Kreutz wrote:How so? I do not wish to live in a theocracy regardless of what flavor it is.
Amen. I feel the majority of the folks that post here on the right wing side of things are Protestants. Just remember that "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
Who is arguing for a theocracy? While I'm sure someone is doing so somewhere, that is hardly the position of most most religious people in America. I think that is simply a term you are throwing around to justify your bigotry towards religion. Show me I'm wrong and I'll apologize.
sudo modprobe commonsense FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
gunderwood wrote:Who is arguing for a theocracy? While I'm sure someone is doing so somewhere, that is hardly the position of most most religious people in America. I think that is simply a term you are throwing around to justify your bigotry towards religion. Show me I'm wrong and I'll apologize.
Well, you have the usual Robertson and Falwell types directly advocating theocracy, plus I have heard many politicians (Huckabee, Romney, Angle, Palin, Byrne, Gingrich, Graham, GW Bush; they were off the top of my head) say they get their moral imperatives for decision making from the Bible, so there you go.
Its also noteworthy churches enjoy tax exempt status, another form of welfare I don't hear any conservatives complaining about. I would consider this implicit aceptance of theocratic priviliege.
Yet if someone is getting a whopping $80.00 a month in food stamps, that's a socialist welfare state.
So rattle my bones all over the stones, I'm only a beggar-man whom nobody owns. Oh, see how words as old as sin, fit me like a glove.
Kreutz wrote:Well, you have the usual Robertson and Falwell types directly advocating theocracy, plus I have heard many politicians (Huckabee, Romney, Angle, Palin, Byrne, Gingrich, Graham, GW Bush; they were off the top of my head) say they get their moral imperatives for decision making from the Bible, so there you go.
Its also noteworthy churches enjoy tax exempt status, another form of welfare I don't hear any conservatives complaining about. I would consider this implicit aceptance of theocratic priviliege.
This country was founded upon the principles of God as well as many of the morals and laws as they were defined in the Bible. Morality is something that seems to be slipping through the fingers of our society and it's unfortunate. The media is largely to blame...every new TV show tries to "one-up" the previous one and we've now reached the point where there is seemingly nothing that is forbidden for display to the public. I can't even let my kids sit down in front of the TV to watch a major network (ABC, NBC, CBS) on a Saturday evening (Prime time) without being right there with remote control in hand to change the channel quickly if something objectionable is shown or verbalized.
Kreutz wrote: Yet if someone is getting a whopping $80.00 a month in food stamps, that's a socialist welfare state.
It's not about "someone" getting $80.00 in food stamps - it's about *everyone* getting $80.00 in food stamps. Certainly, there are those who truly need government assistance, but it has been broadened to the point that there are a great many out there who rely on assistance, not because they need it, but because they want it and it's easy.
Please visit our 100,000th Post Giveaway Sponsors!
My Arsenal: Armalite M15A2 Ruger 10/22 S&W 4043 .40 Daly 1911 .45 Mossberg 500 12Ga Rem 870 Super Mag Ranger Youth 20Ga Browning Buck Mark .22 Chinese SKS (Circa mid-70's)
gunderwood wrote:Who is arguing for a theocracy? While I'm sure someone is doing so somewhere, that is hardly the position of most most religious people in America. I think that is simply a term you are throwing around to justify your bigotry towards religion. Show me I'm wrong and I'll apologize.
Well, you have the usual Robertson and Falwell types directly advocating theocracy, plus I have heard many politicians (Huckabee, Romney, Angle, Palin, Byrne, Gingrich, Graham, GW Bush; they were off the top of my head) say they get their moral imperatives for decision making from the Bible, so there you go.
Its also noteworthy churches enjoy tax exempt status, another form of welfare I don't hear any conservatives complaining about. I would consider this implicit aceptance of theocratic priviliege.
Yet if someone is getting a whopping $80.00 a month in food stamps, that's a socialist welfare state.
So where do you get your moral imperatives for decision making from?
Now is the time for all good men to get off their rusty dustys...
gunderwood wrote:Who is arguing for a theocracy? While I'm sure someone is doing so somewhere, that is hardly the position of most most religious people in America. I think that is simply a term you are throwing around to justify your bigotry towards religion. Show me I'm wrong and I'll apologize.
Well, you have the usual Robertson and Falwell types directly advocating theocracy, plus I have heard many politicians (Huckabee, Romney, Angle, Palin, Byrne, Gingrich, Graham, GW Bush; they were off the top of my head) say they get their moral imperatives for decision making from the Bible, so there you go.
Its also noteworthy churches enjoy tax exempt status, another form of welfare I don't hear any conservatives complaining about. I would consider this implicit aceptance of theocratic priviliege.
Yet if someone is getting a whopping $80.00 a month in food stamps, that's a socialist welfare state.
So where do you get your moral imperatives for decision making from?
Why should your choice to follow the moral imperatives dictated by your chosen religion have any impact on the policy followed by a state which was founded upon the idea of religious freedom? I don't think Thomas Jefferson was flawed in his judgement, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Your religious beliefs are just those, your religious beliefs. Just like mine are mine, and my neighbors are my neighbors. Where Kreutz's moral imperatives for decision making come from are irrelevant.
gunderwood wrote:Who is arguing for a theocracy? While I'm sure someone is doing so somewhere, that is hardly the position of most most religious people in America. I think that is simply a term you are throwing around to justify your bigotry towards religion. Show me I'm wrong and I'll apologize.
Well, you have the usual Robertson and Falwell types directly advocating theocracy, plus I have heard many politicians (Huckabee, Romney, Angle, Palin, Byrne, Gingrich, Graham, GW Bush; they were off the top of my head) say they get their moral imperatives for decision making from the Bible, so there you go.
You left off Obama quoting (or rather misquoting) the Bible and talking about his old pastor being his spiritual leader, etc.. etc.. etc... Funny how this is not alarming when it comes from Democrats or leftists, but if conservatives or Republicans do it then we are headed for a theocracy. I call BS on your assertion.
Kreutz wrote:Its also noteworthy churches enjoy tax exempt status, another form of welfare I don't hear any conservatives complaining about. I would consider this implicit aceptance of theocratic priviliege.
And so do a whole host of non-profits that agitate for us to give up our standard of living so that we should worship Mother Gaia. You want to rage against the 80% tax exemption status of churches, fine... let's also stop the 100% tax exemption for all these psuedo non-profits.
gunderwood wrote:Who is arguing for a theocracy? While I'm sure someone is doing so somewhere, that is hardly the position of most most religious people in America. I think that is simply a term you are throwing around to justify your bigotry towards religion. Show me I'm wrong and I'll apologize.
Well, you have the usual Robertson and Falwell types directly advocating theocracy, plus I have heard many politicians (Huckabee, Romney, Angle, Palin, Byrne, Gingrich, Graham, GW Bush; they were off the top of my head) say they get their moral imperatives for decision making from the Bible, so there you go.
Its also noteworthy churches enjoy tax exempt status, another form of welfare I don't hear any conservatives complaining about. I would consider this implicit aceptance of theocratic priviliege.
Yet if someone is getting a whopping $80.00 a month in food stamps, that's a socialist welfare state.
Based on your reply, I don't think you know what that word means.
Theocracy, government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state’s legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations. The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western countries. Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican. See also church and state; sacred kingship. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... /theocracy
Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler,[1] or in a higher sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.[2] In Common Greek, "theocracy" means a rule [kra′tos] by God [the.os′]. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.[3] Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws (rules).
Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy
Politicians who are believers in God and who are influenced by moral and religious concepts are not advocating a theocracy. What you are suggesting is that any politician who exercises their faith and makes decisions which are consistent with it and its moral precepts are unfit for civil service...primarily because those moral precepts are inconsistent with yours. That is bigotry against religion, thanks for the confirmation.
Edit: Why should your moral imperatives or precepts not disqualify you for public service...heck, why not citizenship? I'm being absurd to show the absurdity of your argument.
sudo modprobe commonsense FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
Palladin wrote:So where do you get your moral imperatives for decision making from?
Why should your choice to follow the moral imperatives dictated by your chosen religion have any impact on the policy followed by a state which was founded upon the idea of religious freedom? I don't think Thomas Jefferson was flawed in his judgement, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Your religious beliefs are just those, your religious beliefs. Just like mine are mine, and my neighbors are my neighbors. Where Kreutz's moral imperatives for decision making come from are irrelevant.
They are not relevant for disqualifying him for public service. However, people can vote anyway they want for any reason.
They are relevant to this discussion because of Kreutz's claims. As you pointed out with Jefferson, Kreutz's argument is absurd and inconsistent with American principles.
sudo modprobe commonsense FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
Palladin wrote:So where do you get your moral imperatives for decision making from?
Why should your choice to follow the moral imperatives dictated by your chosen religion have any impact on the policy followed by a state which was founded upon the idea of religious freedom? I don't think Thomas Jefferson was flawed in his judgement, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Your religious beliefs are just those, your religious beliefs. Just like mine are mine, and my neighbors are my neighbors. Where Kreutz's moral imperatives for decision making come from are irrelevant.
They are not relevant for disqualifying him for public service. However, people can vote anyway they want for any reason.
They are relevant to this discussion because of Kreutz's claims. As you pointed out with Jefferson, Kreutz's argument is absurd and inconsistent with American principles.
allingeneral wrote:This country was founded upon the principles of God as well as many of the morals and laws as they were defined in the Bible.
No, it was not. It was founded as commercial enterprise under royal charter by the Plymouth Company and the London Company. Post colonial (i.e. America) society was also not founded on principles of God, as evident by the lack of a single mention of religion/Christianity/Bible in the Declaration of Independence, only a mention of a "Natures God", a "Creator" and "Providence", which are profoundly Deist statements.
The Christian God (or even that vague "Creator" fellow mentioned in the Declaration) makes no (not one) appearance in the Constitution, except in the common "year of our Lord" dating method at the end.
So no there is no written evidence to state this was founded as a Christian nation, or any religious nation for that matter.
gunderwood wrote:Politicians who are believers in God and who are influenced by moral and religious concepts are not advocating a theocracy. What you are suggesting is that any politician who exercises their faith and makes decisions which are consistent with it and its moral precepts are unfit for civil service... primarily because those moral precepts are inconsistent with yours.
They are unfit because of a silly concept called SEPARATION of church and state. Whether they are or are not inconsistent with my own beliefs is irrelevant, there should not be even a blurring of the line. If laws are being written by men who claim divine involvement in daily life, there's a good chance those laws will reflect their own personal views instead of what is supposed to be an unbiased secular one for the good of all.
That is bigotry against religion, thanks for the confirmation.
Should religion be afforded special status exempting it from valid criticism as well as taxation?
Edit: Why should your moral imperatives or precepts not disqualify you for public service...heck, why not citizenship? I'm being absurd to show the absurdity of your argument
Again, separation of church and state. If one wishes to be in public office there should be no talk of religion, since by its absolutist nature it cannot coexist with differing absolutist belief systems.
So rattle my bones all over the stones, I'm only a beggar-man whom nobody owns. Oh, see how words as old as sin, fit me like a glove.
allingeneral wrote:This country was founded upon the principles of God as well as many of the morals and laws as they were defined in the Bible.
No, it was not. It was founded as commercial enterprise under royal charter by the Plymouth Company and the London Company. Post colonial (i.e. America) society was also not founded on principles of God, as evident by the lack of a single mention of religion/Christianity/Bible in the Declaration of Independence, only a mention of a "Natures God", a "Creator" and "Providence", which are profoundly Deist statements.
The Christian God (or even that vague "Creator" fellow mentioned in the Declaration) makes no (not one) appearance in the Constitution, except in the common "year of our Lord" dating method at the end.
So no there is no written evidence to state this was founded as a Christian nation, or any religious nation for that matter.
Supreme Court Justice David Brewer:
In what sense can we be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.
Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield: In every country, the morals of a people – whatever they may be – take their form and spirit from their religion. For example, the marriage of brothers and sisters was permitted among the Egyptians because such had been the precedent set by their gods, Isis and Osiris. So, too, the classic nations celebrated the drunken rites of Bacchus. Thus, too, the Turk has become lazy and inert because dependent upon Fate, as taught by the Koran. And when in recent times there arose a nation [i.e., France] whose philosophers [e.g. Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Helvetius, etc.] discovered there was no God and no religion, the nation was thrown into that dismal case in which there was no law and no morals. . . . In the United States, Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion.
Founding Father and U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall:
With us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it.
gunderwood wrote:Politicians who are believers in God and who are influenced by moral and religious concepts are not advocating a theocracy. What you are suggesting is that any politician who exercises their faith and makes decisions which are consistent with it and its moral precepts are unfit for civil service... primarily because those moral precepts are inconsistent with yours.
They are unfit because of a silly concept called SEPARATION of church and state. Whether they are or are not inconsistent with my own beliefs is irrelevant, there should not be even a blurring of the line. If laws are being written by men who claim divine involvement in daily life, there's a good chance those laws will reflect their own personal views instead of what is supposed to be an unbiased secular one for the good of all.
That is bigotry against religion, thanks for the confirmation.
Should religion be afforded special status exempting it from valid criticism as well as taxation?
Edit: Why should your moral imperatives or precepts not disqualify you for public service...heck, why not citizenship? I'm being absurd to show the absurdity of your argument
Again, separation of church and state. If one wishes to be in public office there should be no talk of religion, since by its absolutist nature it cannot coexist with differing absolutist belief systems.
You can't claim separation of Church and State, then ask where God is mentioned in the Constitution in your earlier post.... The fact of the matter is, the 1st Amendment doesn't state "Separation of Church and State" - the actual wording is that it prohibits the government from prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion" - no "State-run religion". Do you realize that Congress opens with prayer? And in our early, fledgling country days, the Continental Congress actually read verses from the Bible and had numerous prayers?
Do a little reading - Sam Adams stated he was no bigot, and "could hear a Prayer from any gentleman of Piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his Country." http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/070502
So, I have to call BS on your rant as well.
Noted firearms expert Jeff Cooper has this to say: "In an age when senior academicians are preaching that there is no such thing as objective truth, and that history is better understood as a collection of attitudes rather than facts, we discover to our horror that there are educators currently using popular movies as historical source material! As a history student myself, I am well aware that “getting it right” is difficult, and in many cases impossible, but that does not mean we should deliberately falsify things about which we can be reasonably certain." (http://www.tactical-life.com/online/combat-handguns/a-jeff-cooper-retrospective-22/
Seems to me that there's quite a bit of revisionist history going on out there where people haven't learned the real story of how this country was forged.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God.
Palladin wrote:So where do you get your moral imperatives for decision making from?
Why should your choice to follow the moral imperatives dictated by your chosen religion have any impact on the policy followed by a state which was founded upon the idea of religious freedom? I don't think Thomas Jefferson was flawed in his judgement, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." Your religious beliefs are just those, your religious beliefs. Just like mine are mine, and my neighbors are my neighbors. Where Kreutz's moral imperatives for decision making come from are irrelevant.
They are not relevant for disqualifying him for public service. However, people can vote anyway they want for any reason.
They are relevant to this discussion because of Kreutz's claims. As you pointed out with Jefferson, Kreutz's argument is absurd and inconsistent with American principles.
I don't see how I pointed out anything regarding public service or voting, this has nothing to do with my response which was simply pointing out the concept that one individual does not have the right to dictate to another where their morality should originate from. Not sure what you're getting at with the American principles or the religious bigotry as on the previous page your post regarding people of a certain religion needing to go back to their own country or not being able to exist in this one (please see my post on that page in response to this point) is both an example of religious bigotry as well as unAmerican principles. -Adam
CCFan wrote:Speaking of revisionist history in my previous post...
back on topic - if we want to ensure Islam doesn't defeat the USA, we need to learn our history.
I'm sorry, I fail to see what a list of historical battles being listed off has to do with modern Islam and how it exists in America. If you're interested in naming off historical battles without context and attempting to state that they somehow hold political and ethical relevance over a thousand years later perhaps I can get in on the game? How about the battle of Steding in 1234 CE where nearly 20,000 men women and children were killed for refusing to pay taxes to the church? The sack of Jerusalem by an invading crusader army in 1099 that killed an estimated 80,000 defenseless civilians, including Muslims, Jews, and Semitic Christians? Or Perhaps the fourth crusade which killed tens of thousands of orthodox Christians? The Albigensians, the 1572 slaughter of the Huguenots, etc. If you think that me listing off those events, or others are absurd and have no place in a discussion about a modern issue, you are absolutely right, just as those mentioned in the video have no place in the same discussion. Please understand that every religion has a history like this, it is in fact that nature of man and has nothing to do with the modern day. Just as slavery was once accepted as commonplace but is now viewed as a travesty, other aspects of our human condition have evolved as well. For you to reference this as your main idea to me indicates nothing more than an attempt to disregard any possibility of meaningful discourse with people living in your own community and represents an attitude of arrogance and ignorance. Not all Marines feel the way that those in the video do, at least not this one - Adam
CCFan wrote:Speaking of revisionist history in my previous post...
back on topic - if we want to ensure Islam doesn't defeat the USA, we need to learn our history.
Well said. Don't fight what you wish your enemy to be, fight what they are.
And am I correct in assuming that you are stating that Muslims in general are the enemy? If so please explain to me how I transitioned from serving my country to being its enemy without being aware of it. The last time I checked I am a Muslim and I took an oath to defend the United States, but I guess you would know better.
CCFan wrote:Speaking of revisionist history in my previous post...
back on topic - if we want to ensure Islam doesn't defeat the USA, we need to learn our history.
Well said. Don't fight what you wish your enemy to be, fight what they are.
And am I correct in assuming that you are stating that Muslims in general are the enemy? If so please explain to me how I transitioned from serving my country to being its enemy without being aware of it. The last time I checked I am a Muslim and I took an oath to defend the United States, but I guess you would know better.
It is simple math. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but 99.9% (made up stat, but it is way up there) of the current terrorists are Muslim. Find out what is making those Muslims tick and break them down. Pretending that Islam isn't part of what makes them tick is going to get people killed and has. That simple.
sudo modprobe commonsense FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
caps85 wrote: I'm sorry, I fail to see what a list of historical battles being listed off has to do with modern Islam and how it exists in America. If you're interested in naming off historical battles without context and attempting to state that they somehow hold political and ethical relevance over a thousand years later perhaps I can get in on the game? How about the battle of Steding in 1234 CE where nearly 20,000 men women and children were killed for refusing to pay taxes to the church? The sack of Jerusalem by an invading crusader army in 1099 that killed an estimated 80,000 defenseless civilians, including Muslims, Jews, and Semitic Christians? Or Perhaps the fourth crusade which killed tens of thousands of orthodox Christians? The Albigensians, the 1572 slaughter of the Huguenots, etc. If you think that me listing off those events, or others are absurd and have no place in a discussion about a modern issue, you are absolutely right, just as those mentioned in the video have no place in the same discussion. Please understand that every religion has a history like this, it is in fact that nature of man and has nothing to do with the modern day. Just as slavery was once accepted as commonplace but is now viewed as a travesty, other aspects of our human condition have evolved as well. For you to reference this as your main idea to me indicates nothing more than an attempt to disregard any possibility of meaningful discourse with people living in your own community and represents an attitude of arrogance and ignorance. Not all Marines feel the way that those in the video do, at least not this one - Adam
You obviously didn't watch the video and absorb what he said. Specifically, the battles that he cited all dealt with Islamic battles - he didn't cite the French and Indian war, did he?
Any military leader will tell you to study your enemy and their history. Not my fault if you don't want to do it, and not my job to teach it to you.
You want meaningful discourse? Explain this verse to me:
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." Surah 9:5
And please don't give me that crap about it being a "historical" verse taken out of context. If it's so out of context, why is most of the western world so concerned with being on the alert for terrorism? And like Gunderwood stated - the vast majority of terrorism comes from Muslims - New Your on 9/11, 2004 Madrid bombings in Spain, 2007 Glasgow airport bombing...Shall I continue?
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God.
caps85 wrote: I'm sorry, I fail to see what a list of historical battles being listed off has to do with modern Islam and how it exists in America. If you're interested in naming off historical battles without context and attempting to state that they somehow hold political and ethical relevance over a thousand years later perhaps I can get in on the game? How about the battle of Steding in 1234 CE where nearly 20,000 men women and children were killed for refusing to pay taxes to the church? The sack of Jerusalem by an invading crusader army in 1099 that killed an estimated 80,000 defenseless civilians, including Muslims, Jews, and Semitic Christians? Or Perhaps the fourth crusade which killed tens of thousands of orthodox Christians? The Albigensians, the 1572 slaughter of the Huguenots, etc. If you think that me listing off those events, or others are absurd and have no place in a discussion about a modern issue, you are absolutely right, just as those mentioned in the video have no place in the same discussion. Please understand that every religion has a history like this, it is in fact that nature of man and has nothing to do with the modern day. Just as slavery was once accepted as commonplace but is now viewed as a travesty, other aspects of our human condition have evolved as well. For you to reference this as your main idea to me indicates nothing more than an attempt to disregard any possibility of meaningful discourse with people living in your own community and represents an attitude of arrogance and ignorance. Not all Marines feel the way that those in the video do, at least not this one - Adam
You obviously didn't watch the video and absorb what he said. Specifically, the battles that he cited all dealt with Islamic battles - he didn't cite the French and Indian war, did he?
Any military leader will tell you to study your enemy and their history. Not my fault if you don't want to do it, and not my job to teach it to you.
You want meaningful discourse? Explain this verse to me:
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." Surah 9:5
And please don't give me that crap about it being a "historical" verse taken out of context. If it's so out of context, why is most of the western world so concerned with being on the alert for terrorism? And like Gunderwood stated - the vast majority of terrorism comes from Muslims - New Your on 9/11, 2004 Madrid bombings in Spain, 2007 Glasgow airport bombing...Shall I continue?
And you obviously failed to recognize that the battles I listed were Christian battles, your attitude of ignorance and condescension is absolutely disgusting and frankly I do not even wish to dignify your crap with a response. And by the way, unless you are in the USMC and outrank me you don't have the right to teach me anything about warfare. If you would like to, I recommend you go to your local recruiting center and sign up! Oh and let me play your immature game of historical reference,
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)" "I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh" (Deut. 32:42)" “I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence. (Luke 19:26-27)"
Feel like a big man for hopping on google and watching cable news and then claiming to be educated on a religious tradition you know nothing about? People with your types of attitudes contribute absolutely nothing positive to the future of our country, and you have convinced me that it isn't worth it to continue posting here. You can't even be bothered to read what I wrote in its entirety before starting to spout nonsense about how I didn't absorb what was in your video simply because you aren't educated enough about your own religious tradition to recognize what I was talking about. The French and Indian war? What are you even getting at? My advice is get an education so you're actually qualified to have that superior attitude of yours, or maybe spend a few tours in the sandbox so you can at least have SOME sort of credibility when it comes to instructing soldiers about "warfare". Anyways, now I'm done here for good so happy trails.
VGOF RSS Feed![[Valid RSS]](images/valid-rss.png "Valid RSS feed")
