Most of them actually didn't believe in god at all and hated religion. Thomas Jefferson cut all references to god out of his Bible. Religion was extremely unpopular during the enlightenment. It's why the US is a secular country and why Europe became secular after the French revolution. People of that time period hated the corruption of the church and saw it as an obstacle to democracy. The idea that the US is Christian is a myth fabricated by modern Republicans. Under god was added to the pledge in the 1950s by the religious right.
I honestly had to look up deism and what little I had time to read said they believed in one deity. I don't know about Jefferson's Bible maybe that's why it never took off. Hitler had a bible too, I doubt many in Germany follow it. I doubt Jefferson himself wanted others to follow his own bible, deism sounds like a real 'mind your own p's and q's' religion (or non-religion) to me. an even more confused type of non-denominational Christian. Sort of a mix of Christian faith with Bhuddist morales lol.... interesting. I could be wrong I didn't study it long. things to do today.
Hmm... if the bible contains that text, it would be reasonable to assume a good amount of homosexual activity was going on in that time period. It isn't due to a recent gay virus propagated by the new age hippy liberal media, like alot of anti-gay supporters make it out to be. Also, it looks like this is a quote for some dudebro named Apostle Paul. It doesn't mention GOD.
Deists believe in a higher power, but reject organized religion and do not believe god intervenes in human affairs or that god is of any importance to everyday life. Deism is not Christianity. The closest thing to it is probably agnosticism.
That's only the illusion of freedom. That's like saying German Jews under Hitler were "free" to do anything they wanted up until the point the authorities sent them to Auschwitz.
I'm talking about legal freedom, where the government passes laws intended to give it's citizens permanent rights and a system of justice that backs it up.That's what freedom in the United States is considered to be. You're talking about temporal freedom, which has no guarantees beyond the point in which you act. You don't need a country or a flag or a Constitution for that kind of freedom.
Off topic on topic, Arma is this you?? Dudebro acts like a dick, puts it on youtube like a prize and gets fired. He musta' hated his job cuz it was CFO I don't know the structuer of them high class workers but I'm pretty sure CFO is up there in the 6 figure/ year (100k) territory. It musta been somewhat important for the company to fire him for publicly embarrasing himself. This is in Arizona btw if that matters, right wing 'religious nut' land. http://youtu.be/Jg-jzlWcc0E He didn't do much but he put it on YT as if he wanted all his buddies from the tree-hugger foundation to see it. If it's OK for the muppets to dissavow C-F-A than what makes this douchebag thinks it's OK to do this?? God what an idiot. If your so mad just don't go. that's freedom btw, the freedom to put it on YT UNTIL you get fired. Like I said your free to do whatever until somebody stops you. And it's still on YT it wouldn't be without freedom. lol I thought this was hilarious "In 1992, Levi's found itself at odds with the Boy Scout's 'Three Gs' principle that had guided the Scouts' membership model for more than 80 years -- that everyone is welcome, provided they are not gay, godless, or a girl. San Francisco-based Levi's pulled its Boy Scout funding, due to the group's exclusion. In response, Republican Dana Rohrabacher encouraged a 'grassroots' counter-boycott of Levi Strauss and his Texan colleage, Tom DeLay, was even more extreme in his reaction: "When Texans find out that the Levi's they have on go toward attacks on the Boy Scouts of America... they'll take off those Levi's and burn them in the streets." " also in the list of companys boycotted for being pro-gay is the girl scouts *shrug* never know about corporations or organizations these days. I thought they'd follow the same view as the boyscouts or at least stay out of it.
Weren't the Apostles meant to be emissaries spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, and isn't Jesus Christ just God in human form? Plus itz gotz to be troo itz in teh bibles!
No, freedom is the legal ability to never be stopped from exercising your freedom. In other words, people can speak out against their government in both the U.S. and China, but only in the U.S. do you have a legal guarantee that you're free to do so. In China, you can be thrown into prison.
The gun question gets brought up by pediatricians because they're concerned about kids shooting themselves with unsecured firearms. It usually gets asked alongside things like do you have a pool, and do you use a car seat. It's meant to assess and minimize the risk of accidental death due to preventable causes. It's not a stupid or trivial thing, and doctors should have every right to ask it. If you have firearms in the house with children, they should have trigger locks and be kept in a safe. Leaving them unsecured is just asking for something horrible to happen. Or better yet, just don't keep guns in the house at all if you have children.
The neocon fascist maniacs in Florida wanted to give anyone who asks a $10,000 fine and revoke their medical license.
That's Rick Scott for you, the crook who stole billions of dollars from medicare/medicaid while head of HCA and used it to get himself elected by the very same elderly people he ripped off! In a sane country, he would be in prison for one of the worst cases of fraud in history. Instead he didn't even get a slap on the wrist, and he's now governor of one of the largest states in the US. He spent 75 million dollars to get himself elected. I wonder how many hundreds of millions or billions he has stashed in off shore bank accounts from his HCA days.
I noticed there has been a curious reaction at Fox News Nation to the latest massacre, which occurred at a Sikh temple. Evidently they have a system on their website that allows you to rate every story they run according to these 7 terms: offensive, funny, cool, obnoxious, scary, inspiring, and crazy. Initially, "inspiring" was picked as the top choice by a 2:1 margin over the second choice, "scary." Since attention has been brought to this by Gawker, "scary" has been elevated to the top choice over "inspiring" at about 500 versus 400. Regardless, what the hell was "inspiring" about gunning down innocent people in a Sikh temple? The worldview of some of these people really disturbs me. The dumbass neo-Nazi that shot up the temple probably thought Sikhs are Muslims. From what I read, he had a 9/11 tattoo.
Meh, neocons and neonazis are practically the same thing as far as I'm concerned, so it doesn't surprise me they would find shooting up a temple of brown people inspiring, or that they wouldn't know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims.
I'm certainly not surprised they are extremely ignorant, but I'm disturbed at how this subset of extremists is driven by Fox News and talk radio to commit these types of attacks. There have been quite a few nutjobs attacking abortion clinics, Muslims, and others. Some opponents of the right are named or included on their crazy lists and become targets of these unhinged right wing extremist lunatics.
What a fucking stupid article this is. It basically argues that because American students suck at math, we should drop math from the curriculum. It's the old "when am I going to use this?" argument. Math is as fucking basic as reading, and if you can't do Algebra, you're a goddamn retard. We don't need to be turning people into even more stupid, uneducated proles than they already are. And this was in the New York Times no less. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/is-algebra-necessary.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Maddox wrote something that could be considered a good counter to this article called "math doesn't suck, you do." http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=math