Our would-be presidents are God-fearing clowns (XPOST in Athiest & Agnostics)
Rand Paul, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton all spout pious religious lies. We must grill them on what they really mean
Jeffrey Tayler
Aspirants to the White House, both Democratic and Republican, have, as we all know, begun “announcing,” thus initiating, from a rationalist’s point of view, a media carnival featuring, on both sides, an array of supposedly God-fearing clowns and faith-mongering nitwits groveling before Evangelicals and nattering on about their belief in the Almighty and their certainty that if we just looked, we could find answers to many of our ills in the Good Book.
The candidates will cloak their true agendas – serving the Lords of Wall Street far more zealously than Our Father who art (or really, art not) in heaven – in pious patter about “values,” about the need to “restore America” and return us to the state of divinely granted exceptionalism President Obama has so gravely squandered. This Season of Unreason will end with the elections of November 2016, but its consequences – validation of the idea that belief without evidence is a virtue, that religion, and especially Christianity, deserves a place in our politics, our Constitutionally enshrined secularism notwithstanding – will live on and damage the progressive cause.
More at THIS LINK
= new reply since forum marked as read
Constantine "the Great" and King Ashoka the Great
A biography of two people so similar they are practically interchangeable: A man with considerable influence and legitimate claim to rule the most powerful empire in the world is introduced to a new religion with a small minority following as a young man, but does not convert. This new religion values peace over all else. As his claim to rule is strengthened, so is the resolve of his enemies. Predictably, violence results, but, in the end, the winner is unquestionable--all others chasing power are dead. At the end of this struggle, a decisive battle to consolidate power results in overwhelming victory. The man officially converts to the new, minority religion, and decrees religious toleration within the empire's borders.
That is where the similarities end.
Ashoka formally converted to Buddhism and resolved to never wage war again. He adopted the Buddha's abhorrence for war wholeheartedly and went to great lengths to avoid further conflict. Ashoka's armies never fought another battle. He fully adopted the principles of his new religion, launching an incredible new campaign for peace. Providing basic public services throughout his empire became a top priority, and many of his subjects were given access to drinking water, improved farming techniques, and improved transportation. He opened many universities and did not discriminate by caste or ethnicity as all his predecessors had done. In edicts, he apologized for the wars he had waged and promised that he no longer harbored ambitions of expanding his empire's borders. Make no mistake--with his huge, unified, and disciplined army, he had ample power to do so. He reformed judicial system to make it more humane, and executions were banned. Though a devout Buddhist, a patron of Buddhist monasteries, and a great proselytizer of Buddhism, toleration of other religions was of foremost importance. One of his edicts read (note: Beloved-of-the-Gods was a formal title adopted by emperors; Ashoka refers to himself here as King Piyadasi):
snip
Constantine similarly surveyed the carnage he had caused at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Most enemy troops had gruesomely drowned when forced into the Tiber River, their bodies grotesquely disfigured and bloated. Now that he was in clear control of most of the Roman Empire, he converted to Christianity (the first "Christian" political leader in the world) and decreed religious toleration within his borders. But did he adopt Christian ideals as Ashoka adopted Buddhist principles? Did he internalize Jesus' teaching that war cannot be used to create peace? Did he adopt a policy of nonviolence like Jesus taught? Did he take Jesus' teaching to "turn the other cheek" seriously? Did he hate war, instead turning to peace and justice as Jesus did? Did he do anything differently now that he was a "Christian?" No. He continued fighting wars. Arguably, his continued civil war can be seen as self defence. But his invasion of Dacia--which he claimed was a war against religious heathens--was not self-defensive. It was a war of conquest, a war of expansion, and Constantine used Christianity the way he used everything else in his life--as a tool for selfish ends. He set the precedent of "pious Christians" fighting a "holy war" (there is no such thing) according to "God's will." Worse, Constantine brought the same suffering and devastation on Dacia that Caesar Augustus had inflicted on Jesus' family and the rest of Galilee and Palestine. Constantine embraced war like a brother. He turned wives into widows; sons and daughters into orphans; soldiers--as well as innocent men, women, and children--into corpses or victims with limbs missing. He killed, and killed, and killed. Even as a "Christian," he continued to kill without regard for Jesus' teachings. He inflicted war wounds that never heal, and sowed suffering wherever he went.
http://justicebeforecharity.org/constantine.php
And then this guy
Hitler wth Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin, 1935
On April 20, 1939, Archbishop Orsenigo celebrated Hitler's birthday. The celebrations, initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) became a tradition. Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send "warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany" and added with "fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars."
Its as old as history itself, politicians using religion for political gains and ignoring the teachings.
Buckle up, folks.
create an identity the people can identify with thru their own experience .Remeber success comes in CANS not in CAN NOTS .........its a business people can claim is above it all .