The Deism of America’s Founding Fathers vs The Christian Right http://mys.tc/2fw
It’s worth noting that an enthusiastic belief in American exceptionalism is part of Mormon culture and theology.
Should we continue to perpetuate the meme that america is favored by god?
Read more: Mormonism and American Exceptionalism
You have heard of the Religious Right and the Moral Majority. Well, let me introduce you to the latest incarnation, The teavangelicals.
So Christians are Anarcho-capitalist now?
While all aspects of the Prohibition War are tragic and absurd, here are six ways that the criminalization of marijuana defies all reason and logic.
Who do you think is working harder to keep weed illegal- big pharma or the drug cartels?
The founding fathers saw the state as guarantor of freedom from persecution. Now, the Church is trying to cast it as persecutor.
What do you think is more important- freedom from religion, or freedom of religion?
People just can’t wrap their head around it. All they need to do is look back at how pissed Christians were that the founding fathers didn’t make the foundation documents revolve around ‘god’ language. 50 years ago Christians started PRETENDING this was a christian nation….
‘For example, check out the politicos who’re raising such a cacophony these days about big, intrusive government. Ironically, they’re usually the same knee-jerks who so fervidly advocate the expansion of government’s biggest and most intrusive force: police power. Since 9/11, this bunch has screeched non-stop that the only way to make the American people secure in this terrifying age is to jackhammer the word “secure” out of the Fourth Amendment—the only place in the Bill of Rights where the term appears.
The founders (made of much stronger stuff than today’s political harpies) believed that genuine security for a democratic people comes from strengthening their right and ability to resist the autocratic impulses of the authorities. By deliberately placing “secure” in this key Bill of Rights passage, they certainly did not intend for it to be twisted into a meek call for ever-expanding police power to “protect” the citizenry, but instead to give citizens essential legal guarantees to protect themselves from police power.’