American conservatives call for tough love, for letting these people starve as some kind of messed up incentive for people to become self reliant. Nowhere in the actual bible will you read anything that sounds like that.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 (KJV)

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Was it in the name of Buddhism that Major Nidal Hassan opened fire, killed 13 and wounded 29 others at Fort Hood, TX?
Was it in the name of Hinduism that Al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 civilians by driving our planes into the world trade center?
Was it in the name of Christianity when the USS Cole was attacked by suicide bombers when it was harbored in Yemen?

Oh please. Other religions can be just as bad. Currently we got Buddhist in South East Asia promoting an ethnic purge against the local Muslim population. Pakistan today exists simply BECAUSE Hinduists and Muslims couldn't live together in the same country. And in the United States we got Christians murdering abortion doctors and celebrating the deaths of soldiers and what not. My point is that every religion has its crazies who are fundamentally incapable of accepting other people and other believes. This is just as true for Muslims as it is for Christians, Buddhists, Hinduists and Atheists.

Trying to bait me into breaking a rule? Is that the game here?

Kim Jong Un *is* an atheist.
Kim Jong Il was an atheist.
Joseph Stalin was an atheist.
Pol Pot was an atheist.
Mao Zedong was an atheist.
Benito Mussolini was an atheist.

All just lovely people/countries. It was the "without God" that made them such lovely leaders/countries (at the time). Take away God and everybody then becomes happy. Lovely.

You make a claim, why don't you prove it. Prove to me that these dictators are dictators because they don't believe in God.

Wanna start talking about the Danes and the Swedes now? Don't bring up anything about drug use trends and how their governments are handling that and you will be able to make a great case about how wonderful the people there are without God. Since there are some religions in hiding there now, you can just igore them too for your case.

Religions in hiding in Scandinavia? Sources please.

As far as I know, you can pretty much believe whatever you want in those countries without fear of prosecution. Scandinavia has total individual freedom in extremely high regard.

Don't worry, religion is being attacked here in the U.S. with more frenzy than any other time in our history.

Members of the U.S. Congress have been banned from saying "Merry Christmas" in any piece of congressional mail that is paid for by U.S. tax dollars.

Multiple lawsuits over the "employers must pay for abortions" in the AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT even though you're a non-profit hospital run by a church which believes abortion is a sin. (They weren't exempted along with the rich businesses for the next three years.)

High School students are being suspended for "Tebowing" in the hallways. (Thanking God publically for something good that just happened.)

"What DIFFERENCE does it make" President elect Hilliary Clinton is saying "political, cultural, and *religious beliefs*" are obstacles to promoting alternative lifestyles around the world and therefore must not be tolerated...."

Courts are ruling that it is unconstitutional to use the name "Jesus Christ" during any official government meeting.

Here in Texas, the Department of Veteran Affairs actually tried to ban prayers that include the words "God" or "Jesus" during funeral services for veterans. (They LOST that one! Why? Because THIS IS TEXAS.)

High school students in California are being suspended for bringing Bibles to school with them.

And our current president has vowed to fundamentally change us. What do you think he means when he says this?

Check your privilege. You are playing victim when you are not. America gives you almost every opportunity to be as religious as you want, especially if you are a Christian.

See, the problem liberals have with religion is that religion implies at least a couple of ideas that harm the liberal agenda.

1) No man is above another man.
2) You will be held accountable for your actions eventually.
3) It binds people together who remind each other that we all do bad things occasionally.
4) It keeps more people humble and less likely to cause human pain, misery and suffering.

Pretty sure that you just summed up exactly what the 'liberal agenda' is.

The hypocrocy that liberals are struggling with is that in order to effectively fight for centralized power and control, they must say and do at least a couple of things that are completely at odds with what they say they are trying to do.

1) They must somehow keep saying that all religions are the same and that all religions are bad.
2) And here in the U.S., they must somehow keep saying that creating the U.S. by using fundamentally Christian ideas was, is, and will always be bad.
3) And they must somehow keep saying that we have not, will not and never will keep learning from our mistakes.

All three are absolutely ludicrous.

More so because that is not something liberals are saying. Well, perhaps that all religions are pretty much the same (not that they are all bad). But that is kind of what you imply when you have a constitutional right to believe in whatever God you feel like believing in. If one religion is above all others, as you seem to suggest here, then why do you give people the constitutional right to believe in religions that you deem 'inferior' to your 'superior' religion?

Now, moving this conversation BACK TOWARDS THE TOPIC:

When the socialist/Marxist/communist/ATHEIST press mocks MORMON presidential candidate Mitt Romney for saying something like, "I like being able to fire people." (election sound bite), it's easy to misinterpret, especially if you are ignorant of the ideas which are taught in the Bible.

They mock him because he is one of the most privileged people in the world, who is running for president of a country at a moment where said country is in an economic downturn, with millions of people unemployed, and this person is joking that he likes to fire people. It speaks of privilege and Mitt Romney's complete lack of awareness of how privileged he actually is. Just like when he casually said he wanted to bet for 10.000 dollars. He has 10.000 dollars to just bet away when millions of Americans 10.000 dollars is roughly their annual salary. Again, the guy is so insanely privileged and at the same time so unaware of it.

Also, quote me the verse in the bible where Jesus says he likes to fire people.

This has been stated before, but American conservatives do not actually believe in the bible. Where the bible calls for compassion and help for those in need and who are poor, American conservatives call for tough love, for letting these people starve as some kind of messed up incentive for people to become self reliant. Nowhere in the actual bible will you read anything that sounds like that. American conservatives have replaced their bible with Atlas Shrugged and replaced Jesus with Ayn Rand. No wonder they are pegging Libertarian Rand Paul as the next president.

Benito Mussolini was an atheist.

Yes he was for a period, in his younger years, but was later re-baptized, had his marriage blessed , 10 years after he was married, and had his children baptized an take communion. And during his ruling years under the Lateran Treaty made the Vatican City independent and under church law, he also made the Roman Catholic religion the state religion.

Do get some facts right before your ramblings please.

High school students in California are being suspended for bringing Bibles to school with them.

If they want to read pulp fiction that is their choice.

1) No man is above another man.
2) You will be held accountable for your actions eventually.
3) It binds people together who remind each other that we all do bad things occasionally.
4) It keeps more people humble and less likely to cause human pain, misery and suffering.

That's called Communism, it has been shown not to work.

And I'll be the first to admit that Americans are getting more and more ignorant.

No comment.

ATHEISTIC MASS MURDERER'S: Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-un...

Kim was an Atheist? I thought he turned himself in some kind of God (cuz you know, if you are going to be a crazy dictator, why not be one with a religion based around yourself).

He just did!

And I have to agree.

It does amuse me when American politicians make a speech littered with God bless America, God is on our side, In God we trust, God, God, God (and Jesus), etc.
Then in the next breath say 'we must stop religious fanaticism' to justify bombing another country.

I don't see how you can say that's the same thing.

I'm sorry Guy, but I certainly can.

Cheers.

It does amuse me when American politicians make a speech littered with God bless America, God is on our side, In God we trust, God, God, God (and Jesus), etc.
Then in the next breath say 'we must stop religious fanaticism' to justify bombing another country.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Finally, I know if this nation forgets God, He will have every right to forget us. A nation that remembers Him will be remembered by Him .

Sincerely,

Mike Huckabee

And a nation whose politicians stop bible-bashing will be greatly improved.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

while in England its possible to argue it ended when the king was forced to sign the Magna Carta.

Partly I would say.

The Magna Carta or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, was sealed under oath by King John in 1215. Magna Carta was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their rights. The charter is widely known throughout the English speaking world as an important part of the protracted historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law in England and beyond.

It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.

There were also later feudal Baronies laws

The power of the feudal barons to control their landholding was considerably weakened in 1290 by the statute of Quia Emptores. This prohibited land from being the subject of a feudal grant, and allowed its transfer without the feudal lord's permission. Feudal baronies became perhaps obsolete (but not extinct) on the abolition of feudal tenure during the Civil War, as confirmed by the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 which took away Knights service and other legal rights.

Under the Tenures Abolition Act 1660, many baronies by tenure were converted into baronies by writ. The rest ceased to exist as feudal baronies by tenure, becoming baronies in free socage, that is to say under a "free" (hereditable) contract requiring payment of monetary rents. Thus baronies could no longer be held by military service.

So Feudal lifestyles were still going on in the 1660's well after Magna Carta in 1215, and as before messages and news was getting around England by various means, albeit slowly. Even Robin Hood in 1300 could send a message from one end of Sherwood Forest to the other in seconds using a system of arrows fired onwards by archers.

In 1588 a system of bonfires lit as beacons all along the English South Coast, sent the message to London in a couple of hours that the Spanish Armada had been sighted of the Lizard in Cornwall. Also in those days they used messengers on horseback, and with regular changes of horses, could cover vast distances in one day. Carrier pigeons were also used. Therefore it is not true that the King did not basically know what his Nobles were up to most of the time. Communications were naturally sparse but word of mouth can sometimes spread quite fast.

By 1588 the Feudal age had long passed. Feudalism in Europe covers the era of approximately the time of Charlemagne to the 13th-14th century. Of course, it differs for each country. Russia was still pretty much a feudal empire when the Communists took over the place, while in England its possible to argue it ended when the king was forced to sign the Magna Carta.

In 1588 a system of bonfires lit as beacons all along the English South Coast, sent the message to London in a couple of hours that the Spanish Armada had been sighted of the Lizard in Cornwall. Also in those days they used messengers on horseback, and with regular changes of horses, could cover vast distances in one day. Carrier pigeons were also used. Therefore it is not true that the King did not basically know what his Nobles were up to most of the time. Communications were naturally sparse but word of mouth can sometimes spread quite fast.

But. How many times has a king marched an army to a so called noble who had defied a king? Read English history for that answer.
All that had to be said was. I will divide his holdings between those who give me his head.
The king could give and take away. He wasnt has powerless as you believe.

Read the next page in English history, where the nobles defied the king, the king got mad at them, wanted them gone and the nobles united against the king. The Magna Carta is pretty much the result of this.

And that army, who do you think controls it? The king? There wasn't a standing army as we have today. Armies consisted essentially of groups of men that followed a particular noble. If the nobles didn't like the war, they could just take their men and leave. Sure, a king could demand your head for that, but if he started executing to many nobles for defying him, it would only result in the rest of the nobles uniting against him. And without his own standing army, the king really had no way of enforcing his rule. He was in every sense completely dependent on his nobles and whether they agreed with his rule.

Finally, you must realize the state of the country back then. Hardly any hardened roads, travel from one end of the country to the other would take a very long time, so communication was extremely slow and inefficient. So the king most of the time also had no effective way of knowing what his nobles were up to.

You say that the USA is a success due to it being a Centralized Authority and that feudalism is extreme decentralized power?!?! I think you have your terms wrong.

Feudalism is centralized power in the extreme. Power and authority flows downward from the 'king' (or whatever title that particular nationstate uses) through the major and minor hereditary nobility down to the non-hereditary nobility. 'The People' (peasants, serfs, etc.) ain't squat.

Except in a feudal system the king has no power. Sure, technically everyone calls him king, but he has to give pieces of land to his commanders, and they to their knights, and before you know it the entire country is divided in tiny pieces of land, each ruled by a knight. And while technically they swear loyalty to their king, that is completely based on a honor system. In other words, if the king calls you to fight for him but you don't feel like it, you can just tell the king to sod off and the king can't really do anything about it. So in a Feudal system, there is a flat hierarchy, the king has just as much power as his knights. Only on paper he commands the entire country, but in practice he only rules a piece of land which is about as big as a few hours walk in each direction of his castle.

But. How many times has a king marched an army to a so called noble who had defied a king? Read English history for that answer.
All that had to be said was. I will divide his holdings between those who give me his head.
The king could give and take away. He wasnt has powerless as you believe.

---

[/quote]

Old James