Assume -- her or his faith possibly excepted -- that this is your perfect candidate in every respect.
Speaking from the other side of the pond with only the BBC and Hubpages forums to go on, I would guess that the atheist and agnostic would consider policies and personnal conduct to be of higher importance, and the that the Christian would believe that it is impossible to have good policies and personnal integrity apart from their interpretation of the bible.
Of course I would. If it was my ideal candidate, then their faith wouldn't inform their public policy. Kind of like Jimmy Carter. He was born-again, a lay minister, etc. Far more religious than W, but his faith was separate from his office.
For the record, I am an atheist.
There are very few Muslim politicians in the US. Keith Ellison is perhaps the most well-known.
Most of them are probably listed right here:
I don't think that we will have a Muslim president in the US for a long time, if ever. I suspect that most of the people on HubPages who would vote for a Muslim president have already responded here. Those who wouldn't are unlikely to respond to the question.
At this moment, I can't say. There's this "cease fire" thing and then you never know who's who. I don't mean to sound racist so I am not refering to the many, only the few. In fact, I haven't voted for anyone in a long time. I will however, vote for social issues. I can't stand those greedy b@$%!'s, politicians, any of them at all. They remind me of the Roaman senate...
Because first of all, the term "Muslim" indicates a basic allegiance to a different Nationality than America.
The exception would be if the person's distant heritage was "Muslim", but he AND his parents were natural-born Americans and claimed and showed allegiance to America's Constitution, not some other Nation's. In which case, however, the person wouldn't really even BE Muslim unless he considered it to be a matter of skin color. But even in that case, (since you mentioned his/her "faith"), that faith would disqualify them from eligibility since our Constitutional Law is based on belief in, and adherence to, the basics of the Christian Faith and not the "God" of Muslim Nations.
This is my first definitive "no."
Islam has nothing to do with nationality, by the way, any more than Christianity does. There are devout Muslims who were born in the US, and whose national allegiance is to the US, in exactly the same way that there are devout Jews who were born in the US, and whose national allegiance is to the US, and devout Christians who were born in the US, and whose national allegiance is to the US.
Then, if it has nothing to do with Nationality, it must be about the Muslim faith, which is Islam. Same conclusion. Not compatible with the American Constitution's fundamental basis.
I'm sure you've seen by now just how incompatible even a Candidate whose faith straddles the fence between Islam and Christianity has been with our Constitution. Yeah, I'm talkin' about Obama. He won't claim either faith definitively, and has vowed even before Election to change our Constitutional foundation. He should've never been allowed to even enter the White House with that attitude. Since that person's inability to show allegiance to America's Constitution is obvious, it's even more obvious that a claimer of Islam would be totally ineligible.
I'm sorry, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. What you are saying here in factually incorrect.
Obama has claimed Christianity definitively, and he has made no vow -- before or after his election -- to change our constitutional foundation.
Even more ridiculous.....
Brain drain kool (or kook)-aid strikes again!
I am an American citizen and a citizen of the world. The two are not incompatible. A citizen of the world is someone who thinks globally, as the President of the United States is reasonably expected to do.
In context, Obama's words were:
"I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world."
Regardless, being a "citizen of the world" does not make you a Muslim, nor does it instill a burning desire to modify founding documents. In other words, your context-free video (now videos) do nothing to address either of your claims.
Here, however, is a video which does:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzSe-Zm6 … r_embedded
You didn't even watch all of the video you yourself posted, did you?! Much less the ones I posted . Wow.
Your list of links kept growing, so no, I didn't watch them all. However, I have seen them all, and others like them, including the Alex Jones garbage. In the ridiculous video, "Obama Admits He Is A Muslim," i suppose you didn't notice the quick cutting?
The actual quote was, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them."
You also closed your mind, so I don't know why I'm bothering to share this link, but here it is, anyway:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/truth- … oom-floor/
Your videos prove nothing. So the fact that Obama eats pork and doesn't fast during Ramadan means nothing? Even the non-religious Muslims I know follow those rules, but Obama, the secret Muslim, is SO secretive about it that he doesn't even follow the most basic rules. Not to mention the fact that he went to a Baptist church for decades! Wow, he must REALLY be undercover, secretly plotting his Muslim agenda to... Uh, what was it again?
Hmm. surely you didn't go there, didja? I mean, go to the subject of Obama being a member of a Baptist Church!!? LOL. Just because it's not called a Muslim church doesn't mean it follows Baptist/Christian ways. That particular "Baptist Church" is fodder for much more debate, and for sure I wouldn't call that Church a legitimately American one, nor a Baptist one, nor a Christian one at all.
Don't waste your breath. I've tangled with her before, and she doesn't listen to reason.
What I don't listen to without responding is anti-Americanism and anti-Christianity. Ergo, my responses.
You also never answered my very specific questions in your own hub, questions which had nothing to do with "anti-Americanism" or "anti-Christianity."
Was it the Political Process hub? What questions did I fail to answer? You'll have to remind me or I'll have to go look........sorry, but I've slept many times since that discussion.....
That's weird, 'cos nobody said anything anti-American or anti-Christian here.
In fact, the only one who has said anything anti-anything is you with your anti-Muslim remarks.
It is, after all, a thread about the Muslim "faith" as it relates to American politics (which, American politics is fundamentally Christian-based). I've stuck to the subject. So what's the problem?
"American politics is fundamentally Christian-based)."
That's your problem right there.
The establishment clause was written specifically to counter the idea that our nation was "fundamentally Christian-based." Our country was founded upon secular principles by Enlightenment-era Deists.
Your lying about the founding fathers does not make it so. Neither does your lying about the President's religion.
I may consider that you're the one who's lying. LOL. So, whatever. I've been called a liar before by liberals, and since that's a typical vocalization of their behavior and mindset, I may be called that again. Again, whatever.
"American politics is fundamentally Christian-based)."
That's your problem right there.
Though, I honestly don't think Brenda is lying--that is, she's not trying deliberately to deceive us with those categorically false statements about the Christian-based nature of American politics. I think she sincerely believes that nonsense to be fact.
Someone can be wrong without being a liar. Brenda proves that consistently.
Fair enough. Perhaps she's merely deluded and not intentionally lying.
But someone can also commit defamation without being a liar. It's known in legal terms as "reckless disregard for the truth." Her statements certainly demonstrate that.
"Disregard for the truth" sounds about right.
Funny. Yours exhibit disrespect for people's opinions and free speech rights, period. As evidenced in another post of yours in another thread as well. You apparently go around calling other Christians "deluded", not just me. So, you should analyze your own self instead of insulting others. It's known as disrespect. And in legal terms, most likely that "defamation" that you so audaciously want to label others with. Might even be "slander" and/or discrimination, if one wanted to go looking for specific definitions of your behavior.
You have the right to express your opinion. You do not have the right to have that opinion respected, especially if you can't support it with (true) data and (well-reasoned) arguments.
A lot of people have taken to saying "I have a right to my opinion" as though the mere right to have a given opinion makes said opinion a valid one.
Heck, I could say that it's my opinion that JarJar and the Midichlorians* were the best things ever to happen to the Star Wars universe. It'd be my opinion, and I'd have a right to it, but I'd still be wrong, and I'd still look like a fool whenever I exercise my right to express said opinion.
*The name of my new Sy Snootles tribute band.
I don't need a lesson in what's "opinion" and what's not, nor in what's respectable or what's not.
The other poster did. So I responded. If you need one, then read your own post here. There was no need to post it directly to me. Especially since it's not my responsibility when nay-sayers don't "respect" my opinion. That's their problem, not mine, and in which case I don't crave their "respect" anyway because I've said nothing wrong.
"That's their problem, not mine, and in which case I don't crave their "respect" anyway because I've said nothing wrong."
Brenda, you say something that's wrong every time you repeat your nonsense about America being founded as a Christian nation, or that American politics are based in Christianity.
In fact, you're one of the champion posters of wrong information in the forums.
Eat your own words. There are a myriad of instances where one can prove that America's foundation is based on belief in the Judeo-Christian God.
A very basic one is our bankruptcy laws. It's called the "year of Jubilee". Forgiveness of debt. Parallel to the forgiveness upon repentance that's the foundation of Christ's teachings.
I can give you Bible references to the subject of the year of jubilee, and to the other subjects and how our Constitutional laws were derived from that basis. But indeed, since you're so knowledgeable, I'm sure you can find them for yourself. That should give you something to do with your eyes and brain matter instead of you just using your hands to type words like "nonsense" toward Christians and try to insult them every time your little fingers move.
Hi, Ms. Durham.
I am fascinated by your reference to the “year of Jubilee.” I have found many references in the Bible. However, I do not find it in the Constitution or anywhere in Bankruptcy law. Can you show me where I will find this Biblical term in bankruptcy law? Thank you. I appreciate your help.
I don't have the bankruptcy laws at my fingertips, sorry. But I do know that it is the rule that a person who files bankruptcy once cannot file bankruptcy again until another seven years has gone by. Or perhaps that rule has been changed recently? I dunno. The Bible speaks about the 7-year rule in Deuteronomy 15. It even says in verses 9 and 10 that we shouldn't refuse to lend to someone based on the fear that he/she will have the right to "release" from that debt in the seventh year.
Also, the "excuses" or reasons for filing bankruptcy cater to the rule that we should have compassion for people's troubles, just as the Bible says.
Sorry if I gave the impression that the term "year of Jubilee" was in the Constitution! I meant that the term is in the Bible, and that the entire concept is carried over into our bankruptcy laws. The compassion for a person's legal difficulties, including the "term limits" so-to-speak for debt forgiveness is similar in the Bible and in our bankruptcy laws. Actually, MOST of our Constitutional laws (not just bankruptcy) are based on Biblical principles, all the way from our laws gauging everything from lying to murder.
True, especially the bits about slaves being 3/5ths of a person. The Bible does have a lot to say about managing slaves, doesn't it?
Perhaps. But hey, that's a subject you might wanna take up with God Himself, since those days are bygone and there's nobody living now to blame it on. I do know He set His people free eventually from their slavery to the rulers of that time. And I do know that the subject of slavery in the U.S. is also the subject of a bygone era, no matter how many activists still want to blame people living today who never had anything to do with slavery for the sins or perceived sins of people who are no longer alive. When you're free, people should celebrate it! Not hold vengeance against the descendants of the oppressors, or the descendants of the perceived oppressors.
I can give you Bible references to the subject of the year of jubilee, and to the other subjects and how our Constitutional laws were derived from that basis.
Oh, really? I'm fascinated. Please, tell me more.
Sorry if I gave the impression that the term "year of Jubilee" was in the Constitution!
Oh, I see, you're making stuff up again.
Stop showing your inability (or unwillingness) to read, and your propensity for false accusations.
I posted some references. And like I said, you're capable of looking them, or more of them, up. Yet you lazily decide it's easier to accuse me of lying.
I tell ya what, this kind of nonsensical tactics is why not only would I not vote for a Muslim, but neither would I vote for a liberal-minded person, period, for ANY political office in America. I used to think maybe it's an unwitting trait, but it's obviously a deliberate opposition to all that is conservative and all that's Biblical.
And like I said, you're capable of looking them, or more of them, up. Yet you lazily decide it's easier to accuse me of lying.
So, because I refuse to do your homework for you, I'm lazy? You're really not very good at this whole logic thing, are you?
this kind of nonsensical tactics is why not only would I not vote for a Muslim
Wait, because I won't buy the carp you're selling, you won't vote for a Muslim?
Holy cow, it's astonishing how your mind works. A conversation with you is like a Monty Python skit--I couldn't write comedy gold like this if I tried.
I used to think maybe it's an unwitting trait, but it's obviously a deliberate opposition to all that is conservative and all that's Biblical.
All that is conservative? Maybe. All that's Biblical? I doubt it. There's not much that supports the conservative ideology in the Gospels. There is rather a lot that supports the liberal one, though. But I guess it's okay to ignore the inconvenient stuff that Jesus told us we should do if it conflicts with what the Koch brothers and Rush Limbaugh tell us we should think.
Bottom line: you keep pretending that the US is a Christian nation when in reality it's a secular nation with a Christian majority. There's a difference, and it's pretty big. Further, you keep pretending that Christians and Christianity having a privileged status is the same as religious freedom, and that when Christianity doesn't get a privileged status, it's the same as oppression. Your ideas about the relationship between US government and your version of Christianity are delusional at best, and insidiously mendacious at worst. Because I like to think well of people, I'm going to decide that you genuinely believe the carp you're selling, but your genuine belief in falsehoods doesn't make them true. It just makes you look silly when you spout them.
Please, do continue, though, because you are providing a much needed service to the world at large: never underestimate the healing power of a good, loud, full belly laugh.
I've always been confused as to why one can be Christian and vote conservative because they think voting conservative is voting for christian values. I believe this only happens in the states for the most part.
Brenda, you show a significant amount of bigotry, ignorance and intolerance and manipulation in your posts that doesn't follow what Christ taught.
I'm always frightened when I see this side of the American people.
Thank you, Ms. Durham, for raising the issue that the foundation of the USA is based on belief in a Judeo-Christian God. Scholarly research, however, disagrees with this notion.
Those who believe the USA is a “Christian Nation” all seem to begin with the idea the Bible was the source for many Constitutional principles and then they scour the Bible looking for parallels like the "year of jubilee" to support their pre-conceived idea. This approach is highly biased and totally self-serving since there really is no historic connection.
Any one honestly looking to establish that the founding fathers intended to shape the Constitution along principles found in the Bible should not be looking at the words in the Bible to prove their assertions but, rather, at the words of those who actually drafted the Constitution.
Members of the Constitutional Convention argued strenuously during the preparation of this document, all kept detailed notes and journals during the process, and most wrote copiously about the sources of their opinions. Since then, there has been exhaustive research into the political discourse conducted at the time and the most obvious finding is how little God and the Bible are mentioned. If the founding fathers intended to write a document based on principles contained in the Bible, they would have made many conspicuous references to Christianity and the Bible including chapter and verse. However, there is nearly no mention of God or the Bible in any of their writings. There is no record of citations or any debates on how to interpret biblical sources.
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Henry Lee dated May 8, 1825, was very specific about sources used to draft the Declaration of Independence. He mentioned Aristotle, Locke, Cicero, and Algernon Sidney but makes no mention of the Bible. (1)
James Madison left hundreds of pages of notes, as did other members of the Constitutional Convention, in which there is no mention of any biblical passages or verses about any part of the Constitution. They refer to Rome, Sparta, German confederacies, Montesquieu, but not one verse from Scripture.
Supporters of the Constitution went to great lengths to advocate for the adoption of this document. In 85 essays published and circulated throughout the colonies in The Federalist Papers there are no biblical sources offered to support any of the Constitution’s principles.
Finally, the Constitution speaks for itself when it declares it is NOT based upon the Bible but is, in fact, obviously and completely opposed to the most basic tenet of Christianity. One needs only to compare the first commandment of Moses to the First Amendment. The Bible says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
In contrast, the First Amendment of the Constitution stipulates, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
The Bible recognizes only one God and Christians insist their religion is the only one recognized by God. The Constitution, on the other hand, brilliantly established a secular government that protects religious pluralism. The enemies of religious pluralism try to corrupt this ideal by pretending the founders were bent on promoting Christian beliefs.
(1) http://badidea.wordpress.com/2008/01/01 … eclaration
Ooo, good one! I also like Greedo Shot First as a band name.
I just call it as I see it. Stop being deluded and I'll stop describing you people that way.
"American politics is fundamentally Christian-based." Is really too nebulous a statement to say whether it's true or false. It is true that most candidates have to be very vocal about their faith in order to court the evangelical vote, or at least not raise their ire. But if she meant that the US political system was based on a Christian ideology, well, that is open to debate, but is also irrelevant. it is also irrelevan whether the founders were Christians, Hindus or Scientologists. Why? The First Amendment, and over 200 years of legal precendent have very clearly established a separation of church and state. Our political and legal system may share some aspects of Christian ideology, but that is merely coincidence.
It has been predicted that by 2042, the US will be a majority non-white, with Latinos making up the largest ethnic group. Most Latinos are Catholic, which would most likely make Catholicism the largest religion in the US, though Islam is currently one of, if not THE, fast-growing religion. Simply because one or the other of those might be the majority religion doesn't mean that it should form the basis of our legal or political system. You might think it hunky-dory when your religious beliefs are in the majority, but it is not inconceivable that you could later become a minority. What then?
You have no right to call me a liar. The proof of his vow is there in, not just black&white, but in living color, by picture and words.
And by the way, what agenda is it you're pushing here? Are you with some Muslim activist group or what? You've been told what America's eligibility requirements are in order to be a legitimate Candidate for the Office of President, and you should've at least read those facts in our Constitution since you're an American citizen, correct? It's clear that being an American means trusting in our Constitutional form of Government, not in some other Nationality's form of government, and not in changing the basis of our Government.
"Then, if it has nothing to do with Nationality, it must be about the Muslim faith, which is Islam. Same conclusion. Not compatible with the American Constitution's fundamental basis."
That right there is conclusive proof that you have no idea what the Constitution is based on.
I wouldn't vote for anyone who harbours beliefs that I deem to be ridiculous religious or not.
If I followed this rule I could never vote. I just go for a favorable ratio.
I know what you mean. The lesser of two evils is often the choice you are left with when it comes to politicians.
Indeed, something like 'who can I vote for that isn't actively pursing goals I despise, but who might actually win'.
The sole purpose of the President is to guard, protect, defend and uphold the elements of the Constitution. The constituencies within said document do include the protection and allowance of religious freedom within the constructs of the law. America is a nation of Laws. Always was, always will be. So, the individuals 'faith' or preferred religious practice would be irrelevant.
Personally I don't care what religion or non-religious person runs our Government so long as they are committed to doing the right thing for our Country.
I married a Muslim, so I think I could manage to vote for one, too.
I don't particularly care what religion a politician is as long as he or she doesn't try to make his or her personal religious beliefs into law. There are a few religions I look at a little more askance at on the grounds that they are nuts (Mormons being the most politically active of them at the time), but it would still ultimately come down to the politician's actions and policy plans. I have much more tolerance for Catholics than Mormons in general, but I'd vote for Romney or Huntsman over Santorum any day.
I happen to live in the Minnesota district represented in Congress by Keith Ellison, and since I HAVE voted for a Muslim for Congress I certainly would have no problem voting for one for President if they met all my other criteria.
Obama is only Muslim if you think religion is genetic. nothing he has done in his life indicates any such thing.
But if he was Muslim, I would still vote for him.
I watched what you posted Brenda.....and it was a load of propagandist garbage... Weak minded people may fall for it, but that is all....
It is amazing how people enable themselves to be led astray....
Yes, I'd vote for a Muslim...or a Mormon, a Catholic, an atheist, or a Martian if I thought he or she could be a great POTUS for our nation.
I don't know that I'm actually prepared to vote for extraterrestrials, yet. :-)
I don't think a martian can run for President unless he was born in Kenya.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSW … e=youtu.be
I find it utterly astounding that one can use tripe productions like this to back up a claim.
While it is incredibly sad that someone can truly watch it and believe it, let alone use it as "evidence" of some type supporting its premise, it is even more sad that money was wasted to create this garbage in the first place.
The reality is that the kooks who put the production together got paid...and they are laughing away (those who aren't deluded themselves) at the people who believe their lies.
With every "Obama is a Muslim"..."Obama is un/anti-American"..sign, shirt, or blog/forum post they can point and exclaim, "Look, here is another of our little misguided drones..."
Don't be a drone...
Because Obama is a Christian who leans Baptist he is Muslim? That's some good logic.
No no. That wasn't the conclusion I drew nor meant to infer. I meant the subject of that Baptist Church wasn't even an indicator of Obama's "Christianity". The fact that Obama went there does nothing to help make the case for him being Christian.
Going to a Baptist church, going to other Christian churches, saying he is Christian, and not following any specifically Muslim rules of conduct kind of does.
All of which is beside the point. I would vote for him either way.
So if he's not as enthusiastic a Christian as you, he's not a Christian at all? Is being a Christian a prerequisite for being a good person or public official?
I would never vote for a Muslim. They are encouraged to deceive others into thinking that they area "religion of peace" while they plot violence behind the scenes. Why would you want someone who comes from a background steeped in such evil thinking to be in charge of anything? You'd never know if they were sincere or if they were just playing it up so that we would THINK them sincere in order to get into the White House at which point they would change their tune.
I know that's pretty much the play book of all politicians, but one who might advance Muslim ideals would be like throwing gas on the fire.
Wow. I would never vote for a Christian. They are encouraged to deceive others into thinking that they are a "religion of peace" while they plot violence behind the scenes. Why would you want someone who comes from a background steeped in such evil thinking to be in charge of anything? You'd never know if they were sincere or if they were just playing it up so that we would THINK them sincere in order to get into the White House at which point they would change their tune.
I don't really think that, but you should look at yourself first. Christians have a long history of violence and deceit. Sometime I think a lesson could be learned from Canada. They don't care what religious beliefs someone has as long as it doesn't interfere with politics.
Stereotype much? The fact that there are over a billion Muslims around the world, yet only a tiny minority have engaged in violent acts means nothing to you, I guess.
You are a disgusting, hate-filled bigot and I am ashamed to share a planet with you.
Also, I find it interesting that only atheists and agnostics have denounced your bigoted statement. Why is that?
Because we're neutral on the subject of religion. All religions are equally kooky in our eyes. OK, Scientology is on top of the kooky pile, but the others are all pretty equal.
I'm Jewish and don't agree with her at all.
If you think all religions are pretty much the same, then you probably don't know much about other religions, or you're trying to appear unbiased.
Wow, us poor atheists can't do anything right. We stand up against a bigot and we are told we are right, but we are still wrong because we lump all religions together.
Do you lump all religions together?
I was responding to twosheds1. I don't presume that all atheists have the same beliefs.
"I don't presume that all atheists have the same beliefs."
Well, they all share at least one...
We just don't discriminate between them. If you must know I've never meet a muslim I didn't like. I've seen them on TV, but in person they are all nice people. I've meet Christians I didn't like (mostly family). I've never meet a jew I didn't like.
Yes, a reasonable, decent human can come from any background.
Do you view proselytizing religions the same way you view non-proselytizing ones? We're talking about the religions here, not any specific adherent.
What a great question. The short answer. I've never meet a person at my door trying to convert me that I liked. I find it despicable that they bring along a child so I won't be rude in front of a child. I usually ask them for there address and tell them I'll drop by at my convenience. The Witnesses are the worst because they don't learn from there own mistakes. There own predictions are always wrong, but they don't learn. Great question.
I usually let them deliver their spiel, then I say "OK, now it's my turn," and I start telling them about the Church of the SubGenius. I try to give them some literature, but they usually don't take it. I haven't had any at my door in a while, so it seems to be working.
I know plenty about other religions. The Abrahamic religions are essentially the same to me. I know there are differences, but so what? They all worship the same god, they just have a different mythology attached to it.
But all religions share one thing: they worship non-existent beings.
"I find it interesting that only atheists and agnostics have denounced your bigoted statement. Why is that?"
'Cos I haven't gotten around to it yet. Also, because nothing she said is de-bunk-able: it's all opinion (wrongheaded, irrational, foolish opinion, but opinion nonetheless), and I can't point at anything to say, "you're incorrect because you got this fact wrong."
She's just hatemongering. That's bad, but less insidious than the hatemongering of those who use fabricated 'facts' to rationalize their hatred.
OMG what a brilliant idea.
What if the US did elect a Muslim POTUS??
Think what a positive foreign relations statement that would make with those who view us the satanic evil enemy?
Think what a positive domestic relations statement that would make with bigoted people who view Muslim-Americans as terrorists in training?
Whoa. It blows my mind what a great idea that is.
That sure is a tough question. My first instinct is to say no because I'm a Christian and I fear Muslim take over of my country. Sharia Law doesn't appeal to me.
On second thought, if I am in agreement with his or her morals, values, experience, and foreign policies, I would definitely consider it.
Do you think there is a fundamental difference between Sharia law and Christianity-based law? Isn't it two sides of the same coin?
Sharia law is more like Europe in the middle ages.
I'm not christian and Iran is still stoning people for adultery. Sounds like Europe a few hundred years ago to me.
But if you took the OT literally, it wouldn't be much different. There'd be stonings for just about everything. Basing a legal system solely on the Koran is no different than basing it on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
A simple thought occurred to me reading through these posts.
If the US was founded as a Christian nation, why do we even need the Consitution?
I mean, isn't every guideline about right and wrong and how to conduct ourselves according to God's wishes (e.g., laws) already written in the Bible?
It had not occurred to me until just now, reading some of the "respectble" opinions proffered, that our Constitution is redundant at best, and
useless to the functioning of a truly Christian nation at worst.
Everything I ever needed to know is in King James, baby!
We need the constitution because we aren't a Christian Nation. You know... the part about religious freedom and separation of church and state; it's in there somewhere...
Separation of church and state is in the Bible?
by Deforest3 weeks ago
I am not saying that none of the candidates gathered the 207 electorate votes. I am just stating that a majority of the US citizens vote blank. Will the majority rule?
by Susie Lehto3 weeks ago
Looky what an electrician found in a warehouse in Columbus, Ohio this week. A Trump support, BTW. About a dozen sealed ballot boxes filled with Franklin County votes for Hillary Clinton and other Democrat...
by Sebastian Franzen4 weeks ago
Clinton vs TrumpGood vs Evil ?
by GA Anderson2 years ago
Listening to a couple political pundits discussing a local election result - I heard them agree that the low voter turnout for the election probably helped unseat an incumbent.Their logic was that the voters that did...
by Faith Reaper13 days ago
I may be a bit naive on this topic, but I believe that my vote should count. I understand the history and all, but I still think one's vote should count, and the candidate who receives the most votes should...
by Elesh8 months ago
As the much talked about US election approaches, political parties and politicians are changing tactics ahead the D-day. Campaign Managers are also developing new ways of doing more mind work on American...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.