Monday Brief

Does Religion Matter in a Free Republic?

Jan. 28, 2013

The Foundation

“[R]eligion and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society.” –John Adams

Inspiration

“[T]he current and future role of the Bible in U.S. society is an often-debated topic. A new release from Barna Group shows how this debate plays out regionally and takes a look at how 96 of the largest cities in the nation view the Bible. … Individuals who report reading the Bible in a typical week and who strongly assert the Bible is accurate in the principles it teaches are considered to be Bible-minded. … Regionally, the South still qualifies as the most Bible-minded. … This includes the media markets for Knoxville, TN (52% of the population are Bible-minded), Shreveport, LA (52%), Chattanooga, TN (52%), Birmingham, AL (50%), and Jackson, MS (50%). … Easily the lowest Bible-minded scores came from Providence, RI (9%) and Albany, NY (10%). … The New England area is home to most of the markets in the bottom 10 Bible-minded cities, including Burlington, VT (16%), Portland, ME (16%), Hartford, CT (16%), Boston, MA (16%), Buffalo, NY (18%) and New York, NY (18%). The remaining markets in the bottom 10 are primarily in the West and include San Francisco, CA (16%), Phoenix, AZ (17%), and Las Vegas, NV (18%). … See all 96 cities here. … Whether you live in a city ranked in the top half of Bible-minded cities or in the bottom half of Bible-minded cities, there are still tens of thousands of people to reach regarding both the message of the Scriptures and their importance. … The key is to not merely ‘preach to those insiders’ but instead to equip and empower those who do believe with a strong and relevant message to take out into their communities, vocations and spheres of influence. They are the tipping point and can have great influence on the greater city.” –The Barna Group

For the Record

“The Obama administration’s announcement that it is going to put women in front-line ground combat positions is but the latest example of a deliberate and systematic wrecking operation it has conducted against the armed forces since 2009. … Among the many, well-documented problems with assigning women to line infantry positions are three intractable ones: Most women lack the physical upper-body strength and stamina of most men. … It is impossible as a practical matter to provide for separation of the sexes in frontline positions. That guarantees a loss of privacy and greatly increases the chances of pregnancies and harassment that: profoundly affects the personnel immediately involved; causes degrading of their units' warfighting capabilities; and traumatizes their families or, at a minimum, erodes the essential support for uniformed service that those loved ones provide. Men frequently will feel the need to protect women in dangerous situations, particularly if there is an emotional attachment between them. The effect in combat situations can be to complicate, if not to undermine entirely, the disciplined execution of orders that can prove to be the difference between victory and defeat. … Unfortunately, thanks in part to the hollowing out of America’s armed forces and other officially approved measures that are empowering and emboldening our enemies, the world is becoming a more dangerous place by the day. By replacing Ronald Reagan’s historically validated philosophy of ‘peace through American strength’ with the unfounded hope for peace despite American weakness, President Obama is setting the stage for conflicts we will be unable to deter and, failing that, may be hard pressed to win.” –Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

Essential Liberty

“Hunting, according to these wizards of odd, is what [the Left] think our founding fathers had in mind when they penned that pesky Second Amendment, and according to these control freaks we don’t need a tactical weapon with a high capacity magazine to hunt with. First off, dipsticks, the Second Amendment has nada to do with hunting. The founding fathers weren’t worried about their right to put the bam to Bambi (although we should be because progressives hate hunting and would love nothing more than to bring that activity to a grinding halt). If you don’t believe me, just corner one of these little darlings and ask them what they think about hunting. Secondly, who are they to tell us what we ‘need’ or don’t need when it comes to anything? Typical of the Left, they think they know what’s best for we the people. If you want to talk about ‘needs,’ Ms. Leftist, we don’t need iPhones, Porsches, crazy straws, American Idol, beer, leaf blowers, and I don’t need a gorgeous Italian wife. But that’s America, folks. Stay out of our business.” –columnist Doug Giles

Re: The Left

“I’m getting sick and tired of the Obama administration using children selectively in order to help the president advocate his public policy positions. … As I sat and watched Obama surrounded by little human political shields, three things struck me as being especially hypocritical: 1. Just a few years ago, the president would have supported murdering all of those children by dismemberment. 2. The president would have classified their dismemberment as ‘health care’ within a comprehensive reform package necessary to preserve the well-being of children, and finally 3. All the children at the press conference were protected from being murdered at that particular moment by government agents carrying concealed weapons. But it got worse as the day went on. ABC News and other outlets began circulating letters written to Obama by children wishing to weigh in on current public policy debates. That’s normal, of course. Children always weigh in on public policy debates without being prodded by liberal parents who never left childhood themselves. And everyone knows it makes sense to base public policy decisions on the recommendations of children.” –columnist Mike Adams

The Gipper

“Mightn’t it be better in those areas of high crime to arm the homeowner and the shopkeeper, teach him how to use his weapons and put the word out to the underworld that it is no longer totally safe to rob and murder? … Criminals are not dissuaded by soft words, soft judges or easy laws. They are dissuaded by fear and they are prevented from repeating their crimes by death or by incarceration. In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea. We are never going to prevent murder; we are never going to eliminate crime; we are never going to end violent action by the criminals and the crazies – with or without guns.” –Ronald Reagan

Sign the Pledge!

Join the critical push for American Patriots across this great nation to pledge: “We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as ‘endowed by our Creator,’ enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Please take a moment and join the 36,000 of your countrymen who answered the call. Share it with your family, friends and colleagues via social media and email, as well.

Sign the 2A pledge!

Government

“Over the 50-plus years since 1960, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, entitlement transfers … have been growing twice as fast as overall personal income. Government transfers now account for nearly 18% of all personal income in America – up from 6% in 1960. According to the BEA, America’s myriad social-welfare programs … currently dispense entitlement benefits of more than $2.3 trillion annually. … Today, entitlement programs account for nearly two-thirds of federal spending. In other words, welfare spending is nearly twice as much as defense, justice and everything else Washington does – combined. In effect, the federal government has become an entitlements machine. According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly half (49%) of Americans today live in homes receiving one or more government transfer benefits. … Transfers funded by other people’s money tend to foster a pernicious ‘something for nothing’ mentality – especially when those transfers seem to be progressively and relentlessly growing, year by year. This ‘taker’ mentality can only weaken civil society – even as it places ever-heavier burdens on taxpayers. Generosity is a virtue…. But being generous with other people’s money is not the same thing.” –American Enterprise Institute’s Nicholas Eberstadt

Opinion in Brief

“What Obama spends … the most important part [of his inaugural speech] doing is enunciating the liberal rationale for junking the intentions of the Founders and replacing them with their own. It is a rationale for creating Socialism on the framework of freedom: That in order for values like equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be realized in modern society, government must act to safeguard them. If government does not protect you with millions of pages of regulations, greedy capitalists will steal your freedoms; if government does not save man from his worst instincts, man will destroy the earth with non-biodegradable potato chip cannisters; if government does not pay to train workers and invest in the right technologies, people will be too stupid to do it on their own; and if government does not provide a safety net even for those who can succeed by themselves, then all people might not live the lives of their dreams. Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin trusted the people with a Republic. Liberals say the people can no longer be trusted alone with such things. … Jefferson wanted to guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Obama wants to guarantee happiness. The former is the philosophy of capitalism. The latter is Socialism, which uses government to reduce freedom, not create it. This is not what the Founders intended.” –columnist Keith Koffler

Faith and Family

“A conservative conserves all American values, not just economic ones. By ‘social conservatism,’ I am referring to the second and third components of what I call the American Trinity – liberty, ‘In God We Trust’ and ‘E Pluribus Unum.’ It is worth noting that a similar bifurcation does not exist on the left. One never hears the term ‘fiscal liberals.’ Why not? Because those who consider themselves liberals are liberal across the board – fiscally and socially. The left understands that values are a package. Apparently, many conservatives – libertarians, for example – do not. They think that we can sustain liberty while ignoring God and religion and ignoring American nationalism and exceptionalism. It is true that small government and liberty are at the heart of the American experiment. But they are dependent on two other values: a God-based religious vigor in the society and the melting pot ideal. Or, to put it another way, small government and fiscal conservatism will not survive the victory of social leftism.” –radio talk-show host Dennis Prager

Reader Comments

“As usual, in his essay ‘I, Barack Hussein Obama…’, Mark Alexander displays perfectly good sense and a well-grounded understanding of the provisions of the Constitution. This president doesn’t seem to possess the intellectual capacity to understand either the actual provisions of the Constitution or its background. To me, that is not surprising since his education never really focused on seeing what makes this country so attractive. His whole concern seems to be to ‘bring it down a notch or two.’ His ‘work’ background is laughable. He has spent his ‘adult life’ questioning the accomplishments of others and/or fomenting unhappiness. Thank you, Mark, for your ability to ‘translate’ this president’s hollow words.” –Roger in Poulsbo, Washington

“Keeping the president from overstepping the bounds of the Constitution depends on a healthy opposition and we do not have one. The GOP is a joke and a bad one at that. They sound like accountants and bankers and have forgotten how to talk to the folks who vote. They bow down to Reagan but have forgotten how he was able to win and how to do what he did.” –Bill in Leawood, Kansas

“When I raised my right hand many years ago I promised to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is an absolute and binding document and no president or Congress has ever felt that it should be changed to suit the whims of any who might achieve high office. Thousands of Americans have died to keep this Constitution intact and unalterable. It must be so forever if we are to continue to be the United States of America.” –John in Ledyard, Connecticut

“You spoke of Barack Obama’s ‘poker tells’ of UH and fumbling his words. There are so many more, but my other favorite is ‘Let me be clear…’ which is most often followed by a meaningless promise to the great masses on the Left, or a bellicose challenge to his opponents.” –Lane in San Antonio, Texas

“Thank you for picking up on the fact that there IS a difference between ‘assault’ weapons and defensive weapons in Friday’s Digest. I have been beating this drum for a LONG time. I am glad someone who has a greater audience finally picked it up! Thank you!!” –bmwsid in New York

“When James Madison presented the Second Amendment to the Delegates, he said that his purpose was ‘to keep the government in fear of an armed and aroused populace.’ And that, friends and neighbors, is what the Democrats are afraid of. It’s not about anything else.” –Rifleman in Nawth Jawja

“Rather than a reduction in firearm capacities, how about a reduction in the number of low-information freeloaders that vote for wealthy, self-centered, arrogant elitists like Dianne Feinstein.” –William in Plano, Texas

The Last Word

Editor’s Note: The following is satire.

“Breaking news: Obama’s remarks, widely celebrated for their eloquence and good sense, were in fact crafted by his speechwriters in direct response to a draft of a planned Romney inaugural address that they somehow got hold of. An excerpt of Romney’s address [follows]: ‘We have learned from the last four years that it is a mistake to rely on each other and to work together. It is my firm belief that one man, by himself, can train the nation’s math and science teachers – and probably, if he really tries, the nation’s English teachers as well. One man, acting alone, can build all the labs and networks and roads we need. When he is not training those teachers. Yeah, I’m talking about the same guy. What we must resolve never to do is work alongside one another. Also, children born in the bleakest poverty must learn to accept their fate. The way to reform entitlements is to stop taking care of the generation that built this country. We’ve just got to go cold turkey on that. And we must commit ourselves to perpetual war…’ Man, this nation really dodged a bullet.” –National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team

Appeal_patriots_day_2

View all comments

159 Comments

wjm in Colorado said:

Women in Combat is another kick in the teeth for America. Republicans are the ones perpetrating a "war on women"? Seems the Democrats want to make war mandatory for women!

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 10:57 AM

JtC in TX replied:

The "Republicans" didn't do anything to stop it, either . . .

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

To JTC, you would love to ignore me, well I'm back. If woman serving on the front lines is an issue, surprise, they have been doing it for decades. A bigger surprise is the Israelis do it for they know woman make good soldiers. A larger surprise is I shot a combatant in Nam. She was a female, another who died was a female sniper. the Soviets during WW2 used female snipers. R Limbaugh comment, "We should have a battalion of woman who all get there periods at the same time then send them into combat. A good speech from a woman hater who only think woman are good for sex. I fought against female combatants, in most cases I would rather play tag with a man in combat then a woman.
If you're saying all woman shouldn't be in combat, the same goes for the men.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Brian in Newport News replied:

Another thing about women in combat: I heard that Muslims will NOT surrender to a woman. The Israeli Defense Force ran into this situation and it caused more casualties on both sides as Muslim men preferred fighting to the death rather than surrendering to a women. Can anyone confirm this?

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 8:02 AM

Ernest Wilson in Maryland said:

Why is it so difficult for the Left to see that religion is the magor influence in sustaining a moral society? If there are certain behaviors that everybody can agree are desirable like the 10 Commandments, isn't it perfectly obvious to all that only religion consistently stresses these good things.

By religion I don't mean just Christianity but all the magor religious groups. The Durant's in their History of Civilization recognized this simple truth and they were by no means conservatives. They saw however the danger in excluding religion from public life thereby creating only one view, the secular one with it's relative view of acceptable behavior, as the predominant view. As we have moved from a religous society to a secular one, our social problems have increased. Governments limited tools to deal with this having been largely ineffective, our moral base has certainly declined and with it the shame that once helped bolster civilization.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Barack Obama in Washington, D.C. replied:

Religion matters! I am a Sunni Muslim and as such have very little allegiance to Shiite doctrine. That being said, watch what I DO and not what I SAY to reveal how I feel about Christianity (actually all you have to do is look at my record in ILLinois - sponsored the bill to allow abortions AFTER a child has left the womb - one of my finest efforts ever).

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:26 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

Then render onto Ceaser what's Ceasers. the point I'm making is easy. We have sheriffs who say, (I will not enforce the law) Fine, then I won't obey speed limits through schools and hospital zones. We Have Texas who want to give tax breaks to those who break the law (which the supreme court is constitutional.) All of you say, WE ARE CHRISTIANS. Yet the story of the tower of Babel escapes most of you. , the story of the flood escapes all of you. What we have are so called Christians saying (I will obey what I want to obey, I will do what I will do. this leads not to personal freedom but to anarchy.
What we have is we want no government or smaller government yet we will decide as i n Gv Brewer case, whop is worthy of living and who is worthy of dying. this is a death panel of one, a Tea party Gv has made those decisions.
We have a problem and it's not a messaging problem.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:44 PM

Brian in Newport News replied:

Wow, check your blood pressure RK. Never seen you spout like that. (Who punched his button, anyway?)

You missed the rest of the first quote. Let me provide the whole quote: "Render therefor unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and unto God the things that are God's." Yes, we should render unto "Ceasar" such things as income tax and obeying traffic laws, We should render unto God such things as our refusal to support laws that violate our faith such as providing "reproductive services" (abortion) to employees or that forces us to give up our right to self-defense.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

You're[partially correct. I become upset when I see sheriffs saying I will not support the Law, Texas Ric Perry say I will not support the law. What we have is we will do whatever we want. I was making a point, a slipperly slope. we do what we believe is correct and I have done my protests in the past, where does it stop? the people voted down a communistic bill in Mich and the Tea party puts it right back in. This is the will of the people, not the will of a few.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Mike in San Diego replied:

R.K.: You can't possibly be this dense. An unconstitutional law is no law. As long as the most people vote for it, then it's good to go? Really? That's right, we live in a democracy, not a republic. So, just disregard Federal law regarding immigration, and allow millions of new Democrats to illegally come aboard, then let them vote? And if they vote unanimously to banish R.K. Sprau to the moon? Is that acceptable? It's not in my book, but what do I know? I just follow the constitutionality of things. Hopefully, a twisted government doesn't take over with polar opposite views of your own, and without a Constitution to protect you....good luck with that. I'd say what you reap you sow, but you'll just end up throwing out some other Old Testament instance, and in some obscure fashion, tie it to Christianity utilizing your very limited knowledge of the Bible.

"I become upset when I see sheriffs saying I will not support the Law..."

Funny how you didn't mention how "un-upset" you are at your Golden Boy in the White house disregarding and not supporting more and more laws every single day. Nevermind. Typical liberal hypocrite.

Oh yeah, don't forget to read the 10th amendment contained within the document you must believe doesn't exist. There you will find Ric Perry's position clarified.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Mike in San Diego replied:

Let's just ban "assault" weapons. As defined by what today? What will be considered an "assault" weapon next year? 10 years? Slippery slope, indeed. I doubt you thought any of that through, however, as you seem more content trying to drag the rest of the camel into the tent.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Mike in San Diego replied:

"Fine, then I won't obey the speed limits through schools and hospital zones."

You go, Tiger!

And you will most assuredly lose the "privilege" to operate a motor vehicle.

For a lesson on Rights as opposed to Privileges, please read Constitution...PLEASE!!!!

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Dennodog in Jersey City NJ replied:

I don't hear any complaints from the left when elected officials refuse to enforce IMMIGRATION laws and come right out and "proudly" say it. You can't have it both ways......All you supporters of these "sanctuary" locations have nothing to say about other groups selectively enforcing and obeying government orders that they deem unlawful.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 1:23 AM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

The left does NOT agree that the 10 Commandments represent desirable behavior. Consider how the typical leftist responds to each one (Deuteronomy listing):
"You shall have no other gods before Me."
The Left: what makes the god of the Bible better than any other? Why can't I define for myself who God is? Besides, there are no absolute truths!
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."
The Left: Let's talk about how to shut up those G**d*** Tea Party idiots!
"Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you."
The Left: Those people who cling bitterly to their guns and religion - who believe the Bible and go to church - they're so old-fashioned, so anti-science.
"Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may be well with you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you."
The Left: What for? They messed me up so bad, I'm still going to the therapist twice a week.
"You shall not murder."
The Left: Don't you dare tell me what to do with my body! I'll have an abortion if I want to!
"You shall not commit adultery."
The Left: Don't you dare tell me what I can't do with my body! Stay out of my bedroom!
"You shall not steal."
The Left: The rich got what they have dishonestly, so we have to make them pay their fair share - take it away and give it to the poor (so they'll vote for us).
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
The Left: We'll do whatever it takes to make sure Progressives win elections, for our intentions are so noble that any means are justified.
"You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s."
The Left: Why can't I carry on with the old ****'s hot chick wife? We're consenting adults. As for the other stuff, look, we all know he got it off the backs of the working man - it's time to make him pay his fair share.

This is why we don't get anywhere with the Left. Their moral standards, if you can call them that, are completely opposite ours in many cases. Not all Democrats think this way, but the majority of those in control of that faction do. They tend to be quite narrow-minded in their hedonism, and do not understand why anyone would object to their behavior.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:24 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

IF YOU want to quote the O.T. then follow all of it. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MORNING AFTER PILL.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:52 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

Nu 5:11 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying: 12 Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If any man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 if a man has had intercourse with her but it is hidden from her husband, so that she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her since she was not caught in the act;

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:54 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

14 if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself; or if a spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself; 15 then the man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring the offering required for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16 Then the priest shall bring her near, and set her before Yahweh; 17 the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 The priest shall set the woman before Yahweh, dishevel the woman's hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. 19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, "If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband's authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:55 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

20 But if you have gone astray while under your husband's authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you," 21 --let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman--"Yahweh make you an execration and an oath among your people, when Yaheh makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; 22 now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!" And the woman shall say, "Amen. Amen." 23 Then the priest shall put these curses in writing, and wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her and cause bitter pain. 25 The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand, and shall elevate the grain offering before Yahweh and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and turn it into smoke on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children. 29 This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband's authority, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when a spirit of jealousy comes on a man and he is jealous of his wife; then he shall set the woman before Yaheh, and the priest shall apply this entire law to her. 31 The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:56 PM

Brian in Newport News replied:

1. This was written to the Jews for the Jews.

2. Further, the world is no longer "under the law" but under grace. Read John 8.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 8:42 AM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

I love the point. If this is the case why quote the O.T., why have it at all?As for Jews, What I taught my students is it is a 2 edged sword. You can't have it both ways. Which way is it going to be? We pick and choose, or ditch the O.T. as non-essential. I;m not being picky, I'm only asking a question any theology student has been asked.
I made a point, the answer can be found in yourself.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Virtue in Idaho replied:

Nice RK use a favorable translation of the Bible so that it helps you to try to make a point. Have you heard the phrase "ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth". Your diatribes are an excellent example. There was nothing in your own copied and pasted verses that the priest did that caused the baby to be aborted (I mean dust off of the ground does not act like a day after pill) but it left the judgement up to God whether she would be cursed or not as ultimately all judgements are Gods anyways, in this case it is helping to ammend the wrongs done to others ie the husband and giving the wife an oppurtunity to repent. Thats even if your own chosen translation has any credence. Exactly what would the result of that cursing be, in the KJV it is clear that she would be marked and shunned in society. When someone acts in a way that degrades and harms their society that is a typical "curse". The Jews came out of a long period of apostasy and necessity required that they become a people free of the immorality and aquainted with the only real and living God. If you read with these points in mind the laws given to the Jews will make more sense to you. I am sure you must also realize that the strict mosaic laws were a direct result of the Israelites not being willing to abide in a higher law (in other words the law introduced by Christ) and that that Mosaic law was clearly done away with when Christ made his great and final sacrifice. So chastizing Christians today for not living the law of Moses when they have been told it has been done away again shows that you have a basic lack of understanding of the Bible. Ultimately what you really are saying in all of your quazi religious rants is that you really do not agree with what God has done, and in that you are not alone all others are at odds with God as well for one reason or another which is why a Christian believes that when he has done wrong and put himself at odds with the laws of happiness he needs to change his ways . The remarkable thing is that God allows you complete liberty and all others to do exactly as you please but invites those who love him to "keep his commandments" and in doing so like the ancient Jews they become acquainted with htheir Father in Heaven.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 4:00 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

I prefer Aramaic,DR, or NIV. It still proved my point. We want to be a christian nation yet we will not agree on anything. this is the point I knew if I said what I said someone would make the point for me.
As you said a favorite translation of the Bible so you know translations will say anything you want it to say.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 2:57 AM

Jack in Aledo, TEXAS said:

This explains why yankees act the way they do!!

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM

JtC in TX replied:

Hahahahahaha Good one, Jack.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Patriot1775 in MD replied:

Not sure I know what you mean by that comment Jack.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:29 PM

CAB in Sandy, Utah said:

I don't know how this survey of Bible oriented folks was conducted, but I find it very difficult to believe that Salt Lake City and other cities in Utah should not be much higher on this list.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM

JtC in TX replied:

Most of the folks in Utah have a "different" bible, CAB.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Virtue in Idaho replied:

JTC - Do you really believe that Latter Day Saints use a different Bible? Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints use the King James version of the Bible. Just thought you should know so as to help you be more aware next time it comes up.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Virtue in Idaho replied:

If it is any consolation another "recent survey" indicated that the Latter Day Saint has the best scriptural knowledge of biblical events. So I guess it has alot to do with what survey you read, but no suprise there.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 4:03 PM

American Rifleman in McKeesport,PA.15132 said:

Some read the bible daily.It gives them solis.
I read the journals of The Patriot Post U.S..I get mu solis from them.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Rifleman in Nawth Jawja replied:

It gives them solace?

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Geraldine E. Marsh in Elkhart, In. said:

The Bible does matter it Basic-Instructions-Before- Leaving-Earth.It instructons how to live. Praise God for the Bible.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Hugh in Arkansas said:

The liberals support abortion on demand, which probably kills thousands of children in their mother's wombs each year, but use the act of one deranged individual, WHO DID NOT USE AN ASSAULT RIFLE, who killed 20 children and 6 adults with HANDGUNS,
who could not defend themselves because they were in a "GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONE, which meant no one in the school could have a legally carried concealed firearm to defend the children or themselves with, because of a law Senator Feinstein voted to pass, a woman who possesses a concealed-carry permit and carries her own concealed
weapon FOR HER PROTECTION, wants to REMOVE all Americans' rights granted in the 2nd Amendment to the CONSTITUTION, because "SHE KNOWS WHAT'S BEST FOR AMERICA"?
THE BEST THING WE CAN DO FOR OUR NATION IN 2014 IS VOTE "NO INCUMBENTS".

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Rifleman in Nawth Jawja replied:

Typically, 90% of Senators are re-elected.

We, the People, continue to inject ourselves with the same poison.

We have allowed our "representatives" to create a political and economic dependency and we're becoming accustomed to that dependency.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

Rifleman,

If you have not figured it out by now, you get to vote to maintain the illusion, but the "election" is decided ahead of time. This last "election" was "stolen", if you want to categorize it that way.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 1:53 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

I want to comment to you. YOU believe in a trilateral commission, one world government. While I do not espouse to your views, I did check you out. Bush used one world government, Reagan set it up, it has been used over since to include Bush's son. what I find interesting is they are all skull and crossbones. to get in, you must be a political influential family, or a athletic. You must steel something of value so you can hold it over there head not to spill there secrets, you must be sexually active. there stated goal is to make a 1 world government via politics and captains of industry. they are all sworn to help each other to do this by any means necessary. I am not a conspiracy nit yet it it what it is.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Bob G in Georgia replied:

You are absoulutely correct. Do as I say not as I do. They are elietist's, they are better than the rest of us little people. Vote them out.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

"Vote them out"?

You can think that it is possible, but you are sadly mistaken!

Our "elections" have been controlled for years now and . . . well, it will all be over soon ;-)

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Henry in Illinois replied:

You are absolutely right,Git R Dunn and if anyone thinks that the last " election " was legitimate is an idiot . This " community organizer " with his dismal record could not run for a dog catcher and be electedin a LEGITIMATE election but with the democrats' lies and fraud , we all know what has happened , and of course there is not ONE republican in Washington that has enough guts to say that , little johnny in particular .

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 3:34 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

I said and was chastised for it, learn the enemy, learn his moves. I was told, "NO WE DON'T NEED TO." There strong suit is they studied you, they played chess while we were playing checkers. Since we only talk to yourselves, there weakess and turned into there strong suit and we turned week. Comments such as Legitimate rape, self deportation, Let everyone be foreclosed on and rent back your own home from the Rich (Romney Nv), do you think the precception of a war against woman and the middle class might be part of the problem?

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Connie Guest in Hudson CO said:

I'm ashamed of CO, both politically and religiously. My husband and I read the Bible every day. We've gone through the Bible in a year for at least 15 years and will continue until death. The way things are going in America right now, the Lord is our ONLY hope. I'm glad He's in control!

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:42 AM

JtC in TX replied:

" . . . the Lord is our ONLY hope. I'm glad He's in control!"

Amen, Connie!!!

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Ray in NC said:

No matter what your belief. The Christian religion is the moral glue that has helped America to become the great nation that we are today.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Vondell HASS in Wichita said:

Yes, we have the promise: My Word shall not return void" and it is still true today.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Richard B. in Jamestown, TN said:

I was raised in the country and daily saw the wonders of God's creation around me. Standing on a street corner there are few, if any, wonders to see that are not man made. Thus I would expect city dwellers to have less belief in God.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Richard W in MO said:

The problem is not that Barack Obama does not understand the Constitution. He understands. He just doesn't care.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Barack Obama in Washington, D.C. replied:

Oh, I care you ignoramus! And I am determined to trample your Constitution underfoot such that it is not recognizable by 2016. You Colonialist scum will be subjugated by the time I am through with you and America will be reshaped into a Muslim utopia.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

"Muslim utopia"

Hell, just threaten us with a Chicago utopia and that wold be bad enough.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

How I love the names, it shows education and IQ. On FOX news, he a weird Pentecostal, pick on his former minister. Well that worked so well he went from being a pentecostal (Christian) to a Muslim for this is what FOX News said. Now which is he?

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 7:44 PM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

I consider it prudent to be agnostic concerning Mr. Obama's religion. He has publicly claimed to be Christian, but a good share of what he espouses is contrary to Scripture.

Nevertheless, we should not revile him by distorting his name or making unprovable accusations. He has enough public bad stuff in his history for a lengthy and well-justified admonition; we don't have to speculate on allegations based on thin circumstantial evidence (e.g ., the often-voiced suspicion that he is a radical Muslim traitor intent on turning North America into a caliphate). God condemns reviling because it is an expression of personal hatred and lack of forgiveness, and does nothing to bring a sinner to repentance.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 12:29 AM

Riflem in Nawth Jawja said:

Guns are the only private property mentioned in the Constitution. The Second Amendment is not about skeet shooting or hunting.

When James Madison presented the Second Amendment to the Delegates, he said that his purpose was "to keep the government in fear of an armed and aroused populace."
That is what the Democrats are afraid of. It's not about anything else.

There was a time in this Nation's history when a man would be fined for not carrying his rifle to church with him.

Are the times less dangerous?

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Robert Waldron in Cerlina Ohio said:

Every nation that has turned its back on God has fallen ot third world countrty and we are heading the same way!

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:05 PM

JtC in TX replied:

You, sir, are correct!

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 2:06 PM

JOE S HILL in Waianae,Hawaii replied:

Sadly,i must agree with your opinion,because as i posted,the ungodliness
in America,is a spiritual cancer,with terminal results! we have Mass shootings
at frightening numbers,and we also have a President,who is trying his very
best to Take away guns,because of the Liability,that Gun control advocates are trying to exploit-and to add insult to injury,this President is
now supporting Gay marriages,and likely other Gay values,which have seriously divided our Nation! so before we as a Nation,become like all
the other extinct civilizations who turned their back on God,who has
clearly warned us about the consequences of our sins-i hope,that while
we see the direction we're headed for,that we have people.who are
Brave and smart enough in America,to change these things-because we
are in serious trouble,when we allow a godless lifestyle,which caused the
destuction of Sodom and Gommorah,because these "Effiminates"(Gays)
were wicked,in God's eyes,,to Take root,through these Civil rights laws,
that defiles the principal of Real Marriage,,because whether the Gays
hate God,or the people who try to worship him think this is Hate-it isn't!
but this is still a sin-and it defies the laws of God,when same sex marriage
becomes the law of the land,,and no matter what Hate or namecalling is
said,there will be consequences for breaking God's laws-and that is scary
enough,and i hope it does get Americans mad and angry,because our
Nation is courting God's wrath,because despite the mutuality of these Gay
values,normalizing them,will not help-neither will applying Hate for Hate-
because we are to love our brother,but hate their sins-and in today's world,
it almost equates into Hate-because a same sex relationhip is still frowned
opon,inspite of the love they show for one another-and the civil laws being
made,are likely going to be used against straights,when they object to the
farce of two men or two women being married to each other. legalizing
this sin will not improve the Tolerence,either,because this is still a lifestyle
by choice alone,inspite of the political and legal support that has made this
possible-so we in America,really need to think wisely here,because allowing this sin to become a civil right,is an invitation to serious social
problems,and spiritual ones as well,because it has already divided us!

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 3:48 PM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

Only God can save this nation. Will He spare it for "the sake of ten righteous" or will He permit it to fall from its rot and decay? Perhaps all the troubles we have had - the terror attacks and wars, the economic difficulties, the corruption in high places, etc. have all been permitted as chastisements to get our attention and bring us to repentance. "Whom the Lord loves, he chastens." The Old Testament kingdom of Judah received multiple warnings from the prophets of impending judgment for its sins. When those were ignored, God permitted raiders to destroy a city. Instead of taking heed, they responded, “The bricks have fallen down, But we will rebuild with hewn stones; The sycamores are cut down, But we will replace them with cedars.” This is exactly the response, word for word, that our government officials made to the 9/11 attacks; they misunderstood the Divine context when they used the quote.

After many further warnings and chastisements, God permitted the Chaldeans to conquer Judah and carry most of the surviving population into captivity. This nation too will fall if its people continue to ignore His word and reject His love.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 12:42 AM

Brian in Newport News replied:

I believe that God will allow America to fall. Why? Because redefining marriage is a violation of the very first covenant that God established: the covnenant of marriage. While God may punish the breaking of individual commandments by punishing the individual, he punishes the whole people when a covnenant is violated. As you note, the Jews were conquered by Babylon and it ws because of their violation of the Sabbath covenenant.

Oh, and don't forget the recent earthquake that damaged the Washington Monument and National Cathedral. An earthquake in Virginia? If that is not a warning, I don't know what is.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Richard W in MO said:

The problem is not that Barack Obama does not 'understand' the Constitution. He understands. He just doesn't care.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 12:05 PM