Why Is Religion Taboo in American Schools?

Does freedom of speech mean that students are free to talk about anything as long as they don't mention God or Jesus?

Praying for the New President

This is a really insightful article on how we can pray for our President Elect when we know he stands for and supports evil. This has been a hard one for me, Ed Vitagliano from OneNewsNow writes a beautiful explanation of what we Christians can and should do.

"Just what does it mean to pray for our leaders? In 1 Timothy 2:1-3 the Apostle Paul urges "that entreaties and prayer, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior...." ...

...In December it was made public that president-elect Barack Obama had tapped Rick Warren, evangelical pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, to give the invocation at the inauguration on January 20 in the nation's capital.

A ruckus immediately broke out, as some Christians criticized Warren for even accepting the invitation. For example, in an open letter to the Saddleback pastor, WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah blistered Warren. Farah stated his "profound and abject revulsion" at the fact that Warren would be giving the inaugural invocation.

Farah said he believed it was the responsibility of Christian leaders to "stand up to leaders, like Nathan did to King David," and confront them with God's truth. Specifically Farah said that meant that Warren should be confronting Obama about the president-elect's unwavering support of abortion. ...

..."I'm sure you would not want to invoke God's blessing on the inauguration of a figure like Adolf Hitler, whose rise to power brought the destruction of millions of lives," Farah said.

Ah, the Hilter card. It's hard to top that one. (Even a Stalin card can't trump it.) But let's follow this argument. Obama is like Hitler because, while Hitler primarily slaughtered the Jews in the Holocaust, Obama's support for abortion is similarly evil.

Now I think the moral equivalency of the Holocaust and abortion is a good, defensible argument. Both objectified a category of human beings and then took horrifying steps to pursue their murder. The depths of evil connected to the Holocaust and abortion are equally difficult to comprehend.

However, Farah's argument contains a non sequitur. Just because one prays for Adolph Hitler does not mean the prayer is meant to "invoke God's blessing." One could, conceivably, pray for Hitler's conversion, or for God to prevent the man from carrying out his wicked plans.

Moreover, the Apostle Paul does not appear to restrict the command to pray for leaders in any way. He does not say, "Pray for good leaders, but not for bad leaders." In fact, one could make the argument that Christians have more reason to pray for wicked leaders than good ones.

Thus, it would be the content of the prayer that would be decisive on January 20. If Rick Warren asks God to give Barack Obama success in every endeavor – which would include Obama's quite clearly expressed plans to push both abortion and the gay agenda – then Warren would be wrong to do so.

But if Warren prays for God to give Barack Obama wisdom and compassion, if he asks God to protect Obama and his family from harm, if he prays for God to give the new president a heart that responds to the leading of the Holy Spirit, is that a wrong prayer?

The vicious Nero was emperor when Paul wrote 1 Timothy 2 – the same Nero, ironically, who, according to Christian tradition, ordered the execution of Paul and the Apostle Peter. If Paul could urge Christians to pray for Nero, then we can certainly pray for Barack Obama.

And so can Rick Warren."

More to read...

Calling In 'Gay' to Work Is Latest Form of Protest

"Some same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to "call in gay" Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others question whether it's wise to encourage skipping work given the nation's economic distress.

Organizers of "Day Without a Gay" — scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Latino immigrants — also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.

Sean Hetherington, a West Hollywood comedian and personal trainer, dreamed up the idea with his boyfriend, Aaron Hartzler, after reading online that a few angry gay-rights activists were calling for a daylong strike to protest California voters' passage last month of Proposition 8, which reversed this year's state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage." ...

Abortion Business Owner Pleads Guilty to Unlicensed Abortion, All Facilities Closed

In a San Diego county courtroom, Bugarin admitted her guilt in putting women's lives and health at risk by doing abortions herself despite the fact she's not a licensed physician....

Bugarin once owned a chain of 11 abortion centers and she began doing abortions herself when some of the abortion practitioners she employed lost their medical licenses for various reasons.

Nicholas Braemer, the medical director of the abortion centers, surrendered his medical license under pressure in 2000 after Operation Rescue exposed his numerous botched abortions and other problems.

He was replaced as medical director by Laurence Reich, a convicted sex offender, who lost his medical license in 2006 for continued episodes of sexual abuse against his abortion patients. He faces his own trial sometime next year. ...

..."Bugarin acted as if she was above the law, as so many abortionists do. The prosecutors did not agree, and now Bugarin should remain behind bars for many years.

Georgia Clinic Did Secret Abortion on Daughter Without Consent

"Victory and Genevieve Patterson may have been able to help their daughter find an alternative to abortion, but they say the Northside Women's Clinic never gave them the chance. They sued the abortion business saying it broke Georgia law by doing an abortion on their daughter without their knowledge or consent.

According to Georgia statutes, abortion practitioners are required to notify an underage girl's parents of her desire for an abortion and obtain consent beforehand. ...

...The Pattersons say the Northside Women's Clinic put false information on its web site that misleads teenagers about the law. They contend Northside's web site said "unmarried patients under the age of 18 are required by Georgia law to have a parental notification note on the day of surgery."

The boyfriend's mother wrote the note and took Renee to Northside for the abortion.

In their lawsuit, Renee's parents say the web site was misleading because the state law clearly requires a legal parent or guardian to accompany the minor for the abortion, not an unrelated adult.

They also point out that notification and consent from the parent or guardian must be obtained 24 hours in advance, not on the day of the abortion."
"It was clear that Renee was a minor, the note was not from her parents, the note was not dated and a note was not an acceptable substitute for notice under Georgia law," the complaint says. ...

Supreme Court rejects claim challenging Obama's citizenship, but schedules another for Friday

"Not even the U.S. Supreme Court can kill the dispute that has developed over Sen. Barack Obama's

eligibility to occupy the Oval Office based on questions raised over his birthplace and citizenship and his steadfast refusal to provide documentation on the issue.

The high court today denied a request to listen to arguments in a case, Donofrio v. Wells, from New Jersey that addressed the issues. But literally within minutes, the court's website confirmed that another conference is scheduled for Friday on another case raising the same worries.

The case of Leo C. Donofrio v. New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells claimed Obama does not meet the Constitution's Article 2, Section 1 "natural-born citizen" requirement for president because of his dual citizenship at birth."

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff were arrested in Chicago Tuesday on two counts each of corruption charges relating to trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat.

"Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff John Harris were arrested Tuesday morning in Chicago on two counts each of federal corruption charges stemming from allegations Blagojevich was trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Fitzgerald described the alleged behavior by Blagojevich, who was arrested Tuesday morning along with his chief of staff, John Harris, as "appalling." He said his "cynical behavior" reached "a truly new low."

The arrest is part of a three-year probe of "pay-to-play politics" in the governor's administration. The criminal complaint by the FBI says each man was arrested on two charges of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery. ...

The charges also relate to allegations that Blagojevich and Harris schemed with previously convicted defendants and Obama associates Antoin Rezko, Stuart Levine, Ali Ata and others to arrange financial benefits in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state employment, state contracts and access to state funds. ...

FBI Special Agent-in-Charge in Chicago Robert Grant said he was asked by reporters when he first started the investigation "whether or not Illinois is the most corrupt state in the United States."

"And I didn't answer that question, yes or no, and I can't answer that question today. I don't have 49 other states to compare it with.But I can tell you one thing: If it isn't the most corrupt state in the United States, its certainly one hell of a competitor," he said".

Vatican Under Fire for Opposing U.N. Declaration on Sexual Rights

"Journalists and activist groups are blasting the Vatican for what they say is its "grotesque" opposition to a U.N. declaration on gay rights — even though only a small collection of countries has supported the measure.

The Roman Catholic Church is facing a barrage of protests and searing editorials for opposing a French-sponsored decree that calls for an end to discrimination based on sexual or gender identity. The U.N. hopes to abolish summary executions, arbitrary arrests and "the deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights" of gays.

The Church's opposition to the measure has enraged gay-rights activists, who are mobilizing nationwide protests at Catholic sites in Italy. Members of Italy's largest gay-rights group, Arcigay, gathered inside the Vatican on Saturday, hanging nooses around their necks as they accused the Church of being an "accomplice in the martyrdom" of homosexuals.

The Vatican worries that provisions in the document — the emphasis on "social and cultural rights" — could be used to pressure countries to embrace gay marriage, which the Catholic Church rejects. ..

"The fact that there are people who want to silence the Church is disturbing. If people want to disagree with the Church it's one thing, but when you start this kind of name-calling it is intended to have a chilling effect," said Susan Fani, a spokeswoman for the Catholic League."

Changing truths in the Bible to support homosexual marriage

Interesting articles I found on new movements from homosexuals advocates as they try to twist and change the truths in the bible to suit their purposes so that Christians may view their lifestyle as "normal" and not sinful. The whole gay marriage movement is not just about guaranteeing their civil "rights" - the homosexual agenda is for all to embrace and promote the gay lifestyle as the "norm." If Christians churches do not embrace and promote this homosexual lifestyle, they claim we, Christians, are showing hatred. This is not so. They claim Jesus would accept the homosexuals. Christ would love and accept the person, but not the sin. I believe Christ loves me as well as every other person - however Christ does not love my sins. He would have me repent and better myself. Just as he told the women taken in Adultery, "Go and Sin No More"

“Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression. In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner. ...Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect." from lds.org

"Gay Group Plans 'Pink Christmas' festival for the first time in Amsterdam, featuring a manger stall with two Josephs and two Marys. ...

ProGay group chairman Frank van Dalen said Monday the event is intended to increase the choices for homosexual men and women during the Christmas holiday week. ...

The festival will also encourage people to think about homosexuality and religion, Van Dalen added. ...

Van Dalen said it was not intended to be offensive, but was meant as a "wink" at heterosexual assumptions. "Christmas is about more than religion, it's also about love and families, not to mention shopping," he said. "Two men or two women can form a family too these days, even one with a child."

excerpts above from and to read entire article click here: Fox News

Hollywood Humbugs Mock Jesus and Prop 8 Voters Just in Time for Christmas - tip from Americans for Truth

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... by Jack Black

Here are some excerpts from new Newsweek cover article - this is compelling very lengthy article written by Lisa Miller that twists and distorts the truths of the bible to convince churches to embrace and promote the homosexual lifestyle as she states "the bible teaches".

Our Mutual Joy: Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.

..."Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

...All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.

The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."

To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes...

...In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so. ...

...Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)...

If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)."The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?...

...Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. In his book "The Arrogance of Nations," the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," Elliott says. "He's talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list. We're not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage....

...Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument)....

...We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs. Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was "one spirit" and whom he "loved as he loved himself." Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan's death and, in grieving, writes a song:

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
You were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
More wonderful than that of women.

Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations. ...

...So the frustrating, semantic question remains: should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are? I would argue that they should. If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that. People get married "for their mutual joy," explains the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center in New York, quoting the Episcopal marriage ceremony. That's what religious people do: care for each other in spite of difficulty, she adds. In marriage, couples grow closer to God: "Being with one another in community is how you love God. That's what marriage is about." ...

Dr. Albert Mohler offered a response to this article, here are some excerpts:

...Miller's broadside attack on the biblical teachings on marriage goes to the heart of what will appear as her argument for same-sex marriage. She argues that, in the Old Testament, "examples of what social conservatives call 'the traditional family' are scarcely to be found." This is true, of course, if what you mean by 'traditional family' is the picture of America in the 1950s. The Old Testament notion of the family starts with the idea that the family is the carrier of covenant promises, and this family is defined, from the onset, as a transgenerational extended family of kin and kindred.

But, at the center of this extended family stands the institution of marriage as the most basic human model of covenantal love and commitment. And this notion of marriage, deeply rooted in its procreative purpose, is unambiguously heterosexual. ...

...But Miller also claims that "while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." This is just patently untrue. Genesis 2:24-25 certainly reveals marriage to be, by the Creator's intention, a union of one man and one woman. To offer just one example from the teaching of Jesus, Matthew 19:1-8 makes absolutely no sense unless marriage "between one man and one woman" is understood as normative....

...The real issue is not marriage, Miller suggests, but opposition to homosexuality. Surprisingly, Miller argues that this prejudice against same-sex relations is really about opposition to sex between men. She cites the Anchor Bible Dictionary as stating that "nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women." She would have done better to look to the Bible itself, where in Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Again, this passage makes absolutely no sense unless it refers very straightforwardly to same-sex relations among both men and women -- with the women mentioned first.

Miller dismisses the Levitical condemnations of homosexuality as useless because "our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions." But she saves her most creative dismissal for the Apostle Paul. Paul, she concedes, "was tough on homosexuality." Nevertheless, she takes encouragement from the fact that "progressive scholars" have found a way to re-interpret the Pauline passages to refer only to homosexual violence and promiscuity.

In this light she cites author Neil Elliott and his book, The Arrogance of Nations. Elliott, like other "progressive scholars," suggests that the modern notion of sexual orientation is simply missing from the biblical worldview, and thus the biblical authors are not really talking about what we know as homosexuality at all. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," as Miller quotes Elliott.

Of course, no honest reader of the biblical text will share this simplistic and backward conclusion. Furthermore, to accept this argument is to assume that the Christian church has misunderstood the Bible from its very birth -- and that we are now dependent upon contemporary "progressive scholars" to tell us what Christians throughout the centuries have missed....

...She then moves to the claim that sexual orientation is "exactly the same thing" as skin color when it comes to discrimination. As recent events have suggested, this claim is not seen as credible by many who have suffered discrimination on the basis of skin color.

As always, the bottom line is biblical authority. Lisa Miller does not mince words. "Biblical literalists will disagree," she allows, "but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history." This argument means, of course, that we get to decide which truths are and are not binding on us as "we change through history."

"A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism," she asserts. "The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."

All this comes together when Miller writes, "We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future." At this point the authority of the Bible is reduced to whatever "universal truths" we can distill from its (supposed) horrifyingly backward and oppressive texts."

Prof. Gagnon’s also writes 23-page report that debunks every shibboleth and inaccuracy by “reporter” Lisa Miller - “More than ‘Mutual Joy’: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus.” and produces a video also: What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality? (see below)


Dr. Robert Gagnon, What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality? S3E2 from Pure Passion on Vimeo.

Send an e-mail to Newsweek telling Newsweek you are disappointed with its distorted interpretation of scripture.

"No" on Prop 8 Backlash an Outrage!!

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expressed appreciation today for a full-page advertisement in The New York Times that decries the “violence and intimidation” directed toward the Church because of its support of Proposition 8.

Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expresses its gratitude to the signatories of the full-page advertisement that appeared today in the New York Times . This was a thoughtful and generous gesture at a time when the right of free expression of people of faith has come under attack. We join with those of all religious faiths and political persuasions who have called for reasoned and civil discourse on matters that affect our nation.”

The ad was sponsored by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and was signed by scholars, dignitaries and religious leaders from a variety of faiths."

excerpts from: Meridian Magazine

Statements from the ad:

• “Participating in ballot initiatives is legally different from politicking for candidates. It is perfectly lawful for charities, including religious ones. It is perfectly appropriate as well that all voices be heard.”

• “Religious groups can't claim some sort of special immunity from criticism, Nevertheless, there's a world of difference between legitimate political give-and-take and violent attempts to cow your opponents into submission. Violence and intimidation are always wrong, whether the victims are believers, gay people, or anyone else.”

• "Therefore, despite our fundamental disagreements with one another, we announce today that we will stand shoulder to shoulder to defend any house of worship — Jewish, Christian, Hindu, whatever — from violence, regardless of the cause that violence seeks to serve. Furthermore, beginning today, we commit ourselves to exposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry - against any faith, of any side of any cause, for any reason.”

To see ad click here NYTad

To add your name click here: add your name

A Gay Bible

Just in case you thought you heard it all... another shocker... sadly enough :(

"A gay version of the Bible, in which God says it is better to be gay than straight, is to be published by an American film producer.

New Mexico-based Revision Studios will publish The Princess Diana Bible – so named because of Diana's "many good works", it says – online at princessdianabible.com in spring 2009. A preview of Genesis is already available, in which instead of creating Adam and Eve, God creates Aida and Eve.

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Aida, and she slept: and he took one of her ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from woman, made he another woman, and brought her unto the first. And Aida said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of me. Therefore shall a woman leave her mother, and shall cleave unto her wife: and they shall be one flesh.' And they were both naked, the woman and her wife, and were not ashamed."

The film studio said it would also adapt and direct the revised Bible as a two-part mini-series, The Gay Old Testament and The Gay New Testament, once it is completed. ..."

Excerpts from Alison Flood guardian.co.uk

Winter Solstice - The Atheist's Holiday???

Governor Christine Gregoire up here in Washington has allowed Atheists to invade the state’s traditional holiday display in Olympia Washington, which features a Christmas tree and the Nativity scene (perfectly appropriate since the Christmas Federal and State holiday celebrates the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem).

Next to this Nativity scene is an atheist sign criticizing that reads, “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

I was listening to the radio last night on this very topic.... A women was commenting on how we need to live in the here and now and not in the past focusing on some God that we can't even prove is real... then they talked about John Lennon and his ideals for the world.

Possibly, John Lennon is her ideal hero/prophet and as he believes there is no heaven (no God- atheist) or hell either nor any personal ownership (communist/socialist)... Read the lyrics of his song and the comments made by one of his admirers below to understand their perspective...

"Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try,
no hell below us, above us only sky, (atheist perspective)
Imagine all the people, living for today.
Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do,
nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too, (atheist perspective)
Imagine all the people, living life in peace.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one,
I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one.

Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can, (socialist/communist perspective)
no need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people, sharing all the world. (socialist/communist perspective)
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one,
I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one." - John Lennon

comments below from: Mark Elsis - Executive Director: http://www.Lovearth.net

"Let us honor our greatest singer songwriter and the most influential political artist of our time with an International holiday celebrating his message for us of Peace and Love on Earth. Imagine all the people of Earth honoring John Lennon, a man who gave his life for spreading the message of Peace and Love. This holiday is for all the people of Earth to celebrate together in harmony, You may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as one. "

So basically, if we were all atheist and lived in a communist/socialists world- there would be peace and love one the earth. Communist nations have tried to do this in the past, and as we have seen there is not much happiness reported there... I shutter to imagine a world where John Lennon is a prophet and/or god and his drug induced thoughts are prophecies.



Here are the "facts" as presented from the "Freedom from Religion" co-president made on Fox News in the video above:

• "Christian came along and basically stole this time of year...." and

• "We see the Nativity Scene as a direct attack on good human values..." and

• "Christians basically stole this season from us human beings by using the hate speech of the Nativity scene which damns all of us to hell if we don't bow down before that little baby who became the dictator... what a horrible insult to what it means to be a human being..."
  

"Governor Gregoire and Attorney General Rob McKenna put out a joint statement Wednesday noting that the federal lawsuit led the state to create a policy allowing groups to sponsor a display “regardless of that individual’s or group’s views.” And added: “The U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent and clear that, under the Constitution’s First Amendment, once government admits one religious display onto public property, it may not discriminate against the content of other displays.”

Gov. Gregoire is stating that if one religion is displayed, then the government may not discriminate against the content of another's religious view. Do those statements made by "Freedom from Religion" and the atheist sign sound like another religious view or a direct attack on Christianity?

"Would somebody please get Andy Williams back in the studio. He needs to record a new secular middle eight to his holiday classic: “The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year.”

“There’ll be gay pride for hosting, Terr-o-rists for toasting and Atheists out in the snow. There’ll be Supreme Court stories, that’ll kill all the glories of Christmases long, long ago”

There’ll be Supreme Court stories, that’ll kill all the glories of Christmases long, long ago”

quotes from and to read the rest of the post click here: Observationdeck.org

to read another great article on the ugly way the Atheist have expressed their freedom of speech - click here: Atheist's National Holiday?

With the removal of God from government and America and 'focusing on the now' this helps justify abortion and every other godless action these "millions of good Americans" want to undertake. That pesky God getting in the way of all that heathenism. Tisk tisk tisk.

Gay rights protesters disrupt Sunday service

"Protesters who entered the Creyts Road church along with worshippers surprised the congregation when they stood up during the service, threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted slogans such as "It's OK to be gay," and "Jesus was a homo," according to David Williams, communications director at the church.

Another group of protesters demonstrated outside the church at the same time as the indoor protest.

According to a report on the Bash Back group's news site, protesters inside the church pulled a fire alarm, unfurled a banner from the church balcony, shouted and threw fliers to the worshippers.

Outside the church, protesters carried picket signs and an upside-down, pink cross.

Mount Hope Church, affiliated with the Assemblies of God denomination, teaches followers that homosexuality is a sin.

However, "Mount Hope Church strives to follow Jesus' example of loving the sinner but not the sin," Williams said." - from: http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20081112/NEWS01/811120369

"The goal of this particular action was made clear on a progressive blog:

"I can tell you that we are targeting a well-known anti-queer, anti-choice radical right wing establishment."

A little background on the "radical right wing establishment" in question:

Mount Hope, for the record, is an evangelical, bible believing church whose members provide free 24 hour counseling, prayer lines, catastrophic care for families dealing with medical emergencies, support groups for men, women and children dealing with a wide variety of life's troubles, crisis intervention, marriage ministries, regular, organized volunteer work in and around the city, missions in dozens of countries across the globe, a construction ministry that has built over 100 churches, schools, orphanages and other projects all over the world and an in-depth prison ministry that reaches out, touches and helps the men and women the rest of society fears the most. They also teach respect for all human life and the Biblical sanctity of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman." - from moonbattery.com

Advice to Christians: Defend life, prepare for persecution

We Must Stand Strong and Live Our Faith - great article.

by: Chad Groening and Allie Martin - OneNewsNow
excerpts from: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=310956

"With the prospect of a liberal Democratic leadership taking hold on Capitol Hill, two evangelical leaders are counseling fellow believers to stand firm in defense of Christian liberties and freedoms against the possibility of radicals in Congress overreaching their power.

Pro-family Christians must be prepared to make solid arguments as they look to the future. "They need to point out the mistakes that [President-elect Barack] Obama makes when it comes to overreaching," Land urges. "I think he'll be pressed hard to overreach by the radicals in the Democratic House and Senate."

The Southern Baptist leader has additional advice for his fellow Christians. "I think that we need to stay consistent with our message of family values and the sanctity of human life -- and we need to find attractive and articulate candidates who will go out and make those cases," he says.

According to Land, a number of social conservatives could emerge as the new leader of the pro-family movement. "I think there are several contestants for it," he states. "Sarah Palin is certainly going to be a prominent one. Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell -- who just won re-election [in Kentucky] -- [and] Bobby Jindal from Louisiana."

Perkins says Christians should pray for and return to a biblical model of holiness and righteousness. And believers in America, he adds, should prepare for persecution.

Tony Perkins"We are going to see, I think, unprecedented attacks against our faith through measures like the hate crimes [legislation] to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act," he says. "We're going to see attacks on innocent human life through the Freedom of Choice Act, trying to erase all the gains that have been made in the pro-life movement. And I think even our freedoms are going to come under attack."

Obama stated during the presidential campaign that one of his top priorities upon taking office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Perkins says Christians will have to be resolute in defense of what they know to be right.

"[W]e're going to have to stand together, and stand in defense of these truths, and be bold about that stance," he counsels.

Perkins says many churches are afraid of offending people, and don't challenge members to live out their faith in the public square."

"No" on Prop 8 Attacks the Mormon Church

found this on youtube today.... could today get worse?? silly question, it still is getting worse.



Bad day :(

Vote Prayfully

This is a very informative talk -warning us Americans about the dangers of Communism. It is written by Ezra Taft Benson who was the thirteenth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1985 until his death and was United States Secretary of Agriculture for both of the administrations of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Whatever religion you are, there is great counsel Benson's writing and the warnings of communism are indeed real. Socialism is a step towards Communism. There really isn't much difference between the two. Obama has clearly stated that he is a Socialist and wants a socialized "changed" government here in the USA. Is this what we want?
Please Vote Prayfully.

taken from: A Witness and a Warning by Ezra Taft Benson - 1979 November Ensign,
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3d7f615b01a6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

"The Lord has declared this “a day of warning, and not a day of many words” (D&C 63:58). My message is a witness and warning about some of the evils which threaten America—a land I love with all my heart. There are other countries with this same problem. You who have seen these dangers in the land you love will have a deep feeling for what I will say.

America is a place of many great events.

This consecrated land has been placed under the everlasting decree of God. That decree is recorded in the sacred Book of Mormon, a new witness for Christ, in these words:

“For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. …

“Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:10, 12).

The Lord had promised, “I will fortify this land against all other nations” (2 Ne. 10:12). President Joseph Fielding Smith said that “the greatest and most powerful fortification in America is the ‘Monroe Doctrine.’ … It was the inspiration of the Almighty which rested upon John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson and other statesmen, and which finally found authoritative expression in the message of James Monroe to Congress in the year 1823” (The Progress Of Man, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., pp. 466–67).

Thus, in that four-decade period the United States had grown to sufficient strength that she was able to provide a cradle of liberty for the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

But whenever the God of heaven reveals His gospel to mankind, Satan, the archenemy to Christ, introduces a counterfeit.

Isaiah foresaw the time when a marvelous work and a wonder would come forth among men. Isaiah also predicted there would be those who would “seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us?” He saw the time when the work shall say of him that made it, “He made me not” (Isa. 29:15–16).

It is well to ask, what system established secret works of darkness to overthrow nations by violent revolution? Who blasphemously proclaimed the atheistic doctrine that God made us not? Satan works through human agents. We need only look to some of the ignoble characters in human history who were contemporary to the restoration of the gospel to discover fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. I refer to the infamous founders of Communism and others who follow in their tradition.

Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion. It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan. The false prophets of Communism predict a utopian society. This, they proclaim, will only be brought about as capitalism and free enterprise are overthrown, private property abolished, the family as a social unit eliminated, all classes abolished, all governments overthrown, and a communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society established.

Since 1917 this godless counterfeit to the gospel has made tremendous progress toward its objective of world domination.

Today, we are in a battle for the bodies and souls of man. It is a battle between two opposing systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and anti-Christ. The struggle is more momentous than a decade ago, yet today the conventional wisdom says, “You must learn to live with Communism and to give up your ideas about national sovereignty.” Tell that to the millions—yes, the scores of millions—who have met death or imprisonment under the tyranny of Communism! Such would be the death knell of freedom and all we hold dear. God must ever have a free people to prosper His work and bring about Zion.

I am a witness to nations and people deprived of their freedom. I was there. I watched that great Iron Curtain drop around nations which formerly had prized their freedom—good people. I was aghast as these were written off by the stroke of a pen. I saw Poland abandoned by nations with a heritage of freedom—the United States and Great Britain.

I was in Warsaw in June of 1946. I shared a room with seven other men in the Polonia Hotel, the only hotel even partially intact in the great city of Warsaw. Our ambassador, Bliss Lane, had his office in part of the building. He was so saddened that he resigned and wrote the book I Saw Poland Betrayed, which detailed the failure of the United States and England to keep their promise that the Poles would have a free election after the war.

I saw firsthand our great nation stand by at the time of the Hungarian revolution—when “freedom fighters” with bare hands and stones resisted bullets, tanks, and artillery. I confess I was ashamed at the response of my country—a nation which I believe the Lord intended to be an ensign of freedom to all others. Freedom did not die that day (23 October 1956) for Hungary alone. Hope died for many in other captive nations and has only recently been somewhat revived by courageous men willing to speak against oppression.

Since that day, I have seen the Soviet Union, under its godless leaders, spread its ideology throughout the world. Every stratagem is used—trade, war, revolution, violence, hate, detente, and immorality—to accomplish its purposes. Many nations are now under its oppressive control. Over one billion people—one-fourth of the population of the world—have now lost their freedom and are under Communist domination. We seem to forget that the great objective of Communism is still world domination and control, which means the surrender of our freedom—your freedom—our sovereignty.

On 3 July 1936, the First Presidency published this warning to Church members:

“Communism is not a political party nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government. …

“Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism. …

“We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America” (signed: Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, The First Presidency, in Deseret News, 3 July 1936; italics added).

More recently, President Marion G. Romney, in the First Presidency Message in the September 1979 Ensign, wrote: “Communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the gospel plan, and … it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. Communism is the greatest anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace not only to our peace but to our preservation as a free people. By the extent to which we tolerate it, accommodate ourselves to it, permit ourselves to be encircled by its tentacles and drawn to it, to that extent we forfeit the protection of the God of this land” (p. 5).

The truth is, we have to a great extent accommodated ourselves to Communism—and we have permitted ourselves to become encircled by its tentacles. Though we give lip service to the Monroe Doctrine, this has not prevented Cuba from becoming a Soviet military base, ninety miles off our coastline, nor has it prevented the takeover of Nicaragua in Central America, the surrender of the Panama Canal, or the infiltration by enemy agents within our American borders.

Never before has the land of Zion appeared so vulnerable to so powerful an enemy as the Americas do at present. And our vulnerability is directly attributable to our loss of active faith in the God of this land, who has decreed that we must worship Him or be swept off. Too many Americans have lost sight of the truth that God is our source of freedom—the Lawgiver—and that personal righteousness is the most important essential to preserving our freedom. So, I say with all the energy of my soul that unless we as citizens of this nation forsake our sins, political and otherwise, and return to the fundamental principles of Christianity and of constitutional government, we will lose our political liberties, our free institutions, and will stand in jeopardy before God.

No nation which has kept the commandments of God has ever perished, but I say to you that once freedom is lost, only blood—human blood—will win it back.

There are some things we can and must do at once if we are to stave off a holocaust of destruction.

First: We must return to worship the God of this land, who is Jesus Christ. He has promised that the righteous will be preserved by His power (see 1 Ne. 22:17). But we must keep the commandments of God. We must pay our tithes and offerings, keep the Sabbath day a holy day, stay morally clean, be honest in all our dealings, and have our family and personal prayers. We must live the gospel.

Second: We must awaken to “a sense of [our] awful situation, because of this secret combination which [is] among [us]” (Ether 8:24). We must not tolerate accommodation with or appeasement toward the false system of Communism. We must demand of our elected officials that we not only resist Communism, but that we will take every measure to prevent its intrusion into this hemisphere. It is vital that we invoke the Monroe Doctrine.

Then we must put our trust in Him who has promised us His protection—and pray that He will intervene to preserve our freedom just as He intervened in our obtaining it in the first place.

Third: We must do as the Lord commanded us by revelation in 1833: “Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil” (D&C 98:10).

Men who are wise, good, and honest, who will uphold the Constitution of the United States in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, must be sought for diligently. This is our hope to restore government to its rightful role.

Last: We must study the inspired Constitution and become involved in the political process ourselves. I quote the First Presidency statement that was read in sacrament meetings on Sunday, 1 July 1979: “We encourage all members, as citizens of the nation, to be actively involved in the political process, and to support those measures which will strengthen the community, state, and nation—morally, economically, and culturally” (Letter from the First Presidency, 29 June 1979).

I fully believe that we can turn things around in America if we have the determination, the morality, the patriotism, and the spirituality to do so.

My single-minded concern is for the freedom and welfare of my countrymen and my posterity, the freedom of all men.

I testify to you that God’s hand has been in our destiny. I testify that freedom as we know it today is being threatened as never before in our history. I further witness that this land—the Americas—must be protected, its Constitution upheld, for this is a land foreordained to be the Zion of our God. He expects us as members of the Church and bearers of His priesthood to do all we can to preserve our liberty.

May God bless us that, with His help, we will not fail to bring to pass His purposes on earth. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen."

A History Lesson - Freedom of Religion

"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained." —George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

"When the founding fathers set up the constitution, to ensure that personal freedoms and liberties of its citizens would be guaranteed, ten Amendments to the newly created U.S. Constitution were ratified. The first ten, called the Bill of Rights, sets forth rights of the people against an oppressive government. The first of these Amendments provide its citizens particular rights and freedoms that are fundamental to any free society. These activities included the suppression of non-state religions, the suppression of speech in any form, the obstruction of the assembly of individuals, and the lack of representation of its citizens in the legislature.

The First Amendment states:

"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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The first of these rights concerns religion. What was the original intent of the framers when they drafted the clauses for the Freedom of Religion?

"The blending of religion and state is not a new concept and was created with the genesis of political systems long before the birth of the United States. This concept has been around for centuries. This gave the rulers the power to govern all the lands of their country, as well in many cases to also be the head of that religion. It became the common practice to include the church in all matters of state.

As the number of religions and religious sects continued to grow in Europe, the governments, and especially the established churches, were fearful that their power was in danger.

Most of the first colonists in America were concerned with the pursuit of their own religious freedom, but were not interested in the freedoms of other religions, or other sects of that religion. In 1610, the Jamestown colony enacted Dale's Law, named after the colony's first governor.[12] This law required all colonists to attend all Anglican worship, provisions against blasphemy, or even criticism of the church. Violations of these laws could eventually lead to death. This is contrary to the religiously tolerant county which Thomas Paine describes in Common Sense as:

"This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embrace of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants home pursues their descendants still."

This was also demonstrated in colonies throughout Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. The Puritans were a religious group which broke off from the Anglican Church of England, and those that openly practiced their beliefs were stricken of their wealth, and their lives. The Puritans came to the new world to get away from the religious persecution. They came in 1620 to Plymouth, Massachusetts, and later in 1628 to Massachusetts Bay.

Not all of the colonies were formed with the concept of enforcing established religions. Two notable exceptions were Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Roger Williams founded the Rhode Island colony in 1636 based on the idea that in order to keep religion pure, it must be separated from the constraints and regulations of the state. This new colony was based on a principle of religious liberty and took in individuals who were trying to get away from religious persecution at the other colonies. The colony at Pennsylvania was founded in 1682 by a Quaker named William Penn. The Quakers believed that religion should be free of state control in its thought or practice. Political office, however, was still only available to Christians. By the late eighteenth century many of the colonies were becoming saturated with individuals from many Christian sects and to a lesser extent from other religions.

When George III became the King of England, he put many new restrictions and taxes upon his North American colonies. The statesmen, leaders, and thinkers of the colonies decided that they need to come together and form some sort of coalition against the oppression. The First Continental Congress was thus created and a Declaration of Colonial Rights was created on October 14, 1774.

On May 25, 1787, fifty five delegates from the thirteen colonies convened upon Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention. After the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation (which did not include any provisions for the freedom of religion) were created in 1781 to bring cohesion to the thirteen colonies.

These delegates drafted the United States Constitution that created a more powerful centralized government. The drafters, however, were still skeptical about placing too much power in the hands of a central government. They created specific enumerated rights for this government, and reserved all other powers to the individual states and its citizens. This new government was divided into three branches, each of which could place checks and balances on the next. The framers believed that if no one entity retains too much power, the government will be able to survive. As Madison wrote; "[B]y so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places."

The Constitution, as it was written, only mentions religion once. In Article VI, paragraph 3, the Constitution states that state and federal office holders "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."{emphasis added} This paragraph allows any individual to hold office, regardless of their religion. However, there is no other reference to religion anywhere in the Constitution. Even with this silence on religion, the Constitution was ratified in 1789. By not mentioning religion, the delegates were avoiding controversy, since each individual state had their idea of religious freedom. By excluding religion in the document, the statesmen could also be silently advocating the separation of religion from this new nation, as expressed by Madison; " [the Constitution was not to grant] a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion."

The Bill of Rights was proposed to the First U.S. Congress, and there was debate on the matter. After some discussion, the Amendments were submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and ten of the original twelve Amendments proposed by Congress to the States were ratified.

We do know that there were several versions of the freedom of religion which were discussed. The one version, which was titled as Article the Third, stated; "Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed." Other versions included "Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others." and "Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society." Finally, on December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified and the version which was agreed upon is as follows; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

During the late part of the eighteenth century, revolutionary events were being performed at all levels of society. The colonists were rebelling against their overseas' ruler and a new country was being born based on the principle of an individual's rights. The founding fathers, as you have already seen, had lived in an era where church and state in some places were inseparable. The history of church and state being intertwined was deeply rooted in their thoughts and beliefs. The idea of separating church and state was a revolutionary one, to say the least. But, did these founding fathers really intend to separate religion from the government completely? These men, whom were raised in homes where Christianity was deeply rooted may not have really intended to have a total alienation of religion from the government.

Every year, millions of Americans celebrate July fourth in commemoration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The document was first drafted by Thomas Jefferson and proposed to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. The document contains references to a supreme being and the protection of such a being. The references are as follows: " Nature's God," "[T]hat they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," and "with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence." The Declaration goes on to speak of all of the reasons why the colonies are declaring their independence, but religious freedom is not amongst them. The document implies that there are natural rights which are given by a deity, and it is this supreme being that will protect them in their upcoming struggles.

The Continental Congress, soon after passing the Declaration of Independence, establish a new committee to develop a seal for the newly formed United States of America.

The "Eye of Providence" and the motto "E Pluribus Unum" (One out of many), which were in the committee's proposal did make it into the final design. The final design, which was approved in 1782, could be seen on the back side of the dollar bill and would have been one which would have been appreciated by the committee. The words "Annuit Coeptis" were written above the Eye of Providence "indicating that it was Providence [God] that 'favored our undertakings'." Once again, even in our nation's seal, which has been used for over two hundred years, there are outright religious connotations."

(sources for quotes: http://www.geocities.com/ldjandl/thesis/articles_dobbs_freedomofreligion.html)

As we look back through time, can we comprehend what our Founding Fathers meant by Religious Freedom? Our Founding Fathers wanted Church and State separate - so the individuals in this new country would have freedom to worship how they believed. They did not want an "American Church" or one State Church as there was in England. From their own words, there is an assumption that the government should not punish any individual for their religious beliefs, thoughts, or actions. The basic idea of freedom of religion is that no one, especially the government, is allowed to force religion on anyone else or prohibit anyone from practicing a religion. To force others to support a church or profess belief in a church's tenets is as much a violation of their civil rights as is preventing them from practicing their religion.

One component of freedom of religion is freedom of conscience. This is the freedom to hold and express our ideas sincerely. It is our civil right to accept or reject any religion or religious idea, and to do so openly and honestly without fear or coercion.

However it was not their intention to remove the Creator (as can be seen in the Declaration of Independence as it acknowledges a Creator) out of our country nor did the first amendment state that our country was free FROM religion or free FROM religious values.

Mitt Romney explains this concept very clearly: "There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith. As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' - the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When one place his hand on the Bible and takes the oath of office, that oath becomes his highest promise to God. A President serves no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree. There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders - in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars - no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forebearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.

In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light'."

(quotes from: Faith In America by Mitt Romney http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/faith_in_america.html )

To more fully understand this concepts that Mitt Romney explains so clearly, here are some quotes from great leaders of our country and their views about God in our country:

"ROBERT E. LEE: "In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength." (p. 21)

DANIEL WEBSTER: "If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper." (p. 21)

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: "I have made it a practice for several years to read the Bible through in the course of every year." (p. 22)

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: "I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated to us through this book." (p. 22)

GEORGE WASHINGTON: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." (p. 22)

HORACE GREELEY: "It is impossible to mentally or socially enslave a Bible-reading people." (p. 23)

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by himself to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to the principles of the first age; and consider all subsequent innovations as corruptions of this religion, having no foundation in what came from him." (p. 45)

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would by now have become Christian." (p. 47)

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see." (p.49)

WOODROW WILSON: "The sum of the whole matter is this----that our civilization cannot survive materially unless it be redeemed spiritually. It can only be saved by becoming permeated with the spirit of Christ and being made free and happy by practices which spring out of that spirit." (p. 143)

PATRICK HENRY: "There is a just God who presides over the destiny of nations." (p. 145)

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction." (p. 225)

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus." (p. 237)

GEORGE WASHINGTON: "The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low, that every person of sense and character detests and despises it." (p. 283)

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped." (p. 301)

CALVIN COOLIDGE: "The strength of a country is the strength of its religious convictions." (p. 305)

GEORGE WASHINGTON: "The perpetuity of this nation depends upon the religious education of the young." (p. 306)

Prior to our increasingly "Hell-Bound and Happy" era, America's greatest leaders were part of the (gulp) Religious Right! Today we have forgotten God's threat (to abort America) in Psa. 50:22----"Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver"."

taken from Dangerous Radicals of the Religious Right, by Dave MacPherson [quotes are from Vital Quotations by Emerson West]
from: http://www.scionofzion.com/radicals.htm