Bingo! 166 years of opposing things like Civil Rights, Woman's Suffrage, Abortion Rights, Evolution, Separation of Church and State, Public Education, Immigration Reform, Racial Integration has nothing to do with their bad image. /sarc

I have an idea for the SBC: Stick with the current name and try supporting things that don't make them look like bigoted douche bags.

"Amen!"

"It's our words. Not our deeds!" Sounds like a bigoted douche bag to me too.

Exactly. Southern Baptists have higher negatives because THEY ARE NEGATIVE !!!!!!!!!

Southern Baptist has always meant intolerance, ignorance and idiocy--the 3 I's--to yours truly. Yeah, ditch the name. I suggest the Southern Christ Lovers. It's so much more marketing friendly.

So are you suggesting that Jesus was tolerant of sin in society and individuals lives? Why would Southern Baptists be different than their Savior?

Please, someone tell me where it says in the Bible to be tolerant to sin.

I absolutely love the fact that 2,000 people represent how our whole country feels on the subject! It should really bother all of us that a decision of this magnitude would be made on the basis of a few hundred people considering how many people live in our country. Statistics are ridiculous. Just another way to manipulate the public!

Fab,

In statistics that is called a "representative sample". Based on that sample (with a few other formulae applied), statisticians derive a "margin of error". The larger the margin of error, the less faith one should have that the poll's reported results are close to the "true" figures; that is, the figures for the whole population. I believe the margin of error in this survey was +-2%.

So yes, a decision like that CAN be made based on how 2000 people feel. If the SBC didn't believe that, they wouldn't be considering the name change.

Then again, it sounds to me that you never studied statistics in school, so I don't know why I bother.

My mother was raisd a Southern Baptist. She hated every minute of it. Could not wait until she was emancipated so she could leave the Southern Baptist church. Met my dad. He was raised Episcopalian. They married and she converted to the Episcopal Church and never looked back. I am a cradle Episcopalian, with Episcopal/Anglican roots going back at least to 1650. Bragging? Maybe, but maybe not. Just a fact. To her dying day, my mother had little good to say about the Southern Baptist Church. So, you ,might say that I see it with a negative viewpoint.

Here is the rub, Lordsknight and that other guy; your 'sins' are not my 'sins'. I don't believe in half of whats in the bible. I have my own sense of right and wrong and that sense is mirrored by many others. You can stand there and call me sinfull, that's fine. But you cross the line when you legislate to make my 'sins' unlawful. This is my country too.

@LordsKnight -- @floyd-335513

John 3:17

There are many people who no longer uderstand the reason our country was founded and the history the church played in it's founding. In the early days of our birth, people were actually taxed to help support the church and its ministry. No one was forced to attend, but all were required to help in it's support. Our founding fathers realized the importance Judeo Christian ethics played in the stability and on going strength of the foundation of our government. When that factor is removed, we have exactly what we have in our country today... people lke you who think we would be better off without those principles. I am not referring to the prejudice and hate that many religious organizations propogate, but I am referring to the standards of morality, integrety, value of life - born as well as unborn. Those values have nothing to do with race, or tax status.

Those values aren't the sole province of religious blowhards, either.

As a former Christian and independent follower of Christ, I highly disagree with your comment. "We have exactly what we have in our country today" because authentic light cannot be distinguished from the darkness it surrounds. The church today cannot be distinguished from United Way, except in how it hypocritically ostracises, intimidates, mentally abuses, bullies and descriminates.

There is more to Christ than disorganized Christianity.

Remain blessed,

- Acts & Beyond Ministries

I grew up in the church, the values are important, but to suggest that our founders created a Christian Constitution is just nonsense, They had to good sense to separate church and state, we don't need our own version of the Taliban.

A rose by any other name...

I am referring to the standards of morality, integrety, value of life - born as well as unborn. Those values have nothing to do with race, or tax status.

They don't have anything to do with religion either.

I know many atheists and agnostics who have higher standards morality and integrity than many of the religious people I know.

Any church involving itself in politics should forego being called a church.

The problem is that all organized religion is based on sharing the same ideas. Members have to be 'the flock' of someone's leadership. They have to 'believe' what their leaders tell them. Organized religion is the main method method of controlling the masses in our world by using the fear of GOD.

If I had ultimate power, I would use it to purge the world of organized religion. Of all the events controlled by man, organized religion has caused the most death and destruction in our world.

g easter

there's not such a thing as a former Christian.

Steve-2787806, BS!!! I'm calling you out because you are stating absolute BS!!! The founding fathers resisted ALL attempts by the church to inject itself into the political process and the constitution. Its called the freedom of religion, maybe you've heard of this. The founding fathers saw fit to reject attempts by the Catholic Church to inject itself into others daily lives and in no way was any individual ever forced to pay taxes to support the Church. They just got through leaving a country (England) that forced everyone to be into a particular church denomination or State Religion, they were having none of that. The Church persisted and insisted and that is where we got the "Separation of Church and State" written by Jefferson in 1802. Later it was added as the First Amendment as 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'.

You are the type of person that turns folks off of the Southern Baptist Church. You go around spouting BS as if this is going to make your case. The SBC has been deplorable historically as far as ethics goes so seeing you claim that as a strength is laughable.

there's not such a thing as a former Christian.

I beg to differ here I am. Dragged to church for 18 years before I saw the light. Now I'm an atheist AND former Christian.

Hey look another former christian here. floyd you need to to actually get out and talk to people who are different from you. That would mean, you know, people not in your church. You're not allowed to be different in a church.

Robert Hendrix, post #3.4:

Please explain to me where in the Constitution, did THEY have the good sense to "separate the church and state". I looked for it and could not find it. Thank you.

American man @ 3.13

FIRST amendment to the U.S. Constitution, also what is part of what is commonly referred to as The Bill of Rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

And, by the way, I'm not sure what you're referring to because your post is 3.13 and you say you're replying to post 3.4 - are you clairvoyant or something?

Steve @ 3.1

James Madison was surely one of the most pious and devout of the founding fathers and the principal framer of the constitution particularly in regards to freedom of and from religion. The following is a quote from him in a letter to a friend:

"Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;" [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]

More from Madison:

"An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government." [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]

His concern over the commingling of politics and religion cannot be overstated.

And even more from our founding fathers, this time from Thomas Jefferson and The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which he wrote:

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

It annoys me when people try to rewrite history. Knock it off.

I retract my statement about clairvoyance because I now see that in Newsvines world 3.4 comes before 3.13.

I need to be careful about getting snarky when I'm online because I can't sleep. I also regret my last statement in the post.

I stand by the rest of the post as entirely factual however.

Steve,

Have you heard of the Treaty of Tripoli???

In addition to Hartwig's excellent post, in the Treaty of Tipoli, written by John Adams and signed by George Washington, it states...

The United States was is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

Turn off the Mike Huckabee, he isn't doing you any favors.

, but I am referring to the standards of morality, integrety, value of life - born as well as unborn. Those values have nothing to do with race, or tax status.

they don't have anything to do with religion either, all the religions have those basic principles, as well as the non-religious

The Supreme Court has defined and supported the notion of the separation of church and state in decisions going back to the 19th century. Let's begin by referring to the 1802 letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in which he said, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." These are not mere words, for in the 1879 Supreme Court case ofReynolds v The United States the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." This case and the court's landmark decision became part of the Establishment Clause in 1978. This interpretation has been expanded and supported by Supreme Court decisions in later challenges including Emerson v The Board of Education in 1947, Engel v Vitale in 1962, in Epperson v Arkansas in 1968, and in Lemon v Kurtzman in 1971.

Therefore, there is no room for any confusion whatsoever regarding the interpretation of the First Amendment with regard to the role of religion in our secular government. The concept of the hard and fast separation of religion and our secular government is the law of the land.

The Lord is wonderful, but He has never been very good with money.

and he never was a CHRISTIAN!! or reborn again!!! Its all Hocus Pocus, mind control of the "children of a Lesser GOD."

Sid stated: "and he never was a CHRISTIAN!! or reborn again!!! Its all Hocus Pocus, mind control of the "children of a Lesser GOD.""

I'm glad that this is only your opinion sid, because, if you are posting it as a fact, I would have to ask you for proof of this.

Exactly, reminds me of Phillip Morris changed their name because they might be associated with cigarettes.

....or Blackwater rebranding itself as "Xe". They're still corrupt torturing mercenaries who will sell their weapons and services to the highest bidder.

You sure your not Roger? I won't get fooled again.

Let's just say for kicks that God hates divorce, homosexuality,abortion, lying,cheating,stealing etc. would you still be angry at the Southern Baptists for trying to teach what goes against God's laws? God is a God of love and His laws are there for a reason, to teach us and protect us. It seems our forefathers understood that. Wonder what happened?

fab five...

You and your churchmates are practicing IDOLTRY when you carry on and on about the US Constitution the way you do.

fab five @ 11.1

"It seems our forefathers understood that"

Our forefathers understood people like you all too well and wrote the Constitution to protect us from your particular version of religious zealotry.

I quote Madison and Jefferson in post 3.14 above if you need further clarification.

FabFive,

The United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

That's from the Treaty of Tripoli, written by John Adams and signed by George Washington. And, untill such time as you can prove that God hates all those things you listed, you have no substantive, convincing, or even legal argument to support your position.

P.S. The following is not considered "proof"... Bible, morals, beliefs, Jesus, God's word, religion. I love when you folks try to use the Bible to prove the Bible true. What a hoot!

Let's just say for kicks that God hates divorce, homosexuality,abortion, lying,cheating,stealing

well, the last three would certainly put the southern baptists on the s__t list

Let's just say for kicks that God hates

lets just say for kicks that god doesn't care what you do personally, then what?

God is a God of love and His laws are there for a reason, to teach us and protect us

yep, "protect and teach" us so much that he blows up cities, drowns the world, condemns children for ten generations because he didn't like their parents. and this is supposed to be a rational being?

let's not mention that he has an "only son" when there is supposedly only one, how's that supposed to work again?

Well said, Danwill. Christianity, after all, is a dark, bloody religion fixated on the afterlife because it is, at its core, a death cult that showcases a human sacrifice as its central theme.

Yeah, real intelligent Trust2112. How about you hide your ignorance by keeping your mouth shut.

The "Southern Baptist" church I attend has more African American Members then any church I was ever in up north in the Washington DC area nonetheless. Secondly, my church in 12 months sent over 5 missions trips with medical teams with medical supplies, building supplies, etc to some of the poorest, most impoverished places on the planet, much of which is in Africa. I dare say, you wouldn't volunteer to do 1% of what these "terrible southern baptists" have done for African Americans around the world, would you? didn't think so.

Secondly, nobody I know in the church treats their wives like that. So sit down, shut up, and stick to talking about stuff that you're actually intelligently informed about. You have nothing of significance to add to this comment board regarding this story.

I may give you the "racist" comment. I think the term "southern" brings to mind racism more than "baptist" does. However I commonly refer to them as the Southern Bigot Church and I stand by the statement. Just because "gay" isn't a race doesn't mean discriminating against them isn't bigotry. I used to say live and let live, the church can teach what it wants. Until churches started trying to influence politics and law (it's none of your churches damn business if my gay friends want to get married).

All the good your church may have done for impoverished countries is negated and overshadowed by how hard they have fought to keep sex education and contraceptives out of their hands. If your church actually just helped people instead of pushing your dogma there would be less HIV and AIDS (because it can be prevented with contraception), so there would be fewer parentless homes, fewer children forced to work to live, fewer new cases of AIDS, on and on. The problem with the SBC isn't their name, it's their actions.

Obviously, Steve, you've confused the Southern Baptists with the Catholics, as far as sex ed and contraceptives go.

@Steve, first of all it's not just Southern Baptists who fight against homosexuality, and homosexuals rights to "marry".

Marriage is more of a religious thing then it is anything else, if you look at historical examples. If anything, it's the government that should stay out of religion and marriage. If homosexuals want something similar with the same rights, then by all means, have at it. But don't try to CHANGE the DEFINITION of MARRIAGE as is defined, and has been defined for milleniums.

Not to mention, it's estimated that the homosexual population in the United States is 2% or less. Given that statistic, why in the world should the WHOLE population just BOW down to them, and change the definition of marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years. Again, marriage is more of a religious thing then it has ever been a government thing. Go create your own thing, and stop trying to take over marriage.

Lastly, the church isn't responsible for keeping contraceptives or any of that out of the hands of these people, they just don't participate in distributing it.

Again, once you've been out there purchasing this stuff and handing it out with your own money, don't go barking at the churches for what they do, or do not do. You have NO ROOM TO SPEAK, so again, sit down, and STFU.

Oh, and homosexuality STILL hasn't been proven to be something you're "born with". There's actually significant evidence the other way around, that it has more to do with upbringing, circumstances, environment, and ultimately decisions/emotions tied to those factors. So until homosexuality is PROVEN without a doubt to be something in your dna... Why should we change the definition of marriage? =\ That makes zero sense.

One more thing.

There is NOWHERE, and I repeat... NOWHERE written in the Constitution, ANYTHING regarding "separation of church & state", Period, end of story.

That is a common misconception that the liberal media has fed people, and people like ya'll just BLINDLY follow along with it, and accept it as fact. When it's the furthest thing from the truth.

The reason our forefathers didn't want a government like Englands is because there was a STATE RELIGION that was the "authorized religion" of the government, and any other religion/belief system that wasn't in line, was persecuted. So in reality, the GOVERNMENT needs to stay out of religion, and influencing religious decisions/actions, etc... NOT the other way around. Infact, IF churches were to pay taxes, that would probably be a LOT of money, and the government would be intricately involved in the church, which is EXACTLY what our forefathers did NOT want. They wanted freedom FROM the government for religion, NOT freedom for the government from religion, as 90% of them were very, extremely "religious" people themselves.

And very lastly, IF you made churches pay taxes, and took away their tax exempt status, and people (many wealthy people, too) could no longer pay tithes to the churches for tax purposes as well, then you would see a HUGE drop in programs, HIV/AIDS care, missions around the world for 3rd world nations, ministries to the slums/broken down/impoverished areas of cities in the US, alcoholic/substance abuse programs, teen programs, etc... Because people would no longer be giving that money like that. And don't even tell me that the government would step in, because the government can't operate ANYTHING properly. They can't properly manage someone tying their shoes right if their lives depended on it. Name one organization of the government that runs properly, and isn't bankrupt or near bankruptcy, or has other malfunctions. Name JUST ONE thing the government has EVER done right as far as social programs/benefits/organizations/charities/etc... Hmmm, Not one.

There is NOWHERE, and I repeat... NOWHERE written in the Constitution, ANYTHING regarding "separation of church & state", Period, end of story

*besides the first amendment

Marriage is more of a religious thing then it is anything else, if you look at historical examples.

What friggin' planet do you live on. Marriage was practiced by the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, and religion had little to do with it. It was all about property. Typical religious nut to co-opt marriage to their own definition.

We can see above, the Southern Baptist makes the statement "Nowhere in the constitution.... Period. End of Story"

It's that mentality, 'I'm right, you're wrong. Period. End of Story' that makes these church people so despised. They won't listen, read, or even believe facts. No sense in science, because they already know the 'truth'.

Uh Nick, sorry but the 1st Amendment does not say that. It says that Congress shall not establish a religion but says nothing about the States doing so. The 10th Amendment gives the States the right to establish a religion if they wish. The 14th Amendment by stating that the States must treat all their people equally has been interpeted by the Supreme Court to mean that the States cannot establish a religion. Of course, nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the authority to decide what is constitutional.

Christopher, please go back to school and learn something abouth US history and law and civics. These kinds of blog entries are an embarrassment for our education system. Your last sentence shows such ignorance that I don't even know what to say.

Rupert Murdoch, from whose Faux "News" you clearly get your information, is not a scholar and he's not even American. Please try and think for yourself... and stop using the Constitution as an idol. It is not sacred scripture.

amaweguy, I don't usually read posts from people who start out attacking others, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I was wrong. Here's a lesson people learn on the forums: people don't read long rants. The more you post, the more you open yourself up to let folks you insulted to see who you really are.

Also, I went on one of those SBC missions in Namibia in '89. We built houses, dug wells, and fed the poor. The help was available to anyone who was ready to surrender their idols and talismans and receive Jesus Christ into their lives. No conversion? no food or shelter. I quit the church after this trip.

The SBC honors the indigenous principle in missions. The SBC does not, however, compromise doctrine or its identity for missional opportunities. - SBC position paper. August 26, 2010.

1st Amendment to the Constitution 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 to peacefully assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Churches may not pay taxes, but most of its congregation does, and has the right to vote in government elections based on their personal beliefs. If I disagree with homosexuality, abortion, that is my freedom of speech, and I should be allowed to speak my piece, just as anyone else. That doesn't make me homophobic, hateful, Southern Baptist (which I am), or any other religion.

Humans cannot live together without some rules. That is what most religions do, set rules for our daily living. The Bible is our rulebook. I tried to live without it for many years, with no success. Now, I am successful in all I do. That's all I need to know.

Okay Everyone,

It also says no where in the Constitution a LOT of things, however that doesn't mean they aren't rights, you know why??? The NINTH AMENDMENT!!!

Also, the whole separation of church and state thing... Yep, that's real. It's how SCOTUS interpretated the Establishment Clause, and is a quote by them about the Establishment Clause. It essentially, the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. You know, that whole bit about "Congress making no law..." in the 1st Amendment, that's the clause I'm talking about, as was SCOTUS. So yes, there is a separation of church and state.

Continuing, NO marriage is NOT mostly a religious thing, that would be Holy Matrimony. Marriage is a contractual property agreement PREDATING any organized religion. ESPECIALLY, Christianity.

Also, the Treaty of Tripoli, written by John Adams and signed by George Washington says...

The United States was in no sense founded on the Christian religion

And, that argument about the 10th Amendment giving states the right to name their own religions... HOGWASH! The 10th is pretty much inapplicable and was written at a time when each state had its own Bill of Rights. Since the 14th Amendment, that's no longer an issue, and the states have to follow the federal Bill of Rights.

Arrrggghhhh!

I posted this earlier but it is obvious that amaweguy needs a little civics lesson.

The Supreme Court has defined and supported the notion of the separation of church and state in decisions going back to the 19th century. Let's begin by referring to the 1802 letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in which he said, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." These are not mere words, for in the 1879 Supreme Court case of Reynolds v The United States the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." This case and the court's landmark decision became part of the Establishment Clause in 1978. This interpretation has been expanded and supported by Supreme Court decisions in later challenges including Emerson v The Board of Education in 1947, Engel v Vitale in 1962, in Epperson v Arkansas in 1968, and in Lemon v Kurtzman in 1971.

Therefore, there is no room for any confusion whatsoever regarding the interpretation of the First Amendment with regard to the role of religion in our secular government. The concept of the hard and fast separation of religion and our secular government is the law of the land.

I'll say "amen" to that Jake2247. Most Southern Baptist I know are a bunch of hypocrits

Heck, you don't even have to believe in god. I enjoy that through science, wisdom, and observation, life can be perceived and discoveries can be made that develop your mind and foster an understanding of life as you go. Life is simple and religion screws it all up. Through good parenting you learn right from wrong, and if you are a conscious and considerate person, the golden rule is all you need for moral fiber. Life is wondrous, the universe is boundless, and as life is plentiful here on earth, it is equally present throughout the cosmos. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it. With religion, all you have is blind faith and hope for something to believe in to the point where you fool yourself into its reality through repetitive weekly brainwashing.

A famous atheist once stated that religion poisons everything. I wholeheartedly agree. Besides, there are enough unanswered questions for me that prevent me from having any faith in god. For one, if god loves all he creates and forgive our sins, then why anyone be damned to hell? My guess is that hell is there to scare the easily manipulated non believers into believing and to keep the believers from going astray. Two, if god loves us as much as the bible or any pastor states, and is as powerful and wise as well, then wouldn't you think he would have made his existence clear as there to be only one god and one religion worldwide for all time? If he loves us that much, you'd think we'd deserve to know, and if I were him, I wouldn't have it any other way. It just further goes to show that religion is man made and changes with man, not god.

Time is nearing for humanity to graduate from religion and embrace their existence as we begin to understand and get comfortable in our place in the universe. When that time comes, I am staring to understand what armageddon just may look like. There will be like minded individuals as myself, who over time have become disillusioned with the church or by that time have never even set foot in one. They will find that life and existence are the things to believe in, as they are all tangible and can be observed, studied, discovered, and the numbers will grow as more and more knowledge will be available to share and it just won't make sense to believe in religion anymore. Prominent figures will arise among us that we will support and with our growing numbers over many years, we will eventually become a majority and will eventually influence votes. We will win elections and start running government. Though it will be a live and let live environment for the churches as the continue to dwindle, the separation of church and state will be literal and complete. The churches will not like this and will get all like religions involved. Through their righteousness, they will try to build up their masses to eliminate us, the kind, good, everyday people, who simply do not believe anymore, with god guiding them to make them right in their minds. But god is man made, so it will be them using god to enforce their will to eliminate their opposition so they can continue to control the masses with religion. To me the line between good and evil is clear, and eventually the fanatical religions will make the mistake they always make, and that is kill in the name of god. That is when all hell will break loose and I can only hope that reason prevails, and if it does, it wont be the end of humanity, it will simply be a new beginning, with religion meeting its end.

Am I evil for not believing? I most certainly think not. I am married, legally is what matters to me when I say marriage, and I love my wife very much. I work hard, I have good friends and family, I give to causes I believe in that directly help. I have adopted a pet, I give to the poor, and I help those in need if I am able. Yet to any devoutly religious person, my life is nothing without god and there is nothing I could say about my beliefs that they would accept as anything other than blasphemy. So it is an uphill battle for a non believer as religion has power, but it is far easier to hold on to my way of life than it will be for any religious person to hold on to their beliefs. God will eventually let you down as you are hoping for something that does not exist to help you. You help yourself, people help each other and that's the way it goes. Credit needs to stop being given to the physically uninvolved.

PS - and amaweguy, you need to use then and than properly.

Cuda, you shouldn't be correcting someone's grammer, when your post has mistakes in it. Use spellcheck, don't tell others of their mistakes. (Ie., "I am staring to understand what armageddon just may look like""......"Though it will be a live and let live environmentfor the churches as the continue to dwindle"...?

The only way "time is nearing for humanity to graduate from religion", is for people like you to tell us we're not allowed to have religion. Who died, and left you in charge?

It is written that judgement shall begin in the house of the lord - for good reason.

if the government would keep their noses out of the churches business, and stop attempting to legislate laws that infringe on religious freedoms, then perhaps the church WOULD stay out of politics

Any monkeys would fly out of my butt.

First off, the most basic of rebuttals. Religion enjoys tax exempt status. Now if they want to get into politics, they need to drop that crutch.

Secondly, religion has been imposing it's beliefs on others long before this nation was born.

Lastly, it was religion that pushed our government in the 50's, using the cold war as a tool, to have God interjected into everything and have the word God branded onto our daily lives.. Not the other way around.

For someone trying to defend religion, you sure do pass a whole lot of judgement.

amwayguy

I've never read so many unfounded statements in one place in all my life. You're quite the liar, as well as being rude and delusional.

Score: 3 commandments broken

According to Christ, Christianity should be "one," just like Christ and God are one, according to Jesus. God is love and Christ Jesus proved to be just another variation of that same love, like the layers of a cabbage. The teachings and actions of the organized church of Jesus Christ should be likewise, just another variation of the endless truth of God's never ending love. Not so with organized Christianity today. Christian denominational doctrines today often oppose each other... to its own eventual demise.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

The light of true Christianity is supposed to shine brighter than anything is surrounds. But Christianity today appears to be no disimilar than United Way, which never even acknowledges God or Christ publicly, but does so daily, without mentally abusing, pulpit bullying, manipulation and committing blatant hypocrisies against its own doctrines.

Sad, very sad... but true, nevertheless.

It doesn't matter how many hungry souls it draws, feeds, shelters or clothes. The world outside of church walls do the same thing.

Don't change your name. Change your ways.

"'A loveless world,' Jesus said, 'is a sightless world.'" (The Message Bible")

2 Timothy 3

¹This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

²For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

³Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

⁴Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

⁵Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

⁶For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

⁷Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

⁸Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

⁹But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.

¹⁰But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,

¹¹Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.

¹²Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

¹³But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

Hmm... Sounds eerily like our days now =)

^{1st Timothy 1: 8 - 16}

⁸But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

⁹Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

¹⁰For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

¹¹According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

¹²And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;

¹³Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

¹⁴And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

¹⁵This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

¹⁶Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

(Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32)

Romans 1:18

¹⁸For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Romans 1:26

²⁶For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Romans 1:27

²⁷And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:32

³²Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Wow --- I am just SO impressed that amaweguy can cut and paste .... aren't the rest of you? He's also a stand-up Christian ...

atheists sure are a bunch of loud @ s s mo fo's.

I'm sure Jesus would be impressed with THAT!

Now on to the issue at hand ... here is the reason that churches should be taxed (at least property tax) and it has NOTHING to do with politics. It has to do with the services that the church expects.

If a church needs the fire or police department, it certainly expects them to respond. Yet the church pays nothing.

If a church needs the street outside the building repaired (or even NEEDS a street), it expects the city to provide it. Yet the church pays nothing.

If the church needs the street cleared of snow, it expects it to be done. Yet the church pays nothing.

If the church is damaged in a storm, it expects federal aid. Yet the church pays nothing.

Who DOES pay for it? All of the other taxpayers who may, or may not, belong to that particular church.

The church needs to pay its way, just like everyone else. Simple.

@ NYMike The Founding Fathers interjected God into everything long before the 50s. They use to hold Sunday service in the capitol building. It is NOT a new thing. It's part of our history. It always has been until recently. Most of the hate I've read has been from the non-spiritual people. Why does anyone even care what the baptists do?

amaweguy, You can quote the Bible all you want, but until someone actually reads it with understanding they will just negate everything you say. Like some people's take on how the Bible views women, I understand it is loved and cherished, others think females are held to second class status.

@Beth, oh, so you mean, like the Christians all over the United States who pay taxes for things that directly contradict their beliefs? Oh, yeah, I get it...

Ok, so as soon as the taxpayer stops funding things that directly contradict our beliefs, then taxpayers can stop funding the street that goes by the church, that also just so happens to help them get home, as many churches are built right in the middle of a neighborhood/city.

Uh yeah, you're argument is sad. Try again.

Oh, and one of the first things that you can stop fighting for, is to have abortions/contraceptives/etc funded by taxpayer money. I think that would be #1 on the list of "religious" people to NOT have paid for by their tax money. THEN we can talk about the church paying real estate tax. Not to mention, the people attending the church are already paying property tax in that neighborhood to have most of those services provided already anyways. It's ultimately a "double tax" when it's all said and done.

@Sheila, yeah, but the seed can still be planted by somebody simply reading the words of God. A verse can say 10,000x's more to a heart/mind then I can with 10,000 words of my own.

I am, however, just waiting for someone to make a comment about, "Oh no, the Bible says that a homosexual is worthy of death, so you're condoning murdering a homosexual!!!"

=P So yes, in that sense, people who choose to be ignorant, and do not understand the Bible, nor do they have any desire to understand the Bible, and realize that it's translated from originally greek/hebrew, and don't understand the context in which things are written, then yes, you're right, they will never understand it. They don't want to, therefore, they won't.

Similar to the verses that talked about back in the Bible days that if a man were to rape a woman, that he would have to marry her by law, and to provide for her. What most people in our day and age don't understand, is that virginity back then was a very highly prized thing to have, and to give to your husband. Infact, it was so prized, that if a woman lost her virginity (by force or by choice) back then, she would have been abandoned by the entire community. Nobody would ever marry her. She would live alone for the rest of her life, her family would forsake her, and she would have to provide for herself. So it was actually a BLESSING to the woman for the penalty for rape to be that the man HAD to provide for her, and take her under his roof and give her a home/shelter/food/etc. And other laws back then assured that she would be taken care of, otherwise her family (brothers/father) would quickly see to the demise of anyone causing her additional harm.

Things like that, atheists and simply people willingly ignorant of God and the Bible choose to come up with radical and crazy claims about Christians based on the Bible simply because they don't understand, and they refuse to try to understand. They have no concept of history, and what life was like back in the Bible days, and the culture in which people lived and abided by. Even up until 100 years ago, virginity was a highly prized thing. It was something to safeguard, to present to your spouse in marriage as a gift, as a promise to one another. Now? Ahah... People don't even think twice about it. Kids are having threesomes before they're even adults. Divorce rates are through the roof. Abortions are considered a brush on the shoulder. Adultery, fornication is rampant. Homosexuality is condoned, encouraged, and promoted. Everybody is in it for themselves and what they can get out of it. Essentially, we don't give a crap about anything, except for if we don't get what we want. Then we raise hell.

Even today, the U.S.A is so far removed from other cultures in the world. People wonder why much of the world despises the US... Our culture is so willingly ignorant, immoral, abrasive, etc...

@NYMike, actually, in the 1950's and 1960's is when the "anti-religious" movements kicked into high gear and prayer was removed from schools, public funded institutions, as well as Bibles, and reading from the Bible, then in the 1970's abortion was legalized, and so on and so forth...

So you are incorrect. Up until the 1950's, "religion" played a HUGE role in government, and public institutions, and needless to say, we were better off because of it. Take a look at graphs available in the Library of Congress (and online) for percentages of every sort of crime, divorce, murder, theft, couples living together before marriage, rape, abortions, teen pregnancy, etc... Every single one of those sky-rocketed percentage points immediately following the early 1960's removal of the Bible and prayer from schools. Look it up.

That's also around the time that those same people started brain-washing the public about "separation of church and state" to the point where people actually think that is written in the Constitution somewhere, lol. You probably even think it is, come to think of it... =P

So yeah... You need to check wherever your getting facts from. I think public education brain-washed you a bit too well =P

Oh yeah, also available for your viewing is graphs regarding education levels dropping like a rock during that same time frame immediately following the Bible and prayers removal from schools. So much so, that during the 1980's, the departments and board of education had to revise (i.e. water down) their testing curriculum as well as the study curriculum, because essentially, kids were getting more and more stupid, and were unable to pass many of the tests that were in place at that time.

Again, it's available. Do some quick research, and you can find it =) There's a lot of other statistics available too that you'd probably find quite interesting. All of it happening immediately following the early 1960's laws regarding public school prayer, and Bibles.

Taxes are paid to support government expenses. Taxpayers don't pick and choose what their tax money pays for. The government decides where the money goes. And since churches don't pay taxes, the money shouldn't be spent on them at all. Churches are supported by their parishoners. When people give money to the church it is for the church to spend as it sees fit. Non-members don't have to agree or disagree with it. Churches shouldn't say anything about how taxes are spent, as churches pay no taxes. Its individual members do and, as individual taxpayers, each has the same rights as any other person. The church as an entity has no business telling its parishioners what they should demand from the government. It pays nothing, it should say nothing. Preach God's word, not man's political ideas.

You are laughable, you must not be aware of how much the church as a whole does for communities, all over the world! It provides , food , shelter, repair work etc. so much so that there is no way the government could keep up with the support the church provides. So your comment about the church not paying taxes...I guess you want to bite the hand that helps the world. By the way, in case you didn't know church goers pay taxes just like you.

Doesn't your religion preach getting rid of all other religions that also help poor people and give to charity?

Your position is the same as any athiests, you believe the majortiy of the people in the world are wrong for believing in God, because it's not your God they believe in.

if the government would keep their noses out of the churches business, and stop attempting to legislate laws that infringe on religious freedoms, then perhaps the church WOULD stay out of politics.

Can you cite any specific examples of the last time you were prevented from going to church? This victimhood and delusions of procecution are getting old.

@Beth: Religious entities, aka 'churches', are exempt from paying federal business taxes, but are not exempt from state and local taxes, such as property taxes, which pay for municipal things, aka police and fire.

@nbkcq28...if that is your real name??? Just kidding! You are so misinformed about the church and taxes. Churches do not receive any monies from the government. Since the church does not sell, lease or participate in profitable type corporate businesses it falls under the IRS for Tax Exempt meaning that they cannot charge taxes on the monies donated to the church, just like all other Tax Exempt entities. The same as United Way, Red Cross and 1000's of other non-profit groups. However, the churches in every community use utilities and pay the taxes on those, they build facilities and pay taxes on those, the employees pay FICA and Social Security taxes, they fuel their vehicles with gas locally including taxes. The church is not the building it is the people which constitute the entity. Those people live in the community and state they live in and as individuals, simply because they are a member of a church does not mean they forfeit their opinions and participation in government and politics. We see it as our duty to participate in political and social debates, though they should be in a cordial fashion, unlike Obama's church and those like it... There are extremists in religion, atheism, even in Walmart... To imagine this planet without the church would be to imagine all the aid and help left to the governments. The churches have long done tremendous good works and helping people in need. Though it is not perfect it is the greatest thing that Christ established after His death, burial, and resurrection...

Wow -- such a lot to respond to on THIS one...

First

@ Jackie

@ NYMike The Founding Fathers interjected God into everything long before the 50s

Except the Constitution. God's not there. Sorry. Not even once. The only references to religion are the Establishment Clause (which prohibits a state religion) and the Religious Test Clause (that forbids a religious test to run for office). Read it for yourself.

@ awamayguy

Ok, so as soon as the taxpayer stops funding things that directly contradict our beliefs, then taxpayers can stop funding the street that goes by the church, that also just so happens to help them get home, as many churches are built right in the middle of a neighborhood/city.

That's why I specified PROPERTY taxes. Those are the taxes that pay for infrastructure and city/county/state services. However, EVERYONE pays taxes for things they don't like -- whether they are religious or not.

Oh, and one of the first things that you can stop fighting for, is to have abortions/contraceptives/etc funded by taxpayer money. I think that would be #1 on the list of "religious" people to NOT have paid for by their tax money. THEN we can talk about the church paying real estate tax.

Taxes don't pay for abortions. Sorry to blow that "argument" out of the water.

Not to mention, the people attending the church are already paying property tax in that neighborhood to have most of those services provided already anyways. It's ultimately a "double tax" when it's all said and done.

No .. they have paid that tax on their HOUSES, not on the church buildings. Using your, er, "logic", then business people wouldn't have to pay taxes on their businesses since they pay taxes on their home. See how ridiculous you sound? (My guess is you don't.)

And finally ... this little bit of historical ignorance on your part ...

@NYMike, actually, in the 1950's and 1960's is when the "anti-religious" movements kicked into high gear

It was in the 1950's, as a result of lobbying from the K of C and as a McCarthyism reaction to the "godless commies" that "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. It's not in the original (which, btw, was written by a pastor).

@ Misscreant

@Beth: Religious entities, aka 'churches', are exempt from paying federal business taxes, but are not exempt from state and local taxes, such as property taxes, which pay for municipal things, aka police and fire.

Sorry, you are incorrect. Look up the Supreme Court decision The U.S. Supreme Court Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970).

Churches do not receive any monies from the government

Yes they do. Look up the Office of Faith Based Initiatives, established by Pres. Bush executive order.

For fiscal year 2005, more than $2.2 billion in competitive social service grants were awarded to faith-based organizations. Between fiscal years 2003 and 2005, the total dollar amount of all grants awarded to FBOs increased by 21 percent (GAO 2006:43^[3]). The majority of these grants were distributed through state agencies to local organizations in the form of formula grants (GAO 2006:17^[3]).

From Wikipedia, but well researched. Follow the footnotes.

Additionally Catholic and Jewish hospitals certainly receive Medicare and Medicaid payments.

Amen, Mamma!!!!

Don't any of you feel like bigots for the judgements and comments you're making?

No. Most are probably speaking from personal experience.

"Better idea: stop being hypocritical hate-filled @!$%#s. That would surely improve their image."

That is a great idea for a new name! The Church of the Hypocritical Hate-Filled @!$%#s! It has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig.

Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample you.

Didn't know you were paraphrasing Jesus, didja?

How many Baptists does it take to change a light bulb?

What!? Change?! Never happen.

Oh boy! It's quote time!

"Everyone ought to worship God according to his own inclinations, and not to be constrained by force."

-Flavius Josephus

"The only time anyone's admitted they were a Christian before was when they were busy telling me why they're better than me."

-Anon

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

-Richard Dawkins