Jim Lincoln wrote: The Trump administration probably isn't going to make very much noise to the Indian government.
Name a past administration which ever did; Hindu persecution didn't begin last year.
A visiting Indian missionary indeed told us about Hindu threats to Christians in a certain northern province, but didn't ask that we lobby Congress or the White House to "do something." Maybe he understands about keeping religion out of politics better than you do.
As I read in Plutarch, even ancient pagans believed that violating an oath was an offense to the gods. Anglo-Saxons levied heavy fines on oath-breakers. And those who respect the Decalogue keep oaths on the grounds of the 3rd Commandment, and with Christians, the Beatitudes as well.
But a nation of flakes who do not fear any god may as well take no oath at all. Or if they have a god, it's their bellies.
Dr. Tim wrote: Jim, if ... you are lost, blind, and stumbling in the dark.
Maybe he's afraid he couldn't pay for treatment of such maladies otherwise. But anyone who demands that taxpayers cover their medical expenses is a thief. Come to think of it, socialism is the ideology of thieves.
Adriel wrote: I remember being in a shop in Saudi Arabia and browsed through a school atlas. Where the word Israel was written in the map and the index - these had been blanked out with a black felt tip.
Here in the States, we once had Shia Lebanese neighbors, upper middle-class. After 9/11, the wife (no burka) told mine in all seriousness that it was a Jewish plot.
BTW, they were from Dearborn, Michigan: lots of Lebanese there, thanks to Ford. I think they went back.
Just a Guy wrote: I have never heard anyone say that the scientific method is fallacious... Could you possibly explain what you mean by that?
Short answer: Fallacies of Affirming the Consequent and Induction. Few people, including science majors (I was one), are taught formal logic, perhaps because it's inconvenient. Ref: www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=19
Here's the kicker: Even notorious atheist Bertrand Russell admitted these in "Is Science Superstitious?"
Now I'm not saying science is useless; it does provide convenient models of how nature *might* work. But truth? Naw! And if science cannot give the truth about the here and now, what good is it about the past? Darwinism R.I.P.
Just a Guy wrote: The cure for cancer is avoiding things that give you cancer.
Everyone's an expert. It's very hard to prove conclusively what causes disease and what does not, for it relies on the Scientific Method, which is logically fallacious. I get the impression that Christians care as little about the causality problem as unbelievers even though scientists, like politicians, flip-flop all the time.
Now I'm not against trying to improve one's diet, and much commercial and gov't propaganda should be regarded with high skepticism because of Conflict of Interest, but we should remember that changing diet guarantees *nothing*.
Douglas Fir wrote: In the US, I would bet most mainline denominations--Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc---are mostly Democrat-filled, and all other churches are in favor of President Donald Trump.
Include these religious leftist totalitarians among those sympathetic to the Democrats' latest Pathetic People, "migrants" (Newspeak for illegals): http://jesuits.org/news-detail?tn=news-20190124111303
On the other hand, I think there is at least some Catholic support for Trump, as not everyone aligns with the pope and bishops. Fox News is an example. We must admit that much of the misery in Central America was started by American meddling generations ago, in the name of anti-Communism. Latin Americans have good reason to fear CIA mischief; our Secret Agents can't seem to leave them alone.
It is now clear that Progressives are simply Communist Roaders (I'm borrowing Mao's label for Deng Xiaoping). We are embracing the economic system we spent billions combating.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I am beginning to appreciate Barry Goldwater more all the time. Oh, he was not a member of the lunatic, radical right-wing Fringe! He was actually a rational, sane conservative.
"Rational, sane conservatives" say things like this: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
Adriel wrote: Also wives are far to busy working to entertain motherhood.
Too much divorce, and too little thrift among those who stay married.
I do think it prudent for young women to learn a vocational skill, should they ever need it if their husband (should they find a Godly one) becomes disabled or worse. Nothing Biblically wrong with women working, so long as childcare isn't "outsourced."
Jim Lincoln wrote: excerpt from, "Right-Wing Extremists..."
Quote: "They and untold thousands like them are the extremists who hide among us"
If they're "untold," then how can he estimate "thousands" exist? Maybe they're a dozen, maybe a million. Men ranting like this one might normally expect to be among wild-eyed pan-handlers downtown. This fool deserves a padded room, not consideration by "Newsweak" editors.
And lack of official interest in ISIS doesn't imply it isn't a threat, too.
I think Catholic political power in America has two causes: 1) Massive immigration from miserable Catholic countries, starting with Ireland, then Italy, Poland, Germany, and more recently, Latin America. This is why the RCC likes illegal migrants: easy church growth (see www.jesuit.org); 2) Protestants abandoning distinctives like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, leaving no substantial difference with Rome. Popularly, the only difference is pop worship bands vs. Smells & Bells.
John UK wrote: This is very serious, SC. How could any Christian say such things at a prayer breakfast? ... Is there proof of this stuff? I would like to see a recording of these words.
I think this source is authoritative: www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-vice-president-national-catholic-prayer-breakfast/
Catholicism dominates the religious side of American conservative politics. Many noisy media conservatives, like on Fox News, are or were Catholics. Any talk against Rome would get the same response from them and their ecumenical "Protestant" allies as criticizing Martin Luther King around Democrats.
The coastal entertainment elite has always treated Catholicism as Christianity in TV and movies. Celebrities raised Catholic like to joke about their parochial school childhood.
Principled critics like you, me, and the Trinity Foundation have as little public credibility as Flat Earthers in this country. Conservatives in my extended family do not want to hear anything against the Roman Church-State. I was not raised critical of Catholicism; I had to find out for myself, and now it's repulsive to me.
Adriel wrote: So here is some advice from one of your favourite authors.
I am puzzled why you think I need that advice. Did I exhibit any national pride? Did I ever claim our ways are always the best?
I could give you an earful of criticism of fellow Americans, having observed certain patterns. This Irishman has some constructive examples: www.fluentin3months.com/usa-clashes/ #3 hit home; I remember my sister compulsively smiling at strangers while touring Europe, and was surprised that men thought she was flirting with them. For some reason, smiling for no reason is considered good manners. Churches reflect this too.
Youth in Asia wrote: As an outsider, it really seems like foreign anti american forces are trying to introduce as many clowns as possible into the white house.
I don't blame you for thinking that. I know popular government rarely attracts the best people, but we've declined to the point where in 2016, our choice was between a totally corrupt, ruthless, violent witch, and an undisciplined reality TV clown. I think this is because voters rarely support leaders of better character than themselves, and people of good character are too rare, and probably too frustrated, to play the game.
It began outwardly in the '60s, when America experienced a grass-roots cultural revolution far more profound than Mao's, which failed. It wasn't just the Vietnam War; same thing happened in Britain. So I think Russia and the PRC are far less dangerous to America than the bullying fools, born in that era, who dominate our cultural, corporate, and political leadership. Oh, and organized churches too.
Lincoln put it succinctly: "As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."