Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Society|Mon, Nov. 02 2009 08:01 AM EDT

Wash. State to Bar Religious Displays Inside Capitol Buildings

By Lawrence Jones|Christian Post Reporter

Religious and nongovernmental displays will not be allowed inside Capitol buildings in Washington state starting next month, according to new rules formally signed Friday.

The move by the Washington Department of General Administration was made in light of last year’s Christmas season fiasco, during which various groups engaged one another in a battle over displays – religious and anti-religious.

Notably, however, the new rules do allow for a state-sponsored “holiday tree” to be displayed inside the Capitol Rotunda and also do not bar religious displays from being set up outside the buildings of the Capitol campus.

As a result, a number of groups say they believe the battle over religious displays will simply move outside and that the approval of a “holiday tree” will not be impervious to protest from both sides of the divide – anti-religion activists who view even “holiday trees” as a promotion of faith and religious Americans who have generally been opposed to calling Christmas trees “holiday trees.”

Last year, a crowd of 500 protesters rallied outside the Washington Capitol to protest a sign that Gov. Chris Gregoire had permitted an atheist group to include as part of a Christmas-themed display inside the rotunda.

Freedom from Religion Foundation, the group that installed the sign, said the display was to promote the Winter's Solstice. It stated: “At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Regarding the new rules, Freedom From Religion Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor told the local Olympian newspaper that she is “very pleased” but thinks that the state is making a mistake by allowing religious displays outdoors.

“I don’t think Nativity scenes belong on the outside of capitols either,” Gaylor said.

Gaylor and her group plan to wage war with any group that requests to put up religious displays outside the capitol, saying that they “will match whatever they do.”

“I don’t think the public will be any happier about it on the outside than they would be on the inside,” she added.

"I encourage the state to avoid the entire debacle."

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    :D To be honest Vik I'm not even sure what the issue was! I don't want to sideswipe anybody with my ignorance so I think I'm better off just calling for Kum Ba Ya all around.

    By the way I wound up giving you thumbs up on the other thread. I had to read it a couple of times but eventually realized I agree .... :D

    Everybody have a great evening.

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi Hman
    BTW do you think Hohnson is any more likely to get an admission of error from al than you and Aveteran (or myself) were?

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hohnson wrote: "Why do you want to make fundamentalist people not believe in God? If [they] stop believing in God and believe they have no purpose they will go on a rampage. The rich will get it first but the LGB or whatever you call them, will be second. The reason they don't like them has nothing to do with God or the Bible despite what they claim. It is a cultural aversion. Jesus and the Bible are the only two things keeping them from capturing you and eating your liver."

    Yikes! At the worst times I tend to suspect you may be right about this, although I don't think it's "the poor" but rather "the willfully ignorant."

    Also PS Hohnson I disagree with you even less than with Alockslee; I wish the two of you could make peace ...

  • Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Honhnson,
    How dare you say such belittling and terrible things about our great and wise judicial prophet. Little human it is not your place to point out an error (whoops I mean supposed error) on the part of our enlightened one. Have you not tasted of the lemons, have you not been graced by the words of the self annointed. Withdraw your slur sir before you are banished from his prescence and his company.

  • Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:22 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hello Alockslee,

    I got the fake Dutch moon rock story from a local newspaper where I live, not from Fox or the BBC.

  • Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Alocksee,

    You obviously are not very bright as proven by your horrendous writing abilities, but I now believe you are completely off your rocker. Why do you want to make fundamentalist people not believe in God? If poor people stop believing in God and believe they have no purpose they will go on a rampage. The rich will get it first but the LGB or whatever you call them, will be second. The reason they don't like them has nothing to do with God or the Bible despite what they claim. It is a cultural aversion. Jesus and the Bible are the only two things keeping them from capturing you and eating your liver.

  • Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:08 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "In Response: Whats the matter now, did little John Stewart expose your hero Beck for making up a story again. Stewart proved that Beck used footage from a completely different day and event and lied about it to help the measly few thousand that showed for Bachman and the rest of fascists in Congress."

    It was actually that Hannity person that did this. His program used footage from some Glen Beck event in the summer where there were a lot of people and made it look like it was happening now in the fall at some lame tea bagger party. You need to be more accurate Alocksee. Glen Beck is certainly evil despite your inaccuracy.

  • Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    gem, by the way you're no longer allowed to see this video if you go to huffington due to some use violation!

  • Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    gem, didn't say that got their story wrong, but that does not necessarily make them a reliable news source one can count on since like most news services they have an agenda of their own and tend to put a bent on their news stories that leans in the direction of their agenda.

  • Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:51 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "al, Jon Stewart and Huffington Post, now those are two reliable news sources, NOT!!!"

    In this case they are totally reliable. Following the link reveals a video. Watching the video one sees that the FOX news footage starts with the recent rally, under clear skies and with trees which are turning color. Then "Presto" and the skies are cloudy and the trees have magically turned green. Then footage of the 9/12 rally is shown side by side and the falsification is blatantly obvious.

    Claiming that Jon Stewart and Huffington Post got this story wrong is just plain ignorant. Stewart's video speaks for itself.

    Is it acceptable to lie about videos without even bothering to view them?

  • Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    al, trust me if I flagged your posts I would tell you so save your false accusations for someone else. Plus, I do not choose to play with a stacked deck which you hold in order to assist you in overcoming your poor self-image problem!! As long as you continue to change your contest rules and refuse to abide by your own rules I doubt you'll get many takers which unfortunately will allow you to just continue to stroke your false ego by trying to convince yourself that you won your rigid contests!

  • Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:05 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    al, for one Beck is by no means a hero of mine. Plus, you need to make up your mind with regards to America being a Christian nation and/or founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Because if it is not then you can't logically hold Christians responsible for the supposed atrocities directed by our government. If we are neither a Christian nation or founded on Judeo-Christian principles then Christians are by no means to be held liable for these supposed atrocities anymore than any other common citizen of this nation, the ultimate responsibility rests with our secular government! That is unless of course we are a Christian nation and/or founded on Judeo-Christian principles?

  • Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer »Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:52 pm tigercat, al has a bad problem of saying that America is neither a Christian nation or founded on Judeo-Christian principles. But then he goes on to blame Christians for all the atrocities that our government was responsible for such as slavery, wiping out the Native Americans, and the Vietnam War even though we are not a Christian nation or founded on Judeao-Christian principles
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: Thats right, the christians are the people responsible for the problems, the country didn't have to be founded on their principles for them to come in and commit the acts.

    You have such a difficult time with reality don't you believer. You can't stand it that your ilk is responsible for wars, killing od native Americans, wiping out scores of others throughout the world and keeping equality form LGBT people, If you kind wasn't doing it wouldn't be happening or have happened.

    Remember reality believer not the nonsense fantasy of your beliefs. Start working on the easter challenge since you can't refute the essay about jesus and got so frustrated you flagged my posts over it.

    That all you can do isn't it, childish acts of retaliation when you lose every time. So predictable, so pathetic, such a child you are believer!

    TFR
    TFR

  • Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer »Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:35 pm al, Jon Stewart and Huffington Post, now those are two reliable news sources, NOT!!!
    ---------------------------------------------------
    In Response: Whats the matter now, did little John Stewart expose your hero Beck for making up a story again. Stewart proved that Beck used footage from a completely different day and event and lied about it to help the measly few thousand that showed for Bachman and the rest of fascists in Congress.

    You just can't stand the fact that your side has to cheat to even put up this nonsense, that isn't news its nonsense.

    Just like you when you are asked to prove something you never do, all you do it flag posts out of frustration.

    Hows the easter challenge going: http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone
    Try it you can't do it and follow the rules and all you have to do is use all the points and put them in chronological order.

    You can't even do that. I saw your sites, and the guy claims the writers weren't obligated to tell everything,. It is supposed to be the full account so how is they can leave important things out of the most important thing in your whole ideology, what a joke
    you are. The most important part of your entire religion and the guy you rely upon says it isn't important to relate the whole truth of it.

    Answer: All of the above. The writers were not obliged to mention every person present.
    http://www.peterballard.org/easter_answers.html

    LOL, this is too much to keep from laughing at.
    TFR

  • Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    al, Jon Stewart and Huffington Post, now those are two reliable news sources, NOT!!!

  • Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    tigercat, al has a bad problem of saying that America is neither a Christian nation or founded on Judeo-Christian principles. But then he goes on to blame Christians for all the atrocities that our government was responsible for such as slavery, wiping out the Native Americans, and the Vietnam War even though we are not a Christian nation or founded on Judeao-Christian principles.

  • Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    al, if what you said about FOX News is true, which it is not, the simple solution would be that MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC trained them well!!!

  • Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    gem_of_tki »Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:41 am "You see Fox is full of made up stories, like Beck using pictures from his 9/12 rallies inserted to make the 4,000 people at the Tea Party protest of health care with Bachman seems large"

    See "Jon Stewart Catches Sean Hannity Falsifying Footage..."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/jon-stewart-catches-sean_n_353447.html
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: Great Point! How about Hannity getting busted for editing the Daily Show video. O'Rielly getting busted regularly about his stupid comments and complete lack of knowledge of the facts. Beck has to make stuff up to bolster his line of nonsense, if he didn't make the stuff up he wouldn't have anything to talk about.

    Remember when he was asked about what college he graduated from and he replied something to the effect of "I don't remember" , that was too funny for words.

    Then Fox got powned for inventing a story that Major Garrett admitted he reported incorrectly and retracted, but the idiots on Fox still commented on it just like it was true and then they go into silent mode after having it exposed.

    Fox is the National Enquirer of news sources, make it up as they go. LOL

    TFR

  • Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:41 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "You see Fox is full of made up stories, like Beck using pictures from his 9/12 rallies inserted to make the 4,000 people at the Tea Party protest of health care with Bachman seems large"

    See "Jon Stewart Catches Sean Hannity Falsifying Footage..."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/jon-stewart-catches-sean_n_353447.html

  • Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    In Response: here is a link about your fake moon rock and you didn't say it was from Fox News, I thought it came from a legitimate news source, LOL

    You see Fox is full of made up stories, like Beck using pictures from his 9/12 rallies inserted to make the 4,000 people at the Tea Party protest of health care with Bachman seems larger. With anything from Fox, you have to investigate what they say from legitimate news sources and compare the truth with what Fox reports to make sure they are telling the truth. Most of the time Fox isn't and it doesn't take much to show what the truth is from the "Fox" version.

    So in the future, please state the source of your supporting evidence and if it is from Fox then please verify it before using it as it is more than not manipulated or just made up.

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

    I did find this also from BBC: which reports that the Dutch rock was reported to be fake. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8226075.stm Just so you know I am speaking about FOX in the first part, but not challenging your story on the fake moon rock story from a legimate news source. See how easy that was. You go to legitimate sources for verification and disregard Fox on the rest of their stuff until you can verify it from a real source first. Fox is not a source that can be accepted without first making sure other sources have vetted the information first. Look up Hannity and O'rielly on Youtube and watch the videos proving they make up stories and edit the video/dialog when they report to make it fit "their"agenda/

    TFR

  • Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Tigercat »Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:43 pm
    ----------------------------------------------------
    In Response: Tigercat, you bring up some interesting points and thanks for taking a civil approach in your response, I will do the of course maintain the same in mine.

    First off something from wikipedia is not always the best source, some entries are good and some are bad, the scholarship varies and often people misread the source material and reach conclusions in direct opposition to the source.
    I am reading the Jefferson quote differently than you are in that he seems to be saying he wouldn't give it a second thought but there is a problem with others who would fight him on the issue if he did.
    "I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach [slavery], in any practicable way. the cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle [possession] which would not cost me in a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected: and, gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. but, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other"
    Jefferson is saying that he is worried about HIS self preservation if he abolished slavery is how I am reading it.

    You also bring up some other points like John Brown being a christian, but notice he is one of a small number and the majority of slave owners were christian and in favor of it. So that logic fails due to the numbers and the historical proof of the southerners who used biblical quotes to defend their position.
    I will address the other points in another post.
    TFR

  • Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Greetings Alockslee,

    Thank you for your reference to Manifest Destiny. Being non-American and living in a totally different part of the world, it is interesting at times to read about foreign cultures and histories (American history being foreign to me).

    Having said that, it is one of the most pointless and irrelevant referents I've come across.
    The only connection I can find with what I wrote earlier is the part about the displacement of Native Americans. But then, Native American removal was already proposed by Thomas Jefferson (you know, Mr non-Christian) decades earlier (you know, considerably predating the Manifest Destiny idea). So what point were you trying to prove? Setting up a straw man?

    Besides, if Manifest Destiny is unpalateable to you, then what? Would you propose breaking up the USA as it is now and restoring and reducing the USA back to the size of its true, original puny 13 ex-British colonies?

    You claim that Thomas Jefferson always wanted to abolish slavery. Oh, really? Well this article seems to say otherwise:
    " Jefferson was never the foe of slavery he claimed to be, and he rarely practiced the manumission at Monticello, that he claimed he was adamantly for.[142]” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery)

    You mentioned the southern baptists support for slavery. But how convenient that you fail to mention the true fact that the all-time most vehement and militant opponent of American slavery was John Brown. Why is that? Are you ignorant? Or are you trying to suppress the inconvenient real history and true fact that John Brown was a Christian that felt divinely called to abolish slavery?

    Oh sure, John Brown may have been violent, but hey you can’t go wrong when your targets are pro-slavery people, can you? And too, it was his actions that provoked the civil war, which you credit for ending slavery.

    Apart from that, according to this article, the anti-slavery movement was a mostly-Christian and Quaker led movement: (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/historically_speaking/v010/10.1.wyatt-brown.html)
    “The cause of immediate emancipation, as the abolitionists came to define it, was not inspired by those Enlightenment ideals that Jefferson had articulated, but by the rise of a fervent religious reawakening just as the new republic was being created.”

    What’s that, more real history and true facts that you are unaware of? Well real history and true facts are like life. Life can get inconvenient, messy and contradictory. Like the other day with the shocking announcement that a purported genuine moon rock brought back from the moon turns out to be fake, petrified wood! Yikes! What does this mean for the validity of the Apollo moon landings……but I digress.

  • Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    mathetes »Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:22 pm
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    mathetes »Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:28 pm
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: How well do you know copyright law mathetes? I could suggest you contact the last person who tried the same thing on their forum but they no longer have a web presence to speak of. They too took my comments from one place and posted them without permission, now they no longer have a forum to do that.

    The practice of quoting me out of context is habitual with the f&e crowd, so this is nothing new and attempts at addressing those that engage in this simply won't admit to the practice after the proof is provided. And to your buddy, I am still waiting for him to contact me if he really wants to debate the challenge since his lack of asking indicates his unwillingness to do so. His practice to post reponses to others and then not to meet them to discuss or debate them on a location that removes any control from him smacks of his inability to deal with being made to play by the established rules of debate. In other words, others spread the word, but he hasn't asked me directly nor accepted debating where he has to follow the rules and prevent outside interference from interrupting or interfering in the discussion thread.

    I don't post on that site, nor do I have an account, but I have spoken with a few people about how they were treated and since it would not be possible to receive fair treatment from him on his site that precludes holding any discussion there. In fact his response to the out of context material also shows that he comments where he controls the forum, I posted here and I don't have any capacity to control the posting.

    I do not nor did I ever give permission for my posts on any location to be put up on any site that I wasn't first asked and gave permission for prior to the posting. You may want to let Holding know I find that conduct in violation of my copyright and he is to remove the material immediately. If he wished to discuss the material and ask permission then he can contact me, but first he must demonstrate by removing any material about me or written by me from that site prior to contacting me as a show of his willingness to be fair and of course follow the law.

    He has already admitted to taking other material from others and then doesn't provide the proper links to cross check his scholarship. so I doubt he is willing to listen to reason and simply intends to leave it up regardless of the law on the subject of copyright.

    I have seen and experienced your tactics before and you are foolish to think goading me will get what you desire, if Holding is seriously interested in a real debate under the rules he can ask me for himself.
    TFR

  • Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:22 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Al,

    Congratulations! You've won an award - you can read about it at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=133752&page=9

  • Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    mathetes »Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:57 am


    -------------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: If Mr. Holding wants to debate me then let him ask me directly otherwise run along and pester others or pull wings off helpless flies or some other such worthless pass times you do.

    You have already proven that you can't abide by the rules and I won't play your games.

    TFR

  • Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:57 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    Al, you are one egotistical wonder!

    You make slanderous comments about Holding and his scholarship, and you cast aspersions on his character, then you expect him to come to you and play by your rules.

    WOW! You are so brave while you hide behind your fake screen name; otherwise Holding, a published author, would sue you for defamation of character and who knows what else.

    Big brave Alockslee - he's invited you to debate. What are you afraid of? You cannot debate a person on a fair playing field? You cannot debate him unless you can stack the deck and control the rules?

  • Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hey Frosty...just in time for the season!

    Could you imagine the economic impact if every person who claimed to be a Christian didn't buy presents this year...not even cards???

  • Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:34 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    mathetes »Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:48 pm Agree:

    • Alockslee » Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:30 pm
    wowie » Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:28 pm
    -------------------------------------------------
    In Response: since we can't trust your source Holding to be accurate, please post the original pages he quotes and then show form a court action where any of this was ruled as law in the US as you claim.

    Putting up a citation is NOT explaining it, you simply went and posted Holding who I already proved makes blanket unproved conclusions completely unsupported and not in anyway valid to use in this challenge.
    --------------------------------

    Ok, Alockslee, you've been talking a lot of smack. James Patrick Holding himself has challenged you to a debate at TheologyWeb.com (where he holds all his online debates).

    No excuses now. Here's your chance to silence the founder of Tekton Apologetics Ministry once and for all. You've made your accusations about him and his work; now it's time to meet his challenge and back them up.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: If Holding wants to debate me he will do it on my terms. It will be according to the rules established at the outset on the venue I choose, not him. He can contact me if he is willing to do so and must at the outset agree in writing prior to the start that he will abide by the rules and that upon completion that his prior assent to this debate will result in an outcome based upon those rules.

    So if he is interested then it will be on my terms or not at all, I don't trust your side to play by the rules since you haven't in this thread. So tell you friend if he wants to debate the essay he should contact the author, if he simply wants to try to sucker me into something I don't play games in that manner.

    So, my way or the highway, and I chose venue, rules and make the final determination on all material, I follow the rules, you don't, I make the rules and if he is willing he will follow them to do this.

    He will of course have to agree to the terms in writing prior to the start and if I determine any violations of the rules have been committed I will show where it has happened and he loses immediately, case closed. This will assure he doesn't play any games and I will insure i am treated fairly.

    Got it, good, my rules, my venue, I am the final judge. So as you put it no excuses let him come to me and you can watch the final outcome.

    If he can maintain a civil demeanor I will afford him the same, but there will be only the venue I choose and there will not be any other discussions, nor locations covering this or reporting on it.
    TFR

  • Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:48 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    • Alockslee » Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:30 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0
    wowie » Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:28 pm
    -------------------------------------------------
    In Response: since we can't trust your source Holding to be accurate, please post the original pages he quotes and then show form a court action where any of this was ruled as law in the US as you claim.

    Putting up a citation is NOT explaining it, you simply went and posted Holding who I already proved makes blanket unproved conclusions completely unsupported and not in anyway valid to use in this challenge.
    --------------------------------

    Ok, Alockslee, you've been talking a lot of smack. James Patrick Holding himself has challenged you to a debate at TheologyWeb.com (where he holds all his online debates).

    No excuses now. Here's your chance to silence the founder of Tekton Apologetics Ministry once and for all. You've made your accusations about him and his work; now it's time to meet his challenge and back them up.

    (Since I don't know in which forum you are currently active, I'll post this where I hope you'll find it.)

  • Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:20 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    TLChild »
    Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:51 pm

    If people want to know what a country will look like if religion is kicked out, research France during January 21, 1793 – June 10, 1796; I think you will have your answers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: Please keep in mind TLC, that you must qualify which historical account you refer to, would that be true history or your revisionist version?

    True history shows that France threw out the oppressive religious theocracy and went to equal rights, following in the footsteps of America.

    They have even greater freedoms than we in America do in some cases. The population in France and most of Europe today certainly doesn't follow your religious ideology and are better adapted to equality than the majority controls here.
    TFR

  • Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:28 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    tigercat, you seem to be speaking about Manifest Destiny, "Manifest Destiny is a term that was used in the 19th century to designate the belief that the United States was destined, even divinely ordained,[1] to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. Sometimes Manifest Destiny was interpreted so broadly as to include the eventual absorption of all North America: Canada, Mexico, Cuba and Central America. Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only ethical but that it was readily apparent ("manifest") and inexorable ("destiny"). Although initially used as a catch phrase to inspire the United States' expansion across the North American continent, the 19th century phrase eventually became a standard historical term.

    The term, which first appeared in print in 1839, was used in 1845 by a New York journalist, John L. O'Sullivan, to call for the annexation of Texas."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny
    Notice the divinely inspired portion.
    Jefferson wanted to abolish slavery, but he realized it was too early to do so and it took some time and a civil war to accomplish it. The southern baptists in the south were the ones who felt divinely inspired to continue it. With real history you get the true facts, using revisionist history those guilty (f&e so called christians) will always deny it.

    TFR

  • Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:51 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    If people want to know what a country will look like if religion is kicked out, research France during January 21, 1793 – June 10, 1796; I think you will have your answers. France got rid of anything that mentioned Yahweh, Bibles, they killed people who even read the Bible or looked like Christians during this time in History. However, the country could only handle those laws for three and a half years that everything goes and they do not need the Bible or Yahweh. France reestablished religion. However, I think Americans would be wise to not allow history to repeat itself. Please reseach the state of France during this time period January 21, 1793 – June 10, 1796: "The Age of Reason."

  • Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "So no surprises then, to learn that subsequent American history after her independence includes continued slavery and persecution of Native Americans. And this was all apparently meant to be a part of non-Christianity!"

    I should have wrote "And this was all apparently meant to be a part and nature of non-Christianity" for the last sentence. That sounds stronger.

    It's getting late where I live. Good night for now.

  • Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Worse, he was also the first president to formulate a plan to expel Native Americans form their homelands....."

    Forgive me, that should read "from their homelands..."

  • Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:57 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Forgive my first post, I pressed Submit accidentally too soon. Here's my full essay:

    Let me see if I get this right (since I am not an American citizen, nor do I live in America nor do I have any plans of moving into and living in America).

    According to the non-Christians, anti-Christians and militant secularists here and elsewhere, America was never intended to be established as a Christian nation, its non-Christianity an intent of its founding fathers from the outset, and the founding fathers were mostly unbelievers in the first place.

    So does this mean that the two biggest faults of America, namely the continued enslavement of black people for a while and the mistreatment of Native Americans, were the results, intents and products of a non-Christian nation in the first place? (If so, maybe Christians should rejoice, since they can't be credited for those two fiascos!)

    Let's consider the point man for American non-Christianity, Thomas Jefferson himself. A founding father, early president and possibly the biggest promoter of the concept of separation of church and state. An overall influential man, and opponents of Christianity consider him to be one of their own.

    Mr Jefferson was also a lifelong slave-owner, owning hundreds of slaves throughout his whole life and seemed reluctant to free them. Worse, he was also the first president to formulate a plan to expel Native Americans form their homelands in order to acquire their lands to increase the size of the USA.

    So no surprises then, to learn that subsequent American history after her independence includes continued slavery and persecution of Native Americans. And this was all apparently meant to be a part of non-Christianity!

  • Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    tigercat, even though it appears you didn't finish your post, I believe the direction you were going was to say that the very people who say were not a Christian nation nor are we founded on Christian principles are the very same people who hold Christians at fault for the decisions made by a government that is neither Christian or based on Christian principles!!

  • Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Let me see if I get this right (since I am not an American citizen, nor do I live in America nor do I have any plans of moving into and living in America).

    According to the non-Christians, anti-Christians and militant secularists here and elsewhere, America was never intended to be established as a Christian nation, its non-Christianity an intent of its founding fathers from the outset, and the founding fathers were mostly unbelievers in the first place.

    So does this mean that the two biggest faults of America, namely the continued enslavement of black people for a while and the mistreatment of Native Americans, were

  • Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:23 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    u4eeeahhh »
    Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:22 am

    George Washington was born an Episcopalian, but did not practice this and his writings and speeches lean more toward Deism. During his presidency he sometimes attended church services but this may have more to do with pleasing the people since he did not take communion and often left before the services were over. After his death the minister of the church, Rev. Abercrombie was asked about his beliefs and stated “Sir, Washington was a Deist.”

    “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.” George Washington Letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

    Note that Washington wrote “their” instead of “our” above.
    -------------------------------------------------
    In Response: Great Points! But you have to admit their comprehension skills never allow for those subtle points.

    Using the term "their" separates it from Washington and puts it on others, funny the f&e crowd never seems to get those subtle points.
    TFR

  • Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:23 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

    So much for Casey Treat, Wendy Treat and her showing on Fox News and how about the Christian Governor of Washington State, we are asking for a Christmas Tree at Christmas time, its our holiday.

    Hey let's do this, they don't like our holiday so let's just once, all Christians do not buy any gifts this year, not one gift, let's focus on Jesus, have our services worship and praise God for the gift he gave, and I promise you the Governor and the state legislators will be begging us to put any tree any where next year, including Seatac Airport if only we will lift the ban on spending.

  • Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:51 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Al...you for got "na, nana, na, na....."

  • Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Funny how you don't make any sense there DP

    Look : "In truth, one cannot prove me that you exist."

    That should read In truth, one cannot prove TO me that you exist and not as you wrote it. SO a little calling you on your inability once again, now I am satisfied you can't write coherently and you can't comprehend most of what you read. So lets drop this stupidity on your part and discuss the issues. Unless of course you want to continue and that will have you called on at least several mistakes for say every two to three paragraphs you post.

    Alockslee »
    Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:06 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0 Flag Delete

    Alockslee »
    Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:27 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0 Flag Delete

    Daniel Paul »Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:37 am

    In truth, one cannot prove me that you exist. After all, this could all be a dream or delusion. This could all be a cosmic "holodeck" where I am living out a program and nothing is real.

    --------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: Speaking of not making sense DP what does this sentence from you mean?

    "In truth, one cannot prove me that you exist."


    LOL , since you are now calling out typos and nonsensical statements lets examine what you posted just a few minutes ago. LOL LOL

    Hows it feel to have your simple hurried typing be made to be something for people to ridicule you about.

    Thanks but I always over looked your misspelled words and simple typos and just responded without mentioning them, but since you chose to be petty, then I will do the same.

    TFR

  • Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    As for what the statement means, AL...

    It means exactly what it means. Aren't you a lawyer???

  • Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "Hows it feel to have your simple hurried typing be made to be something for people to ridicule you about"

    I was a typesetter! We all "ridiculed" each other all the time. I wanted to buy stock in the company that made the red pens our proofer used.... :D

  • Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:07 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "In Response: Are you saying these historical figures are equal and are gods, with religions formed to worship them as such,like this alleged jesus?"



    in response...are you saying that Ghengis Khan and Napoleon were who they said they were?
    how do we know who these two individuals were and what they did? through viable, historically accurate writings.
    how do we know that Jesus was who he said he was, and did what we say he did? through viable and historically accurtate writings. the Bible is one of the most historically accurate writings that is out there. you say it's not only because you don't want it to be. kinda like saying i don't believe in gravity just because i don't want to. just because you don't believe it is, doesn't make it so.

  • Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:06 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Alockslee »
    Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:27 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0 Flag Delete

    Daniel Paul »Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:37 am

    In truth, one cannot prove me that you exist. After all, this could all be a dream or delusion. This could all be a cosmic "holodeck" where I am living out a program and nothing is real.

    --------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: Speaking of not making sense DP what does this sentence from you mean?

    "In truth, one cannot prove me that you exist."


    LOL , since you are now calling out typos and nonsensical statements lets examine what you posted just a few minutes ago. LOL LOL

    Hows it feel to have your simple hurried typing be made to be something for people to ridicule you about.

    Thanks but I always over looked your misspelled words and simple typos and just responded without mentioning them, but since you chose to be petty, then I will do the same.

    TFR

  • Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:27 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Daniel Paul »Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:37 am

    In truth, one cannot prove me that you exist. After all, this could all be a dream or delusion. This could all be a cosmic "holodeck" where I am living out a program and nothing is real.

    --------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: Speaking of not making sense DP what does this sentence form you mean?

    "In truth, one cannot prove me that you exist."


    LOL , since you are now calling out typos and nonsensical statements lets examine what you posted just a few minutes ago. LOL LOL

    Hows it feel to have your simple hurried typing be made to be something for people to ridicule you about.

    Thanks but I always over looked your misspelled words and simple typos and just responded without mentioning them, but since you chose to be petty, then I will do the same.

    TFR

  • Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:21 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Alockslee »
    Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:13 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0 Flag Delete

    jester in the Kings court »
    Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:29 pm

    hmmm. prove to me that Ghengis Khan existed. prove to me that Napoleon existed. there is as much, if not more, proof that Jesus lived as these others.
    ----------------------------------------------
    In Response: Are you saying these historical figures are equal and are gods, with religions formed to worship them as such,like this alleged jesus?

    If you can FOLLOW the challenge terms then do so, until you provide the evidence as required you haven't proved anything.

    Remember, secular, valid, verifiable, contemporary evidence, look at the the defined terms and then post what you got.

    You make claims and only stick up religious sources or websites with blanket statements, or some site that upon revuew and a little digging prove to be religious publishers hiding the real nature buried from immediate notice.

    Post your proof, if fits the terms of the challenge then you can use it, but you never do, stop playing games and do it according to the rules.
    TFR

    There DP happy, I fixed the typo for you.

  • Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:37 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Alocksee wants a chip from the "streets of gold" as proof. He'll might get a glimps of it in time but it will be too late then.

    In truth, one cannot prove me that you exist. After all, this could all be a dream or delusion. This could all be a cosmic "holodeck" where I am living out a program and nothing is real.

    The arguement style that AL is using is based on the fact that nothing can be proven. AL cannot prove anything that he believes. Therefore, we all live our lives based on faith. We all will experience the consequences (+ or -) of what we believe. Therefore, the Bible is true!

    Jhn 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. "


    Judge well what you reject and receive. What one believes does not change what is true.

  • Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "If you can follows the challenge terms then do so" Dude!!! Is this proper English? hide

  • Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:25 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    "I encourage the state to avoid the entire debacle." (from story)

    This person is showing their true colors when they say that "free speech" is a dabacle. This is America. If some athiests want to put up a display associated with the holiday ... that's their right provided it's in good taste. However, depending on what happens some of those displays may be considered "hate" and showing great lack of tolerance ....

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links