Promoting Political Theology

It’s educational when religious-right leaders reveal — inadvertently or not — the crass ideological calculations that motivate their agendas. A press release yesterday from Terry McIntosh, a Christian minister who evangelizes Muslims in the Middle East, offers a good example. The press release, headlined “America First,” warns Christians “against the dangers of socialism in the guise of social justice”:

Social justice generally refers to a society based on the principals of equality and solidarity that recognizes human rights and the dignity of every human being, and is increasingly used to solicit Church participation.

McIntosh says it threatens freedom of choice. “Christians recognize the dignity of every human. However, when it comes to conflict of ideology and way of life, I am an American First and citizen of the world second. The call for social justice mandates that a community provide for all citizens equally, and has the appearance of being righteous. Someone said, ‘This is what Jesus would do.’ They are creating a jesus, little j, that plays into the socialist agenda. Jesus advocated generosity and caring for the poor, but he did not advocate government mandates that forcibly takes from one person and gives it to another.”

McIntosh’s rejection of a basic Christian ideal by embracing right-wing political theology isn’t particularly surprising — after all, the religious right is a political, not religious, movement. But it isn’t always just religious principles that suffer. Basic civic principles also have become targets of political attack by the far right these days.

Last spring, for example, the Texas State Board of Education removed the concept of responsibility for the common good from a list of the characteristics of good citizenship in new social studies curriculum standards for first grade. (Efforts to remove the concepts of justice and equality failed.) Board member Don McLeroy, R-College Station, explained that the concept of “responsibility for the common good” sounded too much like communism to him:

“Most of the great tragedies in the world have been done in the name of humanitarian, utopian ideals.”

Maybe McLeroy’s copy of the Constitution doesn’t include the part about promoting the general welfare. And we haven’t got a clue what version of the Bible McIntosh uses.

77 thoughts on “Promoting Political Theology

  1. The TSBOE evidently would like to delete from the Constitution the phrases about “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility … and promote the general Welfare”. — Edd Doerr

  2. That’s correct, Edd Doerr. Conservatives in general want that phrase forgotten, or – better yet – deleted from the Constitution. They are all about the First Amendment (when it benefits them), the Second Amendment, and now the 14th Amendment.

    They love the Constitution so much that they want to change it.

    Glenn Beck is equating Martin Luther King’s speeches about social justice with Nazism and Communism. He says both the Nazis and the Communists talked about social justice. He has divorced social justice as having anything to do with Jesus or the Consititution. So, not only is social justice unChristian, fascist, and marxist, it is also anti-capitalist. He’s only correct about that last part. It’s true: capitalism has not one thing to say about social justice. Capitalism is about profit, acquisition, and exploitation.

    And before anyone jumps all over me for being “anti-capitalist,” let me be clear: I love my employer to make a profit. When he does well, I do well. But is it necessary for my employer to be SO profitable? In the 1960’s, the average CEO made 40% more than his/her lowest paid employee, and most of those lowest paid employees made a livable wage. I grew up in Detroit in the 1950’s and ’60’s. At that time, the average factory worker could live an almost middle class life, and I didn’t see any CEO’s and shareholders suffering horribly from lack of profit. But what is the average pay scale differential now? 400% for the average CEO, last I heard.

  3. “Jesus advocated generosity and caring for the poor, but he did not advocate government mandates that forcibly takes from one person and gives it to another.”

    “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: (Matthew 7:13).”

    One reason the Religious Right attracts so many people is because their ears have long itched for a new gospel and a wide gate that tells them it is Godly and righteous to make all the money they possibly can, can all of the money they make, and then sit on the can to protect it for the rest of their life.”

    I remain convinced that these people are simply selfish kids who would not share their toys with other kids in the sandbox, and they still feel the same way as adults. How many people here believe these people would, voluntarily and of their own free will, give money to the poor in amounts equal to or greater than those of government help programs?

    In the 1950s, I grew up dirt poor in an old house with no telephone, no hot running water, and no indoor toilet. That was before the big government social programs in the 1960s. We lived almost downtown in very close proximity to the biggest churches in town. My dad worked a 40-hour per week job that paid minimum wage, including half a day on Saturday. He did not drink alcohol and was not on drugs. Both were devout Christians. My mother was a housewife according to the true conservative ideal, and she did not drink alcohol or take drugs. Neither were they lazy. My mother did virtually all of the housework, money management, and child rearing. After my dad’s workdays were over, he would come home and file saws for carpenters in town for a fee, or he would work in his vegetable garden until his clothes were soaked with sweat. There was nothing lazy about these people, yet they were still dirt poor.

    This is not the image of the poor that the self-righteous fundamentalist and evangelical Christian conservatives like to push. They like to push the story of one pink welfare Cadillac in town and then expand that one person’s cheating into a huge myth that ALL of the poor people in town are lazy people who own welfare Cadillacs. However, they are not fooling me. I grew up poor. I lived it and know what it is really like. THEIR RIGHT-WING POLITICIAN FRIENDS LIE TO THEM TO PLEASE THE WALL STREET BANKS AND CORPORATE THUGS THAT OWN THEM.

    To the best of my knowledge, none of those churches or their members ever provided even one thin dime to help us in the 1950s. My parents’ own church did not provide them anything other than moral support and a free burial plot in the church cemetery. Historically, this occurred before the federal government supposedly “usurped” the God-given role of the church to hand out money and other help to the poor in the 1960s.

    Looking back on it from where I sit now, I would have to say that Uncle Sam had to step in because the churches were doing VIRTUALLY NOTHING that really and truly helped poor people in any sustained or truly meaningful way. It looks to me as if these fruitcakes in the ultra-conservative mega-churches would give even less to the poor than their extremely stingy forebears.

    Therefore, when some moron who claims to be a Christian says, “Jesus advocated generosity and caring for the poor, but he did not advocate government mandates that forcibly takes from one person and gives it to another,”

    I just laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Personally, I think the government has the greatest ability to provide truly sustainable help to the most poor people. As a Christian, I do not mind giving up large amounts of my tax dollars to help the poor—and I pay an awful lot of money into taxes. Based on my experience in life and my reading of the Bible, I remain convinced that Jesus would feel about the same way about it, especially in light of a sermon that the minister of our church gave last Sunday. Furthermore, I am absolutely committed to ensuring that conservatives (like Terri Leo) who claim to be Christians (all across the nation) WILL PAY into federal and state coffers the maximum amount of tax dollars necessary to effectively aid the poor, the sick, the homeless, etc. Nay, not even the maximum amount!!! How about the famous Biblical “uttermost farthing.” You may not like it, but it is your duty as a Christian.

  4. Jesus Christ was the greatest physcian/healer of all time, yet he never charged the people he healed. Does that make him a socialsit? (He may have gotten a free meal or place to stay once in a while). Most of us realize that capitalism is incompatable with health care. Republicans also believe that “sharing the cost” of health care (like insurance) is socialism.

  5. Very shortly I will have to undergo a life threatening “procedure.” Without it, I will die. With it, I risk having a life-changing brain attack (stroke). Without Medicare and my Medicare + Advantage program, I would die sometime in the next few months. I will pay out of pocket about $350.00; if I had to pay full price just the room charge would be over $3,000, operating room, who knows, ditto for my vascular surgeon who, BTW, is from Syria and simply the best vascular surgeon I’ve ever met.

    My point? Without the government kicking in the lion’s share of my costs, I’d cease to be. I’ll pay a maximum of $300 for the hospital stay and about $50 for the surgeon and medicines.

    The Republicans want to destroy Social Security…again. They want to raise the retirement age to seventy. They think it will restore some of the incredible deficit that W caused. Unfortunately for them Social Security is NOT part of the general funds.

  6. To Whom It May Concern,

    Please allow me to respond directly to this blog regarding the article “America First,” as drafted by yours truly. We may be worlds apart on ideology, and I do not wish to debate detailed political views in writing, however, I do want to provide a general presentation of what I and others consider to be true, howbeit I speak for myself alone. This is not intended to be the end all summation.

    First of all, to Beverly, I am more than happy that you are getting the treatment you so need. Thank God for that, as we believe that God is able to use, and does use, any manner of ways to bless people. I do not, however, support forcing others to pay for anyone’s welfare, including my own. I do not disapprove of anyone accessing what is available to them for as long as it is lawful, but the question is, ‘Should it be mandated?’ The exception I allow, as we all pick and choose according to conscience, is medical care for the veteran and children, and all for reasons most understand. I, too, am a veteran and could benefit if I had a life threatening situation, however I would prefer to use private insurance first. No, I would not refuse treatment if my life was threatened and it was available to me. Just being honest here. One can make something out of it, but at least give credit for honesty. I believe there is a better way, however.

    Any compassionate community should rise to aid children and unfortunates when they are unable to help themselves. The question, again, is how that is done. America First, simply put, says that I don’t want to see the US turn into a European style government. It hasn’t worked for them, and it won’t work for us long term. Foreigners flock to the US, and you don’t get that in any other country. There is a reason, and it is based on freedom of choice. Social programs will create a myriad of complex and difficult situations that future generations will have to unravel, if there is anything left to unravel. A major stumbling block is the dependency on government to meet individual needs. It creates an unhealthy environment and contributes to individual stagnation.

    Was Jesus a socialist? Certainly not in the boundary of modern definitions. He reiterated the Jewish commands to love God and to love your neighbor as much as yourself. Herein lies the problem. Most of us are still working on the love your neighbor mandate, however it is a Divine Mandate, and not one of man to enforce. It is a matter of heart to love and care for the poor. Our Constitution demands equal opportunity for all, but stops short of treating its citizens as a King’s subjects. We are free people. Free to make our own choices to love God or not, to love each other or not, to be generous or not, to care or not. Morality can be legislated on paper and forced upon people, but it does not change the heart of man. Socialist programs like health care appear very righteous, but in reality, automatically makes a newborn child accountable to government first before his Creator. That child comes into the world under compulsion to comply with agendas he may not chose to participate in by his own choice. Federal mandates such as takes liberty of choice away from the individual.

    You may see a social need that mandates morality through federal administration. I see it as a morality issue recognizing the social need and taking action as Christ divinely mandated. We want the same thing – just different applications on how to reach the goal together.

    To the crux of the problem: Charles, I regret the unfortunate experience you had early on with the Church. I, too, grew up in hardship. My Dad died when I was 5, and Mom had to raise 6 kids on her on for a few years. That was not so easy in the mid 50’s. We lived in certain poverty. I recall Mom ironing clothes, cleaning houses, just anything legal to support us. She accepted help from kind neighbors, the school cafeteria, and the Church. We made it because others showered our family with love and natural helps until such time the situation changed. Those benevolent benefactors were not federally mandated to rescue us. Nobody forced them to take action. Nobody stole from them to give to us. They were motivated by the love of God to care for the poor in times of distress. Obviously, not every Church is self centered and guilty of omission as you judged. We are listening to different preachers, I think. Unfortunately, you are right to say that some are pink Cadillac peddlers for gain, and that is a problem. People who call themselves Christians should act like they are Christians. To be a Christian is to be “Christ like.” That mandates caring for the poor. Credit given to those who act justly and have a viable relationship with God. Warnings to those who only play at being righteous. The Bible warns against such people.

    The only genuine solution is for the people of God to respond properly in times of crisis. There is no lack of religious institutions in America of various faiths. If all of them would turn to God about this issue and actively reach out to the poor in their own neighbors, it would make all the difference. There is more than one such outreach here locally. Surely there would be cases one church could not handle alone, but it would make a major difference. One does not have to be a person of faith to be kind and generous. People are capable of working together without being forced to by federal mandates.

    Rich people have a right to be rich. Many of them earned it from ground up, and deserve every dime of it. Whether I like it or not, they have a right to spend it or hoard it. Some others stole their wealth, and if proven, should be held accountable, but it is not my authority or right to unjustly demand that a wealthy person give me part of his earnings.

    This is our goal, our faith, to turn to God and not man in search of solutions for today’s problems. History shows that man’s plans have always failed, and as a patriot, I resist man’s control over individual lives. It eventually results in tyranny, and that we have resisted since our conception as a nation. The real problem lies in the heart of men, and federal control is not the best solution. It can easily become a compounded socialist movement, then communism, then kingship. Sounds far out to some, but not so far out of possibility. We must guard against it. Thus, the warning against churches embracing social justice as the solution when they should be adhering to God’s divine justice.

    Time to stop. I do not plan to revisit with more comments, but I hope this general summation is beneficial. I leave you with best wishes. ~Terry McIntosh

  7. Ah, yet ANOTHER Christian basically agreeing with Glenn Beck: because nazis and communists talked about social justice, then America’s goal should be social INjustice. SCREW SOCIAL JUSTICE: that is just SOOOOOOOOO friggin’ socialist!

    This idiot McIntosh sounds just like Steve Forbes who called Pres. Obama a “Nazi” because of government regulation. Forbes – and apparently now McIntosh – just want to get rid of anything that might delay their profits for a while. Outrageous things like regulations that protect employees and the environment.

    The Reverand even goes so far as to indicate social justice is NOT divine justice; that the two are mutually exclusive. He wrote:
    “….churches embracing social justice as the solution when they should be adhering to God’s divine justice.”
    The only word that comes to mind in response to such an absurd sentence is not something I can print here. It would be a deletable word.

    So, Beverly, did you get that? The Very “Reverand” McIntosh is telling you that it’s very nice that you’re going to get the help you need but that you shouldn’t have EXPECTED to receive it hor should anybody have been “forced” to give it to you. Much better that you had DIED rather than anyone be “forced” to help you.

    So how does it feel to be told SCREW YOU!

    If that’s what Christianity is, I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo glad I’m not Christian. And you can bet your sweet bippy I never will be. What a hateful, spiteful arrogant faith it has become. Not like the one I remember when I was growing up in the 1950’s and ’60’s. Back then, nobody I can remember in the clergy or the congregation ever wished social programs to go away so that they could keep 100% of their earnings and not be “forced” to help others. And certainly among my parents, grandparents, aunts & uncles, nobody EVER talked that way either!

    But my, how things have changed.

    I wonder how much $$ this McIntosh dude is getting from those corporations who handsomely fund and manipulate the Tea Party Pod People.

  8. I agree Cytocop.

    When I was growing up ages ago, I never heard of anyone in church who opposed using government money to help the poor, sick, homeless, etc. The church did not consider that it was being usurped, and no one ever indicated to me that they thought it was theft. That was in the strictly church realm. It was not a sin until a politician (Ronald Reagan) showed up on the scene in 1980 to inform the church that giving tax money to unfortunate people is a sin. This is sin as defined by the far right wing of the Republican Party—not Jesus. That should be your first clue that something is wrong.

    However, here is the most interesting thing. Over and over again in the New Testament, Jesus demonstrates his belief that people are more important than things, particularly poor people, hungry people, sick people, and imprisoned people. In fact, he identifies himself as being in oneness with them. He is them. They are him. What we do or do not do to one of them, we do or do not do for him. Now here is the interesting thing today—the big thing with the conservative churches that have become so polluted by politics and the other sinful things of this world. Perhaps you have noticed this—even in Mr. McIntosh’s message.

    The conservative churches, taking their cue from crooked far right Republicans and the fundamentalist/evangelical preachers who have sold out the gospel on their behalf, have concluded that taxation itself is bad enough—but in some cases the use of these evil taxes is necessary to do really important things like maintain a highway, build a bomb to flatten a whole city, or give a $100,000,000 grant to build a bridge 3 miles long. All necessary evils they would say, but here is the divergence from Christ in their thinking. Their use of tax dollars is focused on things and money—not people. According to these so-called Christians and Mr. McIntosh, taxation only becomes outright theft (honest-to-goodness Biblical stealing) when the tax dollars are used to help the poor people, sick people, homeless people, and hungry people with whom Jesus identified himself. Thus in the end, what they are really saying is that the use of tax dollars only becomes stealing when they are used to help Jesus and the people he cares for the most. Put another way, THINGS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PEOPLE. That is not Jesus. That is not part of the gospel message. That is a message straight from the heart of Satan himself and his followers.

    So, Mr. McIntosh, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I hereby formally rebuke you and all of your far right extremist kind who have been tricked into laying out your sleeping bags around the evil one’s campfire. However, I would not worry about a rebuke from me too much. In fact, I am sure you will not worry at all. Blind people never worry about such things because it is one of the symptoms of the blindness itself. In fact, I fully expect that you, your cohorts like David Barton, and the whole Christian fundamentalist/evangelical movement in the United States is going win, take over the government of the United States, close down churches you do not like, and start killing off or imprisoning your enemies like they do in North Korea. However, rather than calling them your enemies, you will call them to “enemies of God.” It has been happening since the beginning of human life on this Earth, and your kind will do it too. The Bible is clear that evil will appear to win for a while. Moreover, if something is evil in this world, people will rush towards its gates in vast herds to become part of it, just like they are to the movement of which you are a part. People are tripping all over themselves and others to become a part of it because it is undergirded by a revised, heartless, and loveless gospel of your own making and the quite recent traditions of men. Beware the broad gate and the way that seemeth right to you. Have fun with Glenn Beck this weekend—and all of the people who will be tripping over themselves on the road to that broad gate.

  9. Terry says: “I don’t want to see the US turn into a European style government. It hasn’t worked for them”

    Here’s a great study:

    Here’s one of the most interest excerpts from that study:

    [18] In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.

    I don’t have the necessary ambition on a Saturday to refute the rest of your ramblings.

  10. Here’s the follow-up study to the study I mentioned above:

    Here’s my favorite part:

    “These results
    contradict the moral-creator socioeconomic hypothesis, including the thesis widely held in
    America that a democracy can combine libertarian economics with high levels of popular
    religion and charity to achieve socioeconomic success. Conservative religious ideology is a
    probable contributing causal factor of societal dysfunction, in part because it opposes the
    modulation of free market capitalism with extensive government based assistance, as well as
    the pragmatic social policies, that have proven more effective at creating the exceptionally
    secure, equable and benevolent overall societal and economic conditions that have
    unintentionally helped cause the least theistic prosperous democracies yet seen to come into
    existence. Both the socioeconomic security hypothesis, and the secular-democratic
    socioeconomic hypothesis popular in many secular democracies, are correspondingly
    supported. Refuting these conclusions continues to necessitate the presentation of the
    comprehensive study showing that secular democracies do not exhibit overall socioeconomic
    conditions as good or better than those of more religious nations as required by Paul in 2005.”

    Hmmm, does this apply to anyone commenting here?

  11. Gentlemen,

    As indicated in my earlier post, I am not prepared to spend hours debating online. I just want to drop a note to point out that you are great examples of why people should never become subject to other people’s control. You viciously attack and attempt to discredit anyone you disagree with, even when that disagreement is presented with kindness. You falsely accuse an individual based on assumptions and spin words, and add words, to make your point by falsely framing another. You and your kind, as you referred to me and mine, are the kind who would rule with an iron fist to subvert individual rights. If given a chance to make the rules, you would likely grow worse in word and deed, not better. It would be your kind to shut down Churches if they did not submit to your mandates, and imprison opponents. History proves that Godless socialist and communist regimes are the guilty parties, not Christians, and that comment was quiet the spin among others. That one and the spin on Beverly would get an Oscar if such awards existed for the best spin.

    The bottom line is not whether we should aid the poor, we agree, but rather from what source, and what is the real motive? There are at least three motives to consider – 1. Genuine love and concern (Faith based & love motivated), 2. Power & Control (political or otherwise), or 3. wicked covetousness and jealousy ( I want what that rich person has. I didn’t earn it, but he shouldn’t have more than I.) God judges motive. The Bible instructs and warns rich people about how to use wealth. He will judge correctly, but you are not that judge. He is. Anyone who covets what others have, and judges others on assumptions, should not be quoting Jesus.

    I agree that much needs to be done, but again, the problem lies in the human heart. Without opposition, your kind will increasingly take more and more control over people’s lives, and set yourselves up as God’s authority on earth. It appears you know what’s best for everyone and would no doubt extend your power to new heights of control. That’s what frightens freedom loving people. The tactics you employ are the same ones used over and over again by those who want to destroy America. Some aspire to use religion, even the words of Jesus, to make a point in favor of bigger government that would eventually see the Church in submission to the government.

    Gentlemen, it would be an unusual and pleasant surprise to actually meet one of your kind who respected other people’s opinion and does not resort to name calling and personal derogatory comments that reduce conversations to same. Your own words indicate that you are hot tempered, slanderous, and think you are smarter than the majority of Americans who oppose the far left progressive movement. I am not moved by slanderous comments, but thank God that you are only posting your opinion and not making decisions for America.

    Still, best wishes to you both. BTW, my personal convictions are not for sale.

    I leave you with expectation of more of the same vicious attacks you are well acquainted with. The Spirit will testify as to what source prompts such ungodly conduct.

    Terry McIntosh

  12. You Call yourselves Mainstream??? What alternate reality are you living in. I believe you must be reading the wacko leftist bible.

  13. If you all and the author of this blog want to do right in Gods eyes then you should want to see Jesus lifted up and Glorified. That’s what it’s all about anyway, “Go into All nations making disciples of them.” It’s about preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and then bringing that Kingdom into reality.
    Why would you want the government doing that and taking the glory for themselves.
    I know some of you are thinking ‘well God wouldn’t care as long as the poor and needy are taken care of.’ WRONG! Our God is a Jealous God. Why would you not want the glory to go to him???
    If it comes from the government it’s going to have stings attached!
    Let’s just look at it from a practical point. We all know how bureaucracy slows efficiency and waist $$$$. If you give one dollar to a good reputable ministry with open finance reporting ninety-five cents of that dollar should get to the ones you wanted to support, often times more. If you give that same dollar to the government the people who need it will be lucky to see the five cents.
    So, which makes more sense?
    Lastly, let all the
    Glory go to God and Not man!

  14. It’s always been my experience that extremist loons don’t view themselves as extremist loons. Terry and Phil are a couple of good examples of that. Terry, nobody is asking you to debate. Why would anyone want to debate an extremist loon? Is it vicious of me to call you that? Well, it would be if you weren’t an extremist loon. By the way, worship whoever and whatever you want. I’ll never stop you. Even if I could, I wouldn’t, so no worries there. Just don’t expect the rest of us to embrace your extremist loonery, especially when you attempt to insert that loonery into government. See, I made up a word just for you. Loonery. You should feel honored.

  15. You might want to re-check your figures for CEO/worker pay disparities, Cytocop. My source, first off the google page from 2007, cites that CEO pay is not 400% more than their average worker but 4oo TIMES more. Other than that, howdy-do to another escapee from Detroit in particular and Michigan in general (1961-1980). Livin it up in largely secular Oregon, now…;)

  16. Phil Snow quotes a sentence from the Bible that has always given me the creeps: “Go into All nations making disciples of them.” That’s supposed to give me the warm fuzzies? To a non-Christian it is anything but. It conjures up visions of the Crusades, the Inquisition, pogroms, and expulsions.

    The anti-government content of Terry’s essays smack of the same kind of anti-governmentspeak funded by the brothers David and Charles Koch. They’ve given billions – yes billions – to fund the Tea Partyers. (Ever wonder who pays for all those bus trips?). The brothers have brilliantly tapped into middle class angst and manipulated it to be used for their own war against government regulation. What they want is NO government so that they can rid themselves of government regulation that protects their employees and the environment. The Tea Partyers are just too dumb or too fear-ridden to know they are being used for the benefit of Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Pharma, etc. etc.

    I went to Terry McIntosh Ministries Inc, and it says:

    “Terry McIntosh Ministries, Inc. is a non profit religious corporation formed under the laws of the
    Commonwealth of Kentucky pursuant to KRS 273.160 et seq and organized exclusively for
    charitable, religious, educational and scientific purposes, including, for such purposes, the making
    of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under Section 501 C (3) of the
    Internal Revenue Code or such corresponding section of any future tax code, and exists for the
    purpose of fulfilling and completing its primary purpose to provide support, infrastructure and
    financial assistance to the missionary spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

    One can only wonder what are the “charitable, religious, educational and SCIENTIFIC purposes.” And anytime I see “501 C(3), all I can think of are the Swift Boaters, and their false attacks on John Kerry. I’m not a John Kerry fan, but I do now question the worth of anything that comes under 501 C(3). And that final phrase “spread the gospel of Jesus Christ” gives me heartburn. Yeah, spread it how? Coercion? Discrimination?

    Finally, ever notice, TFN’ers, how often we see someone with the opinions of Terry McIntosh claim they came from poor families. I mean, ALL of them claim to have originated from poor families. It’s as if they use the same boilerplate text: widowed mother (it’s always a widowed or divorced mother, isn’t it, hardly ever a single dad), poor, there were a dozen of them in the family, etc…. Predictably, NONE of them came from a middle- or upper-class family. Ever wonder why that is?

  17. Hello to Skinner City Cyclist and fellow former Michigander. I agree you are correct in your facts/figures, and I was wrong. Thanks for the correction.

    Btw, you picked a great place to be: I worked in Portland, OR for a few months in 1978. And, as a fellow cyclist now, I wish I was back again: Portland was voted most bicycle-friendly city in U.S.

  18. Funny how you guys talk about yourselves. The Wacko Fringe of the extreme left. So going into all nations and make disciples gives you the creeps. For you information True converts and Disciples of Jesus CAN NOT be made by coercion or force. It’s a matter of the heart, but you guys don’t ‘seem’ to understand that. Same as our doing the work of the Body of Christ, it has to be a matter of the heart not coerced.

    Cytocop, I’m a bit baffled. If you are not a christian I don’t understand why you are concerned about this discussion. You say it doesn’t give you the “warn fuzzies.” Well if you understood it, it would, because it is all about setting captives free, delivering the oppressed, taking care of widows and orphans and the likes of that.

    Ben, with all due respect, if you want to know what an extremist loon looks like just go look in a MIRROR!!!!

    Last point for the Blogger there is no such thing as a “Political Theology”!!!

  19. Phil, you zany guy——care to back up your statement? How am I an extremist? If you can offer some evidence to support that statement, I’ll certainly consider it. Any evidence at all. Go for it. I looked in the mirror and all I saw was a fairly level-headed mainstream guy who absolutely loves the First Amendment, for obvious reasons.

    Meanwhile, your comment at 10:19 is my evidence that you are an extremist loon. Sounds like a fundamentalist wet dream to me. It excludes anyone who isn’t out there on the fringe with you. Further, I’m guessing that there are plenty of Christians who aren’t, in your eyes, “true Christians.” Sound about right? As far as making the “Kingdom” of your god a reality——how exactly are you going to do that, Phil? Will it involve violence against naughty infidels like me, if necessary? Be honest, because your god will know if you’re lying, won’t he (or she)?

  20. Phil Snow, with all due respect, you demonstrate no knowledge of history.

    The fact that you don’t understand why I am concerned about this discussion proves you have no clue what we’re talking about, yet you condemn it. Again, you need to read history, in particular the history of Christianity. It ain’t a pretty picture but you seem to approve of bloodshed. “Kill them all, let God sort them out,” quote attributed to a Catholic during the Albigensian Crusade. (Since you seem to not know of this, that crusade dates 1209-1255, killed hundreds of thousands of “heretics.”) If it’s not a true quote, it definitely depicts the spirit of the times. You also need to get knowledgeable about the history of Christianity in America. Again, not a pretty picture: Puritans hanging Quakers in Boston Common. But you seem to refute this.

    And which Christianity are you talking about in the first place? There are hundreds of Christianities.

    As for political theology, have you NEVER noticed how much candidates and politicians talk about “God”? Are you not listening? Did you somehow miss Glenn Beck’s rally? It was said that he wants America to “turn back to God.” Fine, he has a right to say that. I just question whose God is he talking about, and what exactly does it mean to “turn back to God”? I’ve heard that radical bomb-loaded terrorists say the same thing.

    “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
    ~ Attributed to Sinclair Lewis.

  21. Cyto, Just because atrocities have been committed in God’s name doesn’t make those things right in the eyes of God or the Faith wrong. First of all I don’t consider the Catholic church to be truly a christian church and it was mixing church with government at that time. Zealots do crazy things. I am a protestant, and yes they have done things wrong too.

    The Christianity I talk about is one based on the Bible without all the man added trappings.
    Biblical Social Justus is spoken of many places in the Bible the first one I will refer to is Isiah 61:1-3
    1 The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me,
    for the Lord has anointed me
    to bring good news to the poor.
    He has sent me to comfort the brokenhearted
    and to proclaim that captives will be released
    and prisoners will be freed.
    2 He has sent me to tell those who mourn
    that the time of the Lord’s favor has come,
    and with it, the day of God’s anger against their enemies.
    3 To all who mourn in Israel,
    he will give a crown of beauty for ashes,
    a joyous blessing instead of mourning,
    festive praise instead of despair.
    In their righteousness, they will be like great oaks
    that the Lord has planted for his own glory.
    And before you react to the “the day of God’s anger against their enemies” part, it’s speaking of Spiritual enemies, satan and his demons.
    This was the Mission of Messiah and it is now the Mission of His Body the True Church. I don’t speak of one particular Church, group or denomination, but all the True followers of Jesus that may be found anywhere.

    In the Old Testament God sent Israel into captivity for 70 years. One of the main reasons God gives for doing this is there lack of showing justice to those who had no influence in there society.

    Lastly in the book of James 1:27 were are told “The religious observance that God the Father considers pure and faultless is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being contaminated by the world.”
    So there is plenty about taking care of those in need. But it is all an activity of the heart. Our love for Jesus should cause us to love others as He does.
    The list of things in those verses in Isaiah can not be accomplished by the government for it is speaking of Spiritual Conditions and it Requires the Gifts of the Holy Spirit to accomplish them.
    God will not be put into a man made box or organization, He will always bust out.

    On the extremist side of things Cyto, just the fact that you consider yourself mainline and us right wing radicals is enough to prove your extremism.

  22. Well, Phil and Terry, I trust in Jesus.

    The problem is that I DO NOT trust his so-called followers like David Barton, who at best have the ability to blind themselves to real American history or at worst have turned into outright liars.

    I feel sorry for you two guys, who appear to have fallen into the black hole of Christian Neo-Fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism. Please allow me to say just a few positive and constructive things that might be of help to you:

    1) You should not trust just any Tom, Dick, or Harry who spouts appealing religious talk, drops the name “Jesus” a lot, writes books, or goes on public tours to give religious talks. The Bible makes it clear that there are many wolves in sheep’s clothing out there. The Bible also says that you need to be very careful of who you allow to teach you spiritual things. In this complex world, you cannot just go by a recommendation a Christian friend makes, a tip from some preacher on the radio, or even your pastor. You have to dig in deeply, do your own personal research, and really give those spirits out there a good and deep test.

    2) I have spent most of my life studying American prehistory and history and working with them professionally too. This information you guys are hearing about the United States being founded as a “Christian nation” is just plain not true. These notions you hear about separation of church and state never existing are just plain not true. In fact, American Baptists essentially invented the whole idea of separation of church and state, and throughout American history, the Southern Baptists and Northern Baptists were its strongest public proponents. This was in a time when there was no such thing as “liberal” and “conservative” in the modern sense. All of these things you are hearing today are part of a fantasy cooked up by a handful of people who have sold out to a modern day, anti-Christian heresy that came on the scene in the United States for the first time in 1958. You will recall that the Bible refers to Satan as the Great Deceiver. This fantasy is one of his best deceptions he ever created because it is a clever mix of Biblical information and modern day lies that make the heresy look Christian on the surface when it is really rotten to the core. This modern-day heresy is called “Christian Reconstructionism.” That is the formal technical term for it that is used in college divinity schools and religious studies programs throughout the United States. This heresy pervades the conservative Christian community and its parachurch organizations today. It has been sneaked in on people without their even realizing it. It is in almost complete control of the Christian home school movement and its teaching materials.

    3) The creator of this heresy was a nutty and now dead Presbyterian preacher by the name of Rousas J. Rushdoony. You might best think of him as “that man behind the curtain” in the Wizard of Oz. Go study up on him. If you know anything at all in-depth about the traditional Christian faith, you will soon begin to see the evil and nuttiness behind the scenes in this guy’s mind. Your first clue should be his idea that human beings will perfect themselves here on Earth, thus making it finally clean enough of sin that Jesus will choose to return because he knows his white robes will not get dirty.

    Please wake up and follow the real Jesus you guys. All you have to do is concentrate on the words in red in the New Testament. It is like the pastor at our church said this morning in his sermon. Jesus was a different kind of person who looked at the world in a very different kind of way. He was a personality to whom down was up and up was down. Jesus was a radical who was out of step with the conventionalism (including the religious conventionalism) of his own time and of our time too.

    4) I know. I just wasted my ink on these two guys. However, a person has to at least try to get through to them sometimes.

  23. Phil Snow’s MySpace page includes this:

    “I’m sitting here and catching part of “Braveheart” on HBO it has me thinking as usual. You know there is a reason our nation’s founding fathers put the right to bear arms into the original amendments to our countries constitution. They were well aware that there would likely come a day when “We the People” would have need to rise up once again and take our freedom back from corrupt politicians and corrupted government. I hope that time has not yet come, our country seem so split almost right down the middle. But our GOD given freedoms must NOT be taken lightly.”

    Terry McIntosh’s website includes this:

    “No one nation can claim perfection, but America stands for
    freedom in the best application of the word, and must not
    transform into a European style socialist country. It has not
    worked for them, and it won’t work for America long term. The
    freedom we enjoy has been paid for with blood of true patriots
    who resisted tyranny throughout history. America is the
    strongest military force on earth, and currently cannot be
    defeated militarily, unless leaders refuse to fight. Thus the
    Trojan Horse from within our own process of law and religion.
    America’s future is at stake.”

    Keep in mind that Terry’s quote is after a diatribe about what he considers to be internal threats to our country, so it appears that he’s talking about using the military against his fellow Americans.

    So both of these guys allude to using violence to achieve their goal (theocracy), but they aren’t extremists.

    Yeah, right.

  24. Charles, no waist here. You do sound like a true Brother in the Faith. No need to feel sorry for me. I was raised in Church and had a close encounter with God at around 17. I then quit completely and got into eastern spiritual thought and occultism.
    At 22 I was truly born again, in an oversized storage closet. Just me and the Holy Spirit. It took several months before I knew what had happened to me. Basically I just knew I had fallen in love with Jesus and wanted to learn all that I could about Him.
    Most all of what I know I have learned from the Bible being taught by the Spirit. What I have learned from man teaching the scriptures I have tested to see if the Holy Spirit confirms it to my spirit and that it matches up with what I see in the whole of scripture. Sometimes this takes a period of time. I may think it is good or bad at first and then the Holy Spirit changes my mind over a period of days or weeks.

    Your first paragraph I agree with totally.

    Number 2 I agree some but probably differ a lot. No our government was never set up as a “Christian” nation. But maybe you understand this, from the time Jesus came back from His 40 days in the wilderness He was proclaiming “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is At Hand.” Do you agree that He was saying the Kingdom is here, Now?! That is what He was saying. So ever since that time there have been Two kingdoms on this earth. The Kingdom of Light and the kingdom of darkness. satan is a very real person, I hope you are not so liberal that you think he’s not.

    We are not saying don’t do justice, we would Never say that! We would encourage people to do that. But it should be done as a conviction as if it were Jesus we were serving, not under compulsion or Force. That’s where the socialism comes into play. I do hope that you can see that. Is it from the Heart or is it because it’s forced? Have you read “The Hole in our Gospel?” It all about this and it’s by the president of World Vision, Rich Stearn who reluctantly gave up a very lucrative position as CEO to do this.

    Number 3 sounds very interesting. I’m gonna have to look that up. It could be very informative from what you said, Thanks.

    I think this will rap it up. The things we do have to be done hand in hand with sharing the Good New of Liberty in Jesus. You did read the scripture I posted from Isaiah above didn’t you? If we don’t set there inner-man free as well we have done them and our Lord and King a Great Disservice!!!

    I hope this makes it a little clearer as to where I and I believe Terry also are coming from. Check out Pastor Bob Beeman on face book he feeds hundreds of Homeless people every week in Nashville, and that may be a very conservative number.

    So Charles, I do want to say Thank You for leaving a respectful response. I’m only sorry that you think we are so hopeless.
    We could make the same overarching claim about those who disagree with us on here but we know that Nothing is impossible with Jesus!!

  25. Back to social justice:

    It involves much more than feeding hungry people. It’s about equality in every area of life, and always leads to a totalitarian society. No one has ever created a completely just society, where all people have an even chance. Even in the most socialist nations, there is poverty and unequal distribution of wealth.

    “Wisegeek” says, “From a political stance that is leftist, you must legislate to create a just society, and various programs need to exist in order to collect monies needed to even the playing field between rich, middle class, poor and those people who are routinely marginalized by society. The right political stance equally endorses a just society, but may criticize those who make poor choices and feel that while equal opportunity should exist, a government should not legislate for this. In fact it is argued that social justice is diminished when governments create programs to deal with it, especially when these programs call for greater taxation. Instead, those who have more money should be encouraged to be philanthropic, not by paying higher taxes, which is arguably unjust.”

    The National Association of Social Workers says, “Peace is not possible where there are gross inequalities of money and power, whether between workers and managers, nations and nations or men and women.”

    Therefore, one can always expect a social justice movement to result in the redistribution of property, unfair taxes on those who rightfully earned their money, and other abuses will follow as the power base solidifies. This is the real problem. By being “fair,” leftists want to force Christians to accept and adopt principals against their beliefs. The leftists make themselves an authority that determines what is just. That, in itself, is unjust and usurps individual rights.

    The Church at large should not be duped into socialism through the use of manipulative tactics. The Church will find itself more subservient to government and further obligated to hire unchristian workers, perhaps even those of other faiths, to work in their Churches. That is social justice and equal opportunity in the eyes of leftists, and it destroys individualism in the personal and corporate sense. Government becomes God, and can do no wrong from that point forward, and power hungry men always rise to power.

    It’s like Terry McIntosh said, “The Church would do well to steer away from it.”

  26. John Wesley, an Anlican priet who founded the United Methodist Church in America in the 18th century would say for Christians to : “make all you can, save all you can, and give all you can”. I don’t think there was much capitalism around in America or in England at that time.

  27. Susan, Very well said!
    They continue to ignore what I said about Spiritual things because they are not spiritual minded.
    Anyway, there is really no point in attempting dialog with those who refuse to even consider another side. I and this Terry Mc and now Susan as well have presented flaws in there thinking and they have refused to even rebut them.

    Ben went so far as to search for and find my old My Space page and then look through the whole of it to get to a blog were I posted my musings very late one night. Yes Ben that Is why our founding fathers put the 2nd amendment into the constitution. They had just been through a scenario themselves and they very well knew how Power Corrupts.
    Ben, who is pay-rolling you to research average Americans who hold to traditional beliefs and interpretations of the constitution and our country. It’s really quite hilarious you would bother to take the time. Even more so tho think some political group would pat yo to do it.

    Robert, that was good quote from Wesley. He and William Booth did much in there times to relieve the oppression of the poor.

  28. Thank you Susan. I was wondering if you would like to expand on a few of your ideas so I could better understand them, unless I have misunderstood them already. Here goes:

    1) You use the term “leftist,” but I am not quite sure what you mean by that term. Could you explain? I think of a leftist as someone who carries a red-bound copy of the Marx/Engel’s “Communist Manifesto” around in his back pocket, tries to impress people by using catchy phrases such as “workers of the world unite,” has a picture of Fidel Castro mounted over his fireplace mantle, hangs out with his latter-day hippie friends at Starbucks (where they dream up new schemes to overthrow the government of Liberia to create at worker’s paradise)—and all the while living on money mailed to him by mom and dad. In all honesty Susan, I have to tell you that I do not know anyone like that and have never met anyone like that. I am certainly not like that. My interest in helping poor people with government funds is strictly motivated by my belief in Jesus and because I care about other people who are less fortunate than me. In fact, if you took a poll that asked the right questions to tap into the reality of it, I think you would find that most of the people who feel as I do are Christians who live on an ordinary street, go to church on Sunday, have a good job that allows them to make ends meet, never reads or studies anything that would be defined as socialist or communist literature, and probably would have a hard time defining what the word “socialist ” means in dictionary terms. It seems to me that you are assigning sinister labels such as “leftist” and “socialist” and communist to fellow Christians and Emily Dickinson types who simply have a good heart towards other human beings who are unfortunate in one way or another—which Jesus asks us to do. Can you clarify what you mean by “leftist” and “socialist”?

    2) You indicate that “taxation” is unjust. I know the Bible pretty well, and I am not aware of any holy scripture saying that taxation by a government is inherently unjust. As for the tax collectors that are derided in the New Testament, Biblical scholars know that they were collecting both the legal government tax and an extra illegal cut for themselves, something that would land one of them in prison today. Gary Friesen is a minister and conservative Christian writer who used to live out in Oregon. He has published a number of books that end up in church libraries and Christian bookstores all over the country. In one of his books, his research indicates that the tithe and other temple taxes in the ancient Israel of the Old Testament worked out to a total annual taxation rate of about 30 percent of per capita personal income. This was not an evil Jewish king thing. This was just the way it was pretty much all of the time in that very Biblical culture. In light of that, can you explain or clarify for me how government taxation is unjust?

    3) If you do not mind, I would like you to make a statement that I have heard on several occasions, and I would like you to please tell me what you think about the statement and how you would honestly respond to it. Here is the statement in quotes:

    “American is the wealthiest nation on Earth and the land of opportunity. Opportunity is so abundant here that there is just simply no excuse for being poor. Anyone who even halfway tries will have a good and abundant life. You show me a citizen in this country who is poor, and I will show you an unmotivated, lazy, no-good-for-nothing person who has gotten the punishment of poverty that they so richly deserved for not taking advantage of the boundless opportunities made available to them in this great country.”

    How would you respond to that statement Susan?

    4) We all get a pay stub every week or two weeks with our paychecks. Have you ever looked at that stub closely, saw all of the money they were taking out for taxes, social security, medicare, etc. and said to yourself, “Gee. If I could just get ALL of that money that I earned on payday, without them deducting all of that stuff, I could finally have a real life and a fighting chance to make my dreams come true in this world”?

    5) When Obamacare was being debated (or any other government social program), you sometimes see demonstrators with picket signs in favor of the program. If 1000 demonstrators are present in a rally like this and picketing in favor of a government social services program, how many of those 1000 people do you think are poor people who are present only because they are hoping to get a government handout for themselves if the program passes? 5 percent? 10 Percent? 50 percent? 85 percent? 100 percent?

    6) If 1000 poor, sick, or blind people are receiving money from a government social services program, how many of those people will vote in the next election? How many of those people will vote for the political party that made the government program available to them—just to keep the program alive so they can stay on it and keep receiving their government money?

    These are not trick questions Susan. I am truly interested in your opinions, thoughts, and experiences with regard to these questions. Thank you in advance for responding.

  29. Dear Charles,

    I am responding directly to you only because you have asked specific questions, and I am willing to make this one time reply. Unfortunately, I cannot share my full name and contact information, else I shall face investigation as Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Snow by those associated with this blog. It is a terrible state of affairs when a citizen of the United States cannot disagree with another citizen without being subjected to oral abuse and investigation by others. It does not speak well of the individuals who use such tactics. Mr. Snow may be right about someone being on payroll.

    Charles, you have made a stab at honest communication now, however you are not credible enough to be trusted. I suspect that you are simply looking for something to rebuke within my statements, and so far found nothing. Thus, your continued interest. which I do not believe is genuine. I draw this conclusion based on how you reacted to Mr. McIntosh, even called him a moron, and ridiculed his opinion. You attacked him personally and rebuked him in the name of Jesus. Now, Charles, I won’t argue your religious beliefs, or that of Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Snow either, unless they are blatantly false and steeped in heresy. However it is easy to see the hostility in what you write. A co blogger of yours went so far as to accuse Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Snow of promoting military action against fellow citizens, and suggested that Mr. McIntosh was a liar reference his childhood. Now, adding to what Mr. McIntosh said about spin awards, this one surely wins the Grand Prize. Others I know have read this blog, and none of them have taken any statement by Mr. McIntosh or Mr. Snow to be militant. Both of them have warned respective readers of the dangers of a socialist program that most Americans recognize as shaping up politically. It is their opinion, and most of us agree. Voting is the key. Holding our President and Congress accountable is a part of it. There is a legal process to be adjudicated over preference to military action. The personal attacks that you aspire to and support are evidence that you are not seeking genuine understanding, but a forceful, intimidating tactic to discredit those who hold opposing views. It is also unlike Christian behavior. Why aren’t you concerned about Christians who will eventually be forced to honor mandates in opposition to their beliefs? Do you, or anyone else, have the right to tell them how to live out their faith? Your quest appears set on justifying socialism, and without concern about the welfare of Christianity.

    Now to your questions as a matter of respect and courtesy:

    1. LEFTIST: “Leftist” refers to those left of center. You have correctly identified some of them, but not all of them. Certainly, most of them are highly educated, motivated individuals by a myriad of reasons, but in pursuit of the same agenda, however their individual roles shape up. You are left of center, and although your love of poor people is admirable, you appear willing to sacrifice individual liberty and move toward a future socialist country to reach that goal. The fact that you are willing to sequester individual rights indicates that your motive may be more than helping the poor. The poor are helped every day. That problem alone does not justify or sufficiently explain your support of socialism. As I pointed out in my earlier post, there is much more at stake than aiding the poor. You know that, but you have seized upon this subject to promote socialism. Only you can say if you are being genuine or manipulative. Mr. McIntosh also wrote about the dangers of radical Islam. Why didn’t you and co bloggers agree with Mr. McIntosh? Why did you focus on social justice alone? Perhaps you are among those who believe our country is responsible for all the worlds problems, and need to be brought down a notch or few, and just cautious about saying so? I’m talking far let here, Charles. I hope you aren’t among that group, but I remain suspicious.

    2. TAXATION: I did not say that taxation is unjust. That’s another spin to burden me unfairly. I said “unjust taxation.” There is a major difference, and you know it. Who will decide who to tax and how much to tax in a power mad society? Once it’s firmly in place, big brother will have no brakes. Is that what you want, Charles? Have you ever lived in a socialist or communist country, Charles? I have, and it is no picnic. You refer to the Bible. Please do not use the Bible to promote socialism that will eventually require people of faith to hire atheists, and generally support lifestyles that most Christians do not believe in.

    3. LAZINESS: I don’t know the people you associate with, Charles, but I don’t know anyone with such a low view of poor people. There are those cases of laziness you mention, and one is too many. However, there are good and decent people who are caught in situations beyond their control. It is these people who want to do better, make a living, see the kids grow up decently, and just have a normal life. I want that for them to, but the question is how do we help them? Do we make them wards of the state and encourage them to depend on government help, or do we help them dig out in other ways? Charles, you know there are reputable organizations that devote time and money to aiding the poor by making loans, being outright charitable, opening doors for them and so on. The center and right do not ignore the cry of the destitute. Soup kitchens, home shelters are open to aid those really down and out. Educational programs are in place to encourage self improvement. This is the better route other than making people dependent on social welfare forcefully taken out of the pockets of those who are successful. Jesus is pleased with such conduct when Christians act justly, but Jesus never did instruct his disciples to support anything other than a Christian lifestyle on equal footing. He just didn’t, like it or not. True Christianity will aid the poor, but it will not equate with evil, and Charles, there is a lot of evil to contend with. Christianity is to be a light to pave the way, not something to be lowered to equal footing with atheism, as one example. Why aren’t you concerned about it?

    4. PAYCHECKS: It’s a mute question, Charles. Of course, everyone wants to do better. Point is, I do not expect to do better at the expense of those who have done better. I do not covet what they have. Help me to educate myself, help me improve upon my abilities, teach me how to be a productive member of society. Don’t take away my ambition by stealing from others and giving it to me.

    5. 1000 DEMONSTRATORS: I have not polled any such demonstrators, so I cannot dignify the question with an answer. I will suppose that the majority are well educated, employed people, but the point of your question lacks any real significance.

    6. 1000 POOR VOTERS: Charles, I am wise to your question. I have not taken any such poll, but will not readily accept any figures you post as genuine. Whether they vote or not can matter, but not necessarily so. It is normal to support that which supports yourself, so among those who do vote, I am certain they cater to those who support them. That is precisely what the Obama Administration is counting on, including the amnesty issue. Those people are stepping stones to more power. Furthermore, the recent riots in Europe was not about implementing socialism, but about socialism’s failure to maintain the current level of support. The government failed to honor its commitments, and the people were angry that their checks would not be as big. It is natural for people to become dependent on socialist programs. I have experience with it, and it is always with the same result. As stated, social justice is about more than feeding poor people. It is about fundamental change of America that leads to government control and the taking away of individual rights.

    Surely you have found what you’re looking for in my reply somewhere. One can always find something to disagree with, but I am not worth your wasting more ink. 🙂

    Additionally, you keep referring to the Bible in support of your agenda. Since you know the Bible very well, as you said, you know that God instituted civil government because of man’s desire to be so governed. He allowed it, but warned against it. This will only speak to those who truly listen to the voice of God about these things, and I submit it in hopes you will learn from it. Since God warned against it, it is good to keep government control at a minimum, and look to God instead of man. Read the warning in I Samuel 8.

    With all due respect to Mr. McIntosh and the unnamed author I have taken liberty to copy the following from one of Mr. McIntosh’s post in another forum. It sums up what we have been talking about. Mr. McIntosh wrote,

    “I can’t verify author of sermon or message, but it is so true. Thought you’d like it.
    Genesis 47:13-27
    I would love to give the Pastor of this predominantly black church in Virginia three cheers. This guy is obviously a leader. Perhaps we should each decide who our real leader is…..It is amazing to see that very little has changed in 4,000 years.
    Good morning, brothers and sisters; it’s always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God’s Word. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will, to the 47th chapter of Genesis. We’ll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27.

    Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us? ….(reading)…

    Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray. So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt , and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built. So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again. So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock – their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey – to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year.

    But the famine wasn’t over, was it? So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives. “There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh.” So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh’s government, and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain.

    What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters?
    That turning to the government instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery? Yes.. That the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master? Yes.

    But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters! Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt , in the land of Goshen . And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly.” God provided for His people, just as He always has! They didn’t end up giving all their possessions to government, no, it says they gained possessions! But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one. We see the same thing happening today – the government today wants to “share the wealth” once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us. It wants to take control of health care, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind. And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years ago – as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.

    What Mr. Obama’s government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh’s government did then, and it will end the same. And a lot of people like to call Mr.Obama a “Messiah,” don’t they? Is he a Messiah? A savior? Didn’t the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves, “You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh”?
    Well, I tell you this – I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr. OBAMA IS NO MESSIAH! No, brothers and sisters, if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh. Bow with me in prayer, if you will…

    Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone. We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be. We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people of what a ruler would do, where it says “And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day..”

    And Lord, we acknowledge that day has come. We cry out to you because of the ruler that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation. Lord, we pray for this nation. We pray for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters. Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people from the atrocities of Pharaoh’s government.”

    The message speaks loud and clear. And with that, I’m off to earn a small living today.
    God bless you, Charles.

  30. Phil, it took me about 30 seconds to find that page, and another 30 seconds to find the blog posting called “Revolution.” Not a whole lot of effort for someone who knows how to surf the Net. I did it because I felt confident that I could easily find evidence of your extremism, and I did. The fact that you are even contemplating the idea of taking up arms against your fellow Americans is just really strange. The environment in America right now doesn’t even come close to justifying such thinking. I consider you and Terry dangerous. I own a lot of guns myself, but if I was thinking I might need them soon to start a revolution anytime soon, I’d seek the services of a psychiatrist.

    As far as presenting “flaws” against the thinking on this site, well, you really aren’t much of a debater, are you? Where have you pointed out these flaws? Do you understand the difference between opinion and evidence? You’re welcome to hold any opinion you want. If you don’t want to pay taxes that will help others, you’re welcome to feel that way. But you haven’t presented any evidence that pure charity will replace those taxes. We live in a nation with something like 75% Christians, and Christians have always been the majority–yet we still have plenty of hunger and poverty in the most successful nation the world has ever seen. That is evidence that charity alone won’t cut it. I realize you disagree with that, but your opinion doesn’t count as evidence. If you can present evidence of any nation that has thrived with charity alone, do so.

    Meanwhile, you haven’t responded to the studies I linked above. How are those countries thriving, when they are composed largely of nonbelievers and they institute policies that you would call socialist? Can’t explain that, can you? This is not my imagination, it’s the real truth about real countries that are doing well. If you have any evidence that contradicts those studies, present it. Otherwise, learn the difference between facts and opinion.

  31. Yeah, I’m a regular Sam Spade. Quite the investigator, with my fancy Internet surfing and such. My employer, this shadowy leftist organization Susan and Phil have alluded to, owes me for a full minute of my time. (Any thinking it took longer than a minute, just Google “phil snow”. Or don’t. Doesn’t matter.)

    I have no doubt that I come across as sarcastic and that I might subject an extremist to oral abuse now and then. Fair enough. Just remember that I have never, and will never, post any “musings” about taking up arms against my fellow Americans. Why? Because those thoughts never even occur to me. Heck, I won’t even threaten you with an eternity in the pits of hell. All I can really do is point out your extremism, and I’m sure not going to stop doing that.

  32. Susan. Thank you for your answers. I had no ulterior motives and no plans to attack you. I was indeed just trying to better understand your perspective. As Ben will probably tell you, I am not a debater because it has been my experience that debates never lead to any meaningful resolutions of issues.

    I am concerned about one thing Susan, and please allow me to express this in a sincere and constructive way. It appeared to me that your responses contained a considerable amount of paranoia that appears to me to be of a clinical nature and that probably extends into your life much deeper than the small problems that we discuss here on TFN Insider. If you have access to a good health insurance policy or have other means to pay, I would suggest a visit to a good Ph.D. clinical psychologist in your area. Some time on a couch and sometimes medications can help alleviate anxiety and the constant feeling that some imaginary person, shadowy figure, secret organization, or vast conspiracy is out to “get you.” Now, I really mean that sincerely and hope that you will at least consider it to give a boost to your health.

    Apart from the extra paranoia baggage, I did appreciate your answers to my questions, and I did learn a lot from them. I have no counterpoints to offer to your answers and no rebukes. I still disagree with you, but sometimes folks just have to agree to disagree. I hope you will have a pleasant evening.

  33. Dear Ben,

    After reading through this blog again, I see that you apparently think you are rather clever, but I don’t think so. I researched Phil Snow’s page and found that you very conveniently failed to post the rest of his comment. You are guilty of manipulation and defamation. Phil wrote, and emphasized, “So, what are we to do? Well, first of all we need to take our number one freedom, the right to choose our leaders very seriously and get out and VOTE for the Person (not just the party) you believe will lead our country back to the Great AND Compassionate Nation “Under God” it should be. So, learn all you can and above all Pray about who you should vote for and that God’s person will be the one elected. A person for the blessing of our Nation and not for the Judgment of it.”

    Clearly, Phil Snow does advocate peaceful resolution to issues that affect our country. In proper context, his comments reflected the possibility of a future armed conflict against oppressors who deny personal freedom and human rights. Phil is a Desert Storm veteran, and is acquainted with the atrocities committed by such regimes. Your attempt to frame both he and I as aggressive militant extremists is almost hilarious, except for the serious nature of it. You should be defending America against radical Islamists who kill American citizens, instead of falsely accusing patriots of plotting to kill Americans when there is not one grain of evidence to support your claim. Unless, of course…..!

    This is my personal opinion, but let me clear for the public record: Should we ever find ourselves under armed invasion by any force, whether it be by another country, organization, or religious institution, our guns are blazing in defense of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I say “our guns” because every freedom loving American will do the same thing so that people like you can continue espousing a different way. We fought for your right to do just that, and will do so again if required of us. If attacked in our streets, you will be met with fierce armed force in defense of family and community. As a Christian, I do not promote war as a solution, nor do I call for it, and am not associated with any militant group. However, when pressed by oppressors, you will find me locked and loaded to defend against tyranny. If you consider that a militant stance, you don’t know the difference between aggression and defense. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” He did not say standby and let evil men roll over on you. The Bible says, “Resist the devil.” We do that in both spiritual and natural realms.

    After a review of your defamation of a patriot like Phil Snow, it is my unqualified opinion that you are a sarcastic coward who assassinates with and hides behind the pen, one who delights in said sarcasm, one who would rant and rave with false accusations and misleading statements about others to their harm, but one who would never, ever act so recklessly when confronted face to face. This is my observation of you as you have presented yourself on this blog. You are a primary reason why we cannot allow people like you to make decisions for the rest of us. We are open and public with our identities, addresses, phone numbers, (which you know, I think), and you hide behind “Ben.” We pray for you and those like you, but we will not follow you. I stand ready to reconcile in friendship, and hope that we can enjoy a civil conversation one day without the finger of accusation wagging back and forth, but it takes two.

    I leave you with a blessing. The Lord Jesus Christ bless you, save you, redeem you, and help you along the way in this life and the one to come.
    Terry McIntosh

  34. Charles, you should be Ashamed of yourself. Saying Susan is paranoid? You are talking to a Center – Right lady.
    You guys call yourselves mainstream? You wouldn’t know a centrist if they walked in the room wearing a banner.

    Susan, very nice reply. I can’t say I blame you for questioning the motives.
    Personally, I thought Charles was trying to be reasonable until he started the paranoid routine.

    T Mac, thanks for the support, I had actually forgot how I had finished that blog. Pretty good really.

  35. Terry,

    I don’t share my real name or other info because I wouldn’t want someone like you to have it. That’s the bottom line, and I imagine most rational people would understand completely why I would take that precaution, given some of the extremist commenters we see here. Call me a coward all you want, and I’ll feel equally free to call you a paranoid maniac.

    You and Phil can talk about the “possibility of a future armed conflict against oppressors who deny personal freedom and human rights” all you want, but we are nowhere near that type of scenario, and if you think we are, that’s just plain strange and unsettling. If you DON’T think that sort of allusion to armed violence is justified right now, then you should make that clear so there won’t be any misunderstanding. If, on the other hand, there are some specific oppressors against whom you (or Phil) think armed violence might be justified in the future, why not go ahead and name them here? Be bold. Be brave. Speak out. Don’t be all wishy-washy about it.

    I can understand your remark about ARMED oppressors——and don’t flatter yourself by thinking you and your pals are the only ones who would respond in that scenario——but your language sounds more like you’re talking about responding to some political policies you don’t like. If that’s the case, then quit your whining and realize that you can’t always get your way.

    When you DO get your way in some future election, there will always be extremists on the other side who will say that the president you elected is oppressing them and harming America. I don’t want them threatening an armed revolution either. They will consider themselves patriots too, just like you consider yourself a patriot. They will talk about liberty and freedom and tyranny, etc, just like you do, but their assessment of the situation likely won’t be any more accurate than your own.

    By the way, I don’t know your addresses or phone numbers, and if you’re implying that I called you or otherwise contacted, you are either mistaken or lying.

  36. Well, this has certainly been an interesting and educational thread of posts so far. The TFN Insider people have not posted a new article here in days, which leads me to believe that they are frozen in shock with gaping mouths over the things written and exchanged here. Then again, it may just be that Dan is on vacation somewhere. I would like to continue the conversation by asking Terry an interview question, just for education as I did with Susan and with no attacks attached from my end. Here is my preamble and then a question:

    There is a statement that I hear frequently in various media news contexts. It has various forms and variations such as: “Our intent is to takes America back!!!” We need to take American back for Jesus!!” “This is our country, and we are taking it back!!!” Of course, as a matter of simple logic, you can only take something back if you once had it and then lost it. Clearly, among some Americans, there is a deep sense that something important has been lost that needs to be regained. That’s the preamble, now here are two related questions:

    1) Please list for me 10 precious things that we Americans once had—but lost—and need to regain. You can accompany each point with some qualifying text if you like.

    For example: My wife’s uncle, a devout Southern Baptist Christian, believes that white people in the United States once had excellent control of the “negro problem” in America, but lost that precious control in the 1950s and 1960s. However, if we could just find a way to get back that control and use it to cut all of the negro players from our university football team, they would start winning games again. (I did not make that up).

    2) Sometimes in a great national crisis, Congress extends extraordinary powers to deal with it, as they did for Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. If you were elected President of the United States in a time of great national crisis (like say the Great Depression) and Congress were to extend to you extraordinary powers to address the problems of the day, what specific actions would you personally take to “get back” each of the 10 precious things that you think we lost?

    Terry, Phil, Susan—all three—or any third party? How about it?

  37. Still, nobody has refuted those studies I cited above. How are those countries thriving, when they are composed largely of nonbelievers and they institute policies that Terry, Phil, and Susan would call socialist? Why is the heavily religious U.S. plagued by social ills as bad as some third-world countries? Why does everything Terry say seem to go against the actual real-world facts? Why can’t he offer any evidence to support his claims? I’ve offered evidence in the form of those studies. My case is made. His isn’t.

  38. @ Phil Snow, ask Catholics if they think they are Christian, and you will probably get an affirmative response. I’ll bet my paycheck THEY think they are Christian. That you disagree points to my assertion: there is more than one Christianity.

    I ask:
    Which Christianity do you want “spread”?
    How do you want it “spread,” i.e. who pays for its spreading?*
    To what extent do you want it to control the lives of those who do not wish to be included in your – or anyone else’s – definition of Christianity?

    * Interesting that you and Terry McIntosh complain about being “forced” to give yet I see no protest at all from you as to the taxpayer dollars you RECEIVE, thanks to the Office of Faith-Based Partnerships. Where’s your protest in advocacy of us taxpayers who are paying to support your ministries?

    That you believe me “extremist” for asking the above questions proves how extremist YOU are.

  39. Phil. With regard to Susan, I grew up in a large extended family where mental illness was and is widespread. As a result of that experience and living with those people for a lifetime, I sense deep things about people that would fly right by most other people. I am naturally talented in that department. If I had a bleeding leg or had accidentally taken 3 pills rather than two, I would hope that someone would be kind enough to point that out to me. I was merely doing the same for Susan, who I am sure is a very nice person.

    The new Obama health care bill has a very nice feature in it with regard to mental health services. I know about this because the HR person that handles benefits where I work told us about it in a meeting one day. In the old days, health insurance companies treated mental health like the traditional red-headed step child. You know. Your sister with a bad kidney gets $5.00, but your schizophrenia gets—well— 2 cents. That is one reason why so many psychotic schizoids bring guns to work and go postal on their fellow employees–inadequate treatment. For that 2 cents, you get seven dead coworkers and 13 wounded. Under Obamacare, those days are over. Health insurance companies are required to cover a mental illness exactly to the same degree as a physical illness such as a heart attack. Why did the health insurance companies pay almost nothing for mental health treatment in the past? Simple: Making money was more important than making sick people well. Jesus said it best: “The LOVE of money is the root of all evil.” Just in case you doubt it, I remember very well the answer of a former insurance company CEO when 60 Minutes on CBS asked that question. You know what he said: “We knew we could get away with it because people with mental illness are less able to fight for themselves than normal people.”
    Now, isn’t that a fine thing.

    So no, Phil. I do not feel ashamed for pointing out a possible problem that Susan may have. If anyone should be ashamed, it should be you three (Terry, Susan and Phil) for standing in conservative political, religious, and social alliance with the health insurance companies who treat people in these dastardly ways, wherein the love of money is the singular driving force behind everything they do. I very much doubt that you would see Jesus playing golf with them.

  40. For those of you who care, one of my favorite Baptist pastors (the correct Reverend Dr. Bruce Prescott) has a really interesting blog article on the chief sin of today’s Southern Baptists. The title is “The Chief Sin of Southern Baptists.” I wober is Terry is a Southern Baptist? Any way, you can read it here—and just in case you might be wondering—the word of God is NOT the Bible. It is the person of Jesus Christ himself. He is the WORD.

  41. Gentlemen, you have succeeded in only one way – that is to draw me back to this blog to see what false charges you levy against people with different views. This is case closed. You have demonstrated who you are by your own words.

    Cytocop gets heartburn at mention of Christianity and falsey accusses. He thinks that if he says it, people believe it.

    Charles has had several unfortunate experiences, and although professes to be a Christian, uses it to promote a socialist government that equates Christianity on equal basis with lifestyles that Christians reject, and projects his own mental instabilities onto another who made great sense. Susan was right to say that you would find fault. You took a personal poke to discredit her. Your list of questions is far too long for anyone to reply to in this forum, and I will not participate in your attempt to fade away from the real issue at hand. Stay focused.

    Ben is a coward who calls upon those of us with public names and addresses to be bold, while he continues to hide behind pen. He, too, is an accuser of saints and falsifier of truths. If he was a true patriot, he would be more concerned about Sharia Law being practiced in the USA more so than he is out to prove that capitalism is wrong.

    None of you dare to speak out against radical Islam. You focus on “feeding the hungry,” and attack those who have a different way of reaching that lofty goal. You should be attacking those who attack and kill Americans, not Christians who believe in less government control. Could it be that your sympathies actually lie with Islam, Sharia Law, and other entities harmful to our nation?

    Any additional comments you make are just attempts to have the last word, as you likely will since most of us do not have the spare time to sit around and blog all day long. It will only make you feel better, but without effect.

    Just to expose your false lies:

    1. Cytocop, our ministry has never applied for and never received any tax paying dollars for any reason whatsoever. Neither are we on any corporate payroll. We have never received financial gifts from any such organization, and do not seek their support. Facts are nasty little details, but they don’t go away. We do not covet nor want your money. Please don’t send any. We don’t want your help.

    2. Charles, I am not a Southern Baptist. We do not stand shoulder to shoulder with health insurance companies. Changes are needed. Just not your kind of socialism that will result in captivity of the Church.

    3. Ben, Socialism is threatened in Europe as was evidenced by recent street riots as the result of governments not meeting its obligations. Any socialist society not hurting is still a work in progress and will fail. Standby for the future collapse.

    Now, gentlemen, let us get pass this childish thing of playground bullying. I doubt if anyone is impressed with your continued lying and manipulation of statements and far out assumptions. We are over age 10, let’s do better. You have the right to disagree, but let’s act like mature adults.
    Thank you.

    Again, I bless the three of you in the name of Jesus Christ.
    Terry McIntosh

  42. Terry,

    Usually, I don’t worry too much about my tone when I’m dealing with religious zealots, and predictably, they always focus on tone, rather than addressing the content of my argument. Why are you so worried about my tone? You want me to be courteous to you while you attempt to install a theocracy in my country? That’s priceless. And you attempt to scorn us into not responding? Yeah, good luck with that.

    Let’s review: In my first comment, I started out by citing those studies. You never addressed them. Instead, you continued to insinuate that all of the regulars here would control you if we had the chance, and that we would subvert individual rights, and shut down churches, and so on. You didn’t support any of those accusations with evidence. You can’t. None of the regulars here would actually do any of those things. I love the First Amendment, and I think it’s great that you are free to spew your silliness all over the place. I don’t like your silliness, but I certainly wouldn’t try to stop you from spewing it. This is America. Spew all you want. The people with the longest history of trying to curtail other peoples’ First Amendment rights inhabit the right wing. I can provide dozens of examples, if you’d like. If you are not one of those types, speak up. You could start by saying that you support the right of Muslims to build a mosque anywhere they please, because, even though you might not like it, that right is guaranteed to them by the First Amendment. That’s what you’d say if you understand and support the Constitution. The fact that TFN doesn’t delete your comments here shows that “liberals” like them aren’t interesting in silencing you. The typical religious-right website doesn’t allow comments, or they delete the ones they don’t like.

    Back to those studies——you still haven’t addressed them. They prove you wrong. Everything you have said on this blog is opinion, unsupported by facts. If you have evidence to support your argument, present it. How many times do I have to say that? You think riots in Europe support your case? Seriously? While you’re alluding to an armed revolution here in America, you’re pointing toward riots in Europe? You don’t see the irony? (I’m still waiting for you to say that you DON’T think the current political climate in the U.S. justifies allusions to an armed revolution.) Meanwhile, those studies show that all those secularized, less-religious countries have many fewer social ills than we do. Your vague predictions about some of those countries failing don’t count as evidence. No country is perfect. But why not learn from the ones that are more successful than us in some areas? For example, if you want to lower the abortion rate, why not study those countries and try to learn why the religious women in the U.S. get more abortions than the godless women in those other countries? Seems like you’d be all over that, if you really cared about the abortion rate.

    Radical Islamists suck. They are religious nutcases. Feel better now? Sharia law is despicable. But why do you keep bringing those things up? We aren’t talking about those things on this thread. But you might want to remember that the Old Testament requires you to stone me to death. Me, and a whole bunch of other people—adulterers, homosexuals, “spiritists,” rebellious children, etc. Do you disown the Old Testament? One doesn’t have to look far to find plenty of members of the religious right who still support executing a wide range of people they see as heretics.

    I can understand the lure of calling me a coward and assuming I wouldn’t say these things to your face. I’ve been on threads where I’ve been tempted to say those same things to people. I resist, because what’s the point? What does that sort of language mean? That if we were face to face you would punch me or shoot me or something? I’m guessing you’ll say no, there isn’t an implied threat there, in which case, why would anyone be afraid to say things to your face? See the contradiction there? Why even say something like that unless you’re implying that you would somehow shut me up? Or are you implying that I would be afraid of a verbal response by you? If so, that’s pretty funny. By the way, TFN occasionally receives some nasty emails from the religious right, and some of them, if I recall correctly, are veiled threats of violence. (TFN, please correct me if I’m wrong.) Do you think I want to give identifying information in a venue that attracts people like that? If you think I’m too cautious, why don’t you go ahead and post a bunch of unflattering drawings of Mohammed on your website, just for grins? Just leave them there for a long time and see if anyone is ever willing to show their disapproval.

    You say I’m a falsifier of truths? Give some examples. I’m not trying to prove capitalism is wrong. I’m AM a capitalist, for Pete’s sake. I own my own business, and I love the opportunities it gives me (including the ability to “sit around and blog all day”). You calling me a socialist doesn’t make me one. I can just as easily call you a fascist. Here’s let’s try a little experiment to see which one of us is more mainstream: You give some examples of any liberal policies you support, then I’ll give some examples of some conservative policies I support. Then we’ll know which of us makes up our mind on an issue-by-issue case, and which one of us follows a dogmatic party line. I’ll go first. I own a bunch of guns and support the Second Amendment. Now it’s your turn. Name a liberal position you support. Just one. But I hope you’re ready to name a pretty good number of liberal positions you support, because there are quite a few conservative positions I support.

    You say you have a different way of reaching the lofty goal of feeding the hungry. Can you provide any evidence that your way might work? Where has this “way” worked so far? Just saying it would work doesn’t mean it would work.

    You keep talking about socialism, but it’s apparent that you don’t even know what it is. Take the recent health care bill. I bet you call that socialism, right? If health care is socialized, why do I write a premium check to a private insurance company, go to see a doctor in private practice when I’m sick, and get my prescriptions from a retail chain owned by a conglomerate that trades daily on the stock market? Government regulation is not socialism. Meanwhile, without reform, the people who are insured would continue to absorb the medical costs of people who are not insured. In that way, the insured are being forced to pay for other peoples’ health care. I thought you were against forcing people to pay for other people.

    Lastly, Terry, this long response isn’t actually for you. It’s for any of your friends/followers/whatever who might have wandered over here. They need to see that you are a theocrat who doesn’t support his claims with facts or evidence. Like Glenn Beck, your arguments are soaked in fear, misinformation, and paranoia, not reason, logic, and rationality. If I’m wrong, then quit obsessing about my tone and counter my argument with facts and evidence. Start by refuting those studies I’ve cited half a dozen times by now.

    PS: I’m thinking of changing my screen name to “Accuser of Saints.” That’s kinda catchy.

  43. Charles I really think we could sit down a talk this through. We still might not and probably wouldn’t come to the same conclusions for how to go about fixing the problems. The devil is in the details.
    As for the mental illness I understand your concern. I have a very good friend that I love dearly who is paranoid schizophrenic. I have worked in a behavioral health and drug rehab hospital as a nurse. I understand what you say about the insurance pay for it. But I still don’t like the way our administration wants to fix the problem. Note, I agree there is a problem and it needs to be fixed.

    The article you posted about “the Word” I totally agree with, it’s a Great article and I have posted it on my page. He sounds as though he is from the “Third Wave” movement. Our preacher has been saying this for over a year that I know of. I’m Not SBC. I’m just a Spirit Baptized, Bible believing Christian. I guess this ‘Third Wave’ would come close to describing where I come from.

    Cyto, 1) I would spread the Gospel that Paul, Peter, John, James and those believers that are mentioned in the book of Acts Preached. Jesus and Him Crucified the hope of Glory for all who call on His Name.

    2) The spreading is payed for by the sacrificial service of the Ministers of the Gospel who might very well live below the poverty level, and by those who feel the prompting of the Spirit of God to support the work, not by compulsion but out of a spirit of love for the lost.

    3) I don’t wish to see any “control” over the lives of those who don’t adhere to belief in Jesus beyond the norm of any society, such as normal laws like not allowing murder or physical violence like beating or rape, Theft by robbery in any way to include deception, and not allowing public displays of obscenity.
    Sorry to disappoint you. I am not like Islamic Extremist who will convert by the sword and impose Sharia Law on everyone.

    You are correct there are many who think they are christains who are not. I can’t look at them and say who is and who isn’t. I can’t see into there heart and even that could be misleading. The RCC itself has a lot of cult like practices, but then protestant churches have places where they miss it too and I am definitely protestant.

    Ben, I have to say I don’t think anyone bothered to look at your links, I know I didn’t. Ironic though I did go check out Charles’ link. As Terry said in his final post, those countries will fail just like Europe.

    Susan, again I want to say thank you for your articulate and intelligent input.

    May the Lord Jesus Bless the socks right off each and everyone of you.
    “The Lowdown”

    PS:”The Lowdown” = I call it like I see it, try to always be honest and Straight Forward, and What You See is What You Get i.e. No Phoniness. That’s the goal, I don’t deceive myself to think I always achieve it.

  44. Phil, you’re right, it is ironic. Why would you choose NOT to benefit from legitimate, in-depth studies on societal health? I encourage you to educate yourself and follow those links when you get a moment. If we (together, as a society) are going to make joint decisions on where we go next, let’s make those decisions based on evidence of what works and what doesn’t, and what is harmful and what isn’t.

  45. Ben said to Terry:

    “You give some examples of any liberal policies you support, then I’ll give some examples of some conservative policies I support. Then we’ll know which of us makes up our mind on an issue-by-issue case, and which one of us follows a dogmatic party line. I’ll go first. I own a bunch of guns and support the Second Amendment. Now it’s your turn. Name a liberal position you support. Just one. But I hope you’re ready to name a pretty good number of liberal positions you support, because there are quite a few conservative positions I support.”

    Ben. I’ll go first. This old, extreme, leftist, Marxist-Leninist pig will state his conservative positions on various issues:

    1) I like capitalism and the free enterprise system. People should be able to own their own businesses and work 16 hours per day (if needed). It sure as heck beats whatever is in distant 2nd place—which by the way—I don’t even know what that is. It sure ain’t communism or socialism. Those two oddballs are probably about 250 on the list.

    2) I believe in Jesus and attend church.

    3) I agree with Ben’s right to have a gun collection. If I collected guns myself, I would probably focus on old 20th century automatic military weapons.

    4) I think Iran and North Korea both need a good military ass-kicking—the quick and complete kind.

    5) I think it is fine to own private property. I do.

    6) I love the founding fathers—great bunch of guys—if anyone would bother to quit talking about what they “think they know about them” and really study up on their history enough to “really know them.”

    7) I tear up when they play songs like “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

    8) I am against traffic light cameras.

    9) The Fourth of July is one of my favorite holidays, and it ain’t because of beer and fireworks.

    10) I appreciate the sacrifices that our military veterans have made for this country and dislike the cowards in government who make their lives harder after a leg is shot off. That would be Republicans.

    11) I believe in being married rather than just “shacking up.” The missus and I have been married for more than 30 years now.

    12) I believe every American citizen should have a fair chance to be the best that they can be through the personal application of their God-given knowledge, skills, and abilities.

    13) I believe in hard work. No one I know works better or harder than me.

    I am sure there are more, but there is a good 13. I have to go to supper now.

  46. Terry & Phil: Thank you for answering my question regarding funding. (I am not disappointed so why the sarcasm?)

    You would get hearburn too if you were subjected to the fundamentalist Christianity we see coming from the Religious Righties today. It is the fundies of all 3 Abrahamic faiths who are ruining those faiths.

    And you have falsely accused me in your remarks.

    But you did not answer my question as to which Christianity you want to spread. I think Catholics and Charles would say their Christianity is identical to the one you describe above. Yet you don’t consider them Christian. While on the topic, let’s remember your own scripture’s definition of a Christian as described in Mark 16:17-18. My guess is that hardly ANYONE is a Christian. But OK, let’s assume you can do all the miraculous things described therein; therefore, we accept that YOU are Christian.

    Let’s consider for a moment, that you eventually turn the United States of America into a “Christian nation.” I assume that is your goal, yes? Christianity’s answer to the Islamic Republic of Iran? Biblical law applies with all that that entails: stonings, etc. My question is: who among you gets to decide which Christianity will be on top? (There ARE hundreds of denominations of you so it’s a fair question.) What kind of fighting amongst yourselves would take place? (Consider the wars and persecutions in Europe when Protestants and Catholics were in a death grip for power. What happens with those citizens who do not side with any of you: the non-Christians, the non-affiliated, etc? What place for them? Where would they fit in with you? Once there is a Christian victor – and he is NOT of the Christianity you prefer – you will have to decide whether to side with your former rival or side with those non-Christians who suffered along with you during the scramble for power. (It’s like the defeated candidates of either party uniting behind their nominee to defeat the nominee of the opposition party). I would expect you will side with the victor, yes?

    And what then? Christianity (and only Chrisianity) is taught in public schools? Science textbooks become religious scripture? Yes? No?

    Would you tinker with the First Amendment? Just to reiterate, the First Amendment says:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    You would leave that alone and abide by it, yes?

    As for your odd statement: “He thinks if he says it, people believe it:”
    Isn’t that what preaching is all about? Making people believe what you want them to believe?

    Finally, let’s not forget: Both Nazism and Communism came out of nations with a Christian majority population.

  47. Terry posted an update to his America First manifesto on his website. Needless to say, he isn’t happy with us. We are big meanies. But let’s not focus on that. Let’s see if Terry has a logical mind.

    In that update, he says this:

    “If a sect of Christianity tried to usurp the United
    States Constitution in favor of Old Testament Law
    with the long range goal of political domination, I
    would stand against that kind of false Christianity.
    However, Christians are not trying to usurp or
    change the Constitution.”

    See, he’s a staunch defender of the Constitution. Right? Right?

    Later, he quotes the Politics, Religion, and Family
    website as follows:

    “Islam is a complete theocracy. To support any part of it,
    supports all of it. Islam is evil. To support Islam is
    to support evil. Shariah should be illegal. Islam is a
    form of government through Shariah. Support of
    Islam should be considered sedition. Material aid
    in support of Islam should be treason. To support
    injustice is to be unjust. The blight of Islam is a
    blight on human rights.”

    Let’s focus on one sentence: “Islam should be considered sedition.”

    Really? Wouldn’t that mean you are denying Muslims their First Amendment rights? Certainly Terry wouldn’t be in favor of that. Ready to hear the stern rebuke he gave to those folks? Terry said:

    “PRF got it right and understood America First as intended.”

    Terry is clearly a religious bigot who has no concept of the First Amendment. At the top of his post he said:

    “The intent is to frame yours
    truly as one who opposes human rights.”

    No, Terry, you do that all by yourself.

  48. Oh, excuse me. The full sentence is “Support of Islam should be considered sedition.”

    Still amounts to the same First Amendmend violation.

  49. I am a co-worker with Susan who posted earlier, and some of us have been discussing this blog. This is my observation after reading the last one by Accuser. Are you a muslim? The more you write, the clearer it becomes. Your defense of a religion that cuts off the heads of innocent people for political reasons is disgusting. Islamic law usurps US laws, and the 1st amendment does not give anyone the right to usurp the Constitution and/or US law. How illogical and idiotic would that be to construct the Constitution and within it say that anyone can make their own laws? Islamic law has no place in America any more than any Christian law requiring anybody to comply with it. What all was said about Christianity is not even close to reality and never will be. Real Christians are not trying to force conversions or impose religious laws upon anyone. You don’t know much about real Christianity to say such things. There are different sects of Christianity, but all of them are subject to US law first in the natural sense. Islam only tolerates US law for a season.

    You support Islamic subversion of the US Constitution. McIntosh does not. Period. None of us here do either. He is a patriot. You’re not. You are twisting the intent of the 1st amendment to support foreign based and/or religious laws that usurp American laws. You are not a bigot, just an idiot as far as I can tell.

    Islam is more than just a religion – it is a form of government with its own laws. If a group of Icelanders moved to the US, they would have to comply with US law and leave Icelands law in Iceland. No difference. Islam is not only subversive in nature, its goal is to implement it all over the USA, to convert you, or force you to pay tax to Islam. That is who you support.

    Additionally, you are determined to cast Rev. McIntosh and others in a poor light, but I think something is not working right in your left brain. You started out with insults and defamation to make your point. Now that you haven’t done that, you are still trying to discredit him by twisting what he says. Shame, shame. McIntosh was right to say that you are an accuser. I might add, not a very effective one.

    When reading McIntosh posts and reveiwing his minitry website, its obvious what he is saying, and I totally agree with him. I don’t get what it is you don’t get. I think you do get it, you are just determined to discredit McIntosh and keep working at it because your sympathies lie with those who want to destroy America. This time you call McIntosh a bigot, and there is no evidence of that. Why is he so important to you? Never mind, don’t answer. I already know. I could also ask you how do you know that right wing blogs delete liberal comments? Thats another example of assumption and misinformation that you excell at. Even if so in isolated cases, the same claim can be made about other liberal blogs. You waste a lot of time with fluff. I know why you do it. You should just come on out of the closet and admit that you are a socialist, Islamic law loving citizen of the US who hates anyone you consider a threat to socialism and Islam. Why don’t you go help the muslims build that mosque at ground zero and heap further injury and insult upon the majority of Americans who oppose it, and especially the families of those who were murdered in the name of Islam? You are not a patriot. You are far less.

  50. Appalled is obviously confused about the First Amendment. Here is the First Amendment:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    I would like for Appalled and his/her coworkers to identify the precise place in the written phrase above that says Muslims cannot build a mosque/religious center on American soil and worship God in it. Where do you see that? I don’t.

    I will agree that it was in bad taste and poor manners for any Muslim to want to build such a center near Ground Zero. However, from a constitutional perspective, that too is irrelevant. There is nothing in the constitution that requires me or anyone else to exercise good taste and manners with regard to religious matters or any other matters.

    Here is something more important for Appalled to regard, especially if he/she is a conservative. An Islamic group in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, is trying to build a mosque on a spot of land there. Just in case you do not know, Murfreesboro is a town of about 100,000 people, and it is a big university town where a lot of highly educated pinheads live—like Austin, Texas. The local citizens are up in arms about the mosque. Construction equipment on the site was burned guerilla style a few nights ago. Those Muslims who are building it are experiencing terror and fear for their lives, and especially the lives of their children. Why? It is because people behind bushes are firing shots from guns at members of the church when they show up on the site. Of course, they are firing to miss. People in Tennessee know how to hit a target if they want to do so. The shots are just for intimidation—so far—that is. Now check this out and focus on it good.

    The Murfreesboro area of Tennessee is much more liberal than East Tennessee. In East Tennessee, about 175 miles east of Murfreesboro, the mountain people are arguably much more conservative. In East Tennessee, even Rick Perry would be in danger of being considered a communist. Hold that thought!!!! Now, look at the lead editorial yesterday in the local conservative Republican newspaper (Knoxville News-Sentinel), which serves about 1.2 million people.

    Tell me what you think about that!!!

  51. Nope, not a Muslim. I’m an atheist. Guess that makes it tough on you. Which do you hate more? You’ll have to flip a coin.

    Muslim extremists are a problem. So are Christian extremists. One group might be more of a problem than the other right now, but both are a problem. I wish all extremists would come to their senses.

    You think there aren’t Christian extremists who believe that biblical law supersedes the Constitution? Boy, I wish. Here’s a site I found in about ten seconds:

    I’ve never heard of these folks, but their site says:

    Chalcedon’s activities include foundational and leadership roles in Christian reconstruction. Our emphasis on the Cultural or Dominion Mandate (Genesis 1:28) and the necessity of a return to Biblical Law has been a crucial factor in the challenge to Humanism by Christians in this country and elsewhere.

    Here’s another one:

    Quote: “Many Christian groups are beginning to teach the need for a return to Biblical Law. Evangelical Christians and Christian Legal Societies are adding their voice to the ever increasing demand to return to the administration of Divine Law for national righteousness.”

    So, just like the extremist Muslims who want Sharia Law, some of your fellow Christians are trying to promote biblical law. Does this mean you should have your First Amendment rights taken away? After all, it appears that Christianity is more than a religion, it’s a form of government with its own laws.

    Terry’s desire to take First Amendment rights away from Muslims directly contradicts his (and your) claim to support the Constitution. I know you hate them and think they have no rights, but that’s simply not true. If you want to take away their rights, at least have the guts to admit you’re trying to go against the Constitution. Everybody has the right to freedom of religion, no matter how wacky you think they are.

    Meanwhile, back to Terry’s rant against “socialism.” Feel free to present any evidence that contradicts those studies cited above. Secular western social democracies have fewer social ills than we do. That’s a fact. But if you want to cover your ears and ignore the evidence, I won’t be surprised at all. Your type seems to insist on remaining ignorant as long as possible.

  52. Ah, the weekend is here! And I get to close out the workweek with a rebuttal, but have to hurry.

    You guys are idiots, and just proved it. For the fun of it, some of us took bets on what your general response would be. We all won one way or the other.

    Let’s see if you can read English or not (and I’m not gifted at writing like Susan is, but it’s simple and clear.) This is still just my opinion. I don’t represent Susan or anyone else.

    Ben Accuser, you twisted everything around again. Now, here’s the facts. I don’t hate anyone, religious. athesit, muslim, whatever. You keep making false statements and assumptions about people you don’t know, and you should know by now that assumptions lead to false conclusions more often than not. You are just trying to deflect your failure and trying to justify. Hit me again if you want to. I’ll win another coffee.

    Terry made it very clear that he would oppose any Christian group who was trying to create its own laws that usurp the Constitution. I agreed. You may find some obscure nut jobs and try to use that to make a point that has already been refuted and stood against. Or did you not understand plain English about that? None of us believe in religious control any more than big governement control. Does that penetrate now?

    To Charles: Try reading my post again and see what it really says. I did not say anything close to what you have alluded. You guys know what youre doing, and just keep doing, and doing. Anybody with a working brain can see through you.
    I did not say muslims don’t have a right to build a mosque anywhere. That was not the subject, and I did not say it so you are guilty of manipulation, unless of course, you don’t read English very well.. I don’t agree with them about it, and think they are proving just how inwardly turned they are, but they have a right to build. The problem is very poor taste, and you agree about that, or so you say in print. Yet, you accuse me, Susan, coworkers, and Terry of things unstated and not implied. The fact that you support another governments right (Islam) to infiltrate and usurp US laws identifies who you really are. You and Ben probalby support illegal immigration, too. Anything to harm US interests. I do not support violence to stop a legal process, even when it involves Islam. I bet you would support violence to defend Islam. That’s common with Islam and its sympahtizers.

    Both of you conviently “overlooked” the point I made – I will say it again just in case you have brushed up on your English – “Islamic law usurps US laws, and the 1st amendment does not give anyone the right to usurp the Constitution and/or US law. How illogical and idiotic would that be to construct the Constitution and within it say that anyone can make their own laws? Islamic law has no place in America any more than any Christian law requiring anybody to comply with it.”

    Your attempt to refocus readers with false misleading statements is feeble at its very best. You insult the intelligence of anyone reading this blog, and owe all of them a big apology.

    Bottom line is that both you guys support Islam to the point of allowing another governement (religious Islam) to make its own rules (which by the way trashes human rights). You are trying to twist the intent of the 1st amendement to justify your un-American and treasonous position. Yes, as far as I’m concerned, you are traitors who want to see Islam succeed in their goal. If you do, Ben Accuser, you had better find a god somewhere, cause you’ll sure need his help. We saw a video today of an Islamic sharia law execution. Brutal. Inhumane. Cut the man’s throat like a sheep and sawed way through bone to severe the head. And thats just the beginning. All to a cheering crowd. If I could upload it here, I would. And you support Islam’s right to make its own civil laws over that of the US? Pitiful. I don’t expect an athiest to really care as long as it doesn’t touch him personally, but Charles, you claim to be a christian. How can you support Islam in any way whatsoever? No, never mind. I know why. Gotta go, sorry about spelling. Have a nice, free life while you can.

  53. I have several follow-up points to Accuser of the Saints:

    1) He chose the wrong name. If I recall correctly, the Biblical term is “Accuser of the Brethren.” As the French used to say in the shadow of the Bastille, J’accuse toi!!!!!

    2) So-called “real” Christians or “true” Christians really do not care about the U.S. Constitution, what it says, what it protects, and why. From reading conservative diatribes here on TFN Insider and elsewhere, it is clear to me that they think the founding document of our country is deeply flawed and needs to be changed to match their beliefs and prejudices better. They despise the First Amendment because

    (A) It separates religion and state, whereas they would like to combine religion and state and make so-called Bible-believing Christianity the unofficial “official” religion of the United States. They just do not understand that they would have to fight a shooting war with other Christians, like in Northern Ireland, to bring about their dream.

    (B) It allows the continued existence of CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Newsweek Magazine, Time Magazine, and numerous newspapers and web sites that disagree with their beliefs. They have even tried to say that the First Amendment does not apply to broadcasting organizations because they do not operate a “press.”

    (C) It allows people like me to speak out against them. It must just be awful to live in a country where numerous other people do not share their exact beliefs in just exactly the same way that they do—and they believe it is so awful that something needs to be done about!!!

    (D) Here is a part of the U.S. Constitution they really hate. I will quote it for you:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” [U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2].

    Go look at a 10-dollar bill. Do you see that guy’s picture on it? That is one of our founding fathers. He was a military aide to George Washington during the Revolutionary War, valiant hero on the battlefield at Yorktown, a beloved political understudy of George Washington, and one of George Washington’s closest personal friends. He believed in an ALL POWERFUL federal government with only very minimal independent rights for the states. He did not get his way at the constitutional convention. However, some good sense prevailed, the “Supremacy Clause” made it into the U.S. Constitution. You cannot run a huge country with 50 different states going off in their own personal directions like shrapnel in an explosion. You cannot confront Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba by sending militia troops from South Carolina only to fight while the other 49 state legislatures sit and argue among themselves as to whether they want to get involved at all or just sit it out on the sidelines. Why am I telling you this. I am telling you this just to remind you that the federal supremacy notion that you people hate so much was actually an idea of our founding fathers—and not some lousy BS that was thought up in recent times by “sugary little liberals.” It was there from the BEGINNING. Hamilton did get some little bit of what he wanted at the constitutional convention and more later. With each passing day, I am glad that Hamilton was at that convention making his points because history has borne out their worth. By the way, with the possible exception of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, he is regarded as one of the smartest of the funding fathers.

    So, in summary, I kind of feel like this on days like today:

    1) If you people hate the U.S. Constitution and the federal government it created so much, which you evidently do, why not just call a constitutional convention and change the document to suit you taste? You could make the Dewdrop Evangelical Church the official national religion of the United States. But watch out. Victory is fleeting. With just one blink of an eye, you will wake up one morning to a world where the First Church of Satan is the official national religion of the United States—and you—each one of you—will have thrown wide-open the door that allowed that to happen because you felt all puffed up and cock sure about making your own narrow religious beliefs the first national religion. Slippery slope folks!!!

    2) If you people hate the U.S. Constitution and the federal government it created so much, just leave the United States and settle in a country that is more like the one you want, philosophically speaking. Iran is a good bet. Maybe Saudi Arabia. Even Great Britain. The British have an official state church and tax the people to support it. If they want to ordain gay bishops, your taxes pay for it whether you like it or not.

    3) Just why is it that you people know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM, a recent heresy against the church of Jesus Christ that is one of the principal driving forces behind today’s conservative churches and their involvement in American politics? Rather, I should say “selling out Jesus and the gospel” to crooked politicians and businessmen.

  54. Appalled. Your rebuttal post made no sense at all to me. However, with apologies to Mel Brooks, I do have to say that it was one of the finest examples of “authentic western conservative gibberish” that I have ever seen. How about you Ben? Was that authentic or what? Let’s give her a hand. Clap. Clap Clap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  55. Yes, Terry did make it clear that he would oppose any group (Christian or otherwise) who was trying to create its own laws that usurp the Constitution——then he agreed with the comment that “Support of Islam should be considered sedition.” So he (and you, if you agree with him, and it appears you do) is the one trying to usurp the Constitution by denying American citizens their right to worship how they see fit, and he’s also trying to implicate anyone who would defend Muslims’ rights to freedom of religion. I think Islam is just as silly as every other religion, but I support freedom of religion for every American citizen. If the statement said “Support of Islamic law in America should be considered sedition,” then we wouldn’t have anything to argue about. But the comment didn’t say that. You are apparently the one with poor reading skills.

    “None of us believe in religious control any more than big governement control.”

    Yeah, except that you want to deny Muslims their right to worship how they see fit. How is that not religious control?

    Now here’s the crazy part:

    “I did not say muslims don’t have a right to build a mosque anywhere. That was not the subject, and I did not say it so you are guilty of manipulation, unless of course, you don’t read English very well.. I don’t agree with them about it, and think they are proving just how inwardly turned they are, but they have a right to build.”

    You support their right to build? Good to hear it. But doesn’t that make you guilty of sedition , or are you too staggeringly stupid to see the contradiction? On one hand, you say “How can you support Islam in any way whatsoever,” but then you support their right to build the mosque near Ground Zero. There’s an undeniable contradiction there, no matter how you try to cover it up with ranting gibberish.

    “The fact that you support another governments right (Islam) to infiltrate and usurp US laws”

    Liar. I don’t.

    “You and Ben probalby support illegal immigration, too.”


    “I bet you would support violence to defend Islam.”

    Not a chance. Liar.

    “Islamic law usurps US laws”

    Some Muslims may think it does, but if you think that, you’re a lunatic. The Constitution is the law of the land, period. Muslims are subject to it, just like anyone else. I agree that we need to prevent any hint of Islamic law creeping into our country. But you still can’t deny Muslims their right to freedom of religion. Speaking of which, are you actively campaigning against Christians who support the concept of biblical law? They are as guilty of attempting to usurp the Constitution as anyone who support Sharia. You don’t seem to be frothing at the mouth about those treasonous Christians. Why aren’t you? There are plenty of them out there.

    “Bottom line is that both you guys support Islam”

    Liar. Why do you lie so much?

    By the way, ever read the Treaty of Tripoli?

    “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

    Wait a second. The United States has no enmity against the laws or religion of Mussulmen? How can that possibly be? Looks like John Adams supported Islam.

  56. I see now that Appalled was ambiguous enough to give himself/herself an out when he/she said:

    “I did not say muslims don’t have a right to build a mosque anywhere.”

    What exactly does this mean? Do they have the right to build a mosque anywhere? Yes or no?

    Do you agree with Terry that supporting Islam should be considered sedition?

    If you say yes to both questions, you are setting up a Catch-22, i.e. sure, they can build a mosque anywhere they want, but they can’t actually use it, because that would be sedition.

    If you say no to the first question, you are saying that Muslims don’t enjoy the full rights guaranteed to them by the First Amendment.

  57. Okay, Gents, let’s try it this way. No catch 22, just plain ordinary American common sense that has keep us free thus far.

    INTENT is a big part of law. The First Amendment INTENDS to protect certain rights. It does NOT INTEND to grant sovereignty to any group, whether religious or secular, that seeks to usurp US Law. You are reading it like it does so in order to assist Islam in its goal of creating its own government within a government. What is your real name, Accuser? Is it Muhammad? Rules are one thing, laws an entirely different matter. This is so simple that children can understand it, so I am suspicious of your intentions.

    Good try with the Treaty of Tripoli. The best you can do is refer to a controversial document that is disputed regarding the proper translation and intent. Anyone can research it and read the pros and cons themselves. Even so, the INTENT was to assure that Christian “Laws” would not be imposed. Nobody ever claims that founding fathers demanded that Christian laws be enforced. Althlugh most of them were Christians, they understood that not everyone was and that everyone had a right to choose their own faith without compulsion. This is so elementary, I am wondering why I have to explain it to Accuser, unless your name is Muhammad and your English is still flawed.

    Every religious group has rules to live by that they encourage, including Christians. They do not enforce those rules with laws that usurp the US Constitution. They live under and work through national and local laws. That is for the purpose of peace, security, and stability. They oppose laws contrary to faith, but resist legally, not by usurping US law, or calling for militant action as you have tried to frame it. Charles is painting a wrong picture of Christians. Islam is just the opposite. It is a poltical and relgious organization that mandates and enforces its own laws, and laws that are different from US laws. So, Muhammead, the problem is that your faith considers itself superior to American law.

    So here’s the answer to you. The 1st Amedndment allows you to worship allah and build a mosque for as long as you reject Sharia Law and support all US laws. It does not grant you the right to establish your own government in the form of Sharia on US territory. The INTENT of the 1st Amendment does not permit you to enforce Sharia Law over that of US Law. If Islam wants to build a mosque in the US, they must obey American law and officially renouce Sharia law. No right thinking American will object to that. This is so simple that only Islamic sympathizers disagree. Any American patriot understands it, Muhammad (accuser of saints). I know there are different sects of Islam just like in Christianity. So, each request to buy and build should be inspected. If a sect of Islam is loyal to the US Constitition, that’s fine. If they have questionable ties to terrorist groups and insist on Sharia law, they have no right under the 1st Amendment to create their own govenrment and usurp US Law.

    If you find fault with the INTENT of the 1st Amendment, you are clearly an Islamic apologist in disguise. Others have infiltrated our nations universities, media, and religion to subvert it. Unknowing christians assist them thinking that they are loyal citizens, but they are only using them. I question your INTENT? Are you using this forum to advance your goal and to usurp US authority and welfare in disguise of concern about general welfare?

    Charles, you are one mixed bag. you claim to be a christian, but you oppose christians in general. You can disagree with brothers, but you are more adamant than a simple disagree. You say things like, “If you people…” You are really, really against christians, so you can say all you want to, quote the bible all day long, and rebuke people in Jesus name, but the sons of sceva tried that, too. I hope you are just a confused christian and eternally saved, but I wonder if your name isn’t really Achmed? How many other blogs are you guys tied to promoting your pro socialism communist Islamic views? I hope the readers here realize your intent.

    Now, its your turn to spin this around to make yourself feel better like somebody said before. Just know this – you aren’t fooling anyone.

    1. Appalled,
      If you want to promote paranoid, whacked-out fantasies of Islamic domination of America, you’ll have to go to Glenn Beck’s and Pamela Geller’s websites. We prefer not to promote that kind of lunacy here. Moreover, you are free to express your disagreement with anyone on here, but we will not tolerate rank bigotry and questioning someone’s faith simply because they don’t share your political views. There are other websites for that as well (including Beck’s and Geller’s). And before you object, we have not approved some comments in the past that we thought crossed the line on anti-Christian bigotry as well. In all cases we try to be as tolerant as we can in moderating comments, but there is a line. Don’t cross it.

  58. Appalled,

    If you can identify a single claim I’ve made that I haven’t supported with evidence, I will retract it with full sincerity.

    Meanwhile, each of your comments is a long string of lies. You really are pathological. Nobody here supports Sharia. You know that, because we’ve stated our views about Sharia clearly, yet you still try to insist that we support Sharia. That makes you a liar. Your obsession with Sharia is a straw man and a red herring. Nobody here has ever said a word in support of Sharia, yet you keep ranting about it. You have a strange fetish for accusing other people of being secret Muslims. That sure seems familiar.

    On the other hand, your bizarre contradictions are easy to point out. Your rants are designed to promote hate against Muslims, but ultimately you are forced to admit that they have the right to practice their religion, including building mosques. Now, finally, you are saying, “If a sect of Islam is loyal to the US Constitition, that’s fine.” But earlier you and Terry agreed with a crazy comment that support for Islam should be considered sedition. So which is it? You can’t have it both ways. By the way, let me add that if a sect of Christianity is loyal to the U.S. Constitution, that’s fine.

    Your inability to use logic really is laughable. And your paranoid lies are getting old.

  59. Thank you, TFN, for making boundaries clear. We had wondered if there were any or not. I will comply with them. This is your blog, and I respect your right, and even thankful that you want to keep it a clean board. It speaks well of you to allow different perspectives and opinions. FYI, I am not promoting Islamphobia, but trying to stress that the 1st amendment does not provide for usurping of US laws in disguise of religious freedom, and that includes Islam and Christianity both. i do not follow Beck and except for a few rare instances, I don’t watch his program. I have never heard of Pamela Geller. I don’t move in those circles.

    After reading back over these comments, I only hope that other bloggers will refrain from making assumptions and derogratory personal comments as I will honor. I see that they launched out with personal attacks. They called Rev. McIntosh an idiot, a bigot, a militant, and a moron who claims to be a Christian, and all of that because of his political opinion. They accused Phil Snow and Mr. McIntosh both of promoting armed conflict when a simple glance of websites prove otherwise. So, thank you again for being clear, and I hope all bloggers will respect your boundaries.

  60. dear Accuser,

    I don'[t know how to be more clear than what has already been stated. No hatred of muslims here, just a refusal to grant them the right to usurp US LAws. I won’t rewrite the arguement that you are ignoring, but sedition occurs when US Laws are usurped. The same applies to Christians and any other religious group. You should let us know what your position is regarding Sharia Law as a part of practicing Islam. Should they be allowed to usurp US Law or not? If you say yes, then you are supporting sedition. If you say no, then you must agree with me about it. Thank you.

  61. “You should let us know what your position is regarding Sharia Law as a part of practicing Islam. Should they be allowed to usurp US Law or not?”

    I answered this already when I said: The Constitution is the law of the land, period. Muslims are subject to it, just like anyone else. I agree that we need to prevent any hint of Islamic law creeping into our country.

    I am not ignoring your argument about sedition. If someone attempts to usurp US laws, that will be sedition. Until they do that, they are not guilty of anything. Nobody ever brought up Sharia until you got here. You seem to have a fixation. Obviously, you are very conflicted, but you should admit that it clouds your logic. Muslims can and do live here peacefully without attempting to usurp US law. Some of them are currently in the military, doing their best to defend this country and its constitution. Ironic, isn’t it? Muslims defending your ability to smear them?

  62. TFN:

    I have no idea what this person called Appalled is pursuing. It makes no sense at all to me. To the best of my knowledge, no one here ever said or advocated the notion that Islam and Sharia Law should or would usurp the U.S. Constitution. By “usurp,” I suppose that he/she means “take over or replace.” I would think that 66 to 75 percent of all members of Congress would have to be followers of Islam and/or a majority of the memberships of the legislatures from about 75 percent of the states—or something like that. That’s not going to happen, unless nearly the entire population of the United States converts to Islam. That’s not going to happen either, so I am not sure what the point is unless it’s some sort of Barney Fife thing.

    You know “Nip it. Nip it in the bud!!!” Perhaps he/she is saying that if we do not “nip it” in the bud right now by preventing the construction of these mosques on American soil, we will wake up one morning 50 years from now to find that most of the United States population has converted to Islam–then the usurpation to Islam and Sharia Law can occur legally under the U.S. constitution—just like Hitler took over legally in Germany by “working the system.”

    If the latter is the case, I suspect that such an occurrence would be highly unlikely. Instead, I think it is something that a fellow studier of the Religious Right brought to my attention a few years back. He believes that Christian fundamentalists are so against abortion because they feel that their particular brand of the Christian faith is weak, unappealing, lacking in strength, and in danger of being aborted. In other words, their people and faith are about to be aborted and they are in a life and death struggle with the Christian denominations they despise and the many unchurched people who will not hear and accept what they have to say. From my perspective, their extreme paranoia is an affront to the gospel because it denies the power of Jesus Christ to PREVENT an Islamic takeover of the United States.

    From where I sit, I believe Jesus can handle whatever Mohammed throws at him and prevent this so-called “usurpation.” Perhaps the real question is: “Why do people like Appalled feel so weak in their faith, and why do they assume that Jesus is powerless to deal with Islam?”

  63. Gents, you are a frustrating pair to talk to. Maybe it’ll take someone better with ink than I am. I quit with Charles. He misrepresents every christian I know, and there;s nothing to be done about that.

    Accuser: One point about Sharia Law is to expose your hypocrisy reference concern for the general welfare of your fellow citizens. After your last post, perhaps you just aren’t educated about it. I hope that’s the case. I am at least happy that you agree with me about it. Until now, I truthfully questioned your loyalty to the US.

    I know muslims serve in the military. I appreciate loyal muslims when they obey US laws. You keep trying to frame me as a muslim hater, but it ain’t so. I do recall one that was an officer in the army, a major, and he served at Fort Hood, Texas. How many American soldiers did he cut down in the name of allah? Now, that’s not bigotry. We’re talking fact in his case. And that does not make every muslim a criminal.

    You said, “The Constitution is the law of the land, period. Muslims are subject to it, just like anyone else. I agree that we need to prevent any hint of Islamic law creeping into our country…. If someone attempts to usurp US laws, that will be sedition. Until they do that, they are not guilty of anything.”

    FYI a Texas court has allowed Sharia law into the court system under the guise of mediation and arbitration. You should be very alarmed by that court action and found railing against it instead of accusing christians of promoting sedition. Foreign laws in any form is the first step of sedition. The Constitution and Sharia law is incompatible. It’s not logical to allow, lets say Mexicans. to start their own governement on US land with their own laws, and that logical process includes any political or religious organization.

    Christians who have different political opinions than yours are not guilty of sedition. They are exercising their rights as citizens to present their opinion. You attack like wolves when your focus should be on the real problems facing our country.
    thank you.

  64. Appalled:

    “Achmed?????” Me??? How about Mekmedek Tetanu ali-L’achja?

    The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows a doorway for the introduction of Sharia Law into the United States. This is the fatal flaw. Here are the words from the great document:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Many requirements of Sharia Law fall outside of the authority of the U.S. Constitution and the States. Instead, they fall under the heading of “reserved… to the people.” For example, the U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of the 50 states, and American criminal/civil law have nothing to say one way or another about the shrouding of women. Islam requires it. Among members of the Islamic community in the United States, Islamic law is in force among the adherents of Islam only. Therefore, if a man wanted to beat his wife for failing to wear the shroud, he would be subject to a charge of assault and battery under American criminal law. Islam could not usurp American law. However, this does not mean that Sharia could not be enforced. It would just have to be done creatively in ways that American law does not touch on. For example, members of the Islamic community might refuse to take the noncompliant mother’s children to school in the parent van pool until the mother submits to the shroud. Sociologists call this punishment by “social sanction.” Thus, as you can see, there is a great deal of room in the United States to have one’s Sharia and eat it too.

    Conservative Christians should not be surprised or horrified by this because they too have enforced such practices widely in American society in earlier decades. For example, around the turn of the 20th century, becoming pregnant out of wedlock was about the worst possible thing that a woman could do. The woman was often shunned. The baby was delivered in secret and pawned off quietly for adoption, and the mother wore an invisible sign on her that said “Fallen Woman” for the rest of her natural born life. Shame and social disapproval were wielded as a sharp sword of righteousness against all transgressors.

    I think most conservative Christians long and pine for the reintroduction of a religion-based “culture of shame” in the United States. Today, if a girl winds up pregnant out of wedlock, vast social and cultural forces are mobilized to offer her forgiveness, love, compassion, and a softening of the blow. In the end, it is as if she had done no wrong at all, and she gets off free with few consequences—or so it seems.

    Now, tell me the truth Appalled. America would be a much better place if we could just get back to our basic and most cherished American ideals and family values, like our forefathers, and really put the screws to that little tart Cindy when she turns up pregnant. For example, I had a good friend in high school. She was a really nice person, she was really smart, and had been adopted into a fairly well-to-do family of Christian fundamentalists. Just after leaving for college, I received a message that she was pregnant by some guy—a date—boyfriend—whatever. Her father, upon learning of this, immediately expelled her from the family. I heard he kicked her out of the house to fend for herself all by her lonesome as a street urchin for the rest of her doggone life. He sure showed her right from wrong!!! He showed her that sin has teeth that bite like a shark. She sure got what was coming to her. The wages of sin are death—or maybe a living death until the final day comes.

    But wait a minute. Isn’t this true life story the kind of thing the Sharia Muslims would do?

    Thus, as you can see, there is a great deal of room in the United States to have one’s Sharia and eat it too.

  65. “Accuser: One point about Sharia Law is to expose your hypocrisy reference concern for the general welfare of your fellow citizens.”

    What are you babbling about here? Your writing style is such that a person has to dig a concise and clear explanation out of you.

    I still don’t understand why Susan, Terry (and then you) veered off into the subject of Islam and then Sharia. This thread had nothing to do with those things, but I’m guessing both of you are so obsessed with Islam that every thread ends up going down that path.

  66. Does anyone know how Beverly Kurtin is doing after her surgery? For those of you who pray, she needs your support. For those of you who do not pray, she could probably use your moral support in any form that you might like to offer. It appears to me that we got so involved with Terry McIntosh, his wife Susan, Phil Snow, and Appalled that we forgot about Beverly and her critical surgery.

    Are you out there Beverly? How are you doing? We wish you or best and get well soon.


  67. Accuser of the Saints:

    I think the veer occurred because the people at Terry McIntosh Ministries (the people and the organization) are focused on making fundamentalist Christian converts of the Muslim community in Palestine and the immediately surrounding region. The people who began to show up here after Terry and his wife Susan (did anyone catch that) appear to be long-distance ministry supporters like Phil Snow in Paducah, Kentucky, and several actual workers in the ministry. Although I could be wrong, my best guess is that people like Appalled and his/her frequently mentioned “coworkers” are professional employees on the staff of Terry McIntosh Ministries. Given the special nature of their work, it only makes sense that they would be immersed in the ideological and cultural characteristics of Islam as it is practiced and experienced in their area of operations. Particularly, they would be oriented heavily towards Islamic negatives. Because Islam is not just a religion, but also a form of government and a way of life, they have to use these negatives, along with the gospel, to pry people away from their traditional Islamic imprisonment into another form of spiritual imprisonment that looks a lot like Islam—namely fundamentalist Christianity.

    Once you get the potential Muslim convert by the “I accept Jesus” lip-service formality, all there is left after that is doing something that comes very naturally to both Muslims and Christian fundamentalists—forgetting about the love principle of the golden rule and focusing your whole life on rules and answering the question: “Did I measure up against the rules this week?”

  68. Charles, you make me smile. It looks like you’ve been doing some resarch. There is more than one susan out there, don’t you know? There’s more than one who has access to this very computer I’m on now. The Susan who posted here has access to it, too.

    That’s one of the problems with you – assumption after assumption. How do you know that you are properly representing the Macintosh ministry? Or is that just antoher assumption that leads to insult Bible believing Christians? You sure don’t sound like a man of love and you accuse other christians of forgetting the golden rule. What was all that Jesus said about a plank in your eye?

    also, aren’t you violating TFN rules? You are attacking and insulting Terry McIntosh and their faith because they have a different opinion than yours. TFN wrote, “we will not tolerate rank bigotry and questioning someone’s faith simply because they don’t share your political views.”

    If you want to know what they really believe, why don’t you ask Terry or one of his staff members to explain it to you? It might make an interesing read, I doubt you really care, you just want to make negative points all based on assumption and twisiting of words.

    Guess its time to move on. Have a good one.

  69. Oh, well let me make an alternative assumption. You and your “coworkers” are all working at some Sonic Drive-In, and you have a centerfold of Terry McIntosh pasted up on the bathroom door. You just wanted to rush to his aid here at TFN Insider because he is…what…good looking? Come on. Give me a break. Why would anyone give a flip about his ministry if they were not either working there or heavily involved in it in some way?

    I am going to make another brash assumption here, and it is based on absolutely no facts at all. When that pastor down in Gainseville, Florida, burns all of those Korans on September 11, Terry, Susan, and their workers are going to be on the Public Enemy No. 1 list in the Middle East. Good luck!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because he’s gonna need it.

  70. This thread began because Terry McIntosh seems to think that any sort of compassion that is facilitated through the government is socialism. This simply isn’t true. He doesn’t seem to understand what socialism is, because he thinks the health care reform bill is socialism. He condemns “European style government,” when it’s easy to see that many European countries are doing better than us in a wide range of categories—health care, education, etc. I provided substantial evidence in support of that, but Terry ignored it.

    Instead, Terry and his pals began ranting about Islam. How does this relate to the topic at hand? It doesn’t. But away they went, and anybody who thinks Muslims have a right to practice their religion here in America must be a secret Muslim who is trying to bring about the downfall of our country. Really silly stuff. That’s what happened on this thread, and anybody who reads the entire thing can see that this is an accurate description.

  71. Accuser of the Saints is right. Someone changed the subject. For those who fear too much government, I would think that an unkind, uncharitable, and compassion-free government might be one’s worst nightmare.