Christian faith can be the most rewarding thing in a person's life,
on par with their family, work and country, but how many of the
world's religions ask for more of us than either of those three
things? The leaders at our Air Force Academy instruct cadets that God
comes before country, and couple this with warnings that should they
die not having been 'saved', hell is where they're going to end
up. You and I provide them their money, training and prestige, but God
gets his before we taxpayers get ours. While this may sound as wrong to
you as it does to me now, to a born-again Christian it's always been
this way and always will be this way. The government can lock you up
and throw away the key, but it's only for a lifetime. It's only
what happens when this life is over that they're concerned with.

This is the crux of the religious teachings, and the bait that goes on
the hook as souls are fished for every day in this country and abroad.
Everything is about the good that God represents, the sin that Satan
represents and all the poor souls out there who need to hear your voice
to lead them away from the darkness and towards the light. The daily
exercise of 'spreading the Gospel' is each of their
responsibilities, and when the potential recruit is upset or down about
the way life is treating them, the comfort and love you provide can
work as a beacon to guide their way to happiness. When it works, you
then inform them that for the small price of a lifetime of devotion and
sales, they won't burn in hell forever. The vulnerable are given a
chance for redemption, regardless of what they've done in the past.
To escape damnation all you have to do is give your soul to Jesus
Christ through a ceremony known as being 'saved'.

Having been someone who has lived this, been a 'witness' and played
an intregal part in several healings and miracles - it's impossible
to describe the sensation or the incredible feeling of joy this brand
of Christianity is capable of providing. The most amazing revelation I
came out of it with was the enormous potential of human beings when
bonded by a collective faith in something. When hearts and minds are
connected and focused on a common goal, nature adapts to accommodate
their will. Wounds heal, spirits come and go, people change. Why it
happens is the question I felt compelled to answer as I encountered
adulthood on my own, as a soldier in the US Army. The answer I've
believed in for years now is that 'why' has everything to do with
faith and nothing to do with heaven, hell or the respective texts that
govern any of the world's religions.

Faith in what you might ask? Well, in love and passion and goodness and
most importantly the sense that whatever you're doing with your life
is being done for the right reasons. This prerequisite of faith can be
satisfied in more ways than any of us could imagine. Human beings are
provided free will and spend this capital for the sake of galvanizing
their faith in whatever allows for the perception of wholeness. Most of
us make mistakes in how we spend this capital early in life, and when
disillusionment from this mistake or a series of such life gobbling
mistakes cause us to perceive an unfulfillable void, religion steps in
and provides us the direction we so long for.

It is in this way that religion has provided meaning and direction for
billions of lives since the dawn of time. This is what non-religious
people fail to understand about those who are religious, and for those
who do understand it, often times it will create an association in
their mind with weakness of some sort. That a religious person is
unable to attain fulfillment in the natural world surrounding them, so
they use religion as a crutch. I've always felt that this couldn't
be further from the truth. People strive for goodness and whether one
goes about obtaining it through art, philanthropy or religion is
inconsequential. There is no leveling effect in how a person goes about
leading a good, positive life as long as it's rooted in honesty and
fueled by a genuine longing to do better today than you did yesterday.

Born again Christianity taps into this brilliantly. First with the
initiation ceremony of being 'saved' by accepting Jesus Christ as
your personal savior, as by doing so all prior sins are washed away.
You start again with a clean slate, reborn in the eyes of the Lord.

Aside from this, the daily life of a born again is described by its
preachers as a battle of good versus evil. Secular society represents
Satan's influence, and those who profit from it are therefore under
Satan's control. I was shown many times a video entitled 'Hell's
Bells' that scrutinized secular music and instructed it's viewers
that the motivating force behind most, if not all non-Christian music,
was Satan. The production was done in a way that instilled a great
sense of fear within me, and the subsequent effect was the perception
of bogeymen around every corner. Your one guiding light of hope is
Christ. A performer named Carmen has produced several albums of songs
and theatrical pieces that pit the Christian against Satan. The
dramatic stories within, further managed the development my perception
towards the existence of a daily struggle within America of good versus
evil. It galvanized my belief in the fact that I was God's soldier.

The bible was my rifle, and preachers identified my targets. Pro-choice
advocates, secular culture and those who rejected my beliefs were the
primaries. Scriptures were selected to back up whatever stance I was
instructed to take on an issue, and with rifle in hand I battled Satan
for control of those around me. The end result was often isolation,
sometimes a shameful relapse into secular life, and ultimately a belief
that I had been chosen by God and was therefore resigned to a life of
hardship. The life of a soldier was supposed to be this way, and as
long as my suffering was for the sake of spreading the Gospel, it was
destined to be so. I was resigned to this reality, as unhappy as it
made me, with a belief that everything was predestined and I was
playing out the role that God had set out before me.

When money for college became a roadblock in my way, I had faith that
God would lead me in the right direction. The Army recruiter and I met
by chance the day after I had sat down with my parents to have the
conversation about college. At the time I didn't have any interest in
joining the military, but the timing of it convinced me that God wanted
me to enlist. Within the matter of a few days I followed through. By my
senior year in high school I'd sworn off 'spreading the Word', as
nothing besides isolation and negativity had come from it for a long
time, yet my beliefs remained in tact.

In basic training there was a guy who bunked next to me who went by the
nickname 'preacher man'. He was a born again father of five from
North Carolina, and had this ability to captivate an audience with his
words of Christ and the bible. By the second month I was so tired of
listening to it I could have thrown my boot at him. Other soldiers in
the platoon couldn't get enough of it, but I'd heard it all before.
It caused me to realize how I came off to my peers in high school,
during a time where I discovered a number of natural leadership skills
that had nothing to do with religion at all. During the second month of
training I suffered an injury to my ankle, found a born again Christian
service on post and was healed on a Sunday. I got there using crutches,
and walked back without them. Before graduation and my first assignment
I no longer believed that heaven was only for those who were
'saved', yet still retained the necessary faith to be healed.

What specifically changed my mind about born again Christians being
God's chosen people, I couldn't say. The idea though, that I had it
all figured out at the age of 17, seemed absurd. There were internal
changes that took place within me and as the individual began to
emerge, so did a suspicion concerning the intent behind the things
I'd been taught to believe about my religion. Book after book, month
after month, experience after experience, the fundamental tenants of
Jesus's teachings provided me happiness and many friendships. While
the issues I had been consumed with during high school - abortion,
homosexuality, Satanic influences in secular society, witnessing -
were inconsequential to me. By the time I turned 19, my nightly reading
from the devotional bible was replaced with a journal, and my religion
consisted of only one thing. Treat others as you'd like to be
treated.

deadissue, Christians don't believe that. See:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=
for what we actually believe.  You are misrepresenting Christianity in
the hopes of bashing it.

One straw man down. Next?

The rest of the article just compounds the mistakes you made in the
first paragraph.

And why, deadissue, do you think it is moral in any way to kill an
innocent, unborn boy or girl, in a painful, bloody procedure, even if
you are not a Christian? And why do you vote for people (Democrats) who
promote this policy?

So deadissue, you admit that "my religion consisted of only one thing.
Treat others as you'd like to be treated."   So you agree with Jesus
and the Bible on that one point then.  But your so-called "religion"
will fall of its own weight since it does not conform to reality.

"It is this very lust for power that is driving born again Christian
leaders in their jihad on America."

deadissue, born again Christian leaders don't have a lust for power or
a jihad on America. In fact they are devolving power, and empowering
Americans, not themselves. Perhaps you are confused with the power
hungry liberals who lust for more power and more control over American
lives.

"There are currently 130 members of
the House of Representatives who consider themselves to be born again,
not to mention the President himself.

Thank God!
So deadissue, this reflects your misunderstanding about Mr. Bush's
faith. Bush actually prays for guidance, for wisdom, for strength. Bush
doesn't think 'I'm God's guy, he agrees with everything I do'. If
he did it would be disturbing to say the least. But Bush is not John
Brown saying God himself told me to start this war, and he's not an
ayatollah saying death to the Great Satan. Bush is just a Christian
asking God for help and trying in turn to do what is helpful. When you
do this you're acknowledging your inadequacy and dependence. It's a
declaration not of pride but of humility. To a Christian it's like
declaring reality. It's like saying, "There's weather outside."

So Mr. Bush doesn't shy from conclusions and he isn't embarrassed that
he asks for and needs God's help."  From "Gut Time"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110003048

The good news is, deadissue, you can still be saved.

With that said, Deadissue, I'd  like to address this constant reference
to "Blessed are the peacemakers", as an attempt to further your
anti-American and leftist views. Some take quotes from Sermon on the
Mount, and make ethical mistakes with it. Deadissue, the Sermon on the
Mount is a declaration of personal Christian ethics, not the rules
corporations and states should be run by. If you read Romans Chapter
13, you will see how God says governments should be run: with justice,
mercy and grace.

Jesus said to "turn the other cheek".  Imagine someone has broken into
your house, broke your face, you sue him and take him to court. The
judge says "did you hit this man?" The perp answers "Yes". Then imagine
if the judge said: "Don't you go to church?" Perp: "yes". Judge:
"well, this is simple, turn the other check, take another whack at him,
buster!"

Why does that seem out of order? For a very uncomplicated reason: it is
not the judges cheek! Duh! If he were standing there with a broken jaw
and missing teeth, he wouldn't like that judgment.

Deadissue, the Sermon on the Mount says that we should give to those
who ask. So imagine you are the President of a bank, and a homeless man
walks in and says "I'd like to borrow $100,000. "Do you have any
collateral?" "No" "Why do you think you can borrow $100,000 from this
bank?" "Jesus says, 'turn thou not away .' What's wrong here?

It's not his money, it's yours that the bank president is giving
away. Deadissue, this is a PERSONAL Christian ethic. He can give his
own $100,000, that would not be a problem.

Deadissue, Romans 13 states: rulers are the messengers of God, the
ambassadors of God, they are rending vengeance on evil doers, they are
commanded by God to do that. They bear not the sword in vain. The sword
is the symbol of capital punishment. The duty of government is justice.
Our duty is to live in peace as much as possible.

As long as you have men that are as wicked in the extreme...Hitler,
Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, men of
incredible wickedness, then I believe force must be used to bring them
to cease their wickedness. Saddam has killed 2 million Iraqis, and
caused 6 million more to flee the nation. Not to mention the number of
Iranians he has killed. In Iran, veterans of war with Iraq are
emaciated, dying a slow death from the poison he used on them. They are
dying a slow death that had already taken 22 years in the hospital.

Ann Clwyd, from the British Parliament, talked about Saddam's use of a
plastic shredder. Saddam's opponents were dropped into it, and they
were forced to watch...head first, or feet first and died screaming.
Witnesses saw 30 people die like this, and their remains were collected
and used to feed the fish in their ponds. They saw Kusi, Saddam's
son, personally supervise this torture. Others were dropped into acid
which ate them alive.

Deadissue, how does anyone argue with the fact that such a man needs to
be removed from power?

The Bible makes it clear force must be used to stop evil -- Jesus used
force to cleanse the temple. He will use far greater force when he
comes to end the war with Satan and his minions. The decisive battle
with Satan was fought on blackened hill called Golgatha. There was
great glee in hell, at last Satan thought he had the arch pretender in
his grasp. There was delight in hell, when Jesus uttered his last
words, "it is finished". Satan thought he had won the victory. Until
that glorious morning when, as the sun rose above the horizon,
spreading across the dome of the temple. People saw the tomb was empty,
Christ had risen from the dead, Conqueror. The decisive battle has been
won, and this is just a clean up operation until he comes back again.

I'm not talking about Christianity as a whole - just 'born again'
Christianity.

Luke 6:37
[ Judging Others ] "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not
condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be
forgiven.

Matthew 7:2
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the
measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Matthew 7:1
[ Judging Others ] "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

My perception of 'life' does not include an embryo - and while I'm
disgusted by late term abortion, I also feel that there are bigger fish
to fry.  Abortion is propped up for the very fact that it galvanizes
people of faith.  A hundred years can go by and it will still be
exploited for political gain.

Calling a woman who has an abortion a 'murderer' - to compare one of
these women with someone like Jeffrey Dalhmer is just as sick as the
act itself.  And it's this harsh judgement that is wrong in and of
itself.

Why would Falwell and Robertson blame the gays, feminists, ACLU, etc.
for 9/11 if not to gain power?

Yea - Romans, I'm familiar with that book.  How about these verses from
the subsequent chapter?

Romans 14:4
Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he
stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him
stand.

Romans 14:10
You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on
your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.

Here's a concept for you -

Yes, good people who believe in Christ go to "Heaven" but there are
varying degrees of salvation all based on how you lived your life here
on this earth.  It's like when you go to school - You got grades based
on your efforts and committments to your school work, but you were
still in the same class...  unless you did something really crappy and
then you were "cast out" and sent to detention (Hell)!  But, even in
detention there were different methods and degrees - suspended for a
day, put to work cleaning the bathrooms, or expelled for good -
depending on the infraction.

What I'm saying is that by being "saved" we are taking the first step
towards exaltation, but it takes a lifetime of work to determine where
you end up in eternity.

No, I'm not a "born-again" Christian, but I do a firm belief in Christ
as my Savior and that I do need to have his guidance in how I live my
life because there are other forces constantly at work.

Oh, and to address what you called being saved - I call it baptism.
It's about following the rules.  It's a formality - just like the
swearing in of the President - so that you are "legally" a member of
Christ's church and shows your committment to him.

One last remark - you talk about a soldier having to obey God - "You
and I provide them their money, training and prestige, but God
gets his before we taxpayers get ours."

I don't feel like I provide anyone with anything - they work for it and
earn it!  Sure, my taxes makes it possible for them to have a job, but
I didn't give it them - they earn it and provide it for themselves.

I see that you are strong and steadfast under the assault of people
like JohnC, who from what I have read on this forum, continuously
berate people in a most despicable fashion for their beliefs.
Congratulation to you.

The fear that went along with the born again faith is something that
concerns me.  Questioning what I was taught to believe was out of the
question until I was older.  For children who are brought up in homes
that practice this brand of Christianity it must be even harder to
question it growing up.  It just seems to me that the message from the
church about how things are is extremely convenient in the sense that
the message is heavily bent towards retention.

A captain chaplain who spoke out against this trend was transferred to
Asia.  The commander of the Air Force Academy says that it will take
six years to fix this problem.  I'd hate to be the Jewish or Muslim
student who has to deal with this pressure to believe what the Air
Force Academy tells them to believe.  Being told that if you're not
'saved', that you'll go to hell.

Do you think that people who have an unshakable faith in God tend to be
people who can be counted on in a crisis?  I'm talking generalities
here...  Do they have more compassion towards others, are they easier
to get along with, do they know how to "obey" commands, do they value
life, do they have a little better standards, do they represent the US
a little better?  I don't know, just thinking....  I do know that
people who have a religious value system seem to be people who stops
and thinks before just acting.

Come on Amber...truth is best arrived at through a process of honest
and vigorous debate. Arguments should not sneak around in disguise.
Dissent should not be treated as sinister.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=831945

deadissue, Christians don't believe that. See:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/pas­sage/?search=
for what we actually believe.  You are misrepresenting Christianity in
the hopes of bashing it.

Yes, deadissue you are misrepresenting...Christians don't believe
that "everyone but me is going to hell."   That is absurd and not
Biblical.   See http://bible.gospelcom.net/pas­sage/?search=
for what we actually believe

Deadissue what is the difference? See John 3:3: "Jesus declared, "I
tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born
again."

One straw man down. Next?

The rest of the article just compounds the mistakes you made in the
first paragraph.
"Point them out."   See previous post and this one.

With that attitude, then why have any rules at all, right deadissue?!
It's a free for all!  Someone goes to a 7-11 and the clerk gives him
the wrong flavor Slurpee so he shoots him dead. "It's not up to me to
judge my neighbor!"  You see your neighbor sneak out and rape a woman
and kill her in your front yard. "It's not up to me to judge my
neighbor! See Luke 6:37, I am in the clear! I don't want to get
involved!"

Someone comes up to your house with a can of gasoline and match and
burns it down. Deadissue would then say "oh well! Who am I to judge!
Jesus said not to judge! No problem!"

I am sorry, deadissue, but to me that is nothing but sheer cowardice
and refined selfishness.

"My perception of 'life' does not include an embryo".

Oh really Deadissue? Deadissue, some politicians say that they're
'personally opposed' to abortion, yet 'pro-choice', but we must
ask: Is this a position that can survive the test of logical coherence?
After all, Deadissue, if abortion is wrong, surely it is wrong because
it is the unjust taking of the life of a developing human being. And
Deadissue, if one believes that, then what could possibly justify a
regime of law that licenses so grave an injustice?

Of course,  Deadissue,  if abortion is not a form of homicide, if the
developing embryo or fetus has the moral status of an unwanted
growth-such as a tumor-there would be no grounds on which to
'personally oppose' abortion. So  Deadissue, the question is this:
Is the developing embryo or fetus a human being or a mere unwanted
growth?  Deadissue, notice that this is not a religious or even an
ethical question. It is a question of human embryology and
developmental biology.

If you say the developing embryo is "mere unwanted growth", then
why do Democrat politicians say they are "personally opposed" to
abortion, if it is just an unwanted growth?  Their position does not
make logical sense.

If you say the developing embryo is a "human being", then how can
democrat politicians justify a regime of law that licenses so grave an
injustice?

Deadissue, were you ever an embryo?  Were you a fetus? Were you an
adolescent?

Deadissue, if 'I' was not an embryo or fetus, neither was 'I'
once an infant. To have destroyed the fetus or infant that later became
'me' would not have been to destroy me. So at what point then do we
say 'I' began to exist? At what point do we draw the line on
killing?

Deadissue, if your philosophy is true, the answer won't be
'birth,' Will it be six months after birth? A year? Two years?
Three? After all, when does a child achieve thoughts, beliefs, and
desires?

Pro-choice people like deadissue on this forum must now confront an
uncomfortable fact: The logical implications of their position entail
believing that killing three-year-old children is morally acceptable.

Deadissue said " - and while I'm disgusted by late term abortion, I
also feel that there are bigger fish to fry."

Oh deadissue, you are disgusted by the dismembering and bloody cutting
up of innocent, pain feeling baby boys and girls are you?  Not
disgusted enough to vote against Democrat politicians who allow it I
see, though...hypocrite!

Deadissue, Abortion is "propped up" by Democrats who keep voting to
keep it legal, and by activist judges who keep making new laws from the
bench that promote more abortions.  And Democrats are fighting tooth
and nail against the judges Bush nominated that will interpret the
Constitution.  They even bashed Priscilla Owen for the simple fact that
she upheld a law that says 13 year old kids should notify their parents
when they have a dangerous, painful bloody procedure done (abortion)
that kills at least one person.

Who ever compared an abortionist to Jeffrey Dalhmer? Jeffery Dalhmer
was a sick man who killed and ate his victims. Based on scientific
evidence like DNA, heartbeat and brainwaves, abortion takes a human
life. But the word "murder" is misleading when applied to abortion,
including partial birth abortion. The typical event that the word
"murder" calls to mind is a lethal act against an adult stranger,
like in Jeffrey Dalhmer's case.  Abortion, even late-term abortion,
does not fit this image. Abortion is not a single act, and the fetus is
neither an adult nor a stranger.

Abortion is not an act, but a destructive process. In mid- and late
pregnancy, it is commonly a process of dismemberment. There is
something in most of us that responds to weakness with special
compassion and respect. When a blind man is robbed of his wallet, our
humanity is more deeply injured than when a sighted person has a purse
stolen. Tearing a small child limb from limb is more brutal than the
murder of an adult.

It is still worse to kill a dependent. When someone is killed by her
caretaker, the evil of betrayal is added to the evil of violence. If an
unborn child is a fellow human being, then that child is betrayed in
the worst possible way when she is dismembered upon her mother's
request.

By authorizing abortion throughout pregnancy, Democrats and current
American law tempts and enables mothers and fathers to turn violently
against little lives that utterly depend on them. This is a deeper
wound to society than ordinary murder. Killing strangers eats away at
human community from the outside in. When families kill their own
helpless children, society destroys itself at its very core.

Interesting "concept", westernmom.

J, I thought you liberals cared about ATROCITIES!!  How can you see men
shredded, then say you don't back war to liberate Iraqis!?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html    Saddam
threw people into plastic shredders and fed the remains to fish, Saddam
raped wives in front of their familes.

also, J, see my previous post regaring the ethical mistake you have
made with the "Serman on the Mount, "Blessed are the meek, for they
shall inherit the earth."

There can be an overemphasis on civility. No matter how difficult it
is, good manners should be routine. However, in the effort to be civil
in conduct, many who know better water down their views to avoid
appearing "judgmental." They curb their tongues not only in form
but also in substance. The insistence on civility can have the perverse
effect of cannibalizing our principles. That is why civility cannot be
the governing principle of citizenship or leadership.

Gertrude Himmelfarb refers to two kinds of civic virtues. The first are
the "caring" virtues, including "respect, trustworthiness,
compassion, fairness, decency." These make daily life pleasant with
our families and those with whom we come in contact. The second are the
vigorous virtues. They include courage, ambition, and creativity. These
heroic virtues "transcend family and community and may even, on
occasion, violate the conventions of civility. These are the virtues
that characterize great leaders, although not necessarily good
friends."

She notes that the vigorous virtues have been supplanted by the caring
ones. Though they are not mutually exclusive or necessarily
incompatible, active citizens and leaders must be governed by the
vigorous as well as the caring virtues. We must not allow our desire to
be decent and well-mannered to overwhelm the substance of our
principles or our determination to fight for their success.

By yielding to a false form of "civility," we sometimes allow our
critics to intimidate us. Active citizens are often subjected to truly
vile attacks; they are branded as mean-spirited, racist, Uncle Tom,
homophobic, sexist, etc. When we retreat from this it is not civility.
It is cowardice.

Pope John Paul II has traveled the entire world challenging tyrants of
all sorts, speaking to millions of people, bringing them a single,
simple message: "Be not afraid." He preached this message to people
living under Communist tyranny in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Nicaragua,
and China- "Be not afraid." He preached it to Africans facing
death from marauding tribes and murderous disease- "Be not
afraid." He preached it to Americans, warning us how easy it is to be
trapped in a "culture of death" even in our luxurious country-
"Be not afraid."

Those three little words hold the power to transform individuals and
change the world. They can supply the quiet resolve and unvoiced
courage necessary to endure the inevitable intimidation. Listen to the
truths that lie within your hearts, and be not afraid to follow them
wherever they may lead you.

We are not called upon to risk our lives against some monstrous
tyranny, because America is not a barbarous country. Our people are not
oppressed, and we face no pressing international threat to our way of
life such as the Soviet Union once posed. The war in which we are now
engaged is cultural, not civil.

Yes he spoke about them, and warned us that the love of money is the
root of all evil (not "money" or
"wealth" by itself").  But he did not bash the rich like the Democrats
do, nor did he lie about "tax cuts for the rich" like the liberals do.

Bush's tax relief for working Americans  helps ALL working Americans:
for example, a married couple with two children and income of $40,000
see their taxes decline under President Bush's jobs and growth law by
$1,133 (from $1,178 to $45) in 2004, a decline of 96 percent.  So much
for the liberal's mantra of "tax cuts for the rich"!

Besides, Democrats get more campaign cash from the rich anyway, so your
argument has backfired on the liberals:

Another myth about "the rich" has been shattered - namely the
conventional wisdom that they are all Republicans - thanks to the
nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. A December 18, 2002
Washington Times editorial reports that donors giving "small and medium
amounts" in 2002 overwhelmingly supported the GOP, while "rich or
deep-pocketed givers" hugely backed the Democrats!

 Those giving $200 to $999: GOP $68 million; Democrats $44 million.
Those giving $1,000 to $9,999: GOP $317 million; Democrats $307
million. The "fabulously wealthy" donors of $10,000+ gave $111 million
to the GOP - a whopping $29 million less than the $140 million they
lavished on the Democrats! Among those who gave $100,000+, the
Democrats raised $72 million - more than double the $34 million the
GOP took.

"Yeah, but all those millionaires are Republicans." No, that's not a
fact, my friends. The fact is that in the 2002 election cycle, those
who gave a million dollars or more poured $36 million into the Democrat
coffers, and a paltry $3 million into the pockets of the GOP. Again:
millionaire donations went Democrat by a 12:1 margin! The two parties
took in about the same amount overall - GOP: $384 million; Democrats:
$350 million. Just look at the Hollywood left, and you see where the
big money goes.

In addition, the GOP attracted 40% more individual donors! (George W.
Bush set an all-time fund-raising record by collecting the most money
from one-thousand-dollar donors in the history of presidential
politics.) Far more people giving small amounts exist as contributors
to the Republican Party - while Democrats skunked the GOP among the
super-rich. That's no surprise, since nine of the twelve richest
members of the United States Senate are Democrats.

This goes right along with the truth that the top 50% of wage earners,
those who make more than $26,000 a year, pay over 96% of all income
taxes. (The IRS data) This myth that the Republicans are the party of
the rich is breathing its last gasps, so I'm giving you these figures
to help put it out of its misery for good. This is not a political
commercial you have to disprove. These are actual results of campaign
contributions in just the 2002 cycle, which is why this class-envy
garbage isn't getting the traction it used to.

Yes, that is the modern day equivalent to chasing Jessie Jackson and
the liberals out of the churches, when they are just trying to use the
church to gain more political power and more money for themselves.

rwo wrote "What about the communal living of the Apostles? "

What about it?  Show me the verse where Jesus said we had to live in a
commune, not have private property and not respect other people's
private property or hard work? You won't find it.

My point is that you inflame relationships with unsupported
accusations. You slander people by claiming they have said somethign
they have not, and when someone catches you red-handed (by pointing out
that you respond to the wrong person, no less), you can't even bring
yourself to properly apologize.

Are these the actions that model a savior who offered no defense of
himself against the slander and injustice heaped upon him by the
wicked? Are these actions consistent with the one who treated those who
disagreed with him with humility, only becoming angry when they took
advantage of the the poor and downtrodden? Are these the actions that
model the man who said loving others was the highest of all moral laws?

We have police officers in our community that I grew up with.  Some are
still the bullies that were the hellions in high school, and some are
the guys that were in my Sunday School classes.  When I have been in
situations where the law was needed, guess who I preferred to be there?
 I knew how they would react and how they would handle the situation.
I have also seen how they act in really tough situations.

This type of thing that's going in at the academy is not dealt with for
some reason.  At high levels of our government, the infusion of this
religion and the academy's mission of training the next wave of Air
Force officers is just wrong.

There was one time that a chaplain gave me a hard time about not
listing Christianity on my dog tags.  He berated me and wanted me to
believe that without listing Christianity, I would not be given a
proper burial.  Aside from this though, there was never any pressure to
conform to any religious belief that was not of my own choosing.  It
was one day out of four years.

That one day still sticks out in my mind, but it was the action of a
man.  I've made mistakes, and so does everyone else.  I had it good,
all things considered.  If I had to feel that pressure on a daily
basis...from the start of my training, it would have been about the
most demotivating thing they could have thrown at me.