way for the politician to find his moral base. That being said I don't think having a religious background is necessary for a person to act in a moral way. That comes from the person itself.

Gary - think about the origin of this thread and the reaction of an atheist in office has on some Americans...then get back to me on that.

[GaryC 7]

Communism and godlessness aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, Jesus was a communist.

Not true. Jesus wasn't advocating a form of government, he was putting forward a personal relationship with God. Remember: "Give unto Cesar what is Cesar's' and give unto God what is God's" The two were not intended to mix.

Some try to imply that it's godless liberalism that will bring this country towards being like the former Soviet Union (see the above post) which was Totalitarianism. My point is that Jesus was a communist (not in the political sense) but in terms of his ideology. That's the difference.

see Christian Communism.

Your trying to mix apples and oranges. Religion in general (regardless of which religion) isn't intended to be a form of government. Only a way for the politician to find his moral base. That being said I don't think having a religious background is necessary for a person to act in a moral way. That comes from the person itself.

Gary - think about the origin of this thread and the reaction of an atheist in office has on some Americans...then get back to me on that.

I don't have a problem with an atheist politician. As long as they act in a moral way and do the peoples work I don't care what they believe in their personal lives.

ETA And they don't do anything to infringe on anyones right to practice their own beliefs.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Communism and godlessness aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, Jesus was a communist.

Not true. Jesus wasn't advocating a form of government, he was putting forward a personal relationship with God. Remember: "Give unto Cesar what is Cesar's' and give unto God what is God's" The two were not intended to mix.

Some try to imply that it's godless liberalism that will bring this country towards being like the former Soviet Union (see the above post) which was Totalitarianism. My point is that Jesus was a communist (not in the political sense) but in terms of his ideology. That's the difference.

see Christian Communism.

Your trying to mix apples and oranges. Religion in general (regardless of which religion) isn't intended to be a form of government. Only a way for the politician to find his moral base. That being said I don't think having a religious background is necessary for a person to act in a moral way. That comes from the person itself.

Gary - think about the origin of this thread and the reaction of an atheist in office has on some Americans...then get back to me on that.

I don't have a problem with an atheist politician. As long as they act in a moral way and do the peoples work I don't care what they believe in their personal lives.

Me neither. But unfortunately, many Americans, particularly those that call themselves Christian do. I was directly responding to one who was making the connection between atheism and communism, so I pointed out that Jesus was a communist. Not sure how else to make that any more clear.

[GaryC 7]

Me neither. But unfortunately, many Americans, particularly those that call themselves Christian do. I was directly responding to one who was making the connection between atheism and communism, so I pointed out that Jesus was a communist. Not sure how else to make that any more clear.

The political communist requires that God does not exist. The state is the god. Therefore Jesus isn't a communist.

[Jenn! 918]

Not all communists are atheists.

[mybackpages 0]

Me neither. But unfortunately, many Americans, particularly those that call themselves Christian do. I was directly responding to one who was making the connection between atheism and communism, so I pointed out that Jesus was a communist. Not sure how else to make that any more clear.

The political communist requires that God does not exist. The state is the god. Therefore Jesus isn't a communist.

The political communist states we have seen historically deny God, but as a political theory it is no true. The communist states we know are not examples of communism.

[GaryC 7]

Me neither. But unfortunately, many Americans, particularly those that call themselves Christian do. I was directly responding to one who was making the connection between atheism and communism, so I pointed out that Jesus was a communist. Not sure how else to make that any more clear.

The political communist requires that God does not exist. The state is the god. Therefore Jesus isn't a communist.

The political communist states we have seen historically deny God, but as a political theory it is no true. The communist states we know are not examples of communism.

Agreed. There has never been a true communist country. Historically it's been a way for a government to control it's people.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Gee, I thought a lot of them:

• Jack Murtha (D-PA) VIDEOTAPED negotiating bribe in 1980 (see Abscam)
  
• Dan Burton (R-IN) who accepted quite a few gifts from Jagjit Chauhan, JS Bhullar and other miscreants
  
• Edolphus Towns (D-NY)--as Burton
  
• Major Owens (D-NY)--as with Burton
  
• Wally Herger (R-CA)--as Burton
  

were openly godless (since corruption is certainly considered sin by all religions)

Edited March 26, 2007 by CherryXS

[Sofiyya 1,687]

that could be debated, but i see no reason to doubt the wikipedia entry

Regardless of his beliefs he still had a strong moral foundation contrary to what others here might say.

Jefferson was a slave owner.

[GaryC 7]

that could be debated, but i see no reason to doubt the wikipedia entry

Regardless of his beliefs he still had a strong moral foundation contrary to what others here might say.

Jefferson was a slave owner.

At the time is was a common thing. It wasn't right but it still was an accepted thing to do. In the context of the times it wasn't seen as an immoral act. We look at it now and can't understand how a moral person could justify owning someone else but that was another time and place.

[mybackpages 0]

that could be debated, but i see no reason to doubt the wikipedia entry

Regardless of his beliefs he still had a strong moral foundation contrary to what others here might say.

Jefferson was a slave owner.

At the time is was a common thing. It wasn't right but it still was an accepted thing to do. In the context of the times it wasn't seen as an immoral act. We look at it now and can't understand how a moral person could justify owning someone else but that was another time and place.

Jefferson himself wrote how immoral slavery was. His original draft of the Declaration of Independence included a provision condemning slavery, but that was overruled and tossed by the Continental Congress. The framers of the Constitutiion also knew slavery was morally wrong and completely against the principles that this country was founded on, yet they viewed it as a necessary evil.

Knowing all of this Jefferson chose to keep slaves his whole life and upon his death only freed some not all. Washington, at least freed all his slaves upon his death and Madison arranged to have his slaves freed after the death of himself and his wife.

Doesn;t sound like strong moral ground to me.