A Former Navy Officer Stands Up For Gay Rights
Oct 16th, 2009 | 181 responses
You know me by now. I find that Letters to the Editor generally depict the unvarnished views of “regular” Americans, and I often use them support a particular point of view. Of course, these same letters can also express points of view that I do not agree with. I am sure that those who oppose my views can and will use those in order to support their views.
Anyway, in the debate to eliminate discrimination in our armed forces based on sexual orientation, those who would like to retain policies such as “Don’t ask, Don’t tell,” or would even like to totally bar gay and lesbian Americans from serving their country, often cite “the facts” that our “straight” members of the military passionately support such discriminatory policies.
They conveniently ignore the fact that attitudes toward accepting gays in the military have dramatically evolved—just as attitudes towards gays have evolved in society as a whole. For example, “a 2006 Zogby International poll found 73 percent of military personnel were comfortable with the idea of serving with gays and lesbians. About one in four U. S. troops who served in Afghanistan or Iraq told Zogby pollsters they knew a member of their unit who was gay,” according to Clarence Page in the Chicago Tribune.
Also, according to the Tribune, “A group of 28 retired generals and admirals, including retired Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a letter in 2007 calling on Congress to repeal the don’t ask, don’t tell act.”
Very recently, U.S. Air Force Colonel Om Prakash won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition with a National War College study highly critical of the “Dont ask, Don’t tell” policy.
There are numerous other indicators that the tide is turning, or has turned.
But back to the Letters to the Editor.
Here is a letter in this morning’s Washington Post from a Navy man that, in my opinion, speaks volumes.
Friday, October 16, 2009
In 1989, as commanding officer of a Navy carrier-based squadron, I used my authority to block attempts by my executive officer to demean and prosecute a man because he thought the sailor was gay. I would not allow such harassment.
The sailor in question had an outstanding performance record and was serving his country with honor. What possible difference did it make whom he loved?
It’s time for the people of this country to show some courage in the face of the bigots who would shame, condemn, abuse or demean gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens.
As Americans, we are all pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly we are legally and morally bound to enact legislation that ensures the law shall be applied equally to all of us, regardless of our differences and especially if those differences incite prejudice in others.
Anything less is gay-bashing. I hope the citizens of this country do not continue to dishonor my military service by continuing to permit gay-bashing.
ROBERT J. McNAMARA
Hilliard, Ohio
181 Responses to “A Former Navy Officer Stands Up For Gay Rights”
But know this. I do not hate homosexuals. I treat them equally as individuals – unless they're jerks, in which case I treat them like jerks – but that's the case with all people.
<extra-strong snark>What? No “turn the other cheek”? No “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”?</extra-strong snark>
Kathy, since you have a copy of the Bible, you should know that we are now living under the new covenant under Christ. Christ, a Jew, was the last to be under the old covenant. Things changed after that time. Sabbath observances, animal sacrifices, and normal Jewish activity under the Levites ceased. Christ sent the Great Comforter (Holy Spirit) to his apostles, who then built His Church.
These apostles were given wisdom and miraculous ability to verify their claims. Some of this wisdom was to correct the many congregations who had instituted some of the old law – these were in the form of letters (Corinthians, Ephesians, and so on). In one of these letters, it states:
Romans 1:25-27: “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Thus, under the Old and New Covenant; homosexuality is prohibited. Unlike the sabbath, which is only in the Old Convenant. The old covenant laws concerning approach to God was changed when Christ came on the scene.
“What? No “turn the other cheek”? No “do unto others as you would have them do unto you?”
I have NEVER mistreated a homosexual, Kathy. But you are attempting (I stress attempting) to bring Christ's words to back up your ideals. Your world view is not of the Bible. And that, Kathy, is the problem.
When I am wronged, I do, indeed, turn the other cheek. Turning the other cheek does not mean to condone unGodly acts.
And as far as your statement that God does not authorize death for law breakers. Go read Romans 12 and 13. God takes his vengeance through government, and it specifical authorizes death as a form of punishment.
No matter how hard you try, Kathy, you cannot justify your secular-progressive beliefs throught the Bible. At least not the issues of homosexuality, abortion, and capital punishment. If you want to talk environmentalism and government programs; that's an entirely different situation.
Kathy,
Here's an interesting site you might like:
http://www.jonahweb.org/index.php
A site that is dedicated to Jewish homosexuals.
Tell me what you think.
Hi Kathy:
Thanks for your comment.
I have been closely following your comments and appreciate your sincere and strong support to challenge the views of some on homosexuality and homosexuals. For reasons I may share with you privately some day, I appreciate such more than you may think.
Perhaps we should wait now for JD to come up with his irrefutable scientific proof that homsexuality is a learned trait.
Thanks
Dorian
I did not say you had mistreated a homosexual, JD. You told me that you treat everyone equally unless they're a jerk, in which case you are a jerk toward them. My reply directly followed your comment, so I thought it was obvious what I was referring to.
I did not say that God does not authorize death for lawbreakers. I said that YOU do not advocate for lawbreakers (or you advocate selectively) to receive death, since that is God's law. This is the third time I'm saying this.
I'm not trying to justify my beliefs through the Bible. *You* are trying to justify, through the Bible, your belief that gays and lesbians should be treated differently in *secular* law. I am not arguing what the Bible says about homosexuality. I am arguing that *your* use of the Bible's position on homosexuality to justify unequal treatment in *secular* law is hypocritical and inconsistent, because you do *not* use the Bible to demand that secular law reflect all of the many, many other laws for and against various human actions, when those laws are considered utterly inappropriate in contemporary society (such as executing a person for insulting his or her parents or for having an extramarital affair).
It's unconstitutional to use the Bible as a basis for secular law in this country, but beyond that point, in addition to that point, even if we set that point aside, you advocate the *selective* use (VERY selective) of the Bible to justify *only* the laws and policies that reflect *your* prejudices/beliefs (take your pick). *That* is why I have been quoting the Bible to you, and not because I'm trying to make an argument about what the Bible condones or doesn't condone. That's a separate argument as far as I'm concerned.
“You told me that you treat everyone equally unless they're a jerk”
…and I must be the “jerk”…..
….pardon while I refer to my god….Don Rickles.
humena humena humena…..humena….
Don says my work on earth is not yet done….
I have, actually, more than one copy of the Bible, including a Study Bible, several different editions of just the Torah, alone, with annotations (what Jews call the chumash) and probably about a dozen or so (maybe more) books about Jewish law and practice, history and culture. I have one volume of the Talmud (I'd love to get more but they're expensive), and several books on how to read and understand the Talmud. I even have a copy of the Christian Bible (NRSV), which of course includes the New Testament — the Jewish Bible does not include that, and also orders the various sections/categories of the Bible differently.
I know what the New Covenant is. That's the basis for Christianity as a separate religion. Jews don't accept the New Covenant, of course, but that's fine. That's what freedom of religion is about. You have yours, I have mine. The only time I get testy about someone else's religion is when they try to use it to justify taking away my rights and the rights of others.
Just as a point of clarification, the New Covenant is not the reason (at least for Jews) why we don't sacrifice animals anymore. We don't sacrifice animals anymore because we no longer have the Temple (which was destroyed first at the time of the Babylonian Exile, then rebuilt, and destroyed a second and final time by the Romans in the first century C.E.) Animal sacrifice was done in the Temple and without the Temple we cannot do it anymore. (I hope you understand that I am explaining all this only in the context of what Jewish tradition says and the facts of our (Jewish) history, and not because I necessarily believe it myself. I'm not saying going back to animal sacrifice would be fine if the Temple was rebuilt.)
As for the fact of homosexuality being prohibited in both the Hebrew Bible and what you call the New Covenant, that's true from a strictly factual standpoint, but as I have indicated before, I don't use the Bible as a literal blueprint for my life and I don't advocate codifying the Bible into secular law. I am not a biblical literalist. I do not believe the Bible was written literally by the finger of God, and I do not believe that every word of it must be obeyed exactly as written in today's world. And the reason I do not believe that, JD, is because much of what the Bible says to do and not do is simply not appropriate in today's world. And that goes for the New Covenant as well. If you want to tell me that you obey, observe, and follow every single one of Christ's teachings, and that you observe the same Christianity that Paul and his acolytes observed, or that your Christian practice looks exactly as it did in Constantine's time, when Christianity formally emerged as a formal institutional religion (i.e., the Church), you are free to do that, but you'll have to forgive me if it makes me laugh.
“You just totally contradicted yourself. Either you choose to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, or it isn't a choice and you just *are* attracted.”
That is NOT a contradiction. My natural instincts to BREED tell me that a woman is the correct CHOICE. Every animal on earth has that instinct. I can be tempted to explore alternative forms of sex with men, animals, children, a tree stump, or my hand. My CHOICE is not to give in to those wrong urges.
And your statement on law is totally incorrect.
You totally ignored my statement on the New Covenant and Old Covenant – or you don't care.
In the old covenant, Leviticus law was set up and adhered to. That law was to keep the Jewish order in tact until the Messiah came up through the lineage. Once that happened, the New Covenant was in effect.
In that New Covenant we are to obey the laws of the land unless they conflict with the laws of God passed forth under the New Covenant. In earlier times the Government consisted of Kings or Emporers. Today, it consists (in our case) of representatives elected by the people – WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
So in addition to conducting ourselves as Christian individuals; we must also obey the government. Since we are the government, we should not (as Christians) put unGodly laws into effect.
Once again, Kathy….. Your secular-progressivism is in direct contradiction to any Judeo-Christian faith you may claim.
“I do not believe that, JD, is because much of what the Bible says to do and not do is simply not appropriate in today's world. “
Perhaps that's why today's world sucks, Kathy. I truly believe that you love your fellow man, Kat. I truly believe that you have the best interests of our nation at heart. I've never doubted your heart or your intent.
But the abondonment of God is directly responsible for many of the problems we have in this nation. The secular-progressive movement is responsible for the breakup of the family; rising violence in our schools; increases in incarceration rates; rampant sexual deviation; and general acceptance of that which was once evil as a good and normal behavior.
And yes, Kathy. You can go ahead and laugh.
I do my best as a flawed human to obey EVERY SINGLE teaching of Christ.
I do my best to follow the example set by Paul and his “acolytes”.
All Christians believed then. And slowly people like you, who are more wise than God, have taken away a small piece with every generation. And that destruction will not stop until you have destroyed God's word in its entirety.
And for your information. Constantine did not start Christianity. He merely brought it into the Roman Empire.
Christ started the Church in 33 AD.
Love ya. I really do.
JD,
I think that the premise of the site is one I have seen many, many times before — that homosexuality is abnormal and bad; that it's learned behavior and not an innate orientation that encompasses the entirety of a person's self, and not just what he does with his genitals; that homosexuality can be unlearned, and that it should be unlearned, or “cured” as a disease would be cured; that homosexuals are invariably deeply unhappy with their homosexuality, don't want to be that way, were abused or rejected by their fathers, were allowed to play with dolls and other “girl toys” instead of trucks and toy guns as normal little boys were, etc., etc.
I clicked on a few of the links and read what was there. Some of the articles were written in a superficial language of compassion, but ultimately this organization is like all organizations that think homosexuality is simply a matter of learned sexual attraction to one's own gender and can be changed. It's a point of view that, aside from being untrue, is deplorable and potentially very harmful in its consequences.
You may be right about the link, Kat.
I do not proclaim to know their intent. The reason I posted it, was that it backed up a claim that I made on a different thread that homsexuals that I know, have turned away from it and lived happy lives.
People continually say that gays cannot help it. The above examples as well as those on the site prove otherwise. It is not the only organization of it's kind I've found. The research I promised Dorian is along the same lines, only the studies were done by psychologists and other disciplines. (That's coming Dorian…I promise).
The reason behind my blogging is not to convert people to my faith. The biggest reason I blog is to debate our government and democracy. You maintain that God has no place in a secular government. But as I've demonstrated in the past many times, the Founding Fathers did, indeed, address this very subject. They all, without exception, stated that we cannot exist as a democracy without God. I maintain that we are experiencing the problems we have by abondoning God. It's the same thing that the Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Webster, Washington, and all the others wrote about. Homosexuality is only one issue. Like the Bible (or Tora/Talmud), if we as individuals return to our Godly foundations, we will prosper as individuals. Likewise, if we return to our Constitutional foundation as intended by its founders; we will prosper as a nation – both spiritually and materially. The following post will be a repeat of their words.
A repost of why I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers wanted a government with God at its base – not a prescribed religion. This is the reason these issues (homosexuality, etc) keep getting debated. Dig into the intent of the Constitution and make our government adhere to it..
John Adams:
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –October 11, 1798
John Quincy Adams:
Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity”?
–1837
Benjamin Franklin:
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787
Alexander Hamilton:
For my own part, I sincerely esteem the Constitution a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” – 1787 after the Constitutional Convention.
Thomas Jefferson:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” – 1781
James Madison:
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” – 1778
Noah Webster:
No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” – 1828
George Washington:
“reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…” – Fairwell Address.
“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” – 1778
Thank you, Dorian. I appreciate your saying this. Anytime you want to share, privately or otherwise, feel free.
“A repost of why I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers wanted a government with God at its base – not a prescribed religion. This is the reason these issues (homosexuality, etc) keep getting debated”
Now, JD, that is quite a far stretch to try to link our Founding Fathers to denying homosexuals equal rights.
I am sure that many (not you) in the past have used the Founding Fathers and God to justify slavery and the ensuing discrimination of blacks and their segregation.
It is even a farther strecth to link the Founding Fathers and God to “Don't Ask, Dont' Tell legislation” (I know that there are some who object to it on a religious basis) and to permitting homosexuals to serve freely and openly in the military.
Just a thought.
I'll be on travel for the next couple of weeks, so you have plenty of time to do your research on the irrefutable proof that homosexuality is an aquired trait.
Dorian
My natural instincts to BREED tell me that a woman is the correct CHOICE.
Okay, so when you met your wife, you thought, “Wow! My natural instincts to BREED tell me that a woman is the correct CHOICE.”
But let's say that when you met your wife, a flashing green light *did* go off in your mind's eye, screaming, “BREED! BREED! BREED!” Why that particular woman? Did she look like she'd be a particularly good choice for that purpose? Did you feel any love for her? At all? I asked you that question before; you didn't answer it.
Did you make sure she *could* breed before you married her? Or that you could? What if either one of you couldn't? Would you have decided not to marry her?
I suppose I have to consider the possibility that I'm weird or abnormal, but this is not how I felt when I married my now ex-husband. As it happens, he and I *did* breed. We had one child; she died when she was 3. We tried breeding again. Finally, I became pregnant with my now-20-year-old daughter. After that, we stopped breeding. Perhaps that's why we divorced. No purpose to the marriage anymore.
Then again, I did have one serious relationship after my marriage ended. I remember how I felt about this man, too. I didn't think “BREED! BREED!” Indeed, breeding was not a physical possibility for me anymore at that point. So I didn't think that. I didn't actually *think* anything. I felt. Magic, dizzy, dancing, eager to see him, my heart leaping when he came in the room. And you know it's a very strange thing, JD, but I did not choose to feel that way. You may disagree, but I was totally not in control of the way I felt. It was coming from deep inside. It wasn't a choice. Of course, I had a choice whether to act on the feeling, but acting on the feeling was not the feeling.
I think it would be very arrogant and wrong of me to assume that my feeling of falling in love was not chosen but someone else's feeling of falling in love, with another person of the same gender, *is* chosen.
You totally ignored my statement on the New Covenant and Old Covenant – or you don't care.
Relax, JD. First of all, you have totally ignored probably three-quarters of what I've written to you. Second, I did not ignore your statement on the New and Old Covenants. I acknowledged that I knew about them. But (a) I don't buy into all that stuff about the law being meant to keep the Jewish order intact until the Messiah came up through the lineage. That's Christian religious doctrine, and I, as you know, am Jewish.
In that New Covenant we are to obey the laws of the land unless they conflict with the laws of God passed forth under the New Covenant. In earlier times the Government consisted of Kings or Emporers. Today, it consists (in our case) of representatives elected by the people – WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
Yes, we *are* the government, and I agree. And our government was instituted by the Founders to implement and protect the inalienable rights that we are endowed with as human beings — among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.I don't recall anything about Christianity or the New Covenant in there. And the word “God” does not appear once in the U.S. Constitution. And other founding documents where it does appear, it's always “God” or “the Creator” or “Almighty God” but never “Jesus Christ” and there's never any reference to specific religious dogma.
Since we are the government, we should not (as Christians) put unGodly laws into effect.
That's fine and good, but we are not all Christians, and those of us who *are* Christians are not all Biblical literalists. You are free as a U.S. citizen to work for or against any law you wish to, for any reason. If your support or opposition is informed by what you consider “Godly principles,” that's your own conscience and your own religious beliefs. But not all Americans define their values in religious terms. Not all Americans who do define their values in religious terms have the same religious beliefs you do.
Let's get right down to it, JD. The Bible is a book. It's a book that is sacred to Jews and Christians, which (a) are specific religions and (b) are not the only religions in this country. It ultimately does not matter whether you think my values are not Judeo-Christian values or whether I think your particular Christian doctrine distorts and misunderstands the Bible's message. It doesn't matter that you know, with utter certainty, that abortion is murder because the Bible says it is, or if you, a fundamentalist Christian, tell me that Orthodox Jews abhor abortion and that only Orthodox Jews know anything about Jewish law and tradition. It doesn't matter if I know that there is no single specific Jewish position on abortion, that the stance taken toward abortion in Jewish tradition is far more nuanced than the Catholic or fundamentalist Christian position and that even Orthodox Jews (most of them) would agree with that. You know next to nothing about Judaism or how Jewish law has worked in practice through the centuries or how the Jewish tradition resolves religious questions or even what the term “Jewish tradition” means. And truth be told, I know next to nothing about Christianity, either, except that it's not monolithic.
But all of this matters, ultimately, not at all in the context of our government and our Constitution. And why doesn't it matter? Because, ultimately, as I said above, the Bible is a book of faith and religious doctrine and belief. It's not a Constitution. It's not a textbook. It's not a peer-reviewed journal. It's not a work of academic scholarship. It's a religious text. And as such, it deals in beliefs, not facts. By definition. The Bible, as all religious texts, are meant to provide spiritual guidance for individuals who want to find their own personal answers to life's uncertainties and mysteries — or if not answers, then ways of understanding the uncertainties of life that make sense to them. The Bible is not for making law in a secular, pluralistic democracy.
So all of our argument here is really essentially a moot point. You can tell me that God's law is all there in the Bible, stated as clear as crystal. And I understand that you deeply and sincerely believe that. But, in the context of U.S. law and government under our Constitution, you are wrong.
Kathy, this is one of the most sincere, candid, personal and reasoned posts I have read in a while.
Very sorry about the loss of your first child. I know that your daughter makes you very happy.
Thanks for sharing such personal and touching life experiences.
Dorian
Constantine did not start Christianity. He merely brought it into the Roman Empire.
He started it as a formal institution, via the Church. I agree the religion itself predated the founding of the Church. And this is: historical fact.
Christ started the Church in 33 AD.
This is religious belief. It is not historical fact.
For the first 100 years, at least, after Christ's time, Christianity was a sect within Judaism — i.e., followers of Christ called themselves “Jewish Christians” (or whatever the equivalent was in Aramaic or Greek or Latin).
This is historical fact.
Thank you, Dorian. I appreciate that.
“Christ started the Church in 33 AD. This is religious belief. It is not historical fact. “
No it is not “religious belief”. Christ stated this explicitly to Peter “…my rock. Upon you I will build my Church”. Constantine did make it an 'institution”. Once again, institutionalized “religion” is not a good thing; just look at Iran currently, Spain during the inquisition, or Britain during the crusades.
And as far as your “historical fact” goes about Christianity:
Some of the followers of Christ were Jewish. Paul brought it to the gentiles; where they practiced as Churches in Corinth, Collossi, Ephesus; Laodacia; Rome; and elsewhere. The book of Hebrews was addressed to the Christian Jews, most of the rest were addressed to the Gentiles.
So your “historical fact” is false.
“But let's say that when you met your wife, a flashing green light *did* go off in your mind's eye, screaming, “BREED! BREED! BREED!” Why that particular woman? Did she look like she'd be a particularly good choice for that purpose? Did you feel any love for her? At all? I asked you that question before; you didn't answer it.”
I'll answer it now. My wife was there at the time of my instinct to breed. And yes, that instinct tells me “woman”. Homosexual behavior is learned early on from a myriad of social and emotional occurances, when the “BREED BREED” instict comes on after puberty; the social/emotional path becomes sexualized and they mistakingly think “BREED” WITH A MAN. The correct animal urge is there, but it is projected upon whatever was conditioned to be attractive to them. It happens with heterosexuals as well. Some men like big breasts, so men like shapely legs, some men like overweight women, some like masculine women, and so on. These likes and dislikes are learned from childhood, through to puberty and beyond. It's why most men end up with a woman somewhat like their mother in many ways (Freud). My wife has many of the same qualities of my mom. She also has a few qualities of my father (strong and independent). That is what formed my opinion of my wife. When I met her, and courted her; I knew she would be a good wife, mother, and sexual partner. She was the entire enchilada. Homsexuals have this urge as well, only they know that they cannot procreate, so they must adopt. But there attractions are more based upon their childhood than you will ever give credit to.
And as far as not answering questions goes…. You didn't answer mine on the Founding Fathers' intent with the Constitution.
“Christ stated this explicitly to Peter “…my rock. Upon you I will build my Church”. “
JD, I just want to point out that this proof doesn't mean anything if you don't believe in the infallability of the Bible. You can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true, and you can't coerce people who are Jewish to accept the New Testament by pointing to the New Testament as proof. In many places in the Book of Mormon, it states that if you believe in the God and stories of the Bible, then you must believe in the God and stories of the Book of Mormon. That “proof” is only proof if you already accept the Book of Mormon is true.
This is the same logic that Justices use in legislating the Constitution. “The Constitution isn't infallable”.
I am a Christian. Thus I use the Bible on how to live my life. Christians are supposed to do that. And the supposed Christians that embrace homosexuality are not living by the very book they claim there faith is based upon.
It's like saying, “I'm an envrionmentalist, but I hope all of the lakes die due to acid rain.” If you adhere to a document as a foundation of your belief (the Bible) or as the foundation of your nation (the Constitution) then you should adhere to it with all of your soul and ability. You cannot be revisionistic and attept to say that God didn't have “today's world” in mind; or “the Founding Fathers didn't intend that.”. It is revisionistic and wrong. If you don't like what the Bible says, turn from it and be lost spiritually. If you don't like what the Constitution says, dispose of it and we'll try something else. But please don't say that you can do, say, or belief anything you want and still be Christian. That is nowhere to be found in any document.
“This is the same logic that Justices use in legislating the Constitution.” Yes, but basing law upon the constitution was a *decision* made by the founders of the country, and for better or for worse, it is still decided that we as a country will continue to base law upon this document. The Constitution is neither “true” nor “untrue”, it was simply made up by those who wrote it, and nobody has ever tried to deny that. It is and always was a given that there will be times when the constitution needs to be amended, and it will need constant reinterpretation — and it has been. That is absolutely not the case with the Bible, so your analogy doesn't really make sense.
“Christians are supposed to do that.”
Yes, but non-Christians aren't!
“If you adhere to a document as a foundation of your belief (the Bible) or as the foundation of your nation (the Constitution) then you should adhere to it with all of your soul and ability.”
Nobody's saying you can't. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. What I was saying was that someone who does not believe the Bible is the literal truth will not take as “fact” the things that are said in the Bible. In the argument that I quoted, you were trying to prove to Kathy that Jesus' starting the Church in 33AD was a historical fact by pointing to a passage in the New Testament — a document which Kathy has already stated numerous times that she does not believe as fact.
Look at it this way. Let's say I find written on a piece of paper: “Jefferson Davis was born in 1996. This statement is true.” You say, “no, I wasn't born in 1996, it's not true”. I then say “it has to be, it's written down on this piece of paper.” If you don't believe that the paper has any value, then the statement on the paper that the statement is true doesn't matter at all. Do you see what I'm saying? That's it, nothing about which people are and aren't Christian, nothing about the Constitution, nothing about whether or not it's good or bad that you live your life according to the Bible. Just simply pointing out that you can't use a book that Kathy doesn't believe in to make a point about that book.
JD,
First of all, before I challenge what you wrote, I want you to know that, normally, I would never do this. I never argue with people about their religious beliefs from a true/false perspective. Your beliefs are your beliefs, and if you tell me that a particular religious belief you hold is a historical fact, and I know that not to be true, I wouldn't argue with you about it. Why should I? You have the right to your own beliefs, and in and of themselves they don't harm me.
However, you are using religious beliefs that you tell me are not religious beliefs, but fact, to argue for taking away the civil and human rights of gays and lesbians.If a person cannot objectively distinguish between religious belief and historical fact, that's one thing. It's not my place to tell people they're wrong about something they believe as a matter of faith. But when a person blurs or ignores the objective distinction between religious belief and historical fact in order to argue for making secular law on the basis of specific doctrinal religious beliefs, then I call foul.
Getting back to your statements:
No it is not “religious belief”. Christ stated this explicitly to Peter “…my rock. Upon you I will build my Church”. Constantine did make it an 'institution”. Once again, institutionalized “religion” is not a good thing; just look at Iran currently, Spain during the inquisition, or Britain during the crusades.
In the New Testament, Christ stated this, right? In the Bible. In the Bible, JD. The Bible is a religious text, NOT an historical document that can be independently and objectively confirmed.
Look, JD, whatever you happen to think, I regard the Bible to be filled with divinely inspired wisdom and truth. Truth is not the same as historical or scientific fact, though. And I recognize that. You, apparently, cannot distinguish between belief and verifiable fact, or between “truth” (as in larger truths that we feel are correct and good and true because they are consonant with our deepest values) and True/False (as in verifiable fact).
You cannot use the Bible as historical fact, JD, because it's not a textbook. It's a religious text, and as such, inherently and by definition not verifiably true or false. And that's a fact.
Some of the followers of Christ were Jewish. Paul brought it to the gentiles; where they practiced as Churches in Corinth, Collossi, Ephesus; Laodacia; Rome; and elsewhere. The book of Hebrews was addressed to the Christian Jews, most of the rest were addressed to the Gentiles.
At the start, all of Christ's followers were Jewish, JD, because there was nothing else. Christianity came out of Judaism. Paul's early efforts at conversion were directed at the Jewish community of that time, and they weren't attempts to “convert” in the contemporary sense of that word. He was trying to get Jews of his time to accept and believe in Christ's teachings, as Jews. He did start reaching out to other groups, to Gentiles, over time, because obviously not all Jews were going to accept the new theology Paul was preaching. The Gentiles whom he converted were the first non-Jewish Christians, and over time, that's how Christianity became a separate religion. There was a tension between the Jewish community, Jewish followers of Christ, and gentile converts that Paul used to inform his arguments in the Jewish community. You can *see* that in the very biblical text — Romans — that you quoted from to me. Paul goes on and on talking about circumcision and trying to make a case that circumcision is no longer required or necessary for Jewish converts, basing that argument in part on the fact that non-circumcised gentiles were becoming Christians.
Okay, I have to go return a book to the library now, so I'll end here for now.
You didn't answer mine on the Founding Fathers' intent with the Constitution.
I'm sorry; I thought I had. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with Enlightenment principles in mind — which “is a term used to describe a time in Western philosophy and cultural life, centered upon the eighteenth century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source and legitimacy for authority. [Wikipedia, Age of Enlightenment]
As a point of interest, we are no longer living in the Age of Enlightenment. The Enlightenment idea — that logic, rationality, deductive reasoning, the intellect and intellectual processes should inform human authority and government, as opposed to superstition or religious dogma or divine edict, is very much not the contemporary zeitgeist. If the Constitution were to be written today, it certainly would reflect a fundamentalist, biblically inerrant religious doctrine much more than it does now (it doesn't now, at all).
Times and fashions change. But I still think the Founders' way was the correct one. I shall continue to cling to it for dear life against the tidal forces of religiously inspired intolerance, ignorance, and unreasoning fear sweeping over us today.
Um, the Constitution *isn't* infallible. Have you checked it out lately? There are a few amendments in there. And there's a whole legal process for amending the Constitution that the Founders put in there. Plus, there's one specific amendment that says nothing explicitly stated in the Constitution regarding rights should be taken to deny the existence of other rights that may not be explicitly mentioned.
If we were to suggest taking this approach with the Bible, I imagine you would probably have some objections.
Nobody here has said that you can do, say, or believe anything you want and still be Christian. Here's the thing, though. The Bible is wildly inconsistent. It's full of contradiction and paradox. Human beings in the Bible commit sinful, immoral, wicked things all the time, with God's full approval. Deception, murder, political intrigue, betrayal, incest, rape — they are on almost every page in one way or another and they are rewarded, if not at once then over time. You should take a look at Jonathan Kirsch's book, The Harlot by the Side of the Road. It's about exactly this truth about the Bible. In fact, as a broad overarching message, one of the most obvious ones to come out of the Bible is that God has larger purposes in mind, and you cannot always judge human behavior by narrow, moralistic principles. If it were not for Tamar (the harlot by the side of the road of the title of Kirsch's book), who deceived her father-in-law into sleeping with her; or Rahab, also a prostitute whose life Joshua spared when he slaughtered the Canaanites, in return for her helping him, there would never have even been a Jesus Christ to be arguing over right now.
My wife was there at the time of my instinct to breed. And yes, that instinct tells me “woman”. Homosexual behavior is learned early on from a myriad of social and emotional occurances, when the “BREED BREED” instict comes on after puberty; the social/emotional path becomes sexualized and they mistakingly think “BREED” WITH A MAN.
Okay, so love was not a factor for you in deciding to marry. It was more of a pragmatic business decision. If that's the way you roll, that's your business. I happen to think it's one of the most bizarre rationales for marrying, or for choosing a life partner, that I've ever heard in my life, but that's me, not you. You should realize, however, that there are many people out there, both gay and straight, who do fall in love and who do believe that romance, love, and emotional attraction are as important as other factors in deciding whether and who to marry. The instinct to “breed” is strong, primal, and isn't going away because if it did we would not survive as a species, but that doesn't mean everyone has to “breed.” And in fact everyone doesn't. And I can say with deep conviction that, as a general principle, a world of human breeders devoid of love would not be worth living in.
How in God's name do you set standards? You just told me that nothing on paper is fact.
The Bible was written to be the standard for Christians to live by. Is that a fair statement?
Little by little, denominations, humanists, and atheists have whittled away portion after portion of “accepted fact” until all that is left is sloshy interpretation and asinine assertions that “everyone is right, no one can be wrong”. You cannot have a nation of 300 million people, with 300 million different ideas of what is right and wrong and expect to legislate it successfully. You have to have a common ground. Since 79% of this nation claims Christianity, this would mean that they should have a common moral fiber but different worship practices. I stress “should”.
The founding fathers knew this and stated it in most of their writings on this very topic. The US Government was not to prescribe a religion (1st Amendment), but they knew that an abandonment of God (as the left is doing currently in their embrace of humanism) would crush our democracy.
And all can be Christians. We all fail to live up to Christ's example – some of us more than others. But it is our duty as Christians to recognize these failings, repent, and do our best to correct them. Otherwise, if you do not accept the regulations/commands from the Bible, then why call yourself Christian? Buddhists follow the teachings of Buddha. If they veered from those teachings (which they take as fact), then you no longer are a devout Buddhist. Likewise with Islam and the Q'uran, and Jews with the Torah.
Kathy, I did not use religious beliefs to prove fact. I used HISTORY to prove fact about the creation of the Church. Christ and his apostles are historical figures and show up in secular historical writings. These things aren't just beliefs. They happened. The belief comes in with the resurrection and ascention into heaven. The belief comes in with miracles. History has recorded and verified the dating of the Church, Christ, and the travels and teachings of the apostles.
“In the New Testament, Christ stated this, right? In the Bible. In the Bible, JD. The Bible is a religious text, NOT an historical document that can be independently and objectively confirmed”
Oh my sweet word!!!! You're killing me. Prove to me that Constantine existed Kathy. Have you met him? Is there a TV show starring Constantine? No. There is historical DOCUMENTS, Kathy. Do you believe those? If so, why do you believe them? Do you believe that Eric the Red existed? Why?
Are you telling me all written history is no believable? And for your information, the events of the Bible are recognized as historical fact – not the miracles and the issues that require faith; but the people places and times are recognized world-wide – it is the most comprehensive historical document of the period. Josephus also is a noted historian of Biblical times, as are many Roman historians. All validate the existence of Christ, the creation of his Church on 33AD, and the work of the Apostles.
Go check them out. But I don't see a point, since you won't believe any written history.
And for your information, the 4 Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written from 40AD to 90AD. Constantine was born 27 February, 272AD and died on 22 May 337AD. The builders of the Church were the Apostles. The implementor of the institution was Constantine. This IS historically accurate.
And you are absolutely correct about Paul. He tried to preach the Word to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles when they blew him off. Many of the Jews tried to reimpliment the old laws and traditions (circumcision, certain foods, and even polygamy). As you correctly said, these are evident in some of his letters. The “greeks” (anyone not Jewish) were addressed in the rest of the letters.
The fact of the matter is (yes I said fact) that both old and new testament prohibits homosexuality. Rationalizing cannot take that away. Anyone could possibly make a point to allow just about anything under the sun and say “well God didn't intend that for today's world”. That is a cop-out. God sees all things and through all times (per the old and new testament). Times have not changed as your assert that they have. Homosexuality is not new. Adultery is not new. Murder is not new. Covetousness is not new. The only new things are technology and the acceptance of those behaviors as “ok”.
I'm glad you'll be clinging to the Constitution. Leave some room for me. I'll be doing the same.
I realize the Age of Enlightenment was in play. I also realize that they made the Constitution as a generic document and it was to be amendend as the country changed. My point was that each of the Founding Fathers wrote about the danger of kicking God to the curb. That's what the quotes from them were for. No one seems to want to acknowlege that. They explicitly stated that our nation would not and could not succeed without God – not Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Buddhism – but just plain God.
And the reason i mentioned that in the first place, is that the embracing of homosexuality is against every single one of those faiths (Buddhism I think – you'll have to check me on that one). Embrace that which God stands against and you turn your back on Him. You are either for Him or against Him. Hot or cold – there cannot be a lukewarm in this (His words not mine).
“Nobody here has said that you can do, say, or believe anything you want and still be Christian. Here's the thing, though. The Bible is wildly inconsistent. It's full of contradiction and paradox”
That is a misconception. The Bible is not contradictory and paradoxical. It is when you approach it from a denominational standpoint, or a Jewish one. But if you take the Bible and study it comprehensively, you will see that it is in no way contradictory. Many portions are literal, some contextual, and some figurative (usually in the form of parabels).
And John Kirsch, I'm quite certain, is not a better insight than Christ. I guarantee it. There are many books that take a leak over the Bible. There are many humanists that do their best to belittle and discredit the Bible. I'm sure that none of them (to my knowledge) have comprehensively studied God's Word. I have. I have also studied the archeology and historical accounts. It all gels. Even science gels with God's word – assuming, of course, that the scientist isn't a biased atheist.
I knew my wife as a child, then I moved away. I came back 10 years later and we became friends but never dated. We ended up together at prom. Shortly thereafter I joined the Navy and I got married to someone else when I was 18. It was stictly lust and I really just wanted to be married. I came from parents with a very loving relationship, and I wanted that too – even if it was the wrong woman. When I returned from Desert Storm, I was ready to settle down and raise a family (I wasn't getting any younger). Fate had me running into her again and again. We started dating and hit it off. There was and is much love in our relationship. But the friendship was there already. There was no need for a “business decision”. We already had the history.
And you know danged well I didn't mean a world without love. Nice twist of words, though.
The instinct to BREED is there, whether we want it or not. It develops out of puberty and acts upon the learned attractions you have up to that point. Of course “business decisions” (as you put it) come to everyone's thoughts. Will he/she be a good parent? Will he/she abuse me? Does he/she make me laugh? And so on. Unless, of course, you meet someone and instantly go to Vegas. Because of the likes and dislikes as a child, you already know what you want to be with when that “BREED” urge hits. I knew it was my wife. Homosexuals know it is a certain kind of person of the same sex.
Christ and his apostles are historical figures and show up in secular historical writings.
Which secular historical writings? Name them and/or link to them.
History has recorded and verified the dating of the Church, Christ, and the travels and teachings of the apostles.
Where? Other than religious sources?
Prove to me that Constantine existed Kathy. Have you met him? Is there a TV show starring Constantine? No. There is historical DOCUMENTS, Kathy.
We know that Constantine existed because there is a vast body of primary source and scholarly documentation and information, both ancient and modern, from historical as well as religious sources, spanning the 18 or so centuries since his time, that testifies to his existence. Show me the equivalent for Jesus and the apostles.
Are you telling me all written history is no believable?
As per above, clearly not.
And for your information, the events of the Bible are recognized as historical fact – not the miracles and the issues that require faith; but the people places and times are recognized world-wide – it is the most comprehensive historical document of the period.
The events of the Bible are not recognized as historical fact. Certainly the events of the Bible take place in a larger historical context but that's not the same thing as the events and people themselves being actual, historical, real events and people. The Bible is mythology based on broad historical and cultural events, patterns, and practices, over a period of thousands of years. You cannot separate out individual events or people and say, This one is definitely really existed and this thing here definitely really happened, but this over here did not. For the record, I think Jesus did exist as a historical figure, or someone very much like him, but there is no actual independent, scholarly historical evidence to prove that he did. What evidence there is points to the strong probability that he existed, but he cannot be said to be a historical figure in the sense of we know he existed and can prove it.
The fact of the matter is (yes I said fact) that both old and new testament prohibits homosexuality.
The fact of the matter is (yes, I said fact, too) that this is a correct statement — with the proviso that the prohibition is on homosexual behavior, not homosexuality. No one can prohibit homosexuality. That would be like me saying, “I prohibit that sofa over there!” The sofa is there; I can't prohibit it. I have clearly stated that I know the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior several times now. You're not grasping the distinction I'm making between the correct fact that the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior, and the incorrect conclusion that the bibllical prohibition against homosexual behavior means that gays and lesbians in our democratic, constitutional republic today, cannot or should not be given full civil, legal, and human rights equal to those of any other American. What the Bible says or doesn't say, prohibits or doesn't prohibit, is irrelevant to our democratic, secular form of government. Please don't come back at me again with the same bit about the Bible prohibits homosexuality no matter what my secular-progressive beliefs say, because your repetition of this undisputed statement is killing ME.
My point was that each of the Founding Fathers wrote about the danger of kicking God to the curb. That's what the quotes from them were for. No one seems to want to acknowlege that. They explicitly stated that our nation would not and could not succeed without God – not Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Buddhism – but just plain God.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with your apparent belief that there needs to be prayer in public school, and “In God we trust” on our money, and “one nation, under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance in order for God not to be “kicked to the curb.” I truly don't understand that concept, to be honest with you. To me, God is big enough to still be there and available to anyone who needs to talk to God. I mean, what? Do you really think if there's no prayer or “moment of silence” in our classrooms, that God can't get into the room?
I mean, how exactly do you conceive of God, that you can entertain such a belief?
And the reason i mentioned that in the first place, is that the embracing of homosexuality is against every single one of those faiths.
And I'm telling *you*, once again, that it could not matter less if homosexuality is against 10,000 different faiths. Our government is not run according to religious doctrine.
both old and new testament prohibits homosexuality.
And one more proviso: the OT doesn't mention lesbianism. They probably didn't feel the need, as it wouldn't have compromised any woman's virginity (i.e., any man's property rights).
Well at least we're starting to understand each other. That's a refreshing change.
As far as the God on our money and pledge of allegiance or in school….. How does that effect you? You say you are of some sort of faith. Why, then does the name of God offend you? As I stated, over 80% of our nation calls themselves followers of God (that includes Jews and Muslims). God is not a four-letter word.
You may think that removing all references to God and actions of faith, under the guise of religious freedom, is good for our nation.
It didn't work for the Israelites, and it won't work for us. The founding fathers knew it as well.
Actually, the Bible IS contradictory and paradoxical. I agree that you can't take any one statement or event by itself and understand its meaning; you have to look at the larger context. But that doesn't mean that the Bible is not really contradictory or paradoxical, in my view. It just means that the contradiction and paradox has a meaning. It has a larger, meaningful message. I alluded to that in my previous comment.
And I wouldn't, if I were you, bet your next meal on the proposition that Jonathan (not John) Kirsch has not “comprehensively studied God's word.” He's a well-known and widely respected Biblical scholar who has written several books on religious topics. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him, of course.
Possibly so, J. But it does say for a man to leave his parents and go into his wife. It is the only authorized bond between two adults. If you can show me another passage anywhere in the new or old testament where homoseuxality (which includes lesbianism) is condoned or authorized by God, please let me know.
We all seem to know what it says not to do in both old and new testaments. What we seem to have a problem with in this country (as well as Biblical Israel) is justifying behavior as “good and pure” that has been condemned by God. Kathy claims that the Bible is not for “today's world”. That is complete and utter horse-crap. As I pointed out. The world hasn't changed. The same problems between people then, are there now. If people chose to live in accordance with their faith (truly, not half-hearted or pick-and-chose) then our nation would not have the problems it has.
“And I'm telling *you*, once again, that it could not matter less if homosexuality is against 10,000 different faiths. Our government is not run according to religious doctrine.”
Then why is the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?
Why, also, does the Constitution declare, in words just above George Washington's signature, that the proceedings were “done … in the Year of our Lord,” which is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ?
And why is Sunday set aside as a day of rest for the president in Article 1, Section 7?
Any comments? Why would THOSE things be in a purely secular document?
Thank you for opening up a little bit, JD. That first paragraph is poignant, especially the part about running into each other again and again.
I disagree that “the instinct to BREED” (caps, I don't know why) is always there. It's not always there. There are many couples who don't have and don't want children. It happens all the time. Not everyone wants children, JD.
It's not born, it's learned.
Well, apparently you believe that heterosexuality is learned, as well. I mean, you've certainly indicated as much in what you've written. I don't agree; I believe (with, I might add, a lot of scientific and real-life evidence to back me up) that “you can't control or choose your sexuality.” But since you believe that gay or straight, sexuality is learned behavior, then why is your learned behavior better than someone else's?
“Jonathan Kirsch.”
I'm sure he is, Kathy. My point was for anyone offering an opinion that goes against God's commandments or Christ's teachings – it doesn't matter. Everything I (or anyone) needs is in there already (kinda like Prego – ha).
As far as the paradoxical issue, I realize that many think it is just that. If you go to the hebrew (OT) or greek (NT), many of the interpretational differences can be eliminated. Like you, I have a plethora of religious documents in my own library – the Apocraphia – Greek Lexicon – etc – that I have done my research with. Taking the entire history from Adam to Abraham to Moses to Christ to Jefferson Davis and Kathy Kattenburg is amazing to me. In just never ceases to amaze me. I'm humbled and blessed to be a part of God's plan.
No problem about the opening up. I'm pretty much an open book.
As far as the breeding instinct (see I uncapitalized it) goes, even if people don't want or have the ability to have children, that instinct is still there.
And you are correct. Both are learned behaviors. Is one better than the other? Dangerous wording there Kat. Feels like a trap so I'll tread lightly. The only right or better light that can be shed on this is through faith. The reason I bring that up AGAIN, is that the vast majority of the world subscribes to a higher power. Here in the US, over 80% of us claim God as our god. He and he alone has made that decision for us. For the general public to accept and support openly gay behavior would be to not be true to that faith. Yes there are “christians” that believe a cornucopia of things contrary to the Bible – let's not go there again. But most believe in the Bible/Q'uran/Torah as written – the vast minority are of the type you mention.
As a Christian, I will embrace any individual as a brother. I will not, however, embrace their sin; nor should anyone embrace mine. If I sin (and I do), people that love me will bring it to my attention and call me on it. I then must turn away from it, confess, and sin no more. But make no mistake… Anyone who beats up or threatens should be punished – HARD.
All the OT relationship rules have nothing to do with bonds between two adults. They're about civic obligation and property law, pure and simple, and the property in question was often well shy of what we would consider adulthood.
Seen in this context, homosexual sex didn't matter much to the Israelites. It didn't threaten their society, and that's why the OT doesn't say a lot more about it. Sex between women didn't matter at all, and sex between men mattered only to the extent it distracted them from their duty to marry and sire kids who could help defend the beleaguered nation.
As for the new testament, we've got one rant from an excitable proto-televangelist, and dead silence on the topic from all four gospels and the savior.
You're obviously entitled to embrace the traditional anti-gay interpretation. Personally I find the scriptural support for it overly expansive and unconvincing.
As far as the God on our money and pledge of allegiance or in school….. How does that effect you? You say you are of some sort of faith. Why, then does the name of God offend you? As I stated, over 80% of our nation calls themselves followers of God (that includes Jews and Muslims). God is not a four-letter word.
“In God we trust” on our money doesn't bother me. Prayer in public schools does, because that's a violation of church and state separation. The word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance does not offend me beyond the offense I take from the Pledge in general. I find the notion of “pledging allegiance” to a flag extremely offensive and authoritarian. It's a loyalty oath, and loyalty oaths are anti-democratic.
You may think that removing all references to God and actions of faith, under the guise of religious freedom, is good for our nation.
The above statement is not an accurate paraphrase of anything I have written here. Being opposed to forced, mandatory, prayer in public school classrooms or to other forced displays of religious belief in taxpayer-funded government institutions is not exactly equivalent to advocating the “removal of all references to God and actions of faith.”
I do think it's bad for our nation for our government to promote religion and religious belief. I'm happy to keep proclamations of religious belief inside churches, mosques, and synagogues; in homes; and in privately funded religious schools.
It didn't work for the Israelites, and it won't work for us. The founding fathers knew it as well.
Talk about apples and oranges. The Israelites did not have government as we know it now, so separating religious life from public life was not an issue for them.
The founding fathers did not write government-funded prayer to captive audiences into the Constitution.
Kathy claims that the Bible is not for “today's world”.
JD, that is a serious misrepresentation of what I've written here. I did not say what you wrote above. I'm not accusing you of lying about what I said, I just think you don't understand what I've said. You really, truly believe the above is the meaning of what I've said on this subject.
Stuff like this discourages me.
Then why is the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?
Wha–? I really am flabbergasted, here. Are you really telling me that because the Declaration of Independence refers to “the Creator,” that means the Founders believed that specific religious dogma should govern public life?
I'm sorry, JD. That is an astounding leap. It really is.
Why, also, does the Constitution declare, in words just above George Washington's signature, that the proceedings were “done … in the Year of our Lord,” which is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ?
Ummm, maybe because that was a commonly accepted rhetorical flourish for ending written communications? Or maybe simply because it was a standard written convention at that time? I mean, obviously, it has religious connotations, but if that kind of thing is all you've got to “prove” that the Founding Fathers wanted the American political system to be run in accordance with Christian religious doctrine, or any specific religious doctrine, then I think you're really, really stretching.
And why is Sunday set aside as a day of rest for the president in Article 1, Section 7?
You've got to be kidding.
ADDED: You do know that the abbreviated form A.D. means “Anno Domini” — in English, “the year of our Lord” — don't you? Do you think this proves that the Founders wanted the U.S. government run as a theocracy? Or is “A.D.” just a written convention that originally had a specifically religious purpose but now is just a hiccup?
Taking the entire history from Adam to Abraham to Moses to Christ to Jefferson Davis and Kathy Kattenburg is amazing to me. In just never ceases to amaze me. I'm humbled and blessed to be a part of God's plan.
Well, so am I, JeffersonDavis.