Islamic atheists

I’m not sure Newt Gingrich knows what either one of those words means:

“I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9,” Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”

About the only thing he got right is that his grandchildren will likely be in a secular country when they get to his age. That is, presuming they stay in the United States and the United States remains exactly the same as it has been for the past 235 years.


7 Responses

  1. Gingrich is such a low intelligence tool. He fits right in with the thinking impaired Palin, Bachmann, Jindal and Huckabee.

    At least the Republican party has a few more intelligent people like Romney, Ron Paul (not his son) however misdirected their dogma.

  2. and once again, forgot to select Notify.

  3. Gingrich just doesn’t get it. Our founding fathers were weary of all religions. They understood the irrational and superstitious nature of religions and realized that we needed a totally secular government. Most of the signers of the constitution were protestants or members of the Anglican church and some were Deists. They saw what religion did to the colonies during the previous 300 years and wanted to avoid all the misery fanatical religion can wreak on a society.

  4. They saw what Monarchy did. I’m not exactly sure what you think religion “did to the colonies”. The first amendment was meant to protect religion from government, not the other way around, at least not principally.

  5. The first amendment was meant to protect religion from government, not the other way around

    The reality is that they realized that in the mother countries, the government was dominated by one religion, which made it difficult for others.The Calvinists in Massachusetts, among others, were trying to do the same in the colonies. Rhode Island was created primarily to get away from the dominating oppressive Calvinists. The primary purpose was to protect people from religion, via government or elsewise.

  6. You’re right, but you’re also wrong. When government and religion get together, that is obviously a situation that is bad for government, bad for the particular church and bad for all of the other churches.

    By requiring congress to make no laws establishing a religion, it protects government to an extent, but I think it does more to protect churches from the influence of politics and their exploitation.

    Incidentally, non-profit status for churches also insulates government from religion (and vise versa) by restricting their rights to be involved in politics. It’s a voluntary surrender of the right to endorse and support candidates.

    But in the end, you are right, the separation of church and state is meant to protect people first, from the oppression that only governments are able to accomplish. By keeping religion separate it takes away one common tool of governments through out history, domination of ideas (through religion). With no government enforced and adhered to religion, the government is less able to dominate.

  7. And how did I miss this post back in March?

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: