there is enough ignorance on both sides of the fence. Majority has an upper hand, yes, and voting and being involved is a much more effective way to make change when it comes to politics. White males have had the upper hand politically, but it didnt follow that noone else could benefit from the government which they were 'running'.

there is enough ignorance on both sides of the fence. Majority has an upper hand, yes, and voting and being involved is a much more effective way to make change when it comes to politics. White males have had the upper hand politically, but it didnt follow that noone else could benefit from the government which they were 'running'.

MARCH 31, 1776
ABIGAIL ADAMS TO JOHN ADAMS

"I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

"Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.

"Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.

"That your sex are naturally tyrannical is a truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute; but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up -- the harsh tide of master for the more tender and endearing one of friend.

"Why, then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity?

"Men of sense in all ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the (servants) of your sex; regard us then as being placed by Providence under your protection, and in imitation of the Supreme Being make use of that power only for our happiness."


APRIL 14, 1776
JOHN ADAMS TO ABIGAIL ADAMS

"As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh.

"We have been told that our struggle has loosened the bonds of government everywhere; that children and apprentices were disobedient; that schools and colleges were grown turbulent; that Indians slighted their guardians, and negroes grew insolent to their masters.

"But your letter was the first intimation that another tribe, more numerous and powerful than all the rest, were grown discontented.

"This is rather too coarse a compliment, but you are so saucy, I won't blot it out.

"Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and, in practice, you know we are the subjects.

"We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight."

While Race and Gender are easily identified and worn on the outside, I imagine the task of identifying someones race or gender would be much simpler than identifying religious belief.

And as such, when it's revealed, the reactions sometimes can be as stark as they are upsetting if one has to endure end products of such revelations.

Many years ago, my sister had a friend who ran a small business. When her old computers died and ate all her records, she was frantic for someone who knew old computers and had the parts to get them going long enough to retrieve information that was easily 100 times worth the old hardware.

To me, it was no big deal. Just for giggles, I took the CompTIA test to become A+ certified without even looking at a study guide. I aced the test, BTW. I got her up and going again, and because she was a friend of my sisters' wasn't going to charge her anything. I told her to just pay me what it was worth to her.

Over the period of the next couple of years, she'd call from time to time for advice on keeping her old hardware running. We're talking DOS 3.3 systems here. I never charged her for that and every once in awhile I'd run into her at the local Wal_Mart.

One of those times, the topic turned to politics and religion. I knew she was somewhat conservative, but I thought she was open-minded. She brought up the topic of gays and Pat Robertson, and I said I thought Pat Robertson was wrong to be cutting on gays. She asked something to the effect that wasn't I good Christian who believed in biblical proscriptions against homosexuals. I said, "No, I'm not a believer."

Wow. It was like a light switch was flipped. She treated me like I was Satan Himself.

After my Dad died, she came with my sister to the public auction of his possessions. She wouldn't even look at me, much less talk to me.

Some members of my own extended family have disowned me or think I've been somehow corrupted. See, THAT is the sort of thing religion can sometimes do.


-Kerry O.

I am sorry to hear it,, truly. I know religion can go poorly sometimes.

I dont agree with lifestyles alternative to heterosexual, yet my brother is gay. I am a christian, yet my husbands family were atheists.

I dont believe I will ever meet the person who will be perfect so I dont insist anyone be perfect for me to love and accept them. My brother and my husbands family are some of the warmest folks I know and I would never treat them differently than they treat me. That is also the way religion can go sometimes.

Again folks, it is christian fundamentalism, an all other forms of religious 'fundamentalisms', that is at the heart of all evil; the 'we're absolutely right, an you're absolutely wrong' attitude of fundamentalists.

The MSharmony(S) of the christian world will never be a problem or a threat to anyone. You msharmony, and christians like you, give christianity a good name.

But while your group of christians might represent a majority, the fundamentalists, the most vocal and 'loud' fringe of 'pseudo-christians', are doing all the damage and leaving christianity looking like the most closed-minded, backwards, and divisive institution known to man.

Until the majority of sane christians realize this, and work systematically to restore integrity to their institution by denouncing the fundamentalists and destructive ways, christianity will remain perceived as the hypocritical evil bully of the planetary back yard!

I completely understand and respect what you are saying , but I wish to ask you one sincere question, human being to human being,,and that is...

As a christian,,what suggestion(s) would you make as to how I can personally or individually affect how the 'world' views christianity. If you could give one SPECIFIC example, I would be grateful because I would like people to understand that Christ and Faith are not about hypocrisy....

I will be sincere with you msharmony, and suggest that you know exactly what is hypocritical in the 'pseudo-christian' discourse.

Look for the different forms these 'pseudo-christian-fundamentalists' 'wars' will take in forcing 'change' on everything that isn't in 'their image' of what's right!!! That is divisiveness, and ...

... DIVISIVENESS IS ALWAYS HYPOCRITICAL. IT IS NEVER CHRIST LIKE!!!

... from one whom doesn't necessarily share your beliefs, but agrees that whatever defines Jesus Christ, HYPOCRISY and DIVISIVENESS were never attributes of his reported character and ingrained values!!!

Oh here we go again. I keep asking you where are these dangerous radical Christians at???You keep saying over and over that these radical Christians groups or people are out there and they are a very big problem for society and other Christian groups.You know something,I think people worrying about getting killed by a radical Christian is probably the last thing in the world on their mind.So please post a news story(I think we would prefer something not 25 years old),article,something anything that can back up your theory that modern day radical Christians are a threat to the general public and Christian church.Because what you are saying is nothing but complete non sense.

You really want to know who is a threat to the general public and to Christians?Radical Muslims and radical Atheist.I think between the Atheist burning down churches,and the Muslims calling for death to all Christians that would be a pretty good start.A short history lesson for you....

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1108-gardiner

....The high-church atheists assert that religion causes war, but Day proves otherwise. He shows that over the past 232 years, 671,070 American soldiers have died in 17 wars, of which only one-half of one percent can reasonably be attributed to religion. This amounts to the deaths of 14 soldiers per year. Turning next to the Encyclopedia of Wars compiled by C. Phillips and A. Axelrod, Day examines 1,763 wars fought from 2325 B.C. to modern times. Of these wars, only 123 can reasonably be attributed to religion -- 6.92 percent of those recorded. Since half of these religious wars were waged by Muslims, this means that, apart from Islam, the world's religions are responsible for only 3.35 percent of all wars. "The historical evidence is conclusive," Day concludes. "Religion is not a primary cause of war."

Here is yet another glimpse of how Day uses facts to confute the "unholy trinity." Whereas Dawkins declares that atheists have the highest regard for works of art and architecture and not one of them in the world who would "bulldoze" places like Mecca, Chartres, or York Min­ster, Day replies with staggering evidence that atheists are far more likely than theists to destroy the landmarks of civilization, as when they razed 41,000 of the 48,000 churches in Russia, and 7,000 of the monasteries in Tibet.

Although Day is an evangelical, he is remarkably sympathetic to Catholics, who are usually the chief targets of atheists. Day scoffs at the way Dawkins, in the space of a couple of pages, dismisses the 3,000-page Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas: He says that Dawkins waved "a dead chicken over the keyboard" and tried to make readers believe he had "seriously considered" the Sum­ma and found it "wanting." Day also thinks it unfair that the Spanish Inquisition is ballyhooed as the high point of human wickedness. He points out that the Great Leap Forward and the Holocaust, both caused by atheists, resulted in 43 million and 6 million deaths respectively, whereas the Spanish Inquisition resulted in 3,230 deaths in three and a half centuries. And then, in the single year of 1936, Spanish atheists murdered 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy -- "more than twice the number of the victims of 345 years of inquisition." Summing up, Day reveals that 52 atheist rulers in the 20th century, from 1917 to 2007, were responsible for a body count of around 148 million dead -- "three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war and individual crime in the entire 20th century." And so it turns out that "the average atheist crime against humanity" is "18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians." To support these powerful refutations, Day offers footnotes on virtually every page.

i dont endorse and religion but in my law class we learned that god means any god it could me buddha, or the christian god or allah for it could mean the tree outside your house, basically it's "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." it's saying that god (whom ever he may be to you) is going to aid us in protecting liberty and justice.... which in many cases doesn't happ but no legal system is perfect and i prefer ours to a theocratic one lol


in the words of me, just do you and since ur in america if it's not harming anyone else the gov't can touch u (supposedly haha)