Dr. Robert B. Young writes [via ammoland.com] During the founding of America and our republic, the general belief was that religious faith was necessary to the health of a people. Protestant Christians dominated in an increasing variety of denominations, but Roman Catholics and Jews were present early on thanks to our shores welcoming the persecuted to seek their own havens. Religious tolerance became a colonial ethic. (Sadly, Muslims were not yet “building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy”.)
The predominant theology of many of the most influential founders was Deistic. This emphasized belief in Divine Providence, the creation of the world by a God who is just and supports just causes in this world, and who metes out justice in an afterlife based on people’s acts in this. They believed, with Benjamin Franklin, that “God governs in the affairs of men.”
Interestingly, they seemed rarely to use explicitly Christian vocabulary. But they were very comfortable describing the role of God in the world and their polity in Old Testament language. This framed the relationship of God to man and country in terms that were accepted by all faiths (and should today for all “People of the Book”). They had no doubt that the founding and independence of America was guided by Providence toward the more perfect union they ultimately accomplished.
Some examples [from The Founders’ Faith except as noted]:
John Winthrop: “If we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken . . . we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.”
William Penn: “Government seems to me a part of religion itself, a thing sacred in its institution and end. . . [It] is, as such, . . . an emanation of the same Divine Power that is both author and object of pure religion.” (From Frame of Government of Pennsylvania.)
Rev. John Witherspoon: “By the influence of their religious government, their people may be the more regular citizens, and the more useful members of society.”
Samuel Adams: “’True Religion and good Morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”
Benjamin Franklin: “Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith . . . a Means to obtain that End.”
“If men are so wicked as we see them now with religion, what would they be if without it?”
“The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see . . . that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”
Thomas Jefferson: “Man was destined for society. His morality therefore was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right & wrong merely relative to this.”
James Madison: “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”
“The belief in a God All Powerful wise & good, is . . . essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man.” (From Letter from James Madison to Frederick Beasley.)
John Adams: “Veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service . . . enable[s] me.” (From Inaugural Address of John Adams.)
Dr. Benjamin Rush: “I am as perfectly satisfied that the union of the states, in its form and adoption, is as much the work of divine providence as any of the miracles recorded in the old and new testament were the effects of a divine power.”
George Washington: “I reiterate . . . my dependence upon Heaven as the source of all public and private blessings . . . the general prevalence of piety . . . seems . . . particularly necessary for advancing and confirming the happiness of our country.”
“”I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the state over which you preside, in his holy protection, . . . and . . . that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourself with that Charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our Blessed Religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.”
So, following in the footsteps of far greater and more soundly educated men than us, we offer: The Ten Commandments of the Second Amendment
I. I am the Second Amendment; You shall have no other Guides before Me.
II. You shall not worship false ideas, as that others will protect you.
III. You shall not take the name of the Second Amendment in vain, claiming to support Me while infringing Me.
IV. Remember the tradition of American gun ownership, and keep your sacred liberties.
V. Honor your fathers and mothers, who defended your rights before you.
VI. You shall not murder, though self-defense is your God-given right.
VII. You shall be faithful to your firearms, and care for them as for yourself.
VIII. You shall not steal, or use firearms for any evil purpose.
IX. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor, but bear true witness for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
X. You shall not covet your neighbor’s guns, for they have the same Right to Keep and Bear Arms as you.
— DRGO editor Robert B. Young, MD is a psychiatrist practicing in Pittsford, NY, an associate clinical professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
All DRGO articles by Robert B. Young, MD.
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Second Amendment Foundation. www.drgo.us
Shouldn’t Charlton be holding the flintlock from his NRA Presidency?
“From my cold dead fingers….”
It’s a picture from “Moses”. Somehow Moses holding a staff designed by St. John the Browning seems right.
Were I the person who photo-shopped the iconic image of Charlton Heston, my choice of firearms would have been the much-maligned AR-15 in any of its many permutations. Why the AR-15 rather than a modern hunting shotgun or a Revolutionary era flintlock? Because of the gun-grabbers who think that We, the People should only have firearms for hunting or the common firearm in use when the Constitution was penned. Nothing would be a better “finger in the eye” or upraised middle finger to the gun-grabbers than an AR-15, the “musket” of today’s patriot.
How special.I’m guessing the SJW didn’t get this memo. Back to your “safe space” heathen…not a bad guide for guns.
Oh wow, today I learn that no Muslims fought for America in the revolutionary war. Thanks for being the exact kind of people that runs swing voters and minorities away from the NRA, Ammoland.
What, you never heard of the Barbary Pirates? They did in fact fight and shape our nation- as our enemies. If our enemy can be said to shape our nation in it’s founding years, then they did so.
I love when people bring out the fact hammer.
If we want facts, here are some about Muslims in America:
there were Muslims who:
* fought in the militia against the Redcoats
* served as servants for the Continental Army (some as slaves)
* worked for merchants running the British blockade to supply the rebels
and for that matter:
* fought for the North in the Civil War
* fought for the South in the War of Northern Agression
* owned slaves
* were slaves
* worked to free slaves
Yes, the Barbary Pirates were Muslim, but when the British (once they’d finished off Napoleon) finally moved against the pirates, there were Muslim sailors on some British ships.
If we really want to come down on someone for the Barbary pirates, we should take aim at the people who taught them to build state-of-the-art warships: German and other European naval officers, some of them out of work due to Napoleon’s conquests.
Sorry, gotta challenge some of this. Muslims fought in the militia against the Redcoats?
Cite some generally accepted sources.
The US has been at war with Islam pretty much continuously, since the founding of the Republic – their idea, not ours.
Starting with the Tripolitan Wars…
The U.S. fought the Barbary Pirates offensively, they alone. https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/first-barbary-war. Everyone else was in see and avoid mode. There WERE muslim captive sailors on British ships and they were FORCED CONSCRIPTS. The U.S. fought the War of 1812 to prevent England from doing that anymore.
Say thank you b1t<h, and apologize for yourself.
When were these facts made up?
Remember all those Muslims that fought for the Nazis? Yeah, they love them some Nazism.
The Nazis gave them weapons and training to help them throw off foreign rulers — so of course they “loved” them; they would have loved Communists if they’d shown up with the same deal.
Unfortunately, some of them got infected with the anti-Jewish disease that is actually contrary to the Quran.
“Unfortunately, some of them got infected with the anti-Jewish disease that is actually contrary to the Quran.”
Muslims were grateful to the Nazis for the weapons, such that they were, but the Nazis provided them because the Mohamedans were “fellow travelers” in the destruction of the Jews, not because they were interested in helping them throw out foreign invaders (who also happened to be the same nations who were at war against Germany).
While genetically many Mohamedans are Semites ( same as or similar to the Jews), the Persians are genetically caucasion, as are the people of Pakistan and India, despite being of very dark complexion as a rule. The Persians were so enamored of the Germans and Nazis that they changed the name of their country to Iran, meaning in their language “Aryan”.
Take your “religion of peace” argument somewhere else. Islam means “submission” and the peace they envision is that which occurs after your enemies (Jews and other infidels) are so thoroughly defeated that they will submit to whatever you demand without struggle. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees in such submission.
‘Member all those white Christians who fought for the Nazis?
‘Member the rest of the white Christians that kicked their ass so bad that it’s still illegal to possess a nazi flag and nationalism has given way to Derka Derka Merkel trying to take over the world via the UN?
Ya, you ‘member.
Wanna talk about how fun it’s going to be to “do” Germany again, after the world comes and asks white Christians to bail them out?
WTF did I just read?
Exactly. Mental diarrhea from the mind of a professional quack?
In my experience, many of the most tweaked individuals I’ve ever met were psychologists or psychiatrists. Of course, most of the psych courses were an easy A grade for any science/math major that needed to pick up some soft science credit.
Maybe lower level psych courses were an easy A for some, but lots of people still failed them.
And that isn’t true for higher-level courses, especially grad level.
What did you read? A bunch of cherry picked steaming piles of propagandist BS, pulled waaaay out of context for the most part. By a “doctor” of voodoo, or it’s equivalent.
The Founders were “deists” at most generous (save for John Jay who was a devout Christian). Like most intellectuals of their time they still believed that their might be “something” up there, but the existence of “it” was to explain that which could not currently be scientifically explained, or used to sell the masses on something the other guys said was bad, on why “our” side is ‘right’. Also, to assuage the very Western romantic notion that we should get to see Aunt Ginny again and live in cloud city, or whatever.
Here’s what Jefferson (let alone Franklin) really say about religion…
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote “Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?”)
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820
There’s at least another 20 Jefferson quotes I can think of off the top of my head that thoroughly discredit the nonsense spouted by this cretin ignoramus with the bullsh1t narrative that our Great Nation was founded on some nonsense of Judeo-Christian values. It was founded on classical secular humanist values, that existed in the civilized world long before the Jews or Christians were invented by an early con-man. In fact, if one just has to ascribe the values that kept us evolving as a species for 200K+ years to some “religion”, you can ascribe it to Mazdaism, which was a monotheistic religion around thousands of years before Judaism. Not the 200K+ that we’ve been here for, but you know, ‘before’ Judaism anyway.
Ummm…not taking a side, though I have one, you can’t quote one noted atheist and hang your entire hypothesis on that one guy. Doesn’t work that way.
Why not? Isn’t all of Christianity based on the statements of one noted homeless Jewish drifter?
C’mon Larry, quit playing “nice”. The first of the Gospels was written at least 75 years after the death of “Jesus” – whoever he was. We have multiple histories from the supposed ‘time of Christ’. Somehow these historians missed completely the crowds, miracles, zombie Jesus, all of it. Stuff that would have been kind of a big deal in those times. But, the guys who showed up and wrote stories after the guy was long dead, that’s whats to be believed…
The Founding Fathers were not Deists. Jefferson and Franklin were the most non-religious of the founders and that is why they are often quoted the most to try to subvert the painfully obvious: most of the founding fathers claimed to be Christians and all (including Jefferson & Franklin) were Theists.
In the original drafts of the 13 state constitutions, all of the 13 contained religious tests to hold state office (had to be a Christian) and 11 had even more specific tests (had to be Protestant).
Thomas Paine got sternly rebuked by multiple FF’s for writing Age of Reason.
John Witherspoon was an ordained minster. John Adams issued a national day of prayer and fasting. We know the exact church Washigton attended. Sam Adams was so Protestant he was more Orange that Trump. You already admitted to John Jay. More than can be named here were baptized – and had their children baptized. Do tell how the quotes provided were out of context.
The Founders held to Christian principles and Enlightenment principles. They read from the Bible and Greek Classics. They were men of their time
* You might be an Atheist if . . . you believe the Founding Fathers were Christians while beating their slaves and Deists when they wrote/signed the constitution 🙂
Theist/Deist, distinction without difference. The majority believed in a “god” as an expedient to explain that which science at the time couldn’t, the “church” as a way of influencing/controlling the masses – as it’s always been.
Drill down on the rest of the quotes from the FFs, not just the out-of-context crap the OP spouts. I have, back when you had to go to a library to do research.
The distinction between a Deist and a Theist is huge. Deists do believe God has dealing w/ the affairs of men. No miracles, no point in praying – just wind up the universe and let it go. Theists believe God cares and does intervene.
Besides, out of the hundreds of men that are numbered among the FF’s all were Christian save for the 2 you quoted – that is why you (and many others) quoted them. You might throw Madison in as well but then you still only have 3. They did not believe morality came from science – it came from God.
Please show me contextually where Dr. RY is wrong in the quotes that he gave. Show me where the men that I mention were not religious. How about Caesar Rodney, Thomas McKean, Charles Carroll? How about the religious requirements for state offices?Their writings are available for anyone to read. Let the reader(s) decide if their religious beliefs (of the lack thereof) informed their view of the world.
I fear Dr. Young has put a couple of toes over the sacrilegious line. (I recognize it because I do it myself from time to time although it is never my intention to offend the virtuous faithful.)
Weren’t the majority of the founding fathers agnostic?
Would agnostics have signed a Declaration of Independence that, in its first two paragraphs, referred to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?”
If I consider natural law to be survival of the fittest and my creators to be nature and my biological parents it’s not much of a stretch.
John Locke, author of the phrase “nature and nature’s God”, by the way, wrote that the Law of Nature was in fact survival of the fittest, though not in those exact words, and that men created Civil Societies as a means to protect themselves from such predation. They have not always been successful, but that was the intent.
It is unfortunate that many other men formed uncivil societies for exactly the opposite purpose – to prey upon their neighbors.
Agnostics don’t take sides, so yes, probably would have signed irregardless of the language.
Atheists might have taken issue with the diction in question.
Why not? It would be quite reasonable (IMHO) for an agnostic or atheist to take a “big picture” viewpoint and sign off on it, even if he disagreed with a couple of lines.
Deists, see above. Except John Jay, he was a ‘true believer’….
Perhaps “Deist”; Enlightened Man has the intelligence and reason to view the universe as the handiwork of a single Creator.
Up until a few hundred years ago, when it began being more and more obvious that all religion was a lie, invented by men to allow them to control the actions of other men. That is not an all around condemnation, hundreds or thousands of years back humanity needed some guidance, and would not accept it from other humans, who all considered inferior to themselves. So, declaring a war on behalf of some invented god allowed mass murder and mayhem to be acceptable as “god’s will” and conquerors to pretend to be representatives of a fictional “someone else”. Why *ANYONE* is silly enough to still accept such crap in this day and age is a tribute to the science of brainwashing. Unless you think your particular religion is somehow hereditary, you have to ask why children of Christians overwhelmingly are convinced of the absolute truth of the religion of their parents, down to Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, whatever, yet muslims overwhelmingly give birth to muslims. Anyone who *thinks* has a difficult time reconciling reason with religion.
More likely deists. Which is why we have so much Masonic influence on the Constitution,The Declaration of Independence and symbols of our nation(all seeing eye,Washington monument and the very concept of the 2nd Amendment). I don’t see how an “open” agnostic could survive in 18th century America…
Jefferson was closest to being an agnostic, but certainly couldn’t be convicted of it — I actually spent several dozen hours of research once trying to prove him an agnostic, and it just won’t quite fly.
The majority were Deists with a Christian flavor because that was the religion of their colonies.
I would add Ben Franklin to the mix. “Hellfire club”,whoremonger and general raconteur. And evidence of possible mass murder at his European residence. But none of that lessons his absolute importance in the founding of the good ole’ USA…
If it had two legs and two holes below the beltline, old Ben would screw it. He did like the swinger’s club…
Depends on who you ask. Clearly the answer is objectively “yes”, as it is when discussing today’s politicians. Several renowned preachers have run for the presidency and gotten their asses kicked, even with god voting (I assume).
“Thou shall not be a Fudd.”
(could probably be worked into #9)
III. You shall not take the name of the Second Amendment in vain, claiming to support Me while infringing Me.
I believe that covers the Elmer Fudd’s out there…
Thou shalt not take the Second Amendment in vain, claiming it applies only to people who believe in the same supernatural god that you do.
Every person, of every profession (John Locke again – profession being used to indicate a “profession of faith”) or no profession, is born with the natural right of self protection (John Locke – the State of nature and the Law of Nature – “Of Civil Society”).
I should point out, however, that in spite of the above John Locke had no use for agnostics or athiests – see “On Tolerance” – John Locke. He did not trust that people who were not in fear of God and God’s retribution for sins would behave properly in a civil society.
“…it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Alas, it does indeed do us injury if our neighbor asserts that all must adhere to his beliefs or face either special taxation and abuse, exile, or death, and the neighbor votes for despotic govt that agrees with him.
Such a neighbor would indeed do us harm, whether he believes in no god, one god, or twenty gods.
But belief (or lack thereof) in the supernatural in and of itself? Mr. Jefferson hit the nail on the head.
I agree, SoCons are a danger.
Only one quibble: there is at least one guide before the Second Amendment (thus the fact that it’s the second, not the first). But I like this a lot. I would live by those commandments.
I’m not a particularly religious person but I think a true Christian would take offense at this. Something about worshipping no gods before me or something along those lines.
I don’t see any problem with explaining proper devotion to a God-given right by modeling admonitions for it after the Ten Words God gave Moses. If it weren’t a God-given right, I could see the issue.
The problem is pretending that it is a God-given right. Somewhat more than half of the 7.5 BILLION people on this planet have no belief nor interest in your God. Do they then not have the same natural right to keep and bear arms for their own and their community’s protection? Ridiculous.
Every living thing, animal or vegetable, has the natural right to protect its own life and all have developed some strategy to this end. This is a natural right and applies across the board. You may ascribe it to a supernatural diety if you like, but that does not make it exclusive to Christians, Jews or Mohamedans, nor prove that it comes from a god.
The Ten Commandments were God’s original limits on human behavior, given to those who believed in Him. To use them in this matter honors neither our God nor our Constitution.
I shall not worship the Second Amendment, as that would be a violation of Commandment #2.
I shall work to understand the Second Amendment, to learn the history that preceded it, to never forget its importance to our nation, and endeavor to teach the same to younger generations.
Interestingly, read in the Hebrew it’s the “Ten Words”, and they’re not so much commandments in the sense of rules or laws as we now view them, but as a statement of the standard to which God intended to shape His people. They’re very much a statement of grace, of what Yahweh planned to make His people into. Of course following them as commands is implied, because doing otherwise would be opposing God, but higher than that they indicate the character God’s people are supposed to have.
And in the Hebrew, the first Word is “I am Yahweh your God” — a pure act of grace, something He accomplished, so that conforming to this character He goes on to describe becomes a response of gratitude.
“The Ten Commandments were God’s original limits on human behavior, given to those who believed in Him.”
As I recall the story of Moses coming down the mountain to find his people worshipping a golden calf, I would say your statement above is demonstrably false.
I disagree. The fact that people sometimes lost faith and broke God’s commandments doesn’t change their purpose.
You did not quite finish your thought, there. “Given to those who believed in him” BY MEN. Thousands of years later, became commandments instead of goals, by order from MEN. Lots of valuable and civilized guidance (mixed with some superstitious nonsense) copied, distributed and advocated by men. Some people actually believe that men made it up in the first place, no god was involved! Can you imagine? I wonder if there is a video which would show us the truth?! If a magical creature was involved, I don’t know why not. If only men were involved, don’t be silly, that would be impossible.
It seems to me that there is no government in existence today, or that has ever existed, anywhere on earth as is not protected by Divine Providence except the Communist states that outlawed all religion and set up Big government as the Supreme Authority in All Things.
So Divine Providence didn’t protect the USSR….but it did protect Nazi Germany?
Mark, if we’re applying the Old Testament paradigm of God’s relationship to nations, no nation gets higher or lower privileges or status; having no god at all might be regarded as better than having false gods, but in reality it’s a wash; as Paul puts it, government (the exercise of authority fr the sake of order) derives from God, so even the communists were merely exercising something that ultimately came from Him.
Thus the Soviets were no more nor less responsible for their exercise of His authority than any other — including, we should keep in mind, our own government, which even though it is superior on many ways also has a lot to answer for.
I am the legally responsible government for my family, and your superstitions have nothing to do with that. So, your assertion is just silly.
Love it. The moslem holy book and most certainly mohammed describe something that is neither good, nor fair, nor just to all people so I cannot in good conscience accept their view of God. Deist or Christian or Jew, we all believe in a loving God that will if necessary punish the wicked. Allah it seems is quite a different story.
A month ago I would have agreed. But I’ve been working my way through the Quran, and some scholarly examinations of Islam (from inside and out), and what’s really striking me is just how deviant the terrorist types are in terms of what Islam actually says. They’re very much like what a professor I had used to illustrate how literature can be misused, with this selection of verses from the Bible:
“Kill them all—old and young, girls and women and little children.”
“What thou doest, do quickly.”
“Then all nations will call you blessed.”
Obviously those are out of context and don’t belong together, and that’s exactly what the terrorists are doing with the Quran. The problem is that they are in the position of Christians back when only priests were allowed to read the Bible, having to take what the priests/imams claim the book says. But with Islam, all those imams have to do is describe how Mohammed went into battle, and it’s easy to convince hearers that their message of violence really is the true meaning.
Eventually Christians got to read the Bible in their own languages, and it became a lot harder to convince any that Jesus wanted swords drenched in the blood of “God’s enemies”. Unfortunately, Islam isn’t anywhere near that point. Interestingly, a Muslim cleric noted that and said that according to the Quran, the proper response to terrorists is found in the very same violent verses the terrorists love to quote: search them out, and kill them all.
You need to actually read a non-edited Quran. It’s more vile than you know, and the later stuff is considered to be the more correct stuff, by design. Protip: The Pedo Muhammed, pig feces be upon him, only gets worse the longer he (sadly) keeps breathing and sticking his schlong into everything that he can, the younger the better, writing garbage that unevolved idiots believe right to this moment.
Read the Quran and Hadith. Get back to me when you know what you should have learned in high school (had they been doing their job, ‘natch).
I’m using three different translations.
Yes, there’s some pretty awful stuff in there, especially having to do with women. But what the terrorists are doing is very difficult to justify when the book is read honestly. If Americans had actually invaded Muslim countries, they might have a point, but that isn’t the case.
I’m also looking at commentary by Muslim scholars around the time of the Crusades, and they pretty much work against the terrorists, too. The most egregious thing out of those is that while it’s condemned to spread Islam by the sword, once Muslims have come to rule a country due to conquest it’s considered Muslim and can’t be allowed to “fall away” (which leads to some groups advocating “reclaiming” Spain….).
It’s completely awful, top to bottom, front to back, and aimed at the destruction of all which Western Civilization sees as right and proper. It is evil by it’s every design and “virtue”. At least if you’re an American or European. Hell, even the Japanese recognize it, and won’t let them in.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson (let alone Hitchens et. al.) speak on it quite plainly – Islam has killed every single civilization that it has infected since day one, until right now. Islam is a disgusting social disease, and is fatal to any host who lets it who allows it to fester in their society.
The Quran is the scribblings of a warlord who figured out how to use religion to get his (likely syphillitic self) laid. That’s all it is. That the civilized world marginalizes the book, or exterminates it’s adherents is what matters. (Personally, I prefer debunking the book, but ultimately I’ll do what needs to be done to prevent this cancer from eliminating the civilized world.) This is Darwinian in it’s strictest terms. Pick a side.
The Crusades were nothing more than security teams protecting pilgrimages to the Holy Land. They encountered an un-incorporated lot along the road that were STRICTLY nomadic marauders. The incorporated muslims were not in any greater ‘charge’ or position of authority over those same people and would’ve been the focus of the marauding had pilgrims not been coming.
There was never a ‘campaign to concur or subdue the “Holy Land” countries’ or they would’ve gotten it done. Mainly because the population can be compelled to eat-it’s-own with very little provoking in the way of “wealth” and titles of power. Everyone’s trying to push their tribe to the top of the heap, and get areas to ‘occupy’. If they wasted half of their energy wasted on killing off their intelligentsia they might learn that their policy of men using men for sexual pleasure (although ‘homosexuality’ is an offense punishable by death) and only using women for procreation (after which time they have to go through a day and a half ritualistic cleansing before they can have sex with a man again) is an abomination. As is their sanctioned sexual abuse of children.
The crusade were organized and carried out with looting as a goal and murder as an excuse, by the Christian churches. As expressed at the Doge’s palace tours in Venice, specifically addressing the 3rd crusade IIRC. Why any pilgrims would be needing protection while travelling to the “holy” lands I cannot imagine, except for muslims who were so commanded by their faith.
Islam is not informed by the Koran in the same way Christianity is by the Bible. If you look look at Sira (life of Muhammad) and Hadith (sayings of Muhammad) literature, it paints a horrid picture of Muhammad. This is important as Muhammad’s lifestyle example (Sunnah) is the conduct all believing men are to ascribe to as per Surah 33:21.
Muhammad was a slave trader, treaty breaker, and torturer. Muhammad enslaved men who were once free – and his example is law for all Muslims. That is why the abolition of slavery is forbidden in Islam and is even a sin. Marrying 9 year old girls is OK cuz Sunnah.
The “terrorists” (the terrorists know Arabic BTW, some are even scholars, and have cogent responses to collaborating Muslim clerics) and the traditional scholars agree that apostates should be killed and so should anyone who insults Islam. Traditional Sunni Islamic jurisprudence agrees that the testimony of a woman or Jew/Christian is worth half that of a man. The Koran in no uncertain terms establishes a special tax for Jews and Christians just to practice their religion – Jizya. If you are a Mushrik (an “associator” which ironically includes Atheists) then . . .
Some ideas and some ideologies, including religious ones, really are more violent that others.
So you’re telling me that the same black citizens who protest so bitterly the (imagined?) vestiges of slavery from 150 years ago, also convert by the millions to Islam, which advocates slavery *NOW*? You cannot make this shit up.
It all depends upon your religion’s definition of what is wicked, and what the punishment should be.
Always remember: “One man’s religion is another man’s belly laugh” – Robert A. Heinlein
Faith in your/a religion is a poor reasons to go around killing your neighbors who disagree.
Except when your neighbor’s “religion” explicitily commands your removal from the planet. That’s what Islam commands of the faithful.
Read the Quran and Hadith…
Exactly the same “story”. Different definitions of “wicked” and “necessary”, both subject to change without a vote, by MEN!
The religious shit is queer….. don’t post it…
You’re the expert.
The religious shit is queer….. don’t post it….
I thought I was reading a gun blog. How did I wind up on this crappy religion blog?
My humble interpretation,
1. All arms that the citizenry of the United States feels comfortable in employing as a means of freely expressing their RTKBA shall not be infringed by arguments of social utility, fear, criminality, or revolution. For if the people wish to resist tyranny, they are expressing their inherent power to rebuild government in their own image, to their own liking, for their own reasons, in their own way.
2. The government, and any and all officers, agents, representatives, or employees of such, must never seek to restrict the specifically delineated RTKBA of the people, in the manner they see fit, and ANY such action at ANY level of government will be met with immediate censure, removal from office, and trial for crimes against the sovereignty and civil rights of the citizenry.
3. If any political figures seek to remove the RTKBA of the citizens of this nation, for political enrichment, and/or at the behest of moneyed interests, by any means, these individuals and/or political parties that work to restrict gun rights will be immediately seized by law enforcement on charges of conspiracy, and a swift and thorough investigation will follow, with removal of term in office, and personal fines to be levied immediately.
4. If any firearm is stolen from its lawful owner, the immediate retrieval of said property, and prosecution of ANY individual in criminal possession of such property MUST be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law or else immediate removal from office of ALL negligent parties will commence.
Last. No new laws beyond the current year that seek to do anything other than increase the ability of the American people to freely exercise the RTKBA, which supersedes the US Constitution, shall be allowed until such time as a strenuous review process ascertains the efficacy of CURRENT firearm laws at the Federal and State levels. Until Attorney’s General in this nation actively prosecute criminals guilty of possessing firearms in the commission of crime at levels above 89% nationally, not a single new gun law can be allowed to be brought to vote at the national level.
5 commandments of Firearms.
Revisionism at its finest.
God said “You shall not murder … ‘If you stand like sheep and allow yourselves to be murdered you are not doing service to me’. Buy a freakn’ sword and protect yourself and others”
The sheep in the center of the flock said ‘thou shalt not kill’ and complained about the fierce military style jaws on the wolves that came and went along the fringe of the unarmed herd, the wolves feasting at will. Meanwhile the rest of herd turned their backs and similarly complained that the sheep society should pass a law about those damn wolves and that there should be no wolves with military style jaws and teeth, well, maybe they could keep their molars. Then came the farmers and gave the wolves safety. Every so often the sheep got to walk into the main barn. The new sheep, not understanding that the prior sheep were now lamb chops and sweaters, wondered why such a large glorious wolf free range was not already occupied but, they were happy to be so secure and safe and protected by the farmers.
I would approve if more tongue-in-cheek, other than that it’s blasphemy.
“Of all the strange crimes that humanity has legislated out of nothing, blasphemy is the most amazing – with obscenity and indecent exposure fighting it out for second and third place.”
—-Robert A. Heinlein
Blasphemy is ‘bragging’ about sin. Sinning so openly that you profess it to be something to be lauded and copied.
Says who, and so what? And, now I think of it, how does the post you claim is blasphemy qualify, under that definition?
Your definition of “blasphemy” disagrees with the one in Webster’s.
For any who couldn’t tell, this is my admiring restatement of the Old Testament’s 10 Commandments on behalf of the RKBA and Second Amendment that, I believe, we all cherish.
It should not be taken as a blasphemous substitute for the authentic 10 Commandments. Those are preeminent. After all, it refers to a Guide, not God, in the 1st commandment, and to God in the 6th. Obviously different concepts.
But I’m certainly pleased by the attention you’re all giving to a quick take on what I believe to be a respectful, interesting way to honor the Second Amendment.
And please check http://www.DRGO.us for all the news, and the work we do, to support the RKBA as health care providers standing firm against attempts to define firearms and ‘gun violence’ as public health issues.
Robert B Young, MD
So, raised by Democrats, or just inherently unable to discern truth from fiction, “Doctor” (and I use that term very loosely…)?
Your assertions about the FFs ‘religiosity’ are as ludicrous as the day is long- at least to those who actually know the history. Please, attempt to factually justify your position in front of a historian who can grab his ass with both hands. You’ll be laughed from the room.
Anytime you’d like to publicly defend your historical revisionism and religious propaganda in a proper forum, I’d be happy to Hitchens all over it, in person and everything.
Seldom in the annals of TTAG have I seen so much vitriol foaming and sloshing on top of the palpable ignorance of Christianity 101.
In the immortal words of Indiana Jones, “Didn’t any of you guys go to Sunday School when you were little?”
As if what Jefferson said in his letters proves anything about the others!
Jefferson was a Unitarian. Unitarians’ thinking ranged from deists (‘God made a clockwork universe and is not too concerned about it or us now from day to day’), to complete unbelief. Theists regard them as, with few exceptions, outside the Faith. As a good Unitarian and excellent polemicist, Jefferson would appeal to anything which would pull in support for his words. He needed the support of the respectable gentry who he lived among. He was also obviously a sinner. His affair with his slave woman and his failure to free his slaves in his will says a lot about who he really was. And yet, he was truly a great man, for the good he did.
Franklin was a Quaker, perhaps nominally so. His eccentric behavior was commonly known. No, he was not a serial killer. His neighbor in London was a doctor secretly researching cadavers. Again, Franklin is revered for the good he did.
There were a few guys reputed to be scoundrels and opportunists. A real mix of people, just like now.
Washington, Adams, Patrick Henry and numerous others were (probably a majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence) theistic believers, although their religious vocabulary was more like the deists than today’s evangelicals, and as good Anglicans or Presbyterians (mostly) theirs was a faith fond of personal dignity, social standing and reserve. A good bit of serious research (even using personal letters where many of these guys were sincerely evidencing deep personal beliefs!) has been done supporting this view. Other views exist.
The respectable gentry and the laboring classes bought in, publicly and in many cases very sincerely to the Judeo-Christian standards taught by all the various groups. It would have meant social ostracism to publicly flout common ideas of right and wrong.
The point: It is fair and valid to say that our country and our form of government came from a mixed bag of people, among whom were a substantial number of Christians, and who as a society publicly and pretty uniformly subscribed to a Judeo-Christian worldview and the standards of right and wrong asserted as part of that worldview.
Ugh, you illiterate who was not here for it…. The FFs were not “majority christians”, nor was this Great Nation founded on some bs “judeo-christian” mores. Sell that propaganda at a fleamarket, maybe you’ll find some unwitting buyers.
Sad. As has been said, facts don’t care about your feelings.
Like everyone else at the time, the founders had to profess to believe in the hogswallow of the age, else risk burning at the stake or other version of religious murder which certainly still existed right beside god’s eternal love or whatever. However, due to those constraints, you have absolutely no idea what they actually believed in.
They wrote; they spoke, and their words were recorded. I’ll take that over your intuition.
No, I didn’t go to Sunday School. Given that I’m not a Christian, why would I?
Fine with me bro. Take it up with Indiana Jones. The issue is history, and knowledge of your country’s founding.