Browse By

Donald Trump Says That His Presidential Campaign Aims To “Save Christianity”

Just in case you wouldn’t understand the message, Donald Trump wrote the message in all capital letters on his Twitter feed tonight:


donald trump save christianity

Donald Trump is saying that a vote for his presidential campaign is a vote to “save Christianity once and for all”.

This declaration ought to alarm any American voter who is at all aware of the way that democracy in the USA actually works. Here’s why:

1. The President of the United States isn’t supposed to be used to favor one religion over another.

The federal government is established by the laws of Congress, which are executed by the President of the United States. The very first words of the very first amendment to the Constitution make it clear, however, that the federal government isn’t allowed to get involved in choosing which religions Americans are involved with. The First Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

This means that the federal government can’t do anything to either promote private involvement in religion or to interfere with it. If Christianity happens to fall apart in the United States, that isn’t a matter that the federal government can address. That’s just the way it goes.

2. Christianity in the United States isn’t in need of saving.

It is true that Christianity is diminishing in the the United States, with almost one third of Americans now identifying themselves as non-Christian. Still, that means that two-thirds of Americans remain Christian.

Christians have enormous power in the United States, and not just in numbers. Christians have had a stranglehold on the presidency for hundreds of years. They install government-paid preachers, 100% Christian, in the U.S. Congress. Christians have forced non-Christians to take part in their religious rituals as part of public life for generations.

Non-Christians have struggled simply to maintain a few small areas of neutrality in the public sphere. No non-Christian group has been able to exercise anything close to the power in the United States that Christianity has.

Christianity isn’t about to die out. Christianity isn’t under any serious threat. What is in danger is the cultural and political dominance of Christianity in the United States. Christians don’t have any natural right to dominate other Americans, though. Their right to practice their religion does not include the right to use the federal government to control what everyone else does.

3. American democracy isn’t supposed to do anything once and for all.

Our Constitution was set up from the beginning to be flexible and changing. That’s why we have the power to amend it.

The idea of saving any cultural idea “once and for all” is completely contrary to the constitutional organization of our democracy.

The only way to use the power of government to settle any matter once and for all in the United States would be to abolish the Constitution, and end the power of the American people to control their own government. The only way to use governmental power to save Christianity forever would be to establish an eternal Christian theocracy as a replacement for American democracy.

When Donald Trump talks about his plans to use the federal government “save Christianity once and for all”, he is talking about a plan to overturn the Constitution and end democracy in the United States of America.

4. Donald Trump’s version of government-approved Christianity won’t allow the practice of other forms of Christianity.

Every time that a national government has placed itself on the side of one religion, it has placed itself against the free practice of other religions. Every time that a national government has installed Christianity as the official religion of a country, it has controlled the way that Christianity has been practiced.

If Donald Trump uses federal government to “save Christianity”, he’ll really only be saving certain forms of Christianity: Christianity that believes in theocracy and Christianity that doesn’t allow same-sex marriage, for instance. If your form of Christianity doesn’t match the official federal government Christianity installed by Donald Trump, then you won’t be able to practice your religion in equality. The power of the federal government will be used to discriminate against you on the basis of your non-conformist form of Christian religion.

Who knows what the federal government will do to warp Christianity to its purpose, once it is given the power to demand promote certain forms of Christian worship and Christian ideology? Who know which kinds of Christianity will gain government favor, and which ones will be made into outsiders?

Well, we actually do know a bit about what kind of Christianity will gain prominence if Donald Trump is allowed to convert the U.S. federal government into a taxpayer-funded device to “save Christianity once and for all”. It won’t be the Christianity of peace. It will be the Christianity eager to bomb the shit out of them. It won’t be the Christianity of compassion. It will be the Christianity that says, “Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would. In a heartbeat. I would approve more than that! It won’t be the Christianity that urges people not to judge others. It will be the Christianity that seeks to punish, declaring, they deserve it anyway. It won’t be the Christianity of turning the other cheek. It will be the Christianity that says, Maybe he should have been roughed up.”

If Donald Trump is given the chance to use the power of the government to “save Christianity”, the Christianity he will save will be the Christianity of Bloody Mary.

Now that Donald Trump has made his intention to seize the U.S. federal government and convert it into a central authority over Americans’ religious lives, Americans need to ask themselves whether it is more important to them to push one form of Christianity on other Americans, or to preserve their democracy.

A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for theocracy, against democracy.

86 thoughts on “Donald Trump Says That His Presidential Campaign Aims To “Save Christianity””

  1. John says:

    1. The President of the United States isn’t supposed to be used to favor one religion over another.

    Are you serious? Obama has done everything but bow down and kiss the feet of the Muslim religion his entire presidency! This country was built on Christian values and traditions! That’s why It became the greatest country in the entire world! The whole reason this country is going down the drain is because people like you want to remove God from the equation! Well I hate to say it but sooner or later the population to get sick and tired of seeing the moral and social decay of their country and things are going to change and people are going to want to put God back in the equation. So get used to it! The liberal politically correct lames are on the way out! And it couldn’t be too soon if you ask me

    1. J Clifford says:

      John, Obama has not promoted Islam over Christianity.

      This country was built on the Constitution, not Christianity.

      1. John says:

        Yes Obama has shown favoritism towards the Muslim community more than once. Because HE IS A MUSLIM!!!! And I don’t know when the last time was that you actually read the constitution, but belief in a Christian God, and the belief that a country that holds a belief in that God would prosper and be blessed is woven into the very fabric of the constitution.

        1. J Clifford says:

          Ooooookay, John. Search through the Constitution, and tell me how many times “Christianity” or “Christian” or “Jesus” is there in the Constitution.

          The only time the Constitution mentions religion is to say that the government cannot get involved in it.

          Do you actually believe the crazy “Obama is a Muslim” conspiracy theories, or is it just fun for you to say things that you think are outrageous?

          Do you think lying is a Christian practice?

        2. ella says:

          John, we know what Obama does speaks louder than words. A persons actions as well as his words speak louder yet. Obama has done many offensive things in the eyes of many people. He is not a Rainbow President for one thing. Obama is conflicted as concerns his public image. He will not overtly, verbally, demonstrate a religious preference by name. He will mention religions by name.

    2. ella says:

      We really do not know anything but that Obama publicly goes to a Christian church. What he does in private is another matter, unknown publicly. Obama does not publicly promote, per se, any religion. Consider his background in religion:

      “Barack Obama’s religious background is more diverse than that of most prominent politicians, but it may prove to be representative of future generations of Americans who grow up in an increasingly diverse America. His mother was raised by non-practicing Christians; his father was raised a Muslim but was an atheist by the time he had married Obama’s mother. Obama’s step-father was also Muslim, but of an eclectic kind who could make room for animist and Hindu beliefs. Neither Obama nor his mother were ever atheists, but she raised him in a relatively secular household where he learned about religion. More »”

      This country’s Constitution was developed so that no one ideology would remain in power more than 8 years. To demand otherwise is against that principle. Political campaigning gets out of hand frequently, heated and unreasonable. Christians have as much right as anyone else in this country and need to quit hiding in the corners while others walk over Their Principles. Too many bullies have staged emotional demonstrations, squalling and squealing about how they are neglected and abused – and it is all the fault of CHRISTIANS! (?) Uh-huh. Has nothing to do with their personal behavior, the way the interact with others, or not. Kellogg. There is an interesting Seventh Day Adventist. He began a famous cereal company based on his version of Christianity, and it was good and very popular, still is popular. But guess who took the Christmas out of Chicago. Guess who led the fight to take down public displays of Christian symbols. Look it up, you may be surprised.

      1. Peregrin Wood says:

        Uh, Ella, most people in Chicago still celebrate Christmas. It’s just that not everybody is forced to do so by the government. Is that what you’re complaining about?

        Do you think the survival of Christianity depends upon being propped up by government endorsements?

        1. ella says:

          No, Peregin, I do not think a religion needs to be propped up by a government. This nation was originally developed with the Christian religion in predominance. It was the religion that originally was brought to the Americas by explorers, French, Spanish, Dutch, English, etc. And I would not go so far as to say that “…most people in Chicago still celebrate Christmas.” As the number of people who will admit to being Christian has significantly dropped in recent years, I would not be surprised to find that a minority publicly display Christian decorations in Chicago or in most other cities in 2015. That many believe that they must contribute to the economy significantly at this time of year, yes that I would believe. Those that are Christian, for the most part, are intimidated to the point of silence.

          1. Peregrin Wood says:

            Ella, that’s simply inaccurate.

            I go to Chicago several times a year. I see no signs of public intimidation of Christianity into silence. There are churches active right on Michigan Avenue. Neither are Christmas displays absent in tthe city. I am often there in December. I was most recently there a couple of weeks ago, and already, the Christmas displays were up.

    3. Church tabor says:

      Thank you God for sending us trump

  2. Dr Fever says:

    I’m finally convinced; Trump is shilling for Clinton.

    1. John says:

      I’m so glad trump is giving you liberals a little taste of your own medicine for a change! All you losers do is twist and distort the constitution and laws of this country to your decadent desires. Changing the definition of marriage? An institution that’s been around for thousands of years? Trump hasn’t even actually DONE anything to force his Christian beliefs on you and look at how up in arms you are about it! Ready to burst out the seams with your satanic liberal lawyers, and start accusing him of abusing your rights! Hilarious

      1. J Clifford says:

        John, that’s the most ignorant thing I’ve read in a long time. There isn’t anything about the definition of marriage in the Constitution. Have you actually ever read it?

        1. ella says:

          It is Biblical, J Clifford. You know, marriage is between a man and a goat? No, I am pretty sure it is between two of the same species for reproductive identification. What, who wants to do, that does not include children, is up to them, but as I have said before, to me it will never be marriage.

        2. Dave says:

          Careful, J. You’re making the perfect argument that the Supreme Court has no standing to decide on issues of same-sex marriage and that it is truly in the provenance of the states.

          The more I think about this, Dr. Fever may have something there. Trump, the one-time Hillary supporter, shows some rather amazing perspicacity on issues he knows little about and every time public ire is displayed at his comments, he seems to deem it a great political success.

          John, it’s too early to gloat. The Presidency is for sale, and whoever has the financial support of Wall Street will be the likely winner. That would make Hillary one bad-ass contender.

          1. J Clifford says:

            Dave, this has nothing to do with states rights, because the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for all people. The Constitution prohibits the government from protecting or attacking religion. The Constitution promises absolute protection of freedom for individuals. That’s why churches aren’t forced to marry same-sex couples, but states are not allowed to discriminate against people who want to get married. States don’t have the right to deny liberties that are guaranteed in the national Constitution.

            The more Donald Trump does to gain the fervent support of right wing extremists, the more he dooms his effort to gain the Republican nomination and White House. Even for most Republicans, Trump’s ideas are too dangerous and outrageous.

          2. Dave says:

            What I meant was that without anything in the Constitution about the definition of marriage, the Supreme Court would have no power to define it or re-define it. That would be up to the state legislatures and would have to be encoded in the law, as there probably is nothing in any state constitution giving state courts that power either. I wasn’t arguing either side in the debate, but I just think there are some very good reasons that the people should not hand power to the Supremes that doesn’t belong there.

    2. ella says:

      Because he encourages Christians to get out and vote? Why would that make him a Hillary shill? Read “Unlikable”, an enigma of a book. He is amazing in that he can hear both the government information and still talk with the people of country.

      1. Dr Fever says:

        While I realize that facts mean little to ideologues, I’ll take Ella’s bait on the off-chance that a mutual dialogue might generate a bit of mutual understanding.

        Trump is beating the bushes and flushing out the most radically-disenfranchised folks (and poorly educated, and cash-strapped) in the U.S. electorate. Results of these efforts will help drive political campaigns by nearly all of his opponents. As his rhetoric gets crazier, and as primaries loom closer, those who pull the purse-strings of modern elections will do what business people do – they’ll adjust their product presentations to reach out to the needs of the mainstream of the marketplace – I mean, “electorate.”

        The one thing that could prove me wrong is the potential for the facts to go entirely unheeded. Fact-checkers of the world are not that different from engineers who got us to the Moon, Mars and beyond, or from folks who design weapons that don’t jam, or from folks who make our cars safe from our occasional failures to drive safely and manufacturers’ occasional failures to produce safe automobiles.

        Just as engineers, scientists and product designers separate truth from fantasy in our cars, weapons and space ships, fact-checkers separate truth from fantasy in what people say – in this case, people who seek to exercise earthly power over the rest of us.

        Let’s not forget our legal system – it’s based on facts, too.

        Politics is not. It depends primarily on a combination of perception and persuasion (This is why great marketing genius – at great private cost – is enlisted by most candidates).

        The one elixir Trump keeps selling is “safety.” He’s pounding on that bottom line in a time when a number of factors are generating fear. At some point, The D may begin believing what he is saying, and that demonizing folks who look or pray different, or who think for themselves, is a valid way to get elected. In a business sense, it is – do whatever it takes to succeed as long as you can say that it’s legal or, if it’s not, you don’t get caught. So he continues to fire away at the long-term goal.

        The challenge facing us all is whether we want to be led by someone who promotes the kind of “cleansing” that drove most of our ancestors to run away from persecution in the first place.

        If Trump continues to pursue – and wins – his apparent bid to run against Clinton, color me wrong. If not, those who think that he is not simply shilling for Clinton will need to re-calibrate their view of what Trump really supports.

        Either way, we are all well advised to take immediate, ongoing and focused action going forward to bring true reform to our criminally flawed campaign finance system.

        1. ella says:

          Dr Fever, You named a good many professions. No Political Scientists or Public Administration professionals in your ‘lecture’ on the statistics of political promotion of character. Oddly, you only are concerned with Republicans, and in particular, Donald Trump. Since that is my subject at as well, I’ll take your offered room. Donald Trump has been vetted, found lacking in some things, especially when he was first learning business and politics. Not surprising. Statistics are good for many things, like public opinion on marketplace goods, as you mentioned. The news media has been aware of that for some time. How accurate, would you say, is the average householder’s opinion on the taste of Coors Beer, for instance. Many have never tasted it, but they have an opinion non-the-less. Therefore, if an opinion can be generated by advertising, wouldn’t you say that politicians develop their ‘brands’ in the same way? One will distort the image of another, while portraying themselves as veritable angels! Monuments of virtue and scholars of being the peoples keeper.

          Along comes hard working, everyday billionaire Trump, who loves his country, has someone to tell him what to do, and he does it. He is actually sincere and the people can hear that, see that, like that. They start to listen to him, and they like that too. Is he the kind of person who is paranoid, afraid that everyone is out to destroy him? Umm, how many times have you watched that modest, timid, man speak. The one you compare him too was a rhetorical genius, had a way with words that dragged people to him. Hitler had his plan before he was put in office. There are seemingly some social similarities. Germany was in deep depression, deeply in debt, had a large budget and low employment. Sounds familiar. War was on the horizon, the people needed someone to whip them into shape and a military to bring Germany into the war. Germany started something that has never been forgotten. Maybe you should look across the Pond and see what is happening in Europe, in Germany, instead of calling that here in America. We lost a lot of good men in the two World Wars. Germany has been invited into the war in the Middle East now. I’ll leave it there.

  3. Dr Fever says:

    @John: Who are you calling “liberal?”

    1. Dr Fever says:

      Apologies: “whom” LOL!

  4. J Clare Peteet says:


    1. ella says:

      J Clare, do you celebrate Winter Festival or Commercial Shopping, or incorrect Jesus birth in December? Maybe another type of celebration?

  5. ella says:

    Donald Trump is still the best hope we have to bring pride of nation back to America. When the people feel good about their President they feel good about themselves. Unless Trump and Billary are related and planning a mixed party coup on the White House, I’d still vote for Trump for President. I would also vote for Marco Rubio for Vice President. Thank you Donald Trump for asking the Christians to vote!

    1. J Clifford says:

      Donald Trump only makes a minority of Americans feel good about themselves, though. Trump trashes everybody else. He’s a divider, Ella, not a unifier.

      The pro-torture, pro-bombing, pro-racism, anti-immigrant Christian vote isn’t going to carry any presidential candidate to victory.

      1. ella says:

        Rasmussen said differently. Some top polls say differently. Right now, Rubio is below Cruz too. One poll I saw (no I don’t have the link this time) said that just about any Republican would beat Hillary. After reading “Unlikable”, I have to say that ‘experience’ is Hillary’s top asset. Not that it speaks well of someone in government, and she has a husband that would be an unfortunate choice for anything other than the world of international money makers who will use anyone to make money, including his wife’s political office. Power of force is the way Democrats will get people to vote for Hillary. Those that are not ‘prospering’ at her table that is. Bernie isn’t perfect, and no one is, but he is still the only real Democratic choice.

        Donald Trump is so busy that he cannot keep up with everything. He is not a racist, he knows who makes his “Make America Great Again” caps, and they are all immigrants in America. All Presidential candidates speak up for being Christian, as in the past if you don’t you don’t get elected, and that includes Democrats. (Hillary may say she is, but I wonder when the last time was she spoke to him) Donald Trump is no more pro-torture than Hillary, he just said that he would let the military, and those involved, speak for themselves in that matter. The way his words are distorted, it is no wonder he says so little. I just happened to have heard that exchange. He was still vacillating between water boarding (done in the right way) and not at all, when the host jumped in and said so ‘you approve of torture’ (not a quote) and cut Trump off. He would not have done that to Hillary. And right now we are awaiting the December “Debate” with all of the fun a games before hand. Trump the triumphant!

      2. ella says:

        01/12/15: Since this is about Donald Trump and Christianity, I believe this link is appropriate:

        Yesterday Donald Trump met with about 100 religious leaders and had a positive outcome.

        1. J Clifford says:

          Uh, no, that’s what Donald Trump SAID happened, afterwards.

          What actually happened is that Donald Trump falsely said that he was going to get the endorsement of “100 black pastors”, but it turned out that 100 pastors didn’t show up, and many of them had no intention of endorsing Trump.

          1. ella says:

            BEEEP. Uh sorry that is not an accurate statement. A pastor called and said he was not going come. Trump cancelled the press meeting. The pastors that were already there said there were concerns about it being made a public meeting (the press being there) and that they would meet in private. I watch FOX too. Sometimes.

            But here is another of Obama’s shots at Republicans in general, that is being talked about. Why are the Republicans supposed to do all of the dirty work while the Democrats sit back and jeer?

            “The White House accused the Republican-controlled Congress Monday of shirking its responsibility to protect the homeland from terrorists, even as President Obama’s top advisers refused to label terrorism as a bigger national security threat than global warming.”

          2. J Clifford says:

            From : “”I’m very unconformable [with the press conference],” Vaughn said she told Scott. “I’m already unconformable about coming to the meeting, and I don’t think this is a spot that I need to be in.”

            Vaughn said she thought that was the end of it, but it wasn’t. “I posted something on my Facebook page [last week] about Mr. Trump, and my disdain for his campaign,” she told NPR. “And I got a post in response that said, ‘This is odd… because I just saw your name on a flyer going to the Trump Towers on Monday to endorse him.’… Couzens says about 50 or so black ministers showed up to Trump Tower, not the 100 that had been promised — or touted afterward.”

            From Monday’s meeting was mired in confusion well before it started. The week before, Trump’s campaign had told reporters that Trump would be endorsed by 100 black pastors at the upcoming meeting. Later, however, it was revealed that the majority of the pastors had never promised an endorsement, which led Trump to cancel a press conference he had originally scheduled to go along with the meeting. “I’ve never seen a flyer,” Vaughn said. “I don’t know anything about the flyer.”

            Vaughn was not alone. In the days after that flyer was released, several ministers named in it have said they weren’t endorsing Trump, and that if they met with him at all, it would be to air grievances with his campaign and his rhetoric.”

          3. ella says:

            I didn’t say is wasn’t a politically charged and reported event. But it was an event. I did not say that the people there all endorsed Trump, but some did and others are mulling it over. Given that the Clinton’s are involved in this campaign, it would be very unlikely that many will be able to commit to Trump. Unions are also in the Clinton Camp. Misrepresentation of much of what Trump has said, plus what he has blurted out, is coming back to bite him. Never-the-less, the meet did take place and the media was cancelled.

          4. ella says:

            One more thing. The unprincipled man who reported the meeting was on FOX today. He did not look so comfortable after someone else spoke. He was very proud of himself for disrupting the meeting and causing trouble and displayed such. Gee, I wonder who could have paid him to do that?

  6. ella says:

    One more thing. I made a negative/facetious comment about Trump here the other day, and it really was uncalled for. He had just tried to make a point on a FOX News program and was having a lot of difficulty answering a question – because he took the information and re-tweeted it. As it turned out, the information was correct, but he did not defend it readily because he didn’t know that. If Trump would slow down and check things out before he re-tweets, or thinks before he tweets , about his international image, he would by a lot more sure of himself, overall.

  7. ella says:

    “by” should have been “be”

  8. Charles Manning says:

    Peregrin Wood, thanks for a thought-provoking article.

    The tweet exemplifies Trump’s knack for getting attention by distorting a few grains of truth into a mountain of hyperbole. The grains of truth: most Christians will vote for other Christians because they fear ISIL might damage Christianity. That fear has some basis: ISIL wants to expand their caliphate internationally, and one of the fundamental elements in the ISIL program is destruction of all religions except the particular kind of Islam they follow. And voting has something to do with this: if our elected officials are Christians, they will be more likely to believe ISIL is a serious international threat and hence a serious threat to Christianity. “Once and for all” implies a permanent rather than temporary solution to a problem, and again elected Christians would be more likely to implement a permanent solution to the assumed serious international threat of ISIL. For most Christians like Trump, that means killing all followers of ISIL – i.e., “destroying” ISIL by killing its followers, or as Trump says, “bombing the s*** out of them.”

    These “grains” don’t justify the desire of Trump and his followers to kill large numbers of people, including innocent people, because of the ISIL threat, and line the pockets of the defense industry in the process. But I don’t see Trump’s tweet as a call to establish a theocracy. It’s a call for electing people who would use morally indefensible means to combat ISIL. Your comment about the deplorable kind of “Christianity” that would gain prominence if Donald Trump succeeded is very well taken. But only when Trump and his followers start calling for Christians to use the same tactics against believers and non-believers outside of ISIL will a vote for Trump become a vote for theocracy and against democracy.

    1. J Clifford says:

      No, Charles, I disagree.

      When a national leader proposes disgraceful tactics against one group, they can be trusted to use those disgraceful tactics against other groups as well.

      When a national leader proposes using disgraceful tactics to support one religion over others, that’s theocracy.

      There is no possible threat that has any chance of destroying Christianity in the United States at any time in the foreseeable future. None at all. Absolutely none from a group that’s only perpetrated a medium-sized attack in a foreign country an ocean away. There isn’t even a grain of truth behind Trump’s distortions. All that exists is right wing Christian extremist paranoia.

      1. John says:

        Your hilarious J. Yeah – we are all just a bunch of ignorant, backwood, conspiracy nuts over here in the Republican camp. There is absolutely no reason for America’s, or anybody in western society to be worried, or cautious at all where it comes to dealing with Islam. I was going to go on a rant but I don’t think it’s worth my time to defend my stance with you. If your obtuse enough to talk about the Paris terror attacks, then turn around in the very next sentence and say that there isn’t one grain of truth or reason to suspect Islam may harbor ill will towards America, then nothing anybody can say will help you or your understanding. Oh just out of curiosity, how has your inquiry into using your house to host a few of the refugees going?

        1. Jim Cook says:

          John, a nation of what predominant religion has dropped the nuclear bomb on two cities?

          1. John says:

            I fail to see the relevance of your comment. The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was reciprocal in nature due to a sneak attack perpetrated by the Japanese air force on our naval fleet which caused a large number of American casualties. We didn’t just drop two atomic bombs on their country for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Additionally the dropping of the two bombs avoided prolonging the war and the additional American lives that would have been lost due to a ground war in Japan. We should really try to stick within the frame of reference.

          2. Jim Cook says:

            My point is that you’re sticking to a very limited frame of reference.

          3. J Clifford says:

            John, what I don’t think you get is that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings metaphor is not out of the frame of reference – which includes a longer history than just the two-to-three years that Republicans want to focus on. You say that dropping nuclear bombs on two civilian cities is justified by Japan’s smaller attack on a military target. Islamic State zealots say that attacking Western civilians is justified by the West’s invasion and occupation of Iraq.

            I think both justification of civilian slaughter are wrong. Do you think that killing civilians is okay for Christians but not for Muslims?

          4. ella says:

            Jim, today: “To be sure, the United States remains home to more Christians than any other country in the world, and a large majority of Americans – roughly seven-in-ten – continue to identify with some branch of the Christian faith.1 But the major new survey of more than 35,000 Americans by the Pew Research Center finds that the percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014…” ( At the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this was still a Christian nation. Military, although strongly religious in the ranks, sees through the eyes of gaining victory, to save the lives of the people they are protecting. That is fairly standard. For instance, go on a Jihad and note the concern with they lives of anyone other than Jihadists. Any given country is doing well to handle one enemy nation at a time. World Wars, as we have seen, just magnify the loss and militaries kill as many as possible, historically. It is only in the past century that limitations have been attempted on the sack and burn rule. What you suggest is that, as we are doing, you send in technology to single out a dwelling and then try only to kill the individual you want to kill. That never seems to include the ones who started the war.

        2. J Clifford says:

          John, actually, there is not very much reason for you to be worried about Islam. I’m not saying that there is no reason for worry. There is no cause to freak out, though, and launch another new war, because:

          1. War hasn’t worked to stop terrorism
          2. The damage caused by terrorism is much less than the damage caused by our reaction to terrorism.

          No one is asking Americans to allow refugees to come live as guests in their private homes, John, and you know it.

          If I had a Syrian refugee family come to live down the street, however, I would happily invite them over for dinner to get to know them better, so that my kids could play with their kids.

          Why wouldn’t you?

          1. ella says:

            A Note: J Clifford, why would you invite them? Because you believe that will make you look accepting of their ideology? That in their eyes you believe they will consider you a ‘friend’? Do you invite people of any religion, nationality, immigration status into your home now? T be around your children, to influence your children? Think about that carefully before you rashly commit to something ‘foreign’ to your current habits.

          2. J Clifford says:

            Why would I invite new neighbors over for dinner? Do you really have to ask that?

      2. Charles Manning says:

        J Clifford, I’ll respond to your comments individually.

        “When a national leader proposes disgraceful tactics against one group, they can be trusted to use those disgraceful tactics against other groups as well.”

        By “disgraceful tactics” I assume you mean recklessly bombing, torturing, and otherwise acting inhumanely – what I referred to as morally indefensible actions. By “other groups,” I assume you mean people other than Christians, and religions other than Christianity.

        I think we should be careful not to engage in hyperbole, like Trump does. In the tweet (““NOW’S THE TIME 4 CHRISTIANS TO GET OUT THE VOTE BIG TIME TO SAVE CHRISTIANITY ONCE & 4 ALL. TRUMP”), he calls on Christians to vote, not resort to disgraceful tactics. As far as I know, he’s advocated disgraceful tactics only against terrorist groups like ISIL.

        “When a national leader proposes using disgraceful tactics to support one religion over others, that’s theocracy.”

        I think it’s an exaggeration to say Trump advocates disgraceful tactics to support Christianity “over others.” As mentioned, voting isn’t a disgraceful tactic. I do think we can fairly accuse Trump of advocating support of Christianity “over” at least one other religion – Islam. He’s done that by advocating surveillance of mosques, registering Muslims, and keeping a data base of Muslims. He’s advocated torture of detainees, and clearly he means Muslim detainees. That’s contrary to accepted notions of freedom of religion and other civil rights. But it’s an exaggeration to say that’s advocating converting the U.S. into a theocracy. He hasn’t called for the same type of discrimination against Jews, Hindus, and non-believers, for example. He didn’t echo Ben Carson’s position that a Muslim shouldn’t be elected president simply because of his/her religion.

        Theocracy involves political control, even in nations that allow some form of democracy, by non-elected religious leaders. I don’t think calling on Christians to vote for someone to defend Christianity is calling for a non-elected Christian or Christians to control the country the way, for example, the clerics in Iran control that country.

        “There is no possible threat that has any chance of destroying Christianity in the United States at any time in the foreseeable future. None at all. Absolutely none from a group that’s only perpetrated a medium-sized attack in a foreign country an ocean away. There isn’t even a grain of truth behind Trump’s distortions. All that exists is right wing Christian extremist paranoia.”

        There is a grain of truth in Trump’s position. I agree that Christianity in the United States has little to fear, other than the same terrorist acts that everyone else fears (most such acts in this country have been committed by non-Muslims, by the way). But in other parts of the world, ISIL and other groups affiliated with or similar to ISIL have singled out Christians for execution and outlawed Christianity. As Martin Luther King said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

        I still think theocracy isn’t the real issue here. The real issue is Trump’s failure to recognize the basic moral truth that the loss of innocent lives, torture, and other forms of oppression are morally unacceptable, regardless of the religious or non-religious beliefs of the victims.

        1. J Clifford says:

          Well, you’re wrong when you say that “he’s advocated disgraceful tactics only against terrorist groups like ISIL.”

          Syrian refugee children aren’t members of ISIL.

          American children whose citizenship he wants to strip away and banish to exile because of the nationality of their parents aren’t members of ISIL.

          That African-American who he encouraged to get “roughed up” aren’t members of ISIL.

          Furthermore, when he talks about terrible tactics like torture, Trump wants to do the torture BEFORE knowing whether people are guilty of crimes. He wants to prejudge that people “deserve” torture. How do you know if someone is a member of ISIL? You torture them to find out, if you’re Trump.

          Calling on Christians to vote for a President who will “save Christianity once and for all” is calling on Christians to help that politician use the power of the federal government on behalf of one religion. Do you not see that?

          1. ella says:

            J Clifford, you are fabricating in a dramatic way. “That African-American who he encouraged to get “roughed up” aren’t members of ISIL.”

            Donald Trump did not encourage anything. The demonstrator – no matter what his race was – had already been removed before Trump said anything. We all need to quit referring to people as a race. Do that and racism would disappear though, and that is not what many want who can use it for gain, manipulate people into arguments by using a color. I like black. When I was a child it was a common formal color. It as also the color of mourning. All of my shoes, growing up, were black. And who can have a complete wardrobe without a black suit.

            There was a time – past tense – when anyone who got all rowdy and disturbed the peace, was at least arrested, or given a citation, after being removed from the place they were diturbing. Or drug out if they put up a fight. You swing at someone, expect to get hit.

          2. Charles Manning says:

            J Clifford, you’re right that refugee children, children born here to non-citizen parents (and their parents, for that matter), and others not directly associated with ISIL would be victims of disgraceful tactics by Trump. The Syrian children would be deprived of sanctuary in the U.S. because of Trump’s attitude toward ISIL — they would be innocent victims of his policy to prevent terrorism in the U.S. And non-terrorists he wants to torture would also be victims of Trump’s disgraceful policy — against terrorism. I agree that deporting 11 million people because a few of them might be murderers or rapists would be a very disgraceful way of dealing with something other than terrorism. I don’t oppose using the federal government to protect Christians as long as all other religions or persons are also protected. Trump hasn’t said his only concern is with Christians, and the rest of the population be damned.

            It’s a stretch to accuse Trump of calling for a Christian theocracy. I think it’s counter-productive to accuse him of that without stronger evidence that he wants to have non-elected Christian leaders take control of the government, and wants any other religions, and non-religion, to be suppressed.

          3. J Clifford says:

            Charles, here’s what you’re not getting.

            The President definitely SHOULD NOT work to protect PEOPLE, regardless of what religion they are, or if they have no religion.

            The President of the United States definitely SHOULD NOT work to protect religions, whether Christian or non-Christian.

            To “save Christianity once and for all” is not equivalent to saving Christians from a terrible fate. For the President of the United States to “save Christianity once and for all” is to save a particular religion – not its followers, but the religion itself.

            The federal government shouldn’t be in the business of choosing winners and losers in religion. That’s not just my opinion. It’s the standard set by the First Amendment.

            Once you break that barrier, and you start giving the federal government the job of protecting a certain religion – and it’s only ONE religion that Trump wants the feds to save – then you are rocketing down the road to theocracy.

          4. Charles Manning says:

            J Clifford, here are my observations:

            “The President definitely SHOULD NOT work to protect PEOPLE, regardless of what religion they are, or if they have no religion.” I think one duty of the president is to protect people from unjust harm or injury,regardless of what religion they are, or if they have no religion.

            “The President of the United States definitely SHOULD NOT work to protect religions, whether Christian or non-Christian.” I think the president should work to insure freedom of religion (which includes freedom to reject all religions). How can you protect religions without protecting adherents to them?

            “For the President of the United States to ‘save Christianity once and for all’ is to save a particular religion – not its followers, but the religion itself.” If Trump means saving only Christianity, that’s saying the president should allow attacks on other religions, or on non-believers. I don’t think Trump should be accused of that until he clearly says that. I also don’t think Trump has clearly said the president should legally choose a winner in religion. Again, has he made it clear that he doesn’t think the president would have a duty to protect, and defend the religious freedom of, people of non-Christian religions? Or of non-believers? I want to hear Trump say that before accusing him of believing or advocating that.

            Donald Trump has really shown his true colors since we started this thread, in his remarks about barring Muslims from entering the U.S. As objectionable as that is, it also doesn’t amount to calling for a theocracy. Disparaging one religion is different from giving another one control of the government.

          5. John says:

            As absurd as it sounds for for you to hear someone say that “Muslim immigrants could potentially pose a serious threat to America if allowed to come into this country”, your serious concern, and borderline paranoid suspicion over trump rallying American Christians together to support his intended policies, is to me, probably one of the most hilarious, but at the same time pathetic point of views I have ever encountered in my life. Nowhere in Christianity, in its current form resulting from the birth, and death of Jesus Christ, does it condone, and/or in any way support the use of violence, on any terms. As a matter of fact its in DIRECT OPPOSITION to even taking revenge! Now I haven’t studied the Koran, in depth, but I have done enough to know that the Muslim religion, at its core, affords ZERO tolerance to any type social activity not specifically approved in the Koran. Also, I need not remind you what the given solution is, in said book, for people unwilling to convert. It just makes me wonder what really makes your clock tick up there. It’s seems like an impossibility to me that there isn’t some hidden agenda that drives you to hate, or otherwise disdain people from a religion of love, and forgiveness, and people not perfect by any means, but definitely not people that will chop Your freaking head of if you don’t convert to their religion! But then turn around and give justification after justification for bringing in hundreds of thousands of Islamic refugees, that have no legitimate papers and that are shitting on every other country that has extended an invitation to them!!!!! How the hell does this not seem totally insane to you?!?!? Unless it’s secretly benefiting a viewpoint that is being hidden from us by you! Explain Yourself please!!!!! Make sense of your viewpoint.

          6. Jim Cook says:

            If you can say that with a straight face about Christianity, then you really haven’t read your Bible.

          7. John says:

            I am saying it with a straight face. Show me where, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT that the bible condones violence. I won’t hold my breath.

          8. Jim Cook says:

            For a so-called Christian you sure are unaware of what’s in the religion’s holy book.

            1. You said Bible, not New Testament. The Old Testament is part of the Bible and is chock full of condoned violence.
            2. Jesus’ death was brutally violent, and condoned as part of God’s grand plan.
            3. See the whole bloody book of Revelation. What happens to the people who won’t convert from other religions or no religion?

            If you’re going to start hemming and hawing and carving out exceptions and explanations with your own holy text to make it look non-violent, I expect you to do the same for the Koran. If you won’t do it for the Koran, you don’t get to do it for the Bible.

          9. John says:


            The Character of Men in the Last Days
            1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
            2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
            3 without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
            4 traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
            5 having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
            6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
            7 ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
            8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, Ex. 7.11 so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
            9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

            Paul’s Last Charge to Timothy
            10 ¶ But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, long-suffering, charity, patience,
            11 persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at An’ti-och, Acts 13.14-52 at Ico’ni-um, Acts 14.1-7 at Lystra; Acts 14.8-20 what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
            12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
            13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
            14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
            15 and that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
            16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
            17 that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

          10. Korky Day says:

            Thanks, Jim Cook, for thoroughly refuting John’s silly arguments.

            Also, here are 6 more violent verses in the New Testament:

            1. If your hand or your foot causes you to lose your faith, cut it off. —Matthew 18:8.

            2. There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, . . . who have been made eunuchs by others, and . . . who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can. —Matthew 19:12.

            3. He that has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. —Jesus quoted in Luke 22:36.

            4. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is . . . thrown into the fire. —Jesus quoted in John 15:6.

            5. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. —Ephesians 5:22.

            6. Slaves, submit with all fear to your masters, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.
            —1 Peter 2:18.

          11. John says:

            you guys crack me up. Ok if you think that those verses really amount to the encouragement of Christians to commit acts of violence then how do you categorize these verses from the Quran?

            qu’ran: 8:39 “Wage war on non-muslims and kill them until they submit and the only religion is islam.”
            Surah 9:3 “No agreements are valid with idolaters” idolaters are explained later in Qur’an
            9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
            Qur’an 9:121 “Provoking non-Muslims is good in the sight of God.”
            8:60 “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.”
            9:5 “When opportunity arises kill the infidels wherever you find them.”
            2:191 “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.”
            3:28 “Muslims must not take infidels for friends.”
            3:85 “Any religion other than Islam is unacceptable.”
            22:19 “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and their bellies.”
            47:4 “Do no hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.”

            Boy my favorite is the second from the last one!!! Doesn’t that sound like fun guys??? If YOU can honestly draw a parallel from these verses to ANYTHING found in the Christian bible with a straight face then you are far worse off than I thought and I honestly feel sorry for you. If they’re are any good muslims it’s because they are not practicing muslims, and never go to the mosque since the first verse in every muslim prayer is “oh allah do not let us stray away and become like the west”. Just in this last month alone muslims have murdered 1165 Injured 3221 completed 36 Suicide Blasts in 25 countries! Yep they’re the most peaceful people ever. How many murders have been committed by Christians in the past month? The fact that you would actually compare Mohammed to Jesus Christ just goes to show your level of ignorance concerning this topic. Ignorance or blatant hatred I’m really not sure which. Jesus was nothing like Muhammad, and to be honest your examples of violence you brought up from the bible are a very weak argument. Especially when the statement was that nowhere in the New testament does the bible condone violence towards anybody. Look I’m not trying to convert anybody here. I know you people are liberals that find existence much more convenient with no God to answer to. I mean who would want a God that’s going to judge everybody at some point when you want to murder babies, and sleep with people of the same sex. If I felt the way you do I would deny God’s existence to! But denial doesn’t make the truth change in any way shape or form. The truth will always remain. Thank God for that.

          12. Korky Day says:

            Jim Cook is right that the Bible is almost as bad as the Koran.
            John is right that most Christians ignore the worst parts of the Bible, but he should admit that most Muslims ignore the worst parts of the Koran, too.

            Considering all that, the USA, for its own safety, must now take precautions, as Donald Trump suggests, against radical Muslims. If Christians or Jews or Buddhists become a big problem, as Muslims have lately, then they, too, should be barred until we can figure out what to do.

            A problem with Muslims is that even those born in the new country seem prone to be radicalised. I don’t mean a majority of them, but just enough to scare the shit out of us.

          13. Jim Cook says:

            Lord’s Resistance Army. Christian terror in a massive, brutal scale. Sure, it’s not in America, but then again, neither is Belgium. By your standards, it’s time to bar all Christians from the country.

          14. Jim Cook says:

            Not even close to a majority. What fraction is a handful divided by 1.6 Billion?

          15. J Clifford says:

            Why should the USA take precautions beyond what it already has?

            It’s not as if there is a great surge of Muslim terrorist attacks in the United States.

            They hardly ever happen at all.


            It seems that your problem isn’t really Muslim violence, but that Muslims “scare the shit out of” you.

            So, how about you deal with your fear, instead of abolishing the Bill of Rights to deal with your case of the heebeejeebees?

          16. Korky Day says:

            I’m dealing with my fear the same way many US Americans are, J Clifford: by supporting increased precautions. Democracy means that the people will decide how many precautions they need, even if you think they are unwarranted.

            If a democracy decided that in order to save lives and gas, road speed limits all would be lowered to 30 km/h, then that would be legal and constitutional, however unwarranted and extreme and insane and money-wasting you thought it was.
            I’d support it, myself, because I’m an extreme Green.
            I’ve lost friends to traffic accidents and want to lower to terrorist deaths, too, even if they are low enough already to please you.

            I think that we can curtail immigration without violating the Constitution.

            Yes, if the people of the USA decided that radical Christians coming in were a problem that needed addressing, then by all means they should instruct their representatives to do so.

            [This paragraph indenting is really hard to follow!]

          17. J Clifford says:

            Those who would surrender fundamental liberty in order to buy a little added security deserve neither.

            That’s you, Korky.

            There is no provision in the Constitution that states that the Bill of Rights doesn’t count any more when hordes of ninnies decide that they feel scared…

            … except that you and Donald Trump could put together a movement to amend the Constitution, and repeal the Bill of Rights.

            If you really are so terribly frightened that you think the Bill of Rights should not be enforced any more, then please deal with your overactive amygdala in the constitutionally-appropriate way.

            Amend the Constitution to convert the USA into a police state theocracy if you want, but do it the right way.

            American democracy means that if you want to change the fundamental rules of the land, you have to amend the Constitution.

            Throwing a hissy fit does not suffice, Korky.

          18. Korky Day says:

            As I wrote, J Clifford, I think that we can curtail immigration without violating the Constitution.

  9. Korky Day says:

    Peregrin Wood, you seem to be doing like most anti-Republicans and take every little vague thing Trump says and blow it all out of proportion.
    It was quite an innocent comment, possibly anti-fundamentalist.
    He’s a Presbyterian.
    I’m a Green, but Trump is serious and deserves more serious criticism.
    Ignore that and you help him win.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Korky, what Donald Trump has said is not little, and it’s not vague.

      Donald Trump has called on Christians to vote for him for President so that he can save Christianity once and for all.

      That’s not a vague murmur. It’s an all-caps full-throated scream for theocracy.

      1. Korky Day says:

        No, J Clifford, what he said does NOT violate the Constitution. He never said he’d make a state religion. YOU are twisting his words.

        If Bernie Sanders says he’ll save Judaism by making Israel and Palestine come to terms, would you criticize him? Maybe that’s the kind of thing Trump meant, but we don’t know because it WAS vague.
        You’re usually much smarter than this, J.

        1. J Clifford says:

          Korky, what part of “save Christianity once and for all” do you think is consistent with the First Amendment prohibition on government establishment of religion?

          Bernie Sanders does not say he’ll save Judaism. It would be inappropriate if he did. It isn’t the job of the President of the United States to protect or attack any religion. It’s unconstitutional for any President to do so.

          You’re making up context that doesn’t exist in order to try to make this very blatant theocratic statement sound vague. There was no such mitigating context. It’s not vague at all.

          1. ella says:

            J Clifford, you can be sooooo irritating! What part of what Donald Trump is not covered by Free Speech?

          2. ella says:

            What Donald Trump Said is covered by free speech. That is also in the Constitution, as well as a person’s right to freedom of religion. Both of which are being practiced. (Sorry, I was irritated with you.)

          3. Korky Day says:

            I think, J Clifford, that Donald Trump meant save Christians from being killed (especially Armenians like me in Syria) and prevent them from being illegally harassed, even in the USA. However, the latter I don’t think happens in any serious way, marrying gays notwithstanding.

            Stores posting ‘Merry Christmas’ and employees saying the same are not a government issue at all, so Trump is quite silly on that. However, he would not force businesses to mention Christmas, so he wouldn’t violate the First Amendment.

          4. J Clifford says:

            You know, every time Donald Trump actually comes out and says something terrible, you and his other supporters perform this bizarre act of mind-reading, insisting that you understand that what Trump means is not actually what he says.

            Then, you praise Donald Trump for having the courage to say what’s really on his mind.

            Well, which one is it?

    2. ella says:

      Thank you for being observant. What a lot of this looks like is Bill Clinton. The “there never was any celebrating after 9/11, was a marker. The Kasich (hope I spelled his name right) advertisements. Suddenly a big PAC wants to help someone whose so low in the numbers as to be forgotten. When has a major PAC ever suddenly supported someone they know will lose? Bill Clinton – to divide the Republican Party, make the leader look weak, even a liar. There is a ‘major’ problem with the Clinton strategy this time though. He forgot that there is a very large aging population that is simply not into them any more. They had their turn for 8 years and there has been 16 years in between. They have been too busy, making money and making global arrangements, to keep up with other things. Wheeling and dealing will always go on. Apparently far reaching influence has allowed the scrubbing of fact and information from the Internet, I don’t supply many links any more here. It is good to know that it is a place to discuss, but controversial truth, silenced truth, dare I say edited truth?, can happen. Trump should say, ‘the truth would help but there are those who would rather deceive and distort, to embroil others in controversy. Obviously for their own purposes.’ And then drop it, to let them bring it up later, as is intended. It is all a political gambit.

  10. ella says:

    I just couldn’t stand it, this had to be said! Amazing, Carson went to the Middle East to learn something and he did. That what Donald Trump has been saying is absolutely just exactly what is true! That what we need to do is leave the Syrians at home and let them be in a place where they can go back to their own homes when the dust settles! Check it out. The Donald is proven right again!

  11. Korky Day says:

    ‘ella’, you want to ‘leave the Syrians at home and let them be in a place where they can go back to their own homes when the dust settles!’

    I’m a refugee and so was my grandfather. 2 of my female ancestors were indentured servants (near slaves).

    Leaving them at home means a death sentence unless they have a safe zone, as Trump suggests, too. We need to encourage Trump to use his negotiating skills to end the war, not amp up the bombing and killing.

  12. ella says:

    Trump wants to make a safe zone near their home country, so they may safely live and their children go to school. And so that when the dust settles they can go home. He does not want to hurt, but help, the refugees, who are saying they do not want to come to the U.S., Korky. The only ones he wants to bomb are those who are cutting off heads and burning people alive, Murdering those of any other religion or sect. As a refugee, you know what not being a member of the opposing forces means in a Jihad. By the way, I am glad you are safe. I hope you are able to return home some day. There is never any place like home. If not, I hope you may find peace and happiness where you are.

    1. Korky Day says:

      Thank you, ella. I agree with many of your comments I’ve been reading for months.

      While I don’t want to see Christianity saved, as I am an atheist, Trump’s statement isn’t as bad as Peregrin Wood makes out.
      The quote was to save Christianity, not destroy the other religions.
      Kind of like ‘Black Lives Matter’ does NOT technically mean the other lives do NOT matter, though it’s a poorly written slogan in leading to that possibility in so many people’s minds. Much better would be ‘Black Lives Matter, Too.’
      And Trump should have said he would save Christians and any innocents. But he’d rather be a bit sloppy with his language than be your typical, pre-packaged, over-controlled, plastic candidate who who says everything cunningly but acts deplorably.

      Donald Trump probably would be almost as good a president as Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein.

      1. John says:

        Did hell just freeze over? Or was that a pig that just flew over me? ;p

  13. John says:

    I plainly stated in my original comment that I was referring to the New testament of the bible. Which is the section of the bible that Christians follow today. You may need to re-read it. Although knowing you, it won’t make any difference. You want to draw a direct parallel from the Koran to the bible based on the death of Christ, and what happens to the people GOD judges in the last days? Neither of which has anything to do with inciting Christians to inflict harm on anyone, for any reason! Ok, I guess I can see the similarities. In the New testament Christians are told by Christ to turn the other cheek. Also, when Peter cuts off the ear of the soldier in the garden, Jesus commanded him to lay down his sword and told him that “those who live by the sword, will die by the sword”. Yeah I can really see the parallels. You must be referring to the part in the Koran where the prophet said it’s every Muslims responsibility to convert the INFIDELS, and if they won’t convert, to cut off their heads! Yeah, I can see the similarities in their mission statements. Truth is, your just a hater of the word of God. You hate everything about Jesus and what he stands for. In fact you hate him enough to even support a religion bent on the destruction of western civilization!!!! THAT YOU RESIDE IN!!!!! Man I feel sorry for you when you finally see the truth. I hope it’s not to late. You will be around to see a world with no God in it. I don’t think your going to like it as much as you think you are.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      No, you plainly stated the entirety of Christianity, which includes the entire Bible, which sanctions massive acts of cruel violence.

      You’re using a cognitive strategy to maintain an absurdity: you simply refuse to acknowledge what’s there and have moved on to proselytizing. You use the opposite cognitive strategy when applied to the Koran to maintain your religious hatred.

      Let go of your hatred, John. Just let go of it. It will feel weird for a while, but ultimately you’ll feel better.

      1. John says:

        What I said, and I quote:
        “Nowhere in Christianity, IN ITS CURRENT FORM, RESULTING FROM THE BIRTH AND DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST, does it condone, and/or in any way support the use of violence, on any terms. As a matter of fact its in DIRECT OPPOSITION to even taking revenge!”.

        If you aren’t able ascertain the fact that I was making reference to the New Testament of the Bible by this quote, then all your big words you like to use only means that you are able to use a thesaurus. Your You’re being willfully argumentative, and illogical. The fact you are continuing to draw direct parallels from Christianity to Islam shows this. I know you know the truth, but you are so politically correct that you would never say anything bad about Muslims. Reminds me of the children’s story The Emperor’s New Clothes. It’s so true. You can get so “educated” that you fail to see the real truth. You’re a prime example of this.

        1. Jim Cook says:

          Making exceptions and excluding big swaths of text for the Christian Bible, but refusing to do so for the Muslim Koran. Classic inconsistency.

          On top of that ignoring the very real condoned violence in the New Testament (there’s more, see Paul and slavery for starters).

          These are not big words I’m using. You just don’t want to look at the words: the Bible condones violence, all over the place, just as the Koran does. You claim that only the Koran does. You’re wrong. Period. If you must continue to hold tightly to the Muslim boogeyman as a totem for your hatred, then you’re going to have to come up with another post-hoc reason for it, because this one doesn’t wash, bucko.

    2. Korky Day says:

      Belief in God is crazy, cowardly, or self-serving, John.
      In the case of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, it is also very violent and sexist.

  14. Korky Day says:

    John, you claimed the New Testament was non-violent. Jim Cook proved you wrong You brushed him off.
    I proved you wrong with 6 more verses. You ignored me.

    As Islam was invented by mortals after Judaism and Christianity were invented by mortals, I believe those older superstitions influenced Mohammed. He wanted to one-up the older superstitions by being even more violent and macho.
    And he certainly was, but you cannot reasonably deny the violence and machismo in the Old and New Testaments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!