<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Destructive Political Discussions: &#8216;Shibboleths&#8217;, and Moral/Religious Imperatives</title>
	<atom:link href="http://appeal2heaven.com/2009/04/27/destructive-political-discussions-shibboleths-and-moralreligious-imperatives/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://appeal2heaven.com/2009/04/27/destructive-political-discussions-shibboleths-and-moralreligious-imperatives/</link>
	<description>"Let Facts be submitted to a candid world"</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:56:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The End of Western Civilization: America Alone, by Mark Steyn &#171; Appeal To Heaven</title>
		<link>http://appeal2heaven.com/2009/04/27/destructive-political-discussions-shibboleths-and-moralreligious-imperatives/#comment-63</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The End of Western Civilization: America Alone, by Mark Steyn &#171; Appeal To Heaven]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 21:52:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://appeal2heaven.com/?p=286#comment-63</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] survival of Western Civilization. I believe that it may be possible for peoples of any faith, as I agued here at length, to further and continue western civilization, however - that is only possible when a free and [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] survival of Western Civilization. I believe that it may be possible for peoples of any faith, as I agued here at length, to further and continue western civilization, however &#8211; that is only possible when a free and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elisha Arlan</title>
		<link>http://appeal2heaven.com/2009/04/27/destructive-political-discussions-shibboleths-and-moralreligious-imperatives/#comment-45</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Elisha Arlan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:52:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://appeal2heaven.com/?p=286#comment-45</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wow, like I said, pretty amazing post. I guess my only feedback comes from the issue of &quot;The Bible says...&quot;You were correct that our society is slowly (or rapidly depending on your point of view) forgetting about the &quot;Republic&quot; in our Declaration. The &#039;rules&#039; if you will, being based on a set of principles founded within the pages of scripture. Freedom of Religion was to agree that there was indeed a Creator but, that there should be no preference given to one sect of religion over another as it dealt with the US Congress ([it] shall make no law....) 

However, the issues we face today deal with an attack against those &#039;rules&#039; which make up the Republic of our democracy. Since it&#039;s being challenged more aggressively today than ever before, I believe it has become necessary to proclaim why the Republic was/is founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. It&#039;s the foundation from the &quot;Creator&quot; it is in reference to. Without &quot;The Bible says...&quot; or &quot;The Creator says...&quot; we fall back on the only available standard of accountability left: the Democracy. And in a Democracy, majority rules. And if majority rules and the rules are changed to for example, &quot;murder is OK as long as 3 witnesses say they deserved it&quot; then who&#039;s to challenge this rule as immoral? On what grounds or on who&#039;s authority is ANY action wrong in spite of the majority thinking otherwise? 

Back in the days of the Declaration of Independence, the issue wasn&#039;t God or no God. It was which God or which way to worship God, thus the usage of the term &quot;Creator&quot;. I&#039;m not saying Darwinism or Atheist didn&#039;t exist... I&#039;m saying as it was for America, a small minority construct. The founders were willing to include such views in making the American society anyway. There was no requirement for citizens to claim there was a Creator but, according to Thomas Paine, they believed in order for one to hold public office, there should be an acknowledgment by a candidate of such a Creator.  We&#039;ve notice over several decades as the belief in a Creator has declined, the need for &quot;displaying&quot; the Republic of that belief increased. &quot;One Nation Under God&quot;, &quot;In God We Trust&quot;, &quot;So Help Me God&quot; etc. 

These terms re-established an equality of principles, guidelines &amp; laws that all men would adhere to. Not because one group of people made it legal for one, while making it illegal for another... no these rules were to be governed by the Creator so that no man could claim bias and that all men had the basic understanding by which these rules existed from scripture or inspired there of.

I realize there&#039;s more to this and I&#039;m focused only on one aspect of it.  We do have radical believers out there who are so misguided that they violate the very belief they claim to defend. Jesus never hated anyone, yet people in the name of Jesus say and do pretty hateful things. They mean well I think. We&#039;re living in more &amp; more frustrating times. It&#039;s unfortunate that politics points this image only on the right or Republicans but, I think there&#039;s a reason Jesus avoided being a politician. That&#039;s not to say he wasn&#039;t political. :-) Since the world is changing, I believe those who proclaim the Republic over Democracy, Jesus over active judiciaries, will appear to be more radical by definition of how far from the Creator we have drifted. 

Thanks for allowing me to share. I appreciate all you&#039;re doing to bring sanity to an insane world. :-)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, like I said, pretty amazing post. I guess my only feedback comes from the issue of &#8220;The Bible says&#8230;&#8221;You were correct that our society is slowly (or rapidly depending on your point of view) forgetting about the &#8220;Republic&#8221; in our Declaration. The &#8216;rules&#8217; if you will, being based on a set of principles founded within the pages of scripture. Freedom of Religion was to agree that there was indeed a Creator but, that there should be no preference given to one sect of religion over another as it dealt with the US Congress ([it] shall make no law&#8230;.) </p>
<p>However, the issues we face today deal with an attack against those &#8216;rules&#8217; which make up the Republic of our democracy. Since it&#8217;s being challenged more aggressively today than ever before, I believe it has become necessary to proclaim why the Republic was/is founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. It&#8217;s the foundation from the &#8220;Creator&#8221; it is in reference to. Without &#8220;The Bible says&#8230;&#8221; or &#8220;The Creator says&#8230;&#8221; we fall back on the only available standard of accountability left: the Democracy. And in a Democracy, majority rules. And if majority rules and the rules are changed to for example, &#8220;murder is OK as long as 3 witnesses say they deserved it&#8221; then who&#8217;s to challenge this rule as immoral? On what grounds or on who&#8217;s authority is ANY action wrong in spite of the majority thinking otherwise? </p>
<p>Back in the days of the Declaration of Independence, the issue wasn&#8217;t God or no God. It was which God or which way to worship God, thus the usage of the term &#8220;Creator&#8221;. I&#8217;m not saying Darwinism or Atheist didn&#8217;t exist&#8230; I&#8217;m saying as it was for America, a small minority construct. The founders were willing to include such views in making the American society anyway. There was no requirement for citizens to claim there was a Creator but, according to Thomas Paine, they believed in order for one to hold public office, there should be an acknowledgment by a candidate of such a Creator.  We&#8217;ve notice over several decades as the belief in a Creator has declined, the need for &#8220;displaying&#8221; the Republic of that belief increased. &#8220;One Nation Under God&#8221;, &#8220;In God We Trust&#8221;, &#8220;So Help Me God&#8221; etc. </p>
<p>These terms re-established an equality of principles, guidelines &amp; laws that all men would adhere to. Not because one group of people made it legal for one, while making it illegal for another&#8230; no these rules were to be governed by the Creator so that no man could claim bias and that all men had the basic understanding by which these rules existed from scripture or inspired there of.</p>
<p>I realize there&#8217;s more to this and I&#8217;m focused only on one aspect of it.  We do have radical believers out there who are so misguided that they violate the very belief they claim to defend. Jesus never hated anyone, yet people in the name of Jesus say and do pretty hateful things. They mean well I think. We&#8217;re living in more &amp; more frustrating times. It&#8217;s unfortunate that politics points this image only on the right or Republicans but, I think there&#8217;s a reason Jesus avoided being a politician. That&#8217;s not to say he wasn&#8217;t political. :-) Since the world is changing, I believe those who proclaim the Republic over Democracy, Jesus over active judiciaries, will appear to be more radical by definition of how far from the Creator we have drifted. </p>
<p>Thanks for allowing me to share. I appreciate all you&#8217;re doing to bring sanity to an insane world. :-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

