Jimmy Carter’s Race-Baiting Campaign: The Georgia Governorship, 1970

Like Thad Cochran in 2014, Carter’s camp played the race card in flyers and radio ads to smear their opponent.

By Ryan S. Walters | @ryanswalters73

Six years before his improbable election as President in 1976, Jimmy Carter won his race for Georgia’s governorship. Running as a Democrat in the waning days of the “Solid South,” the victor in the party primary most assuredly would carry the state in November. Having tried and failed four years earlier in 1966, this race would be Jimmy’s last hurrah.jimmy-carter-for-governor-poster-1966-failed-election_1304727255021

And with his eyes already on the presidency, he would not fail a second time; for after that 1966 defeat, in smug, arrogant language reminiscent of George Wallace, Carter vowed that he would “never lose again.” No matter what it took to win, he would do it, even if he had to use the “tried-but-true” Southern tactic of race baiting, even while simultaneously playing up his new “born again Christian” status.

In the 1970 contest, Carter, the former state senator and school board member, would face numerous candidates but the most serious would be the popular Carl Sanders, who had previously served a term in the governor’s mansion. But instead of taking a high road and labeling Sanders a racist and racial demagogue, as one might expect the venerable Jimmy Carter to do, the campaign instead positioned itself where the votes were, to the right of Sanders, making the former governor appear as a liberal and racial reconciler.

Huddling in what they themselves called the “stink tank,” Carter’s brain trust devised the strategy to take down Sanders. It was a two-pronged offensive: First, persuade white Democrats that Carter was the more conservative candidate and swing their support toward him, and second, to take black votes away from Sanders, funneling them to another candidate.

In the first prong, Carter embraced the segregation tradition and the racist agitators who defended it, like the popular Alabama governor and presidential candidate George Wallace, who white Georgians greatly admired. As governor from 1963 to 1967, Sanders had refused to allow Wallace to speak to the Georgia Legislature and Carter was quick to condemn him for that move.

Carter also welcomed Georgia’s own segregationist heroes. In those days Georgia governors could not succeed themselves, and the sitting governor, who had bested Carter in 1966, was Lester Maddox, the arch-segregationist who once used a bare ax handle to chase away a group of blacks who were attempting to integrate his Atlanta restaurant. Being unable to run for a second term, Maddox ran for Lt. Governor instead, eventually serving on the same ticket as Carter, who affectionately described Maddox as “the essence of the Democratic Party.”

After both Carter and Maddox won their respective nominations, Carter said of his running mate, “I am proud to be on the ticket with him. Despite reports we have heard, there has never been any difference between us in the primary.”

A second tactic was to create a hard-hitting flyer that could be posted or mailed to conservative white Democrats around the state, those who supported Wallace and Maddox. The idea was to make them understand that it was Jimmy Carter who more closely held their views, not Carl Sanders.

As Steven F. Hayward recounts in his book, The Real Jimmy Carter,

“the anonymous mailer was sent to barbershops, country churches, and rural law enforcement officers containing a grainy photo of Sanders, part owner of the Atlanta Hawks NBA franchise, at an after-game locker room victory celebration. Two black players were pouring champagne over Sanders’s head. The Atlanta Constitution noted, ‘In the context of the sports pages, it was a routine shot…. But in the context of this political campaign it was a dangerous smear that injected both race, alcohol, and high living into the campaign.’ Carter’s senior campaign aides Bill Pope, Hamilton Jordan, and Jerry Rafshoon were behind the mailing; Pope was even spotted passing out the flyers at a Ku Klux Klan rally…. The Carter campaign also produced a leaflet noting that Sanders had paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr.”

Another flyer pointed out the backing Sanders received from prominent leftwing national Democrats such as Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson, his snubbing of Wallace, and his support from prominent blacks as well as the entire black voting bloc. White Democrats across Georgia in 1970 would not take kindly to Sanders and his friends in the not-so-subtle reminder.


In the second prong, the Carter team wanted to deprive black votes from Sanders. Because the race also featured a black candidate named C. B. King, a prominent attorney and Civil Rights activist, the idea was to persuade blacks to back King rather than Sanders. And given the fact that King did not have much money in his campaign coffer, Carter bankrolled pro-King radio ads in heavily populated black areas around the state, specifically Atlanta, in the hopes of persuading more black voters to support King. The ads were from a group called Concerned Citizens for C. B. King, which King himself had never heard of.

To further aid in this endeavor, Carter’s “stink tank” printed 50,000 flyers to be distributed in the black communities that accused Sanders of breaking a campaign promise during his term as governor to appoint blacks to government positions. The flyers were from another unknown group called the Black Concern Committee.

The results of the nefarious tactics and smear campaign paid off, as Carter bested Sanders by 12 points in the primary election, even though he did not secure the necessary majority, sending the racejimmy-carter-during-his-campaign-for-governor-of-georgia-1970-361098 to a run-off election. Sanders, angered over Carter’s devices, did not take the high road during the run-off, stooping to Carter’s level and turning the race into a mud fest, ensuring Carter would win easily. He claimed the governorship in November and the rest, as they say, is history.

It’s always an interesting aspect of American history to study political megalomaniacs and see what they will do to win an elective office, despite their contradictory high-minded rhetoric.

Jesus warned us of such people in Matthew. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing,” he told his disciples, “but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”

In our politics, as well as our faith, we would do well to remember His advice. But that is not to say that it is exclusively Democrats who engage in this type of disgusting and revolting behavior. We now know that Establishment Republicans are just as willing to use the race card to smear a conservative candidate.

As a nation we will never move past racial politics so long as power-hungry men use such tactics to gain and keep political offices. Those that do should be removed as soon as possible, for if they will engage in such tactics to win an office, they will never have the best interests of the people at heart. And our history has only proven this to be true.


Steven F. Hayward, The Real Jimmy Carter (2004)

Victor Lasky, Jimmy Carter: The Man & The Myth (1979)



  1. William Smith says:

    Ryan, like so many people who have political agendas to puruse, both left and right, you misuse the Bible. Jesus (the cited quotatobn in your aritcle) was talking about false prophets. A prophet is someone who speaks for, or a least claims to speak for, God. There are those who say, “This is a word from the Lord” but the Lord did not call them or give them their message. One of the ways they can be detected is by their fruit – the lives they live and the life their teaching produces in others. False teaching produces bad lives. But we’re talking about speaking for God as his authorized representative to deliver his message.

    Jesus was not speaking about politics. He did nto have in mind Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon, or Theo Bilbo, or George Wallace, or Jim Eastland , or Lyndon Johnson. or any other of the endless list of cynical politicians. Nor did he have in mind Thad Cochran or Chris McDaniel or “true conservatives” or “establishment Republicans.

    One thing he did have in mind, however, was the misue of what he and the prophets and apostles said, quoting them accurarately but with a meaning or intent that was not theirs. Bill Clinton did that when he used “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard” to describe the future as he envisioned it. Barak Obama has done it on a number of occasions. Whites used to talk about the “curse on Ham” to justify their view of blacks, but that curse had had nothing to do with any curse on blacks to consign them to being servants or about how. They also said that since God made different races, he meant for them to keep to themselves in their own racial group. Many today quote Paul “if a man will not work neither let him eat” as though Paul were giving us a government policy, whereas he was telling the church how to deal with its own membrers who were not working but being taken care of by the church which was obligated to take care of its needy members. We hear “Judge not that he be not judged” as though Jesus must accept all lifestyles.

    It matters what the Bible says and the intent of the sayer or author is essential to using it accurately. Right and left violate this and they do it almost equally.

    I understand you are exercised about these political matters. I understand how much you dislike Thad Cochran and identify him with evil and how much you life Chris McDaniel and identify him with righteousness. But please don’t misuse the Bible to try to make your points. It’s not truthful to do so. And the points can be made just as well without misusing the words of our Lord.

    • “Like so many people” huh? And I guess we have you to keep us straight! I’m not misusing the Bible or the words of the Lord. You seem to have a very narrow interpretation of Scripture. By your narrow definition of things, and by that same logic, we could say that Jesus was only speaking to his disciples so whatever he said doesn’t apply to us today. And that would be wrong and preposterous to say.

      And I hope you are not one of these preachers who think they are the only one’s “qualified” to tell us all what the Bible means. I have as much right to interpret Scripture and hear from God as anyone else. And of course he was talking about false prophets but he’s also talking about a person’s character. We all manifest fruit in our lives, whether in religion, politics, business, or whatever. We are told not to judge others, and we shouldn’t, but Jesus was showing us how we can know the true character of another person. And that’s what I’m referring to, judging a person’s character by the fruit they manifest in their lives. I’m sure the Lord would approve of that! If we had no way to do this, we’d all be gullible, naive fools, getting the wool pulled over our eyes at every turn. I think the Lord is much less simplistic, and the Bible more all-encompassing, than you’ve made it out to be.

      You seem to want religion out of politics (except your participation that is). A lot of preachers do, and we’ve done a fine job in our society of kicking God out of schools and government and we are paying the price for it. Sure, we don’t use the Bible to legislate but it is our guide on morals, values, decency, and how to govern society, as well as how to interact with our fellow man.

      • Jane Green says:

        Hey, not only have we kicked God out of schools and government, it seems ole Chris kicked him off of his Facebook page, too. Surely, he wouldn’t let God be there among the F bombs that many McDaniel supporters use and the death wishes for Cochran that McDaniel supporters LOVE to spout. That doesn’t seem very Christian does it?

    • Jane Green says:

      Once again, hit the nail on the head! Love your comments William Smith!

    • Now since we are discussing the Word and manipulating it, I saw this today on Newsmax. It is an article by a Catholic that I think totally misuses Scripture and takes it completely out of context. I wonder what you guys think of it:http://www.newsmax.com/US/Left-Behind-book-series-the-Rapture-Bible/2015/05/05/id/642759/

      • williamhsmith1109@gmail.com says:

        The Left Behind “rapture” doctrine is anything but “the Protestant interpretation.” It rose from “dispensational” doctrine which nobody ever thought till about 150 yrs ago. It reads into 1 Thes what is not there on a normal reading. The RC guy did pretty well with the question.

      • So you believe the Catholic Apologist? Then what is your interpretation of 1 Thes 4:16-18?

      • William Smith says:

        Thesslonians 4:13-18 with interpretative comments in parentheses:

        13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. (Paul, after founding the church there had to leave suddenly. Acts 17:1-10. He had taught about the Second Coming – that it will happen, that Jesus will come as King, that Christian believers will be raised and enter into resurrection life and the fullness of salvation, But he had not taught them all they needed to know and understand. Since he left some members of the church had died. So some were perplexed, fearful, discouraged. They were thinking: “Our loved ones have missed out on the Second Coming. What has become of them? Are they excluded from the resurrection and the fulness of salvation? This context is very important. ) 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. (Christ rose and will come again. The dead believers will be with him when he comes. They are not excluded.) 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[a] that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. (Those who are alive when the Lord comes will not be the first or only to participate in resurrection life,) 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. (Christ himself will come. He will come as a King accompanied by such Kingly things as his cry of command as King, and trumpets and his archangel taking the part of his attendant announcing his arrival. At that moment dead believers will rise as Christ rose. No hint that this is a secret coming or one coming to be folllowed by others.) 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. (Those who are alive will be trasformed without death to participate in resurrecton life. We and the dead will be caught up to meet the Lord – as it were all of us who are his subjects willl go out to greet and welcome him as he comes. When that happens all believers will be with one another and with the Lord forever. End of story. Nothing temporal of this worldly will follow. We enter into eternal blessedness with him and each other. ) 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.(These words are not for speculation but for comforting each other.)

      • And then what happens? What about the seven year tribulation? Do we stay around here for that?

      • William Smith says:

        What’s the basis of your belief in a 7 year tribulation period during which Christians will not be here?

        What I think the Bible teaches is that in this present age there are victories and defeat, peace and perescution, during which time the Church experiences many tribulations. At the end of the age what Paul describes in 1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18 will occur. Christ will come and the dead will be raised. The Judgment will occur, the wicked will be cast into hell, and we who are the Lord’s will be forever wth one another and the Lord in the world to come.

      • You don’t believe in the 7 year reign of the Antichirst? Then the 1000 year millennial reign of Christ on this earth? It’s clearly taught in End Times prophetic teachings – Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelations. What kind of a pastor are you anyway?

      • williamhsmith1109@gmail.com says:

        Must be a slow day for ambulance chasing, David.

      • William Smith says:

        To answer your question, Ryan: one who seeks though with great imperfection to be faithful to God, the Gospel, and the Holy Scriptures.

      • Yes but what about my questions on the Tribulation, which Christ himself spoke of. In fact he talked of end times events as much as he did anything else. There will be an Anti-Chirst; a false prophet; a 7 year tribulation; seal, bowl,and trumpet judgments poured out on the earth, a millennial reign of Christ on this earth. So where does all that fit in your theology? Seems non-existent to me.

      • William Smith says:

        Ryan, I am pretty sure I understand the system of theology about the end from which you are coming: 1. The present (church) age is a parethesis on God’s plan. Plan A was Jewish. Plan B is temporary and Gentile. God will return to plan A. 2. The church will be raptured out of the world to heaven. 3. What will follow will be a 7 year Tribulation period. (Some believe it is divided into two 3 1/2 year periods.) The Jews will return to the Lord, rebuild the Temple and reinsttute Temple sacrifice. Anti-Christ will rise, claim worship, establish himself as Ruler The nations of the world allied with Anti-Christ will attack Israel which will be on the brink of annihilation. 4. Christ will come back, the battle of Armageddon will take place, Israel will be delivered, and Chirst will establish a Jewish Kingdom with himself ruling in on a throne in Jersusalm for 1000 years. 5. At the end of the 1000 years, Satan who had previously been bound will be set free, and lead a final rebellion. This will be put down. The final judgement will take place. All will be consigned to their permanent destinies.

        Is that pretty close? As a boy I went to a Christian school where this understanding was vigorously taught. I knew even then that this teaching was contraray to the teaching of my church. Later as a seminarian I had the opportunity to study it in depth. I have taught on the views of Eschatolgy a number of times over my past 43 years I have been a minister.

        I understand that, that the secret rapture teaching is widespread in the US and is presented as so obvious that not to believe it is not to believe the Bible and what it teaches. However, as I have told you before, this teaching originated in Britain 150 years or so ago with a man by the name of J.N. Darby. C.I. Schofield who wrote the notes of the original Schofield Bible popularized it in America. This teaching is relatively new in the history of the church and has not believed by most of the church throughout history and is not believed by the majority of churches and Christians worldwide.

        This really is not a good place for detailed discussion of the interpretation of Bible passages and theological views in detail. Let me suggest a book to you that is published by Intervarsity Press. It is Four Views of the Millenium. It has four sections each written by a person who believes a particular view. It includes a writer advocating your view and three who take other views. This would give you an overview of the 4 major views taken by those who take the Bible seriously.

      • William Smith says:

        Ryan here is a link for that book on Amazon, You can buy a used copy for a penny (plus postage which will make it $4 total.


      • William Smith says:

        Ryan here is another book that may interest you. All three authors share your pre-milenium view (which is not my view) ad they showt the differences on the timing of the rapture titled Three Views on the Rapture:


        Here is part of a blurb about it: “The publisher wrote in the Preface to this 1984 book, “One of the chief obstacles in coming to decisions on theological issues is the lack of interaction among proponents of competing views… one is often left wondering whether strengths have been overstated and weaknesses ignored or underplayed… Even when two excellent statements of alternative positions are available, points made in one statement may not be dealt with in the other. Such is certainly the case with respect to the issue of the time of the Rapture in relation to the Tribulation… there is still room for a careful, ‘head-to-head’ discussion in which the alternative positions are evaluated. The present volume is intended to fill that need.” The Pretribulation Rapture position is represented by Paul Feinberg, the Mid-Seventieth Week Rapture position by Gleason Archer, and the Posttribulation Rapture by Douglas Moo; after each expositional essay, the other two participants respond. Richard Reiter also provides a history of the development of the various positions.”

  2. William Smith says:


    1, I try to interpret the Bible the way that I assume you think the Constitution should be interpreted – according to the words themselves and according to the original intent.

    2. Of course, I believe you have every right to interpret the Bible. But the Bible is not rubber nose. The fact that we all can read the Bible and interpret it does not mean that all interpretations are correct as in, “What this means to me is…” I also believe that God does give to his church commentators, theologians, preachers, etc, or, to put another way, not all have the same gifts and callings.

    3. You are right that I do not believe that church and politics should get into each other’s business. I think that is also what the writers of the Constitution thought. But then, yes I do express opinions on political matters here and elsewhere. However, I try always to keep in my mind a clear distinction between myself as an American citizen and myself as a minister of the Gospel. As a citizen I am aue ps free to say what i think and participate in the political process as anyone else. But I am not free to speak and act as a minister in the politcal realm. I never use the pulpit for political purposes. I never endorse candidates or specific legislation. That is a prinicple by which I try to conduct myself. If you think for a moment about it one of the great weaknesses of the black church is the use by ministers of their office and pulpit for political purposes. Of course, that tends to be liberal. I think the same way about liberal or conservative use of the ministerial position. I feel when I speak not as a private citizen but as a minister I must be able to say, “Thus says the Lord,” speaking for him not for my opinion.

    • No I don’t follow original intent and I don’t that is a good way to interpret anything. How can one know what someone’s intention was? I believe the Constitution should be followed strictly but even that has its limitations. For example, if we followed a very strict interpretation, then the Air Force would be unconstitutional, because it only mentions and army and a navy.

      As for the church and politics being intertwined, I’m sure you are aware that it was the ministers of the Gospel that were as instrumental as any group in calling for and supporting the American Revolution. Should they have stayed out of it? Many of our Founders were strong proponents of the Bible and members of Bible Societies. They certainly saw no conflict.

      • horace says:

        Some of the Founding Fathers were Christians, but the men responsible for the foundation of the United States of America were men of enlightenment, not men of Christianity. Most of them were deists, who did not believe that the Bible was true. For instance, Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the Trinity, the virgin birth or the divinity of Jesus and he said so.

      • No you are wrong about that. They were NOT deists. Almost all belonged to one denomination or another. Even Jefferson has been lied about consistently by historians.

        Read: http://ryanswalters.net/2011/01/18/a-historians-reply-to-bill-maher/

      • William Smith says:

        Ryan, I don’t know who you read, but being ammembers of Christian denominations does not mean that those involved in the Constitutional Convention were men of Christian belief. Some were Christian belief But Horace is right that they were also men of the enlightenment, even those who had Christian belief. Deism was widely held, a position held to belief in God as a First Cause who had nothing to do with the ongoing operations of the universe. It also made of Christ a teacher, not God in the flesh who atoned for our sins. They did not believe in the Biblical miracles. Jefferson, while a formal member of the Anglican church, was not a man of Christian belief. I assume you are referring to the writing of David Barton about Jefferson. Barton has been debunked by Christian historians and reviewers including the conservative World magazine.

      • William Smith says:

        Ryan, I don’t know who you read, but being ammembers of Christian denominations does not mean that those involved in the Constitutional Convention were men of Christian belief. Some did have genuine Christian belief. But others, Jefferson preeminently among them, were Deists, believing in God as a First Cause but not in the God of Christian belief. Christ was a teacher and example. Jefferson, while a formal member of the Anglican church, was not a man of Christian belief. I assume you are referring to the writing of David Barton about Jefferson. Barton has been debunked by Christian historians and reviewers including the conservative World magazine. Here is one of a number in World:

      • William Smith says:

        Ryan it appears my first unedited post is above as well as the second edited on that includes the link to World. Would you do me the favor of deleting the first and retaining the second? Thanks. Bill

  3. William Smith says:

    As to original intent, what it meant with regard to the Bible is to determine what God meant to say through the author to the audience. That are a number of facxtors that have an impact on that. Vocabulary. Grammar. Immediate and broader textual context. History and cultural context at the time of the writing. One of the advantages we have with the Bible is that we know where it is going – always toward fulfulment in Jesus Christ. At any rate, we are not free to put on the words or into the text what we think or want. The work requires a good deal of discipline on oneself else one can run off into all sorts of directions of whim, one can read into the text what is not there, or one can make an improper use of the text. There have to be controls on interpretation else the words mean nothing.

    Re the role of ministers at the time of the Revolution I am aware. I think they were mistaken failing to pay adequate attention to Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 on the relation between the Christian and the state (which at the time of those texts writing was Nero).

  4. While Jesus’ warning regarding false prophets was specifically directed against people who claim to speak for God, it contains a generally sound truth about the need to distinguish between words and deeds, and a warning not to take the claims of a leader at face value who travels under false pretenses. Such leaders are dangerous (“wolves”) while they appear to be benign (“sheep”). Christ would have us judge such by their fruit, and not merely by their words.

    Jesus takes up this theme in other places as well (“why call ye me Lord Lord and do not the things I command?”) – that actions speak louder than words, and that we cannot permit good words to nullify bad acts.

    I don’t see any reason why Christ’s teachings should not be taken in their broader application to leaders in general. Is there an example of a leader, though not a prophet of God, who we should embrace and believe even though we know him to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

    A wise man, reading what Christ taught, would do well to take heed to the broadest possible application of Christ’s truth.

    • William Smith says:

      John, we have discussed this before. As you know, we have a different understanding of how the Bible teaches us to interpet and apply itself.

      RE scoundrel leaders, I would think it would depend on what you mean by embrace. Generally when a leader is in office we are to acknowledge and honor him as in the providence of God having been placed over us and obey, except in the narrow circumstances where he specifically forbids us to do what God had explicitly commanded or to do what God explicitly forbids. The NT has no knowledge of a system such as ours where citizens participlate in governance by electing their officiials. In such a system we are free to vote for whom we please, but once the official takes office, to regard him in the same way NT believer were to regard the emperors.

      As to most elections in America, we are not faced with doing or not doing the will of God when we chose to support one candidate or another. We can be thankful it is so. We do not killl one another in the name of God over elections. You can support candidate A and I candidate B, or to give an example, McDaniel or Cochran, without fear we are sinning against God and without need to condemn one another as citizens. I can disagree with you about political questions without my needing to claim God is on my side or that you are opposed to God.

  5. MichaelW says:

    I believe that Jesus asked that we invite him into our hearts and that we should ask his forgiveness so that our souls could be saved from the sins that we committed. I believe Jesus wants to be a part of our entire lives and that would include our political lives, our education lives, our election lives, our home and work life, and every other faze of our lives, not just the ones we want to pick and choose. So answer me this, when you get to heaven and it is time to atone for your sins, do you want to be the one that answers this question from the lord? Tell me the reason why you left me out of your total life and by whose authority do you have the right to tell others why I should be left out of portions of their lives. Any preacher I have ever heard has always said to invite Jesus into your life and this would be your entire life, including the political one if you are choosing to participate in political debate.

  6. Howdy Boys! if you are going to be a member of the Kingdom of God, then Michael has a point–“seek first the KOG and His righteousness”. Then abide by Jesus’ only two commandments: “Love the Lord your God . . . .”; and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Everything after that is just sectarian garbage. Whenever the Christian Collectivist Community attempts to impose its narrow views of the world on society, it does nothing to enhance the KOG. In reality, all the CCC does is serve the Kingdom of the World (and very poorly I might add) which is ruled by the sword. KOG members need to seek progress towards perfection in their own lives. Unfortunately, many KOG members mistakenly believe that they have the power to make the KOW more “godly” through their political involvement. Yet they fail at every turn. The KOW and the KOG are totally incompatible. Therefore, the most that KOG members can do if they want to follow Jesus effectively is to do as Jesus himself did and commanded–love unconditionally, and do not become distracted by matters of the world–and leave the running of the KOW to folks like me who are secular humanists who acknowledge that “true” Christians, although they are welcome visitors, are resident alien visitors of this world who have no part to play in its function or operation. History shows over the last 1,700 years that whenever Christians attempt to make the world more “godly”, they only muck it up by creating sectarian strife, human suffering, discrimination/disparate treatment, and greater alienation among nonbelievers.

    • So basically, you’re suggesting that all us Christians should just stand in line to become martyrs!

      There is nothing in Scripture that says that Christians should not be involved in the normal functioning of human life, including government and the public square.

      All human action involves “discrimination / disparate treatment.” You cannot make any decision in life without such. The notion that the state is tasked with the job of stamping it out is tantamount to reducing us all to state-controlled robots.

      • Christians have fared quite poorly under completely secular rule – as has everybody else who has suffered under it. It always runs off into tyranny.

        I suggest you investigate the teachings of Roger Williams, who understood what it meant to be a Christian and engaged in public affairs. His model is one that is rarely followed these days amongst Christians.

      • John, I was just quoting Jesus. He is the one who said that “my kingdom is not of this world.” To be sure, Christian believers who wish to be participate may be engaged at the ballot box and and vote. But if they are seeking first the Kingdom of God, they should definitely stay out of participating in the political fray. On the other hand, if these members of the Christian Collectivist Community are just all about talk, and not about advancing the KOG as Jesus commanded, that’s fine. They just highlight the fact that their faith is in the way of the world. I just wasn’t to see and hear them acknowledge it.

      • williamhsmith1109@gmail.com says:

        Like John Brown, John?

    • David Frazier, it really is amusing to watch people try to tell persons of other faith what their sacred texts actually say. I see that all the time, with people announcing what Muslims “actually believe” and citing the Koran – usually they get it all bungled up.

      The Lord Jesus did not, by that statement you cite, in any way exclude His followers from this world, or interacting with its kingdom. Your statement: “But if they [Christians] are seeking first the Kingdom of God, they should definitely stay out of participating in the political fray” is a complete non sequitur.

      The issue of Christ’s kingdom vs. mans’ is really an issue that a secular humanist isn’t competent to deal with in any detail.

      For example, as long as we are quoting verses, Christ specifically prayed that His Father would not take His people “out of this world,” but rather would protect them from the evil one. In another place, Jesus declared that He has “overcome the world.” I’m sure that’s a verse you’re not so comfortable parroting.

      Let’s face it: your interests here are to figure out a way to exclude Christians from bringing their moral values and beliefs to the table. You seek to exclude us from helping run the world in a democratic and pluralistic manner.

      But you have provided no real argument – just self-serving assertions – as to why we ought not to exclude YOUR VIEWS – the secular humanist views you have announced should rule the world. I’m not for excluding your views – but you sure are eager to exclude those of the Christians. You say we can vote – how generous of you! – but how long before even that is to be taken away? Under your theory, why should we even get to do that?

      Christ taught His people that they were not to use force to compel obedience to the Gospel – and even that precept has been trampled by the fusion of the church and state that occurred in Constantine’s reign. That is a fusion that I for one have vigorously condemned in numerous messages, some even focusing directly upon that evil.

      But there is absolutely no reason why we should not bring our moral views on theft and murder and self-responsibility and truth-telling and just war and self-defense, etc., into the arena of ideas just like you have brought your secular humanist views to the table.

      You cannot get Christ to carry your water for you, in accomplishing your agenda to exclude Christian ideas that compete with your secular humanist ideology.

      Well – you might convince some people by misapplying Christ’s teachings, but you won’t fool me!

      • John, you state, “Christ taught His people that they were not to use force to compel obedience to the Gospel – and even that precept has been trampled by the fusion of the church and state that occurred in Constantine’s reign.” I agree with you. However, the Christian Collectivist Community has no problem with using the coercive power of the Sword/State to impose their narrow views on the rest of the country. That’s not the way of the Kingdom of God.

      • David Frazier, can you please give me an example or two of the “Christian Collectivist Community” using “coercise power” to impose “their narrow views?”

        For example: if some Christians fought against slavery because the Bible says we are all made in the image of God, and sought to pass laws to stop it, would that be an example of what you are talking about?

      • Hey John:
        You also are correct when you state: “But there is absolutely no reason why we should not bring our moral views on theft and murder and self-responsibility and truth-telling and just war and self-defense, etc., into the arena of ideas. . . .” So long as Christianists limit themselves to the “arena of ideas”, they are probably acting consistent with the KOG model. The problem lies when they attempt to extend themselves beyond the arena of ideas and place themselves into the political fray of the Kingdom of the World via the coercive power of the State. They do damage to their witness, as well as hinder the salvation/love message of the cross which is what the KOG is all about.

      • So when you wrote: “The problem lies when they attempt to extend themselves beyond the arena of ideas and place themselves into the political fray of the Kingdom of the World via the coercive power of the State.”

        All the “political fray” implicates the coercive power of the state.

        So your point is that Christians have no business getting into the “political fray” because it will soil us?

        Is that really your concern?

  7. The CCC in the South fought to maintain slavery, and then later, racial segregation/discrimination. They fought to impose Prohibition of alcohol in the past, and today of marijuana which has greatly enhanced the size and role of organized crime, not to mention that of government itself. Today they fight to promote disparate treatment of LGBT folks, and to deny women reasonable/affordable access to abortion health care services via state and federal legislation. They constantly meddle in all areas of regulatory, energy, education, agricultural, commercial, taxation, welfare, immigration and foreign policy issues.

    • In other words: they take different sides from you on a host of issues, and you want to somehow construct a way to keep them from exerting political power so you can get your way.

      So how are they any different from you?

      • John, I don’t claim to be part of any Kingdom of God or any other theistic tribe. I freely admit that I am, and remain a part of the world where I believe that it’s up to nontheists to operate and maintain control of this earthly realm. To be sure, theists can provide an important role in the arena of ideas–but that is where their jurisdiction ends. Jesus said they can’t be effective subjects in God’s kingdom, while at the same time attempting to serve the Worldly kingdom–can’t serve two masters, and that sort of thing per Jesus. By trying to do both, they become like warm water. And what did Jesus say that he will do to lukewarm followers–spit them out of his mouth!

      • William Smith says:

        Let me ask this, MichaelW: Did any Democrats who crossed over have any reasons to be concerned about what would happen if McDaniel were elected? And, did McDaniel do any not so subtle racebaiting the other way? Any appeal to racial prejudice and resentments?

      • No, David Frazier, Christ didn’t say what you claim he said. There is nothing in Jesus’ teachings that excludes Christians from the “jurisdiction” of this world. Indeed, the Scriptures teach exactly the contrary: that we ARE subject to worldly jurisdictions of all types.

        It is YOU who wishes to exclude Christians from “worldly jurisdictions.”

        Your announcing that Christians cannot partake in the political process is just as ludicrous as if I were to “announce” that you cannot “partake of the worldly jurisdiction” because it is reserved only for communists.

  8. MichaelW says:

    No, they were race baited and everyone knows it. Kind of sounds like you lost your True Conservatism,you might need to go look for it.

    • He’s just a stupid Cochran troll that has nothing better to do with his life that make stupid comments like that on a site that promotes ideas he doesn’t understand or believe in.

    • Who was race baited, Michael?

      • MichaelW says:

        David, I believe I was answering the deleted troll, but we all know that the ads from the Barbour’s were designed to cause a disturbance in the democrats that would surely cause panic to crossover and try to sway the election, which it did. In this aspect they were surely race baited.

      • William Smith says:

        Let me ask this, MichaelW: Did any Democrats who crossed over have any reasons to be concerned about what would happen if McDaniel were elected? And, did McDaniel do any not so subtle racebaiting the other way? Any appeal to racial prejudice and resentments?

      • I guess you missed the racist radio ads and flyers, huh? If a Tea Partier did that to ANYONE it would be all over the news every day!

      • William Smith says:

        Now racist means to be prejudiced against and to discriminate against a person based on their race. So those ads and flyers were prejudiced against and discriminated against on the basis of RACE whom? Blacks or Whites?

  9. Can we all agree to the following: 1) people’s perceptions are influenced by what they see and hear; 2) people’s perceptions effect their opinions; 3) the Confederate battle flag has been the rallying symbol for every KKK/segregationist rally and march in Mississippi since the 1800s; 4) since 1954 the KKK and other segregationists in Mississippi have called for a return to traditional Mississippi values; 5) African Americans and other people of color view the Confederate battle flag and the call for a return to traditional Mississippi values as a threat to them, and an effort to reinstate segregation and Jim Crow laws in Mississippi; 6) during his campaign against Thad Cochran, Chris McDaniel attended/sponsored rallies where he was standing in the presence of Confederate battle flags, if not surrounded by them; 7) during his campaign against Thad Cochran, Chris McDaniel called repeatedly for a return to traditional Mississippi values; 8) African Americans and other people of color perceive Chris McDaniel to be a racial segregationist in his heart; 9) in politics, just as in life, perceptions are often more important than what people claim to be the facts.

  10. John at 4:27 p.m., don’t you see that it’s impossible for any version of the Kingdom of the World to be Christlike since the KOW is a system of dominion that necessarily places its trust in the power of the sword. The KOG, which always looks like Jesus, is not an improved version of the Kingdom of the World–even if that version is “good”, or operates well. The problems arise when people who claim to be part of the KOG attempt to comingle with the world. To be sure, as U.S. citizens we have a fundamental right to influence the political system. But in following their consciences, KOG subjects all to often choose to ignore that their real power–their kingdom power-is not supposed to lie in the sword by coercive means, but rather by “power under” through the love of the cross that in theory is supposed to manifest itself in true believers. It’s not the power of your vote. Rather, it’s supposed to be the power of a true believer’s kingdom heart expressed in loving service to the World. That is why in 1980 Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical to Father John Dinan who had been serving as a member of congress for around 10 years, and other members of the priesthood, that they were to resign their positions of temporal authority so that they would be unhindered in their services to the KOG.

    • William Smith says:


      You are right that Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. Pilate asked him, “So are you a King?” and he replied, “My kingdom is not of this world elso my disciples would fight.” Jesus’ kingdom does not originate in this world, does have the same interests or functions of such, does not use the same methods or weapons. His kingdom is spiritual in nature, has spiritual ends, and uses spiritual instruments. His kingdom comes to concrete form in the church.

      But Jesus did not say that his disciples have no interest or role in this kingdoms of this world. When the Jews who did envision the kingdom as political and national asked if taxes should be paid to Caesar. Jesus asked for a piece of Roman currency and asked, “Whose image is on this?” When they answered, “Caesar’s” Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars’ and to God the things that are God’s.” His disciples are involved with and have responsibilities in the kingdoms of this world. In a system such as ours they also have the rights of all other citizens (as Paul a Roman citiizen had and used his rights as a citizen of the Empire).

      There are two kingdoms existing side by side. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man. Mostly there is no conflict. Paul and Peter both told Christians to recognise the goverrnment as ordained by God and to be respected and obeyed (and the Emperor was Nero when they wrote). The narrow exception is that Christians must not obey when the government forbids what God commands or forbids what God requires.

      Christians and other beblievers and non-believers function together in the modern state. Most of diffrences of citizens are are matters of political wisdom and prudence – Democrats, Repubicans, liberals, conservatives etc. But there are issues that are moral. Everyone has moral commitments. Sometimes one can explain how he arrived at his position but often it is sub-verbal, even sub-rational. At any rate secularists, atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc are all welcome on the public arena and free to advocate as they please in political realm. If you are secularists you have beliefs – God is not there or if he is does not matter. I have a theistic belief – God is there and he matters. You are not more objective and unprejudiced than I . You can advocate for abortion up to moment of birth and for homosexual marriage. I can advocate protection for babies en utero and for maintaining the historic and common sense defintion of marriage. It works so long as we don’t feel we have to excclude or kill one another.

      The probblem often arrives when the state or church try to merge. The state as in Nazi Germany can try to have the church merge with it and serve it. For a long time Popes did the same things, trying to have the state serve its purposes.

      Two kingdoms. Some are in the Kingdom of God, some are not. All of us occupy the kingdom of this world.

      • Bill, you are correct when you state that Christians are to respect and obey their government leaders and laws as been ordained by God. You also state correctly: “The problem often arrives when the state or church try to merge.” The reality is that members of the Christian Collectivist Community seek to do exactly that by imposing their narrow, anti-liberty world views on everyone. As a prominent Conservative recently said: “A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. * * * The same should be true of any government that [r]espects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of [Christian Collectivists] is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.”

      • David Frazier, the The notion that your views are based upon “scientific inquiry” and the scientific method are particularly confused.

        Morality is not a subject that science can inquire into. Its methodology is simply not suited to determine what is moral and just.

        So your “values” are not rendered “objective and true” just because you garnish them with the label of science.

        The practice of the scientific method – and I was trained in those methods professionally – is based upon moral and philosophical assumptions. It is not more “objective” or better equipped to discover “truth” about morality and philosophy than any other method – including religious faith and practice – which also depend upon moral and philosophical assumptions.

        Backwater scientists like Isaac Newton, for example – probably the greatest scientist who ever lived – based his entire inquiry upon the moral and philosophical basis of a Creator God who made the universe to behave in a rational manner.

        A Christian man who engages in public discourse and politics based upon his belief in the special value of human life, in the virtue of truth-telling, in the rejection of theft and violence, is not somehow inferior to you just because you claim that your political values are “scientifically determined.”

        You just don’t really seem to know what science actually is – how it works, how it is practiced, what it’s assumptions are, etc. And you certainly are confused if you think that science can teach us morality or political philosophy.

        If you think that, then you have missed out on a lot of history, where “scientific” Marxism and National Socialism and Eugenics have “scientifically determined” that it is best to snuff out large portions of humanity for the “objective good” of society.

    • William Smith says:

      David, I share with you some of the concerns you have about what you insist on perjoratively labelling the CCC. (That’s about as bad as the insistence here of powers that be of calling people like you and me “establishment” or “progressive” but “not true” conservatives.) Where we differ is my insistence that we all have a right to promote what we believe in the political and civic marketplace – to form groups, promote candidates, vote, etc.

      I also, though not to the extent as you, am a libertarian. I agree with WFB that the war or drugs is a failure as was Prohibtion. I think there is too much power given to police to interfere with free movement of citizens – such as the MHP roadblocks to “check” licenses. I am mostly a “I won’t ask, but please don’t tell me” when it comes to uncompelled adult sexual activities. I am for leaving people alone, I came out on one of those “quick tests” 90% libertarian on social issues, 60% on economic.

      I am more libertarian than you about Goldwater and the Civil Rights Act. You believe in government complusion when it comes to doing business. I agree with Barry who told WFB, “I believe I have a right to rent my apartment to anyone I damn well please.” I think racial discrimination is morally wrong, but I also believe that businesses should not be compelled to sell services except with regard to essentials – like groceries and gasoline.

      That brings us around to another of our differnces. On the one hand you are unwilling to have society restrain abortion at any point because you place the absolute freedom of a woman beyond protection of even viable life, even when the child is entering the birth canal at full term. On the other hand you are wiling to have society impose a new definition of marriage and to do it with suddeness that overturns what marriage has been understood to be as far back as we can go in human history. And you are willing to compel your fellow citizens to sell flowers and cakes for homosexual weddings. (Question: since I am an officer the state when I perform a wedding, are you willing to compel me to wed two homosexuals?)

      Now if we go into the public area to debate such matters and a questioner asks you, “From where do you get you beliefs about these things?” perhaps you will say, “From secular human values.” (Perhaps the questioner will forbear asking, “And from where do those secualr human values come?” or “Why are the things you advoctate moral?”) The questioner asks me the same question, and perhaps I will say, “Mainly natural law.” The questioner persists, “But where does natural law come from?” I answer, “From God who wrote natural law into the makeup of a human person and into the order of the universe.”

      Now let’s suppose the same questioner asks us both, “Why is your view superior to the other? Should your opponent (in the debate) have his views suppressed? Should he not be allowed to participate in the process? Not vote? Not advocate his veiws? Not run for office?”

      And here I think is the rub. You want freedom to advocate and see your views translated into law and policy. But you are not so sure about granting me the same freedom. You seem to think you lack prejudice while I possess it. That you are right and I am wrong. Now I think you are wrong, but I don’t believe you should be exluded. You, on the other hand, think maybe I should be excluded.

      The bottom line is that you are a secular humanist – that’s what youi are in the kind of beliefs/commitments that lie at the core of our beings. You can’t be something other unless you undergo a change of beliefs. I am a Christian believer. The same is true fo me. When we participate in the political process and governance of society, we are what we are. Nothing can change that. Nothing should.

      • Bill, my views on the Constitution come from a “textual” reading of the language of the Constitution itself–period! And I certainly don’t think that Christians and other theists should be banned from taking part in the public discourse. My point throughout this week’s discussion has been that it is the clear and unambiguous position of Jesus and the New Testament apostles that Christians are to “seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, love the Lord your God . . . ., and love your neighbor as yourself.”; but that for Christians to be engaged in matters involving the Kingdom of the World, they cannot concurrently be engaged in KOG matters; and to challenge the Christian Collectivist Community to simply recognize that it has forsaken its obligation of fealty to Jesus’ KOG in order that the CCC may serve the Worldly kingdom.

      • Bill, I would add to my 8:28 a.m. post that the Civil Rights Acts are constitutionally valid based upon the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, and the Commerce Clause which empowers the federal government to regulate commerce between the states.

        As for abortion, as I have said before, it is my understanding that nowhere in the U.S. does a fetus hold the status of a “person” for equal protection under the law purposes; and in the most example of fetal rights, a fetus must at the very least be “fully viable” before a wrongful death action can be prosecuted in a civil action against a tortfeasor who causes the “death” of a fetus. As held in Row, the State begins to have an interest sometime after the first 20 weeks when the fetus is viable. Nevertheless, it is still a woman’s fundamental right to choose to have an abortion since there can be nothing more invasive on the way of a “search and seizure” than the State interfering with a woman’s decision to abort her fetus.

        As for same-sex marriage, that is a real constitutional no-brainer. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment mandates that “all persons” shall be afforded equal protection and due process of the law when a fundamental right is involved. Next to the right to procreate, their are very few rights in society more fundamental than the decision of whom one chooses to marry. Therefore, the only time that the State’s effort to deny a person of a fundamental right will be upheld by the courts is when the State can demonstrate that a compelling state interest exists. Therefore, any action or failure to act that occurs as a result of a “state action” could leave the agent subject to being compelled to perform the wedding. Also, since you are a state actor, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, will not protect you from refusing to conduct same-sex marriages.

        As for Natural Law, depending upon your perspective, it could have its roots, “From God who wrote natural law into the makeup of a human person and into the order of the universe.” as you contend, or it could have its roots in the ever-developing human consciousness that has evolved over the millennia–socially and genetically-in order to enhance the survival of our species through the reproduction of those genes which increase our odds of survival. You base your opinion on “faith”, while I base my opinion on the rigors of scientific inquiry. Therefore, in terms of “validity of beliefs”, there can be no validity regarding any beliefs about life and the creation/operation of the universe separate and apart from the scientific method. This is where the Religious Right a/k/a Christian Collectivist Community fails in their approach. To be sure, they have a fundamental 1st Amendment right to be and remain as ignorant as they desire to be in their faith beliefs. However, I object when they seek to impose those beliefs and their narrow theistic views on everyone else. It’s also my contention that a “true” Christian (as defined and described in the New Testament) should seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness by following Jesus’ only two commandments to his disciples–to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might; and to love your neighbor as yourself. This may be the key to serving the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of the World on the other hand is imperfect. Therefore, notwithstanding the best efforts of the CCC to serve the Kingdom of the World by imposing their theistic rules on society, the KOW will always fall short in their endeavors–no matter how hard they may perceive that they can coerce society into filling.

      • So the 14th Amendment trumps the 1st Amendment?

      • David Frazier, the The notion that your views are based upon “scientific inquiry” and the scientific method are particularly wrong.

        Morality is not a subject that science can inquire into. Its methodology is simply not suited to determine what is moral and just.

        So your “values” are not rendered “objective and true” just because you garnish them with the label of science.

        The practice of the scientific method – and I was trained in those methods professionally – is based upon moral and philosophical assumptions. It is not more “objective” or better equipped to discover “truth” about morality and philosophy than any other method – including religious faith and practice – which also depend upon moral and philosophical assumptions.

        Backwater scientists like Isaac Newton, for example – probably the greatest scientist who ever lived – based his entire inquiry upon the moral and philosophical basis of a Creator God who made the universe to behave in a rational manner.

        A Christian man who engages in public discourse and politics based upon his belief in the special value of human life, in the virtue of truth-telling, in the rejection of theft and violence, is not somehow inferior to you just because you claim that your political values are “scientifically determined.”

        You just don’t really seem to know what science actually is – how it works, how it is practiced, what it’s assumptions are, etc. And you certainly are confused if you think that science can teach us morality or political philosophy.

        If you think that, then you have missed out on a lot of history, where “scientific” Marxism and National Socialism and Eugenics have “scientifically determined” that it is best to snuff out large portions of humanity for the “objective good” of society.

      • Now I think we know all we need to know about how ‘conservative’ David Frazier really is:

        He just now asserted that the 14th Amendment requires a minister to marry homosexual couples against his religious convictions because, in conducting the marriage, the minister is a “state actor.”

        Yet he denounces Christians as “Collectivists” because, he claims, we want to use the power of the state to impose our Christian values on society!

      • William Smith says:


        It’s obvious you have some background in and knowledge of Christianity. But I’d don’t think you’ve got it right about Jesus on a couple of counts.

        First, you seem to make of him a moral treacher who gave a couple of commandments to be followed. Jesus does not present himself as another moral teacher. His self-understanding of himself was as a teacher (though not really another moral one – he is contrasted with Moses – Law came by Moses, grace and truth by Jesus Christ), the Messiah, Lord, Savior, King, Savior, Son of God, etc. Moreover, he gave more moral imperatives than two commandments. And the two you cite are the the principles of all Bibical moral imperatives – Love God supremely, love your neighbor as yourself. But for Jesus these are not just rules. They are responses to God as Creator and Redeemer.

        Second. you seem to think that when Jesus says, “Seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness” and gave the two great commandments he was telling his disciples they could not seek the kingdom first or rightly love God and neighbor if they were involved in the kingdoms of this world. I wonder if you noted above the things I wrote about “my kingdom not of this world” and “render unto Caesar…” inasmuch as I address these things there. Further, what you say would not just limit the Christian from the political arena – else he is not seeking the kingdom – but from work, marriage, family, education, pretty much anything that belongs to the present world order. Re the kingdom Jesus is teaching priorty – seek first the kingdom and all these things will be added – not exclusivity. Re “love God and neighbor”: he is showing the principles on which all Bibilcal morality is based. He is a saying all other moral commandments are expostions of these two.

        Now I wonder if you really think that you are objective. Your comments seem to me a based on faith-assumption that is anything but self-evident or demonstrable – that there is no God. Surely y9ou have have that assumption. All people have some kind of prior assumptions or presuppositions by which they look at everything else. You seem to assume that any rational and intelligent person would agree with you about God, abortion, homosexual practice, morality etc. That’s not the case. Most people throughout history have not agreed with you – not just most people but most intelligent and rational people.

        RE your torturous reasoning about abortion – that no document or decision has found an unborn to be a person – and your assertion that no one has any right to interfere with a woman’s right to abort her baby at any point for any reason, I say you fly in the face of common sense. Does anyone really think the baby about be expelled from the uterus is something different from the one just expelled. Perhaps for you it really does not matter, as you seem to say that a baby must be capable of independent sustaining of his own life and ablity to direct his own life to be a person. That would put the age at which a child may be killed quite high. That makes infanticide just a very late abortion. All this just flies in the face of human instinct and sense. It takes a great deal of effort to make oneself say of a 7 mos old fetus, “Kill it,”

        I am not at all clear on how you get to homosexual marriage as a right based on a textual reading of the Constitution. It obviously has not been lying there in the text for 250 years. No textualist of even 25 years ago would have thought it. And again, it seems to me that you have to assume redefined marriage to make your view of marriage work. The simple historical common sense fact is that marriage has always been about a civic relationship involving one at a time man and woman relationship that has by nature (as a result of sexual intercourse) the bearing of children.

        RE your definition of natural law, it is no law at all. It is nothing but opinion and arbitrary at that.

        Fine to argue. Fine to think I am wrong. Fine to seek to advance your postions. But it is not fine to think yourself objective, unprejudiced, and supported by science. Nor it is fine to seek to exclude any person even the most stupid religious one from the rights you have as a citizen. That is what freedom is in this regard – free to be stupid and ignorant and still to run for office, vote, and exercise the rights of citizenship. In fact what the Constitution does is extend to you the protection from a religious ttest to be applied in order to participate.

  11. Hey John at 2:08, you misunderstand my points. Bill asked, “Question: since I am an officer [of] the state when I perform a wedding, are you willing to compel me to wed two homosexuals?” In responding to his question, I assumed that he was referring to himself in the role of a government agent or employee in order to be “an officer of the State”, like a court clerk or a judge. Please do not infer that I meant that a sectarian minister is in any way an agent of the State for 14th Amendment purposes. A minister’s involvement is incidental in that respect. To be sure, the 1st Amendment permits disparate treatment due to religious beliefs on any activity that is not a direct government function or is something that does not have a substantial effect on the stream of commerce.

    “Faith” is defined as the belief in an idea or proposition without the benefit of quantifiable and verifiable evidence to support the idea. Example: “Jesus loves me this I know, cause the Bible tells me so.” “Science” addresses those ideas, theories, and propositions which are capable of being quantified and verified by testing and retesting. To be sure, science is not capable to answer the questions relating to “WHY”. Rather, it is concerned in determining the answers to “HOW”, “WHEN”, and WHERE”. It is true that Newton, DaVinci, and other scientists of their age were theists. However, that was well before the advent of the Enlightenment period when western msn finally had the courage to question the teachings and authority of the Christian Collectivist Community. From that point on, science has been unhindered (almost) from the Christian Collectivists’ taboos and superstitions that plagued our species’s development for millennia.

    • OK, thanks for that clarification.

      I reject your “substantial effect on commerce” distinction. If I don’t want to sell cakes to protestants or atheists or communists or females or Asians, that’s my right. Laws that apply physical force and violence to make me carry out what is supposed to be a free and voluntary transaction are actually laws that enslave me. They are laws of a “Collective Community” – a tyrannical community, in reality – whether it call itself “Christian” or “secular humanist.”

      And of course, science cannot tell you whether somebody loves you or not either. But I can know that Jesus loves me, just like I can know that my mother loves me, etc.

      So if you believe that somebody loves you, it’s certainly not a scientific truth.

      BTW: I certainly do not agree with your definition of faith. What you have defined is “blind faith.” Your definition of faith is not what I believe. In our church tradition, faith is a firm belief based upon reasonable evidence. It is never irrational.

      Many things in life we certainly know aren’t provable with “quantifiable evidence” – at least, we can’t perform the trick ourselves.

      Science has never been, as you say, unhindered from religious “taboos” – for example, science still greatly benefits from the idea that there is a God who will judge liars. That is a large part of the motive for many scientists to be honest in their research and publication.

      The “superstitions” that you sneer at include, do they not, the divine sanction against murder, theft, falsehood, etc.? I see those “superstitions” as great benefits to society. Indeed, parts of society have fallen to the ground when they have been “freed” from those “taboos.”

      Don’t you agree that it is a sad thing that, for example, Nazi Germany wasn’t more held in the grip of the “superstitious taboo” against taking innocent life?

      Also: I observe, sadly, that you have freed yourself from the “superstitious taboo” against taking innocent lives of the unborn human beings in the womb.

      You see that as a positive good. I know it to be a tragic loss of respect for human life. Nothing good can come from murder on a mass scale like that.

      • John, you state: “In our church tradition, faith is a firm belief based upon reasonable evidence.” Can you give me one example of the “reasonable evidence” to which you refer that is subject to verification through testing? To be sure, faith in a higher power is certainly not unnatural, even though many times, it is irrational. Humans have been seeking answers to the “WHY” question for thousands of years by calling out to the gods. Some anthropological evolutionists even speculate that the human compulsion to understand the universe through the assistance of a higher power is hardwired into our DNA in order to somehow increase the chances of the survival of our genes. The sanctions against murder, theft, etc. have developed over the years based upon the development of culture, not necessarily religion. This development among humans evolved as we became more engaged in tribal groups where certain anti-social acts were considered contrary to the best interest of the groups. Natural law has nothing to do with the divine, and everything to do with the development of a consciousness of those acts and omissions which protect and reinforce the tribe. This can be affected by culture. The Nazis in Germany did engage in the perpetuation of the myth in the superiority of the Aryan-Teutonic race by coaxing many of the Christian leaders in Germany to go along. Because of their acquiescence on this issue and their willingness to turn a blind eye to the early Nuremberg laws, the Nazis were able to implement the Final Solution designed in an effort to eliminate the Jews. Hitler killed persons. A fetus is not a person–period!

  12. Hey Bill st 3:15 p.m., you are correct that the Founding Fathers did not envision protecting same-sex marriages. But then, they had not envisioned that the State would ever engage in a role to oversee the institution of marriage either. As a committed Federalist who believed in a textual reading of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton said: “Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.” Never were truer words ever written! The fact that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to protect the former slaves, has not caused the courts from forsaking their sacred duty to interpret the document based on its textual meaning over the years which has nothing to do with slavery, and everything to do with protecting the fundamental right of all persons to equal protection under the law and to due process of the law–unless the State can clearly and convincingly demonstrate a compelling state interest that a certain class of persons should be denied this protection.

    You mistake my religious skepticism to be an attack against believers per se. Nothing could be further from the truth! My point is that I don’t believe that it’s healthy in a secular democratic republic for sectarian beliefs to spill over into the political arena. As I have said before, religious beliefs affect culture, and culture affects the development of the law. But when sectarian ideas, are in conflict with culture, and/or with fundamental rights and constitutional principles the sacred must accede to the temporal. Also, I just want members of the Christian Collectivist Community to be honest with themselves and others and simply acknowledge that by engaging in the worldly political arena, that they are abandoning their Kingdom mission to love/seve the Lord with all of their hearts, minds, and souls–that they are placing the Kingdom of the World ahead of their god.

    • William Smith says:


      “You mistake my religious skepticism to be an attack against believers per se. Nothing could be further from the truth! ”

      I don’t see where I said you were attacking believers per se. What I do say, is that they may be religious so long as they keep it internal. You do not allow that they be believers in the town hall, or voting booth, or public debate. Again, I don’t agree with many of my fellow believers on political issues, but I do believe you believe whatever the heck you want and shoulld have freedom to adocate and vote your position that same as do you or any other nonbeliever.

      “Also, I just want members of the Christian Collectivist Community to be honest with themselves and others and simply acknowledge that by engaging in the worldly political arena, that they are abandoning their Kingdom mission to love/seve the Lord with all of their hearts, minds, and souls–that they are placing the Kingdom of the World ahead of their god.” I have denied your understanding twice now and have discussed it. A believing person may be involved in all legitmate aspects of this present world – marriage, family, work, politics, etc. A Christian is simutataneously a citizen of this world and of the kingdom of God. Christians are not Greek philsophers or Gnostics who attribute evil to the material and good to the purely spiritual. Christians don’t accept the kind of rigid dualiism. Again, I will say it: you reflect a misunderstanding of the teaching of Jesus and of Christian theology when you say Christians cannot serve the kingdom and be involved in the governance of this world.

      (BTW, as I recall with Fr. Dornan, what the Pope did was to require him as a priest to devote himself to his priestly vocation and not serve as a priest-congressman. The Pope did not tell Catholic citizens not to participate in the process or to hold office. Nor did he tell Fr Dornan not to participate in the political proces and not to vote. That would be contrary to Catholic doctrine and historcal practice. As a Protestant I think it would be wrong for me to try to hold the office of a minister and to hold politcial office. More than that, I do not think I as a clergyman per se should endorse parties, or candidates, or legistlation. Nor would I allow a Voters Guide to be handed out or a voter registration drive or a gathering of signatures for a petition to be held in or at my church. I must not put any stumblingblock before unbelievers or risk the unity of believers by telling them that God is on this side or the other, or that God’s will about how to vote is thus and so. However, any of my parish may do in their lives, homes, businesses whatever they darn well please. And so long as I make it absolutely clear I am not actiing in my clerical calling I too may do all the same, which is what I do here in commenting.)

      Your guesses about evolutionary anthrolopgy are highly speculative and, if believed by anyoe, call for more faith than any Christian believer telling you the origin and nature of man and the source of morality.

      Your belief that there is not a God precedes your rational cognitiion but your rational reflection may reinforce and deepen that belief. I acknowledge the same about my belief in God, It precedes rational cognition but my reflection, reasoning. consideration of secondary evidences, etc. reinforce and deepen my belief. At the end of the day I believe in God because it makes sense to do so – I believe in God because I believe in God. I don’t believe in God just to have some understanding of myself and the world, but such belief does provide the framwork in which I do interpret and understand these things. What I think maybe you don’t see is that you don’t believe in God because you (with a minority of humans in history) do not find it makes sense to you to do so. Perhpas there was a time when it did but you came not to believe it. Or perhaps you never believed it. Bu you don’t believe in God because you don’t believe in God, not because you or anyone else has demonstrated that he does not, exist. There is no proof for you belief system and there is not a rational argument that compels a rational person so to believe. And this not belief is the way you go about interpreting and explaining human experience and the world in which it takes place.

    • We do not believe only those things that we can test and repeat. That is the scientific method, but most of reality, and pretty much ALL of history and ethics and morals, are not subject to scientific testability. As a person who actually, professionally, engaged in such scientific experimentation, your claims that your ethics and morality are somehow “scientific” or “testable” or “provable” are, in fact, quite laughable.

      If you go outside and observe your cat catch a blue-jay in mid-air, you believe that the event took place based upon reasonable evidence and rational considerations. But you cannot test it, because you cannot repeat it. Even if you could scientifically demonstrate that birds are caught by cats, that won’t prove that the event you saw took place.

      Your “belief” about how morals against murder and theft arose are just a historical – not a scientific – claim on your part. And a claim, I might add, for which there is ZERO evidence in support. It is a “just so” story that you’d like to believe.

      In the end, your public morality is nothing more than a consensus – and a selective one at that! It cannot generate truth or morals, unless you are going to make those out to be nothing more than “what people do and think.” In which case, your morals and ethics are nothing more than “what people do.”

      And those sorts of “morals and ethics” are exactly why the world had slavery for millennia, why the Nazis committed genocide, why the communists murdered millions and continued a system of chattel enslavement to the state, etc., etc.

      So, no, I won’t for a moment agree with your conclusory statement that “sectarian” views must submit to “culture” and “fundamental rights” when “culture” and “fundamental rights” are, within your system, wholly “sectarian” – it’s just that in your case, it’s YOUR SECT deciding those values, rather than somebody elses.

      • John at 9:40 a.m., there is no way any of us can limit what we think or believe to those ideas that are subject to being proven by testing alone. The human consciousness is capable of much, much more. The point of my posts on this matter has only been intended to explain that ever since the earliest days, humans have attempted to understand our environment and the universe. We originally did this by “discovering” the gods and by “creating” religions so that we could please the gods by worshipping them so that we could increase our chances of survival. From the Enlightenment period onward, humans have come to realize that the existential issues that we once depended upon the gods for guidance and control are instead controlled by the laws of science. For instance, science has settled the issue of approximately when and how the universe was created. Many in the Christian Collectivist Community, however, reject the scientific method, and insist on maintaining that god created the universe pursuant to the Genesis 1 & 2 accounts, even though many theologians acknowledge that the two accounts contradict each other. The same holds true for evolution. On the other hand, as I have said before, science can never answered the question of “WHY”. That is a metaphysical question that eludes the realm of science and technology. Therefore, I am unclear as to how I may have lead you to think that I have been advocating that “ethics and morality are somehow “scientific” or “testable” or “provable””. If I have projected that perception, then you are correct in scolding me for doing so.

        On the the other hand, the U.S. Constitution was purposely drafted in 1787 to be a secular document, and for the specific purpose of creating a secular democratic republic. Although some of the men who attended the Constitutional Convention were in their own way “religious”, these were also men of the Enlightenment period who took their inspiration for creating a republican form of government from the likes of Edmund Burke, not Thomas Cromwell. They wanted America to be a nation of “virtuous” people—-committed to: honesty, hard work, their communities, and yes, even their religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs did not impose upon others.

        One can take notice that religion has always been about control over the ideas of the masses and coercion of their conduct by the leaders in society. One can also take notice that two of the pillars of the modern Christian Collectivist Community is their objections to LGBT rights, and abortion health care service rights for women. By their own acknowledged comments, their objections on both issues are based upon religious foundations. They certainly have every right to believe as they wish so long as their beliefs do not infringe on the fundamental civil rights of others. Therefore, their priests and preachers have every right to screech against the individual’s fundamental rights to abortion and same-sex marriage all they wish, just like Boston Red Sox fans have every right to continue tohate the New York Yankees. As a Classical Conservative, however, what I continue to object to is the CCC’s continuous efforts to impose their own narrow theistic views on everyone else in society. This attitude of the CCC—-that they should be allowed to use the power of the State to control the actions of others by forbidding persons the opportunity to exercise certain fundamental rights when there is no compelling state interest to the contrary—-is the basis of my objection. I just want everyone to get along by applying the Constitution as it was intended—-with a textual reading and a common sense approach to address the challenges of the times. That was also the intent of Madison and Hamilton.

      • William Smith says:

        David Writes: “On the the other hand, the U.S. Constitution was purposely drafted in 1787 to be a secular document, and for the specific purpose of creating a secular democratic republic. Although some of the men who attended the Constitutional Convention were in their own way “religious”, these were also men of the Enlightenment period who took their inspiration for creating a republican form of government from the likes of Edmund Burke, not Thomas Cromwell. They wanted America to be a nation of “virtuous” people—-committed to: honesty, hard work, their communities, and yes, even their religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs did not impose upon others.”

        David, you keep asserting the above, but, the historical context of the time of the writing of the Constitution and of practice for most of US history that followed flies in the face of your assertion. If you mean they meant to found a non-sectarian Republic in the sense of not enshrining Christanity as the Constitutionally sanctioned religion and not allowing for the national esbtalbishment of any denomination of Christians, then OK. But very few would have thought to disconnect religion from virtue, and even those who did would have not excluded from the arena of political thought, advocacy, or voting those who believe relgion in necessary to civic virtue.

        You are wrong about Burke. He supported the Church of England but showed concern for the rights of Roman Catholics. He not only rejected but criticized both atheism and deism. He thought religion was the foundation of the civil society. He believed in an established religion not only for its benefits to the individual but was good for social progress and the political order. Re Cromwell, nobody who knows much about him would want a Lord Protector nor one of his sort. England got their king back as soon as he was out of the way. The authors of the Constitution and those who lived it out were not thorough going Burkeans, else they would have established a religion, but you are right that they were influenced by his thought and certainly saw religion, and specifically Christianity, as foundational to civil virtue and to the ability to live under Constitutional government.

        We have moved pretty quickly a society from pro-Christian to post-Christian to anti-Christian. We are going to test, if this turns out to be permanent, whether there can be honesty, thrift, industriousness and other virtues can persist and if community unity can endure such a state. History suggests it unlikely. And I am not optimistic.

        I think that McDaniel and his compatriots are not helping but hurting the cause of both conservatism and Christian faith by their misunderstanding of what conservatism is and the role that Christianity plays in most conservative thought. Their history is hagiographic, simplistic, and inaccurate. That’s one reason I write here. But your view of the founding of the Republic and the role of religion in it partake of those same unfortunate characteristics. And your mocking of Chris and his faith and of religion in general and Christianity in particular only reinforces the certainty of him and his followers that they are on God’s side and are attacked because they are. He does see himself to some extent as a savior of conservatism in MS and of the state and national Republican Party. He sees himself as the true Conservaitve who must stand up and then lead other true conservatives. He does feel he is persecuted for righteousness sake. On these things we agree, but again you reinforce and give some reason for him so to see himself. You will find very few Mississippians or Mississippi Republicans who want your atheistic version of conservatism.

        I think you are also simplistic about science and the origins of the universe. (And BTW Gen 1 and 2 are not contradictory but complimentary narratives – one tellling about God and creation from a geocentric perspectived and one from an anthropocentric perspective.) The problem is if you keep pushing back in time you always have the persistent questions, “And where did that come from? How did that come to exist?” No matter how much you compress matter and energy the question does not go away. And man cannot escape but by the more torturous denial the haunting question, “Why? To what purpose?” And if there is no why then wny bother? You can suppress the biological imperative to believe it, just as much as the existential and metaphysical.

        You also with the constant references to the CCC and to abortion and homosexuality seem to me to operate as every bit as much the ideologue as those you mock.

      • I certainly don’t accept your assertion about how society came to “discover” gods. You have, actually, zero evidence for your assertion in that regard. It’s just a part of a “made up” “history.”

        I don’t agree that “science” has established how old the universe is or how it came about. Sure, scientists have developed a “story” about how it might have all taken place, but like all such stories that attempt to “explain” history that nobody was there to record – at least, nobody that you trust! – there is no way to verify the truth or falsity of the scenario. Science’s “story” about the creation of the world is full of holes.

        Those of us trained in the “hard sciences” hold in ill-regard those “sciences” that claim to read the past, and that operate in an arena in which there is no way to experiment on the system or manipulate the system’s inputs.

        It in no way “denies the scientific method” to believe that God created the universe. The scientific method is completely compatible with the belief that God created the world.

        The scientific method does not deny the supernatural. It merely declines to examine it, recognizing that, if it exists, it is outside the methods of science.

        You state that “religion has always been about control over the ideas of the masses and coercion of their conduct by the leaders in society.”

        Sounds more like a description of the state to me! Indeed, the dogma that you promulgate regarding your desire to see the state force me to provide services to persons against my will is every bit as oppressive, and sectarian, as anything you accuse the “CCC” of promoting!

        You keep referring to “fundamental rights” to abortion and same-sex marriage, but your assertions that these exist are just as arbitrary as you claim the CCC’s opposing positions! You have no source for your claims except that lots of folks agree with you.

        You cannot find such “rights” in the Constitution without doing it great injury.

        I actually have no problem with the State getting out of the marriage business. I don’t believe the State ever should have gotten into the marriage business to begin with.

        If people want to claim they are “married” to their same-sex partner, or their brother, or their albatross, my solution is, that I don’t have to recognize any such marriage, and for the most part, society should just shake their collective heads at the foolishness of it.

        We ought to treat marriage as a “contract” with terms, severability clauses, default remedies, etc. But the contract should be between the parties, and nobody else should be compelled by any of the terms of the contract who is not a party to it in the first place.

        But see, that won’t satisfy you: you seek to use violence to force me to agree that they are married, and to take away my right to discriminate in my business conduct if I see fit.

        Sounds like you’re a member of your “CCC” too, with just a little different agenda.

  13. In reference to the discussion between Bill Smith and MCD regarding the I Thessalonians, I too received a divine revelation last year during the heat of the Senate campaign. Now might be a good time to share my vision.

    Just this week Frank Corder was referring to Chris as our “Saviour”. I now know this to be true because God the Father, the Great Jehovah–I Am, revealed the following revelation to me in a dream. Chris is the “suffering messiah” as was foretold by Isaiah. God knows how much he has suffered much evil since June 24. It has been revealed to me that the 7 seals and the 7 churches that John of Patmos foretold are really symbols for specific letters of the modern English alphabet. The Holy Spirit revealed to me that “Cochran” and “Barbour” have exactly 7 letters to each name! How amazing is that!?! Therefore, Satan a/k/a Barbour and his anti-Christ a/k/a Cochran, are conspiring together during this pre-millennium period in time to deny the Anointed One from achieving his true destiny!

    Thus, the time for Chris to reveal his true self and to achieve his true destiny is now. Although he is a reluctant messiah, his followers must learn to follow him and work with his “True” disciples in order that he can secure his proper place in history and make his heavenly ascension. First, the clouds upon which Chris makes his ascent, need to be floating nearby, ready to rise up when Gabriel gives the signal with his trumpet (You know how much Chris hates to be kept waiting.) announcing his ascent. Also, the clouds need to be extra cumulus and luxurious–no feather clouds please! The air turbulence on the way up can be murder on hemorrhoids if the texture and padding are not soft enough.

    Second, Chris will want the Mormon Tabernacle choir to announce his glorious ascent in praising melody– something befitting his exalted person. Even though he’s a reluctant savior, that still doesn’t mean that he doesn’t want a great send-off as a sign of devotion, respect, and appreciation by all of the McGOPers who have stood by him throughout his earthly suffering.

    After Chris is gone, let there be no tears. Rather, the Anoited One wants his faithful followers to throw a huge party with Spuds McKenzie and Snoop Dog as the hosts, and Beonce’ as the main musical and dance entertainment. This should be a totally joyous occasion, where everyone is excited–so much so, that many of those present will begin speaking in the tongues of McGOPERs from Jones County so that no one can understand what they are saying.

    Perhaps, before he departs, he will even have enough time to turn water into 21 year old single malt scotch whiskey (wine is so “Old Testament”) to help everyone have a great time after he departs. That way, when they drink it, they can even imagine that it transforms into Chris’ very own blood. Even though he doesn’t normally care very much for the whole “ritual thing”, the new transubstantiation idea does have a supernatural quality to it.

    Once Chris is gone, and things start to settle down, watch out for the Democrats, Establishment Republicans, and RINOs! They have always resented Chris. They still resent all of his threats and promises to return the State back to a time of good old fashioned Traditional Mississippi Values. Chris prays that one day their hard hearts will change, and they will repent, realizing how happy they actually were when Jim Crow was here to pave the way of Chris’ birth.

    And one day soon, when his message has been shared with all of the world, Gabriel will sound his trumpet, and Chris will make his triumphant return–meeting all of the faithful McGOPERs somewhere in the sky overlooking Jones County–where he will establish his kingdom and he will reign forever and ever. He will judge the quick and the dead conservatives where he will fellowship forever with the True Conservatives, but he shall cast into the Lake of Fire all Establishment Republicans and RINOs for all eternity.

    • I’m getting sick and tired of all this reference to Chris as the Savior, and Anointed One, etc. What is your problem? He’s not the Messiah and doesn’t have a Messiah complex. Where does all this pure BS come from!

      • Jane Green says:

        Read what his “fans” on his FB page say to him and about him, Yep, they pretty much call him the savior and the anointed one. and it is very obvious that he enjoys the adoration because he baits them constantly to feed his ego. So why on earth are you so shocked by those titles? And if you care about Chris as much as you appear to, tell him he badly needs to clean up the comments on his FB page pertaining to the tragic policemen shooting in Hattiesburg. The “f” words are more than plentiful and the “n” word. If he wants to convince everyone that he is not a racist then he needs to delete the posters that use the “n” word faster than he does people that like Cochran ( and that is pretty fast). Hard to blame Haley for people calling you racist when the “n” word is on your page.

      • I know him personally and have since our mommies were still wiping our backsides! I think I know who the man is and you are all wrong about him!

      • So he’s completely to blame for what anyone says on FB or anywhere else? Go look at Thad’s page or anyone else! It seems y’all hold Chris to a much much much higher standard than anyone else and that’s sad and pathetic!

      • Ryan, don’t be mad. The purpose of maintaining a political blog is to allow people with different perspectives to communicate and share ideas with one another. Sometimes that even involves the theater of the absurd. The “messiah” references have actually been suggested by many other people over the year. I’m just not that clever on my own. On the other hand, so long as Chris continues to hold himself out as the answer to MS conservatism, he will continue to be the object of ridicule. Certainly you realize this.

      • Jane Green says:

        I have read Thad’s page now and during the campaign. You know what? He left every single post on his page from McDaniel supporters with the exception of the ones that used profanity. And really, Chris can’t control what people post on his page?? Really?? Go over there and defend Cochran in any way and watch just how fast he controls what people say on his FB page as he will delete you so fast your head will spin, all while leaving up the “die already” comments about Cochran, many “f” bombs and “n” words. You cannot defend that sir, no matter how long you have known Chris.

    • William Smith says:

      Must be a slow day at the office, David.

      • Perhaps I’m just in a particularly frisky and creative mood.

      • Bill, I don’t chase ambulances. Rather, they chase me. Also, considering the nature of the subject matter that is being communicated on this subject line, you, John, and Ryan have been keeping my juices flowing. I appreciate the fact that we have a political blog here in MS that encourages the free flow of ideas, and that it’s sponsor, Ryan Walters, has dedicated himself to keeping it that way, even when some of the postings offend his personal feelings as a MCGOPER.

      • William Smith says:

        Was just funnin’ with you, David, about the ambulance chasing stfuff. My younger brother is a lawyer. My eldest son is a lawyer. When I took vocational testing in college they told me to be a lawyer.

  14. Bill at 3:11 p.m., I think that we are basically in agreement until the last paragraph.

  15. John at 5:56 p.m., you are missing my points. First, I believe that Anthropology, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmology, and Physics are all part of the scientific method. Based upon these science disciplines, I have reached my conclusions about humans having created their gods; and that the age of the universe is best calculated at this time to be 13.7 billion years old. Of course, as science continues to develop in this area, scientists may amend their opinions regarding the age of the universe.

    Second, you are correct that science odds not equipped to disprove the existence of God. For that matter, I am not aware of reading where any scientists have even attempted to do so–not even raving atheists like Richard Dawkins. As an “Anti-Theist”, I believe that there is no higher power that regulates the affairs of men. On the other hand, as a “Possibilian”, I realize that anything is possible, so long as it is consistent with the laws of physics. However, science is not interested in the issue of a creator or gods because the very notion of theism is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

    Third, ever since the beginning of the formation of the city as a political unit, we know from history and anthropology that the king was also the high priest to the gods of the local religion. In this respect, until the Protestant Reformation took hold, Christianity and the State always co-existed together–and even then, it was not until the formation of the U.S.A. under our secular based constitution with the prohibition against the establishment of religion that a complete break was made.

    Fourth, given your libertarian and limited government philosophy, I am quite surprised that you don’t support the fundamental right of women to reasonable access to abortion health care services, along with same-sex marriages being validated by the equal protection under the law by the states. These are really “no-brainers” under the 4th & 14th Amendments. Instead, you seem to side with Bill and other members of the Christian Collectivist Community who want to place government in the role of Lord Protector. In America entitlement to certain government benefits, descent and distribution rights, and property ownership rights are all affected by a determination of legal marriage status. Actually, it is the civil consequences of matrimony that provide the only legitimate reason for the State to be involved in the marriage business at all.

    So, like I have been advocating all along, I just want everyone to live and let live, without the State imposing the religious beliefs of people on others, especially when those beliefs are in conflict with established constitutional principles.

  16. Bill at 8:35 a.m., I once attended a study on the Tribulation period about 20 years ago. The speaker went into all of the scriptural references and variations about “premillenialist”, “post-millenialist”, and “amillenialist” theories. At the end of the study, someone asked the speaker which one of the theories he subscribed. He just grinned and said, “I’m a “pan-millenialist”–it’s all going to “pan out” in the end.” Therefore, I respectfully suggest that all of my Christian friends avoid getting caught up in worrying about Tribulation matters over which they have no control, and instead live their lives blameless before god as subjects of the Kingdom of God by following Jesus’ two commandments to his followers–love the lord your god with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might; and to love your neighbor as yourself. Everything else will fall into place. But as I have also said before, in the meantime please stand aside and allow those of us who do not believe that there is a KOG separate from the secular power of the human spirit–now or in the future–to control the affairs of governance.

    For more information on what we have been discussing, and much, much, more please check out my blog:
    Classical Conservative Perspectives


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: