American Heritage Party mocked

On August 8th, Happy Jihad’s House of Pancakes published a hatchet job on Christian Worldview Network columnist Reed Heustis that included insults directed at the American Heritage Party:

. . . I would like to point out at this point that Reed R. Heustis, Jr., Esq. is a member of the American Heritage Party, an association of fringe loonies who want to take the democracy out of democracy and install Jesus Christ as Generalissimo and Dictator for Eternity. Everyone needs a hobby, I guess, even if the party, should it endure, will never field a single viable candidate for dogcatcher—or dog for that matter.

“Imagine a political party that adopts the Bible as its political textbook and is unashamed to be explicitly Christian!” their site proclaims. I am, and I’m shuddering…this however may be an effect of the virus rampaging through my body. Let’s see…so you want to institute polygamy, the killing of homosexuals, the selling of daughters, and, well, Christian sharia. They wanna see a kosher America. What dweebs!

“Imagine a political party that is unafraid to attack socialism at its secular, unbelieving, religious roots!” It’s secular, religious roots? Are you a’tarded? Yeah, these guys have a chance.

The AHP’s mission is: “The American Heritage Party exists to help reclaim America’s political institutions and culture for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.” This, of course, means trashing the Constitution. I don’t care how you read the establishment clause, this is simply incompatible with…anything remotely American . . .

101 Responses to “American Heritage Party mocked”

  1. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Sounds like tyranny to me.

  2. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Over the years I have been labeled a countless amount of horrible epithets and slurs, but I can honestly say that I have never – not even once – been called a “Squid-licking monkey-boy.”

    LOL!

    Ad hominems aside, I am compelled to tip my Dodger Blue baseball cap to Happy Jihad at least for originality.

    Other than that, the site is nothing more than a vitriolic anti-Christian, and therefore anti-American, cesspool of hate.

  3. Trent Hill Says:

    Reed Heustis,

    I am a Christian. I’ve gone to church since I was a child. My father is a deacon. My mom is a non-denominational Pastor. My mentor is a catholic theologian-author. At this I expect you to say, “Judas pretended to be a Christ-follower too”. No matter. I’ve proved my point. I consider myself Christian. Most others would too.

    However, let me say this: Your leadership of this country would be worse than George Bush. Worse than FDR. Worse than Ghengis Khan (at least he respected religious freedom). By no means should any Christian support the theocracy that you, and some of my fellow CPers espouse. It is more dangerous than the big-government tendencies of the socialists. Indeed, they are simply an ugly cousin with more publicity.

    No matter, as Happy Jihad so eloquently noted: You couldn’t get elected dog-catcher.

  4. Anthony Distler Says:

    “Other than that, the site is nothing more than a vitriolic anti-Christian, and therefore anti-American, cesspool of hate.”

    Anti-Christian, and therefore ant-American? I have NO idea why political sites bash you.

  5. Carl G. Oehling Says:

    I read the article against Reed Heustis and the American Heritage Party. I note the writer has never read and understood the Bible because he misquotes it and its meaning. He writes an editorial rather than an informative article as it is presented. The man doesn’t seem to be able to separate the Biblical principles of government from the message of an evil society we obviously are living in. He doesn’t seem to have read the history in the Bible or secular books which relate the same informtrion. Santayna said, ‘Those who don’t read history and avoid mistakes will relive them’. Hegal then said, History proves men don’t read history’.

    ‘What goes around, comes around” is an old accepted saying. The religion of the Bible declares the solution to choice. It declares Jesus paid the price of our initial choices and we will not have to experience the results. That is a religious message. Carl G. Oehling

  6. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Trent Hill says:
    Your leadership of this country would be worse than George Bush. Worse than FDR. Worse than Ghengis Khan (at least he respected religious freedom). By no means should any Christian support the theocracy that you, and some of my fellow CPers espouse. It is more dangerous than the big-government tendencies of the socialists. Indeed, they are simply an ugly cousin with more publicity.

    I don’t know what you are using as your premise, but I advocate small government, not big government. I believe in the proper spheres of government: self-government, family government, church government, civil government.

    The only “theocracy” in which I believe is the one that already exists regardless of what man-made system is set up, namely that God (Theos) rules (kratia). Even our Founders believed that God rules and that our rights come from Him. That is the true, literal definition of theocracy. Only to that definition, I believe in the concept.

    Your definition is probably more akin to ecclesiocracy (rule by the church), in which I wholeheartedly reject, and have never advocated in my 39 years of life.

  7. Bing McGhandi Says:

    Well, Hot Carl, you’re wrong. I have read the bible, cover to cover. And it is what it is…not very impressive, from a literary, moral, or practical point of view. It’s theology is inconsistent. It’s repetitive. The characters are flat. It’s preachy (haha). It has been mistranslated and misinterpreted. It fails to account for what any of us could go out and verify about the world. But this doesn’t mean anything to anyone who makes an idol out of the Bible.

    I appreciate the kudos. I was proud of the squid-licking monkey-boy line. I use that language because apparently it is my true medium. Some people are piano virtuosos, some are athletes. I get snark. This in itself is proof that there is no god. (heheh) Consider it a brick wrapped in velvet.

    I do have serious problems with your party, which has no respect for the Consitution, that which makes America what it is. If you do not respect the Consitution, you don’t love my America. I love my country, but i see it in much the same way one sees a relative with a drug problem. I won’t enable it to hurt itself, but I respect it, stand back and wait for it to come back, and I will be waiting for it. My Americanism might be expressed in my willingness to fight and die for your right to be as wrong as you like. You do not have the same respect for America or Americans. You have a cynical contempt for the Constitution and are trying to use it as a tool to destroy it. Preserving your right to be so pigheadded is far more important than any pigheadded thing that you might say.

    HJ

  8. Trent Hill Says:

    “I don’t know what you are using as your premise, but I advocate small government, not big government. I believe in the proper spheres of government: self-government, family government, church government, civil government.”

    Small government? You want the federal government to continue fighting the War on Drugs, but also pick up a few others. The War on Porn. The War on Prostitution. The War on Cuss Words. The War on States’ Rights. The War on Gambling. You envision a government where professing to be Islamic in Congress is grounds for being kicked out or railed against. You wish to run a country based on your interpretation of a religion. This has been tried, it’s called Iran. It’s called The Massachussetts Bay Colony. It’s called Deseret. It’s called Mahdist Sudan. Whatever it’s called, I’d rise in arms before I allowed it to happen here.

    As for Church government…I don’t accept 40% of my pastor’s thoughts on theology, why on EARTH would I accept his governance?

  9. Anthony Distler Says:

    “The War on Cuss Words.”

    What?! A war on cuss words? That a bunch of fucking shit!

  10. matt Says:

    Mr. Ghandi,
    Methinks the Bible is probably better than your ability to comprehend it. Another try is probably warranted. In the meantime, good call on exposing the tragi-comedy that is Mr. Heustis.

    Mr. Heustis,
    If God rules, then why not say “we have a theocracy already” rather than “we want theocracy”? God rule is realised in the Church, and in the lives of those who choose to take his yoke. The Church is not America, and pretending it is will be ruinous to both entities. I am unspeakably relieved that your views are not mainstream.

    Mr. Hill,
    Well delivered as always.

  11. Joe Says:

    Trent,

    Your own party’s platform has an anti-gambling plank. I can’t find one in AHP’s platform. Ditto for the war on drugs. Both platform’s have an anti-pornography plank. I can’t find any mention of a war on prostitution or a war on cuss words in either. Like the Constitution Party, AHP has a states’ rights/sovereignty plank. Like the Constitution Party, AHP has a religious freedom plank:

    “Personal religious freedom and the public acknowledgment of God form the cornerstone of American liberty and the foundation of our political institutions. Religious rights and obligations must be protected, whether exercised individually or collectively. The Church has both the right and the responsibility to address all moral issues, politicized or not, and therefore must be protected from state influence or control through taxation or tax status.”

    Do you find this plank substantially inferior to the Constitution Party’s religious freedom plank?

    Given our form of government, I don’t see any way to keep the Ellison’s of the world can be kept out of office if Americans put them there, but it is hardly suprising that American Christians would be concerned about having non-Christians serving in government.

  12. Joe Says:

    Matt,

    Isn’t that what Reed did say?

    “The only “theocracy” in which I believe is the one that already exists . . .”

    Yes, God’s rule is realized in the church, but as Christians we believe that Jesus Christ is sovereign over all of life, state and family as well as the church. That means that that only those who are believers, i.e., stand in covenant with God through faith, should be considered for the office of magistrate.

  13. Joe Says:

    Trent, Bing et. al.:

    On September 11, 2007, three gentle Christians will be going on trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for praying in Jesus’ name in the chambers of the United States Senate on July 12, 2007. Ante and Kathy Pavkovic, and their daughter Christan, stood boldly for Jesus when they realized that the Senate was to be opened in prayer by Hindu clergyman Rajan Zed. Judge Roy Moore reportedly will be defending them in court.

    Do you agree with Judge Moore? Do you think that religion freedom extends to the right of these Christians to pray in Jesus’ name in the chambers of the United States senate? Trent, do you have any qualms at all about a Hindu prayer opening the United States senate.? I believe at one time this and Ellison’s election are the kinds of things the Constitution Party would have jumped all over. Unless I am mistaken, the Constitution Party has been silent about these developments or at least their response has been fairly muted. In fairness, to my knowledge so has AHP’s until Reed’s column on Ellison. I am glad there are folks like Roy Moore, Reed Heustis, and John Lofton who are speaking out.

  14. matt Says:

    Joe,
    Yes, Reed and I agree that “God rules”.

    My point is that God’s rule is bigger than you and I, and in fact bigger than America itself. What kind of rule is God’s rule?

    I think the only good way to determine what God’s rule should look like is to look at Jesus, who never sought to use his status as the Son of God to gain earthly political power. Jesus was political, because he challenged the church-state collusion of His day and said that it was wrong. He was not electoral, in that he did not seek to use his popularity to gain power for himself or his followers. He must be followed in this.

    I will vote for Christians, but I would never vote for a Christian who says that I, as a Christian, should vote for him because, hey, we’re both Christians.

    I’d rather vote for an atheist or abstain from voting, since at least the atheist presumably doesn’t know better.

  15. Joe Says:

    Matt,

    I agree with you that one should vote for a candidate just because they say they are a Christian. IMO, that is a starting point, not an ending point. The Bible contains explicit instructions concerning the qualifications for civil officers, and to these the Christian ought to look as he determines who he will support with his time, money, and vote. I believe that Christians can have honest disagreements concerning exactly how to apply these instructions. I think in some cases it is possible that abstaining from voting may be necessary, although I personally have never yet found it to be so. However, as a Christian voting for an atheist is not an option.

    I agree with you that God’s rule is bigger than America, but it does include America and it includes politics. We are required to be obedient in all things, including when we vote.

  16. matt Says:

    I don’t think that the Old Testament instructions to the leaders of Israel can be applied to our situation as voters under the new covenant. Certainly they apply to us in our role as members of Christ’s new nation (the Church), and for that reason Paul reiterates them in that context.

    In contrast, there is no precedent in Acts or in other accounts of early Church history that reccomend the practice of applying the scripture in the fashion you mention above.

  17. A More Perfect Union Says:

    “This, of course, means trashing the Constitution. I don’t care how you read the establishment clause, this is simply incompatible with…anything remotely American . . .”

    This is after the statement “who want to take the democracy out of democracy.”

    You know nothing about the Constitution or America. Attack those who do, but it doesn’t make you any less of an assclown.

    However, I don’t know what the AHP has been doing since Tampa. Will they have any candidates for special elections this year or for general elections next year? Also, have they contacted the disaffiliated Alabama, Maryland, Montana, or Oregon Constitution Parties to ask if they are interested in becoming AHP affiliates?

  18. Common Says:

    While there isn’t a need to establish a “Christian nation,” I do not have a problem with our government and politicians adopting and practicing a more moral nature. Would it lead to the end of corruption and the ugliness between the Democrats and the Republicans? No, but I’m sure it would help.

  19. Joe Says:

    As Christians, we believe there is ample New Testament support for the notion that Jesus Christ, as Mediator, has all power and universal dominion committed to Him, which must include authority over nations.

  20. Trent Hill Says:

    “Mr. Hill,
    Well delivered as always.”

    Thanks matt.

    “Your own party’s platform has an anti-gambling plank. I can’t find one in AHP’s platform. Ditto for the war on drugs. Both platform’s have an anti-pornography plank. I can’t find any mention of a war on prostitution or a war on cuss words in either. Like the Constitution Party, AHP has a states’ rights/sovereignty plank. Like the Constitution Party, AHP has a religious freedom plank:”

    Both the Constitution Party and the AHP are wrong on these issues. For those of you who claim to support small government and family values. What family value is more important than parental responsibility? Parents should teach and discipline their children to NOT watch porn (if they are Christian or find it sinful despite NOT being christian). As for Gambling, there is no specific mention in the Bible against gambling, only against the love of money above all else. Indeed, the Disciples casted lots of two or three occasions to make certain decisions. How do you reconcile small government with this nanny state attitude? This position thatthe government should watch over the parent’s shoulder?
    As for the CP, I am fully supportive of the elimination of the porn and gambling plank.

  21. SovereignMN Says:

    “I believe at one time this and Ellison’s election are the kinds of things the Constitution Party would have jumped all over. ”

    The CP did not support and never will support the candidacy of Keith Ellison. We just don’t believe in instituting a religious test for candidates to qualify for office. That is not constitutional.

  22. Cody Quirk Says:

    The AHP’s mission is: “The American Heritage Party exists to help reclaim America’s political institutions and culture for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.” This, of course, means trashing the Constitution. I don’t care how you read the establishment clause, this is simply incompatible with…anything remotely American . . .

    =This is perhaps the only good part of the article, even though it should’ve been better written, and the fella’s wrong about the Polygamy part.

  23. Cody Quirk Says:

    The only “theocracy” in which I believe is the one that already exists regardless of what man-made system is set up, namely that God (Theos) rules (kratia). Even our Founders believed that God rules and that our rights come from Him. That is the true, literal definition of theocracy. Only to that definition, I believe in the concept.

    =The Founding Fathers also believed in freedom of religion and the right for man to worship God in any way shap or form. They never tried to impose religion the way the Puritans did in Salem.

    =They specifically believed that through God, did we have our rights and freedoms, and created a Constitution that allows no religious tests and preserves freedom of worship.

  24. Cody Quirk Says:

    Do you find this plank substantially inferior to the Constitution Party’s religious freedom plank?

    =Uhmm, the CP prohibits religious tests in its Preamble, the AHP does not.

  25. Cody Quirk Says:

    Yes, God’s rule is realized in the church, but as Christians we believe that Jesus Christ is sovereign over all of life, state and family as well as the church. That means that that only those who are believers, i.e., stand in covenant with God through faith, should be considered for the office of magistrate.

    =Another reason why I’m glad you’re not in the CP anymore.

  26. Anthony Distler Says:

    Someone should go to my myspace, http://www.myspace.com/centurion1

    Watch the video from The West Wing. Jeb Bartlet lays out the Bible pretty good.

  27. Trent Hill Says:

    ““I believe at one time this and Ellison’s election are the kinds of things the Constitution Party would have jumped all over. ”

    Ellison is as unimportant as Feinstein.
    In fact, in the main aspect that matters, he is les threatening. He isn’t as socialist.

  28. Joe Says:

    Trent,

    My point is that you jumped all over AHP for their support of the drug war and opposition to gambling when they have no such positions (at least that I can find) while your own party does. And “anti-cuss word” and “anti-prostitution” were thrown in with no reference to the party’s actual platform. Likewise, Bing attacked AHP for being contrary to religious freedom, when their platform actually advocates religious freedom.

    Ben, I am aware of article 6, but what we are talking about is not prohibiting Keith Ellison from serving once elected, but taking a stand that Christians should not vote for Muslims and other non-Christians. Have we become so pluralist that we don’t dare speak out against such abomination? or a Hindu prayer being allowed in the senate chamber while Christians are arrested for praying in Jesus’ name in the senate chamber?

    Anthony, I have seen that clip and I would advise against taking political and/or religious advice from Martin Sheen, even if he plays a president on TV. In my opinion, the author of that television character’s words is either anti-Christ or not terribly mature in his Christian walk. What is lamentable is how influential such television shows are in America. There is probably a connection between what Americans watch on the boob tube and the fact that so few Americans, even among self-identified Christians, seem to have any problem with voting for a Muslim for Congress or allowing a Hindu prayer on the floor of the senate.

  29. Joe Says:

    Trent,

    What makes you think Feinstein is unimportant? I don’t consider any member of Congress to be unimportant, especially a senator from one of America’s largest states. It is also important when a newly elected Congressman takes his oath of office on the Koran. Do you also consider it unimportant that Christians were arrested in the senate chamber for praying in Jesus’ name while a Hindu prayer is allowed? Did you consider it unimportant when the Constitution Party defended Judge Roy Moore’s display of the Ten Commandments?

  30. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Perhaps the Theocrats out there should understand that when Jefferson first used the “seperation of church and state” phrase in his letter to the Danbury Baptists he was using it as a metaphor that the state should not be linked with the church, in order to protect the church from control.

    People who want to link government and church, whichever way they do it, are a threat to freedom.

    Vote according to policy, not religious convictions.

  31. Anthony Distler Says:

    The fact that Trent Hill is looking like a moderate right now is REALLY making my head hurt.

    Where is G.E. Smith when you need him?

  32. Trent Hill Says:

    “My point is that you jumped all over AHP for their support of the drug war and opposition to gambling when they have no such positions”

    The AHP and CP are both consistently stating that they are pro-drug war, anti-prostitution, anti-porn, anti-gambling. Particularly the AHP. Their platform doesn’t need to say it, their leaders do.
    As for this part:

    “but taking a stand that Christians should not vote for Muslims and other non-Christians.”

    Why? Feinstein, Bush, and Clinton all profess Christianity. All have done a shabby job. But then again, Paul is a christian and does a great job. So it probably has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH RELIGION!
    Also, you probably consider Mormons to be non-christian. But I think Jeff Flake is probably one of the best 3 congressmen in the United States. That blows your theory up.
    Oh, and how about this? Keith Ellison took his oath of office on a Koran…THOMAS JEFFERSON’S koran. Hard to ignore huh?

    “Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., took her oath in 2005 on a Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, she borrowed from Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., after learning a few hours before that the speaker of the House didn’t have any Jewish holy books.”
    http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=12096
    Where was the controversy then?

    “Hawaii Gov.
    Linda Lingle used the Tanakh when she took her oath in 2002, while Madeleine Kunin placed her hand on Jewish prayer books when she was sworn in as the first female governor of Vermont in 1985.”

    “In 1825, John Quincy Adams took the presidential oath using a law volume instead of a Bible”

    “Theodore Roosevelt used no Bible in taking his first oath of office in 1901, but did in 1905.”

    Now, if John Quincy Adams didn’t swear on a Bible in 1825—why do you think its a problem now?

  33. Joe Says:

    Trent,

    Again, can you provide any evidence that AHP leaders have stated that they are pro drug war? I’m not saying it isn’ possible, but I have read much of their material and listened to Dan Eby’s interview with John Lofton, as well as spoken on several occassions with Dan and other AHP leaders and not once do I recall any mention of the drug war, nor for that matter of prostitution or gambling. Pornography is in their platform, just as it is in the Constitution Party platform. The drug war is in the Constitution Partty’s platform. Can you name one AHP leader who has advocated the war on drugs and document when and what they said?

    Likewise, can you document that Feinstein professes Christianity? According to what I have read about her and heard from her she is Jewish. Again, I admit that I may be wrong about this, but you are making a lot of assertions with facts not in evidence.

    I’m not crazy about John Quincy Adams taking his oath of office on a law book either, nor about Scultz taking her oath of office on the Hebrew Bible. Two, three, or four wrongs don’t make a right. To my knowledge John Quincy Adams and Teddy Roosevelt were professing Christians. The same can not be said for Ellison. As I already stated, professing Christianity is not the end point, just the beginning. What I am looking for are candidates that meet the biblical qualifications for civil magistrate. What appeals to me about Ron Paulis his confession of faith and the more his confession is exhibited by his record, the more likely I am to vote for him. I would not vote for Ellison or Feinstein.

  34. Joe Says:

    Jeff, I do not want to link government and church. What I am saying is that we are required to be obedient to Christ in everything we do, including voting. That means I am not allowed to vote for a non-Christian. To say that civil rulers are enjoined to learn Christ’s law, and acknowledge and obey Him as King, is not the same as requiring ecclesiastical qualifications and duties of civil officers.

  35. Trent Hill Says:

    “Likewise, can you document that Feinstein professes Christianity? According to what I have read about her and heard from her she is Jewish. Again, I admit that I may be wrong about this, but you are making a lot of assertions with facts not in evidence.

    I’m not crazy about John Quincy Adams taking his oath of office on a law book either, nor about Scultz taking her oath of office on the Hebrew Bible. Two, three, or four wrongs don’t make a right. ”

    I think I slipped up on Feinstein. No matter, I proved my point. Many Christian politicians suck. I can think of a few non-religious ones that suck less. I can think of at least a handful of statesmen who were non-religious or other-religious whom are admired the world-round.
    As for John Quincy Adams, here is my point. The founding fathers did not believe in your civil magistrate mumbo jumbo. I believe a number of founding fathers were alive at the time when Adams was sworn in, and voiced no concerns.
    As for Schultz being sworn in on the Tanakh, why should it bother you? She swore to what is most important to her to uphold the Constitution.

  36. matt Says:

    What appeals to me about Ron Paulis his confession of faith and the more his confession is exhibited by his record, the more likely I am to vote for him.

    Ron Paul’s confession of Christianity appeals to me too, but even if he were not a believer, he would already have shown more knowledge of God’s laws regarding human interaction than either of the last two presidents, both of who were confessing believers.

  37. Joe Says:

    Trent,

    I think it is a mistake to generalize too broadly about what the Founding Fathers believed. They differed with each other and with themselves over time. And don’t forget the “Founding Fathers” included the founders of that Massachusetts Bay Colony that you apparently despise so much. But for those of us who are Christians, the standard is not what is admired the world-round nor even what the Founding Fathers believed. Our standard is what does God command?

    Schultz being sworn in on the Tanakh bothers me precisely because presumably it IS the most important to her.

    Matt, doesn’t knowledge of (adherence to) God’s laws identify someone as a believer? Like I said, I am not interested in a mere confession of faith. That is just the starting point. I did not vote for either President Clinton nor President Bush. What I am looking for are men who honor and reverence God and His Word i.e., stand in covenant with God through faith.

  38. Trent Hill Says:

    “And don’t forget the “Founding Fathers” included the founders of that Massachusetts Bay Colony that you apparently despise so much.”
    ummmm,no. No one thinks of John Cotton, Thomas Hooker, and Thomas Dudley.

  39. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Trent Hill says:
    Small government? You want the federal government to continue fighting the War on Drugs, but also pick up a few others. The War on Porn. The War on Prostitution. The War on Cuss Words. The War on States’ Rights. The War on Gambling.

    Trent Hill must be referring to a completely different person. I have never advocated any “war on drugs.”
    Moreover, I have never advocated any federal “war” on anything else, for that matter, including, but not limited to, a make-believe “war on porn, war on prostitution, war on cuss words, and war on states’ rights.”

    I have no problem discussing political issues and sharing my beliefs with people on this forum, but to have someone like Trent Hill publicly attribute viewpoints to me that I have never held and have never advocated, is unfortunate, and even dishonest.

  40. Cody Quirk Says:

    I have no problem discussing political issues and sharing my beliefs with people on this forum, but to have someone like Trent Hill publicly attribute viewpoints to me that I have never held and have never advocated, is unfortunate, and even dishonest.

    =As dishonest like your knowledge of the LDS Church and the IAP.

    LDS Temple in Murrieta?! Give me a break!

    LOL!

  41. Cody Quirk Says:

    “Small government? You want the federal government to continue fighting the War on Drugs, but also pick up a few others. The War on Porn. The War on Prostitution. The War on Cuss Words. The War on States’ Rights. The War on Gambling. You envision a government where professing to be Islamic in Congress is grounds for being kicked out or railed against. You wish to run a country based on your interpretation of a religion. This has been tried, it’s called Iran. It’s called The Massachussetts Bay Colony. It’s called Deseret. It’s called Mahdist Sudan. Whatever it’s called, I’d rise in arms before I allowed it to happen here.”

    =I think what Trent is saying here isn’t in basic terms of black & white, unlike some people here. But rather the attitude of people like Joe, Reed, and especially members of the AHP. Apparently reading parts of the AHP Principles page and the Program guide page of the AHP’s website.

    “...We have adopted an expressly Christian worldview. From the Bible we have drawn the principles that govern our work—equipping Christians as statesmen, and mobilizing them to advance the Christian solution in a nation that has turned away from her Christian faith.

    Understanding that the forces of unbelief and pluralism have labored diligently to divorce America from her Christian heritage and God’s law, and grieving that America has rejected the Lordship of Christ, we rise to declare that Almighty God is the source of all power and authority in civil government, that Christ is the Ruler of the nations and that the Bible as the revealed will of God is the final authority in civil government. This is the foundation of the Christian solution.”

    http://www.americanheritageparty.org/scsprog.htm

    =Sounds to me that the AHP wants to go way, WAY beyond simply restoring our nation back to being a simple Constitutional Republic. Since this view here contredicts the Constitution and this-

    “Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

    “We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”

    -Thomas Jefferson

    “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”

    -George Washington

    “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature…. [In] the formation of the American governments … it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven…”

    -John Adams

    “We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth “that religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and that it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.”

    -James Madison

    =Need they say more?

  42. Cody Quirk Says:

    Sorry, I’m half asleep here folks, I work long hours…

    =I think what Trent is saying here isn’t in basic terms of black & white, unlike some people here. But rather on the attitude of people like Joe, Reed, and especially members of, and the AHP itself, that takes morality and beliefs to a, somewhat, fascistic level. Apparently reading parts of the AHP Principles page and the Program guide page of the AHP’s website-...

    Ok, that’s what I meant to say in this paragraph.

  43. Joe Says:

    Trent, yes, when people use the phrase Founding Fathers I think of people like John Cotton, Thomas Hooker, Thomas Dudley, John Winthrop, and William Bradford, among others. It is absurd to suggest otherwise.

  44. Anthony Distler Says:

    The Purtins aren’t part of the Founding Fathers. They were British colonists. If you’re saying anyone who settled in America are Founding Fathers then obviously Lief Erikkson is a Founding Father, too.

  45. Bing McGhandi Says:

    Someone needs to pull their head out of their left behind.

    “On September 11, 2007, three gentle Christians will be going on trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for praying in Jesus’ name in the chambers of the United States Senate on July 12, 2007. Ante and Kathy Pavkovic, and their daughter Christan, stood boldly for Jesus when they realized that the Senate was to be opened in prayer by Hindu clergyman Rajan Zed. Judge Roy Moore reportedly will be defending them in court.”

    You know, if they were going to jail for “praying in Jesus’ name”, I’d agree with you, but these people were the only ones in the chamber who weren’t praying, but who were disrupting the official prayer (which shouldn’t have taken place anyway—but if you are going to allow prayer, you have to allow everyone’s prayers).

    Seriously. They were being disorderly.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9To30Hz7A

    See? Disorderly. That’s not legal and that is what they are being charged with. Luckily, there is tape of this, and a Senate full of Senators who would testify that they witnessed them being disorderly. You should have seen how this was carried in the Indian press! Oh, it was harsh. Soon we’ll be able to outsource our hate too, and you’ll be out of a job.

    To those of you who like to re-create the Founding Fathers in your own image and likeness, I offer the following selection of quotations from Thomas Jefferson that I found at jesus-is-savior.com:

    “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.”

    “History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. ” – Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

    “I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.” –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

    “Christianity…(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.”

    “The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.”

    “The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves…these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.”

    “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.” –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

    “Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.”

    “I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.”

    “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

    Are you going to call Thomas Jefferson anti-American? Because that’s goofy.

    HJ

  46. Bing McGhandi Says:

    When I take my oath of office as Uberfuhrer for life, I am going to be sworn in on a stack of yellow pages. At least then we’ll know who my allegiance is to and that the people i represent exist.

    HJ

  47. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear Gentlemen,

    The only assurance for the liberty, peace, wealth, and prosperity of a nation is Biblical law… Jesus Christ is King of the nations, and this includes America. We had best “kiss the Son” (see Psalm 2) by submission to His rule before his wrath falls upon America.

    God’s Law overrules man’s law, including the Constitution.

    Praise the LORD for Reed’s article getting so much attention

  48. Angela Wittman Says:

    PS

    If you want to know more about God’s law and how it relates to civil government, please contact me at: info@larrykilgore.com. I am serving as Larry Kilgore’s media coordinator. Mr. Kilgore is a Christian Statesman who believes in Biblical Law and he is a candidate for the US Senate in Texas.

    Thank you.

  49. Don Lake Says:

    The escense of Enfranchisement: free will, free will, free will!

  50. bing McGhandi Says:

    “Praise the LORD for Reed’s article getting so much attention.”

    If Reed is the best spokesman god has, we are going to be boogying down at the Atheist Disco tonight!

    “Burn, baby, Burn—it’s a disco inferno!”

    Yay!

    HJ

  51. Anthony Distler Says:

    I like you, Bing. You’re an awesome edition here.

  52. Joe Says:

    Bing,

    I saw the video before. I just watched it again and, the title of the page aside (Christian extremists disrupt Hindu Senate invocation.) I saw nothing disruptive. Did you see anyone lay a hand on the Hindu? All I heard was words, a Christian prayer – you know, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and all that? Why is it perfectly fine for a Hindu to pray in the senate chamber, but unlawful for a Christian. Why does free speech in America apply to Hindus but not Christians. I hope these Christians will be vindicated by a jury of their peers with Judge Roy Moore’s help.

  53. Joe Says:

    Anthony,

    Of course Leif Ericson is a Founding Father. On September 2, 1964, the Congress of the United States of America, by joint resolution authorized and requested the president to honor the Christian explorer by proclaiming October 9 of each year as “Leif Ericson Day”. To my knowledge, every president since then has done so.

  54. Yosemite1967 Says:

    Trent, I don’t agree with everything that Reed stands for, but as he said, you really need to let people explain their own beliefs, rather than telling them what they believe (and often getting it wrong and extremifying their position into a straw man that’s easier for you to knock down).

  55. Yosemite1967 Says:

    Bing, the folks on that YouTube video were definitely out-of-order. The ends don’t justify the means.

    However, the fact that so many government officials are trying so hard to take away Christians’ rights to pray in public while allowing non-Christians more leway is a sickening commentary on our nation’s state of affairs. I say, “Let them worship how, where, or what they may.” But nowadays, the government’s actions often appear to be saying, “Let them worship how, where, or what they may, unless they’re Christians.”.

  56. Yosemite1967 Says:

    Angela said, “God’s Law overrules man’s law, including the Constitution.”

    I agree. And I would further submit that man is not ready for His law, in its fullest, and that He gave us the Constitution, in these last days, as a preparator for His higher law, which will be ushered in by Christ Himself, when He returns to begin His millenial reign of peace.

    The founders, on numerous occassions, proclaimed that the Constitution was plainly a product of Providence. After making myself familiar with its beautiful simplicity, I too am convinced of this. Nowadays, man is far from even being ready for the Constitution any more, but he soon will be, though not by any act of his own. ;^)

  57. Trent Hill Says:

    Reed,

    If you can honerstly say you advocate no war on drugs, no war on prostitution, no war on gambling. Fine, I will retract my statement.
    But, if you want to abolish gambling, prostitution, or drugs—I wont.

    However, as a matter of logistics: I will apologize for specifically crediting these “Wars” to you. I should have attributed them to the Theocratic movement in general, of which you are a part of.

    “Trent, yes, when people use the phrase Founding Fathers I think of people like John Cotton, Thomas Hooker, Thomas Dudley, John Winthrop, and William Bradford, among others. It is absurd to suggest otherwise.”

    Then you are incredibly misinformed.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States
    http://www.colonialhall.com/biography.php
    http://www.americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/FATHERS.HTM

    John Cotton, Thomas Hooker, Thomas Dudley, John Winthrop, and William Bradford were THEOCRATIC ENGLISHMEN. Not American Founding Fathers. Sorry. Ask ANY historian of repute and he’ll tell you the same.
    Furthermore, these men were mostly socialists. They all worked in a Puritan Commune whereby you worked for “your fellow man” and capitalism was all but despised.

  58. Trent Hill Says:

    “Anthony,

    Of course Leif Ericson is a Founding Father. On September 2, 1964, the Congress of the United States of America, by joint resolution authorized and requested the president to honor the Christian explorer by proclaiming October 9 of each year as “Leif Ericson Day”. To my knowledge, every president since then has done so.”

    Wow. Just…..just wow.

    “Trent, I don’t agree with everything that Reed stands for, but as he said, you really need to let people explain their own beliefs, rather than telling them what they believe (and often getting it wrong and extremifying their position into a straw man that’s easier for you to knock down).”

    Extremifying? Let’s stick to words in the dictionary Shakespeare.
    To my knowledge, Reed DOES stand for those things. However, if he does not, then I admit my wrongdoing.
    However, in no way do his beliefs warrant “extremifying” as they are already radically stupid in their own right. Reed is the Ahmadinejad of the Christian Right.
    Reed subjects himself to a higher authority, and that is fine. So do I. I’d say my authority and his are definetly different though. And certainly an athiests’ definition of that higher authority would not be even slightly similar. Why should he be subject to what REED interprets as God’s law?
    God’s law is for him alone to enforce. He doesn’t need “help” from Reed.
    Don’t dirty up God’s name by mixing him with government.

  59. Joe Says:

    Trent,

    Would that include Millersville University Professor Dr. Francis J. Bremer, author of “John Winthrop: America’s Forgotten Founding Father?”

  60. Trent Hill Says:

    Joe,

    See that question mark at the end? That means it ISNT a widefully accepted fact.

  61. Don Lake Says:

    Anti-proselytizing advocate tapped for award

    Staff report Posted : Thursday Aug 2, 2007 5:52:20 EDT

    Mikey Weinstein, the Air Force Academy graduate and former White House attorney leading efforts to end proselytizing in the military, has been nominated for a John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.

    Irene Proctor, a spokeswoman for Weinstein, said Wednesday that she did not know who nominated Weinstein for the award, but that “they have accepted the nomination.”

    The Profile in Courage Award is administered by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation in Boston. A bipartisan committee appointed by the foundation reviews all nominations and selects the award recipients, according to the JFK library’s Web site.

    The award is presented each May at Kennedy library and museum in Boston. The event coincides with Kennedy’s May 29 birth date, according to the site.

  62. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Honestly, you could go through what theocrats on this blog have stated, replaced “God” with “Allah” and “Christianity” with “Islam” and the theocrats on this board would sound like Osama bin Laden.

  63. Joe Says:

    Trent,

    The question mark is not in the title of the book. It was added by me – my question to you.

    Don,

    I’m not familiar with Weinstein, but somehow it sounds about right that someone like that would win a Kennedy award.

    Jeff,

    Only if you think there’s no difference between Islam and Christianity.

  64. matt Says:

    One of the differences between Islam and Biblical Christianity is that the latter doesn’t use the state as a tool to enforce it’s agenda. It’s been refusing this temptation ever since Jesus ran and hid from the people who were trying to crown Him king of Israel (see John 6:15).

  65. Trent Hill Says:

    Joe,

    Either way. One book doesn’t “prove” that some puritan is a founding father. There are HUNDREDS of books who talk about the Founding Fathers, outlining who they are, what they did, and their families. None of them mention the Puritans.

    There IS no difference between wanting to run the government under Islamic theocrats or Christian theocrats. Both are oppressive.

    Matt,well put as usual.

  66. Fred C. Says:

    I for one think those protestants had the right to pray loudly during the Hindu prayer – A free society would allow citizens to yell at their elected leaders from the balcony over any issue.

  67. Anthony Distler Says:

    Why do they pray before the start of session anymore, anyway? Does it really prove anything?

  68. Bing McGhandi Says:

    “I for one think those protestants had the right to pray loudly during the Hindu prayer – A free society would allow citizens to yell at their elected leaders from the balcony over any issue.”

    Fred, that’s what we call anarchy.

    If that’s the case, is it alright if i go into your church and start preaching about evolution? Loudly. Freely expressing myself with my pink bits dangling out to illustrate the principles of sexual selection? Alright! Free country! Free expression! Go ahead, Jesustanis! Disrupt the functioning of MY government, and I will be happy to give you a lesson in fair and equal treatment.

    Perhaps Mr. Kilgore would be interested in my online petition to allow the South to secede? (Link from my website.)

    HJ

  69. Joe Says:

    It’s not called anarchy. It’s called freedom. A church is private property, but in my experience most churches welcome all comers. The Senate chambers are public property. You don’t have a right to break into my home with your preaching, but in America you ought to have the right to speak on a public sidewalk, as long as you don’t hurt anybody and all these Christians used is their words. Like I said, I hope these Christians are vindicated, but if you are proven right it will be a sad day for America.

  70. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Joe: “but in my experience most churches welcome all comers”

    They wouldn’t welcome you if you came into the church and loudly started disrupting the service.

    Joe: “The Senate chambers are public property. You don’t have a right to break into my home with your preaching, but in America you ought to have the right to speak on a public sidewalk, as long as you don’t hurt anybody and all these Christians used is their words.”

    The chamber of the Senate if completely different from a public sidewalk. Only a fool would think otherwise.

    The fact is that they broke the law, and should be held responsible for that, whether you like the law or not.

    The fact that a Christian would be so closed minded as to disrupt a symbolic Hindu prayer is beyond me.

  71. Joe Says:

    Every church I am familiar with I think would. Have you ever known a congregation to call the cops on a visitor? I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I haven’t. Most churches I’ve been too would probably pray for an intruder. If he started shooting, it might be another story. But just words?

    How is the senate chamber different from a public sidewalk? I have witnessed people arrested for praying on a public sidewalk. They’ve been charged with a crime, but they have not been convicted of a crime yet. Like I said, I really hope they are aquitted. I think they deserve a profile in courage award, not jail time or a fine. I wept for my country when I first saw what happened on the floor of the senate chamber.

  72. Bing McGhandi Says:

    Complete codswallop. There are rules, procedures, decorum and dignity in the Senate. I agree with Jeff here. I will go one step further and ask you to stop bitching. I’d have been arrested for doing the evolution thing there too.

    And they were not yelling at the senators; they were harassing the praying guy, totally voiding their bowels on a defining moment in his life. I have nothing but contempt for them.

    HJ

  73. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Joe: “Every church I am familiar with I think would. Have you ever known a congregation to call the cops on a visitor? I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I haven’t. Most churches I’ve been too would probably pray for an intruder. If he started shooting, it might be another story. But just words?”

    Joe, come on man. You sound like a smart guy. However, not many churches would allow you to walk in screaming about Buddhism during the Pastor’s sermon.

    Joe: “How is the senate chamber different from a public sidewalk? I have witnessed people arrested for praying on a public sidewalk. They’ve been charged with a crime, but they have not been convicted of a crime yet. Like I said, I really hope they are aquitted. I think they deserve a profile in courage award, not jail time or a fine. I wept for my country when I first saw what happened on the floor of the senate chamber.”

    Because the Senate chamber has rules that need to be respected. Work cannot get done with anarchy in our nation’s legislative chamber.

  74. Joe Says:

    Voiding their bowels? Is that among the charges? I watched the video. No harassment, no violence. Just words. A Christian prayer. Why does he get to pray to his gods but not them?

  75. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Joe: “Why does he get to pray to his gods but not them?”

    Because he is a guest chaplain and they are disrupting the proceedings of the Senate.

    Have you ever been in the visitors gallery in the Senate? You can barely whisper, let alone scream.

  76. Joe Says:

    Jeff,

    I know you keep saying that, but I don’t agree at all. Do you have evidence of churches having people arrested for interrupting a sermon? I confess that I have never witnessed anyone try it. I am basing my opinion to the congregants I have known. I can imagine some possible responses, but calling the police is not even remotely one of them, unless the individual was physically attacking people in the church. I hope most churches would try to handle it the way Jesus would. I really wouldn’t expect that from the United States senate, but I am hopeful that a jury will compensate for their overzealousness. We aren’t talking about anarchy here. we are just talking about words – a prayer. No harrassment, no violence, just words.

  77. Joe Says:

    Yes, I have been there. A jury will decide whether you are right or not. I really hope they don’t agree with you.

  78. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Joe,

    Then, if I walked into your church on Sunday morning and loudly started a Hindu prayer, you wouldn’t want the cops called on me if I refused to leave?

  79. Joe Says:

    No Jeff, I would not. That’s what I have been saying. I wouldn’t encourage you to do that, but if you did so I certainly would not call the police on you. I believe our church would probably have a legal right to do so, since it isn’t public property, but I don’t think that would be the right way to handle it at all. If you were violent that might be another story. If you were arrested for trespassing, I think you ought to be entitled to your day in court just like these people.

  80. Bing McGhandi Says:

    Fine, you want to play idiot? That’s great. You are thicker than a concrete elephant.

    HJ

  81. Joe Says:

    Some of you may be interested in John Lofton’s interview of Ante Pavkovic’s who was arrested for praying in Jesus’ name in the senate chamber. http://www.theamericanview.com/ I just started listening to it but it begins with “first of all, we weren’t yelling at the Hindu priest. We were praying in Jesus’ name.” (my paraphrase)

  82. Bing McGhandi Says:

    Joe, you don’t get to have your own facts. They were arrested for being disruptive. And they did disrupt. Did you see the business of the Senate stalled? So they weren’t “arrested for praying in Jesus Herbert Walker Christ’s name.” The fact that they were dolling out a different brand of bullshit than was being shoveled from the podium is completely secondary to the facts. Admit it! Admit it!

    HJ

  83. Cody Quirk Says:

    This was stated in a private email, in which I later admitted erring.

    =Yet if you really knew about my Church, you would’ve said Chapel or simply ‘Church building’ instead. What you know about my faith isn’t even big enough to fit on a head of a pin.

  84. Cody Quirk Says:

    The only assurance for the liberty, peace, wealth, and prosperity of a nation is Biblical law… Jesus Christ is King of the nations, and this includes America. We had best “kiss the Son” (see Psalm 2) by submission to His rule before his wrath falls upon America.

    =We can only have a official Theocracy when He returns, until then, we don’t need another Salem, or another old-school European kingdom in America, we need the Government as it was meant to be- a Constitutional Republic!

    God’s Law overrules man’s law, including the Constitution.

    =The only problem is God’s law has been twisted and interpreted time and again, and I especially don’t want someone like you to be my Governor. Religious law is best left to the individual and the denominations until His return. After all, the Founding Fathers (the REAL ones), abhored religious tyranny and brought forth freedom of religion.

    Praise the LORD for Reed’s article getting so much attention

    =attention as in criticism!

  85. Cody Quirk Says:

    Have you ever known a congregation to call the cops on a visitor?

    =I recall that some time ago a bunch of crazies physically distrupted mass at a Catholic Church in Portland OR. and they had to call the cops.
    I believe Catholicresistance carried the story on his website.

  86. Cody Quirk Says:

    Jeff,

    Only if you think there’s no difference between Islam and Christianity.

    =Difference in belief and doctrine, yes. Difference in extreminism and their goals- no!

  87. Trent Hill Says:

    Oh,and they werent arrested for praying.
    They were arrested for disruption.
    Even if they had yelled, repeatedly, “WOO GO HINDUISM!”
    or “Shiva is the Shiznit!”
    or “We love Brahma!”

    They would have been disruptive,and therefor arrested.

  88. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear Bing,

    I visited your website and was quite offended by your immature ranting and raving about Mr. Kilgore, a mature man of God. I pray you will repent and ask God to forgive you for your rebellion against HIS LAW.

    Your problem is not with AHP, Reed Heustis or Larry Kilgore.

    Your problem is rebellion against God Almighty.

  89. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear Trent and Bing,

    Here is a link to actual the video of the Christian witness at the blasphemous Hindu prayer in the US Senate: http://www.christianlibertyparty.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=40&func=fileinfo&id=56

  90. hjhop.blogspot.com Says:

    No, my problem really is with Reed, Larry, and anything with the AHP streaked in its underwear. Never imagine otherwise, Angela.

    I think that it is despicable that so many people willingly abandon their conscience and substitute it with the accumulated folktales of a barbaric bronze-age tribe of nomads, or, in the case of children (who would believe in the flying spaghetti monster if you told them about it with a straight face), are coerced into it.

    HJ

  91. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear HJ,

    I sincerely apologize and ask forgiveness for my generation (the baby boomers) who allowed society to become so decadent that it has influenced you to hate all things Christian. I pray you and God will forgive us.

    Please be blessed: May Jesus Christ wash away your sins, fill your heart with the peace of forgiveness, and may He make you into a new creation who will become a trophy of His grace. Amen.

  92. Bing McGhandi Says:

    You know, I really do appreciate your kind thoughts. I don’t hate all things Christian. Some things are actually really nice, but I don’t think that you need Jesus to be nice to one another. Do unto others? You don’t need to be a Christian to know that. Every major world religion has come up with that somewhere in its sacred texts, and quite frankly, you really couldn’t have a society where there was not some reciprocation or empathy, where you see part of what you are in others. Of course, this is likely a relic of nomadic and tribal culture when anyone you were likely to meet as you scrounged the forest for, what do forest people eat? Termites? Anyway, anyone you were likely to meet was related to you. That is, they shared your genes. That is, your genes have, evolutionarily and metaphorically speaking, an “interest” in seeing their genes (which you share) protected and treated well. Of course, genes don’t think that, but we can surmise that one characteristic of a successful gene is one that tends to encourage mutual cooperation to between individuals carrying that gene to promote replication of the gene. Pretty neat stuff that evolution: elegant is the word. Of course, we are large costly animals to build from the genes up—anyone with a kid knows that—in terms of time and energy. So whereas cheap little disposable replicators like, I dunno, paramecia, might benefit their rapidly reproducing and mutating genes more by destroying one another, in fact, we seem to do pretty well when we cooperate. You know how a honey bee dies when it stings? Seems kind of stupid, doesn’t it, from an evolutionary point of view? Most people don’t seem to remember that the bee that stings you is already a genetic dead end—it is sterile, a worker, not a breeder. Therefore, in attacking you, we should not expect it to be the benefactor of its action because it will not pass on any benefit. Rather, we see that it is defending the breeders in the hive, with whom the worker bee shares its DNA. It is acting in benefit of its genes, not its fuzzy little machine carrying the genes around! And this is happening over and over throughout the world constantly, silently, involving every single replicator on the planet, on such a scale that those who penned the Bible could never have imagined. My world is much, much bigger than the world in the Bible. It is also far more fulfilling, and I suffer not a jot by it.

    HJ

  93. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear HJ,

    Where do you think people’s souls go when they die?

  94. Bing McGhandi Says:

    I do not think that we have souls. So, yeah, being dead is pretty much exactly like what it was before you were born (not “like” anything), and I don’t see that as anything to really be scared of. The dying process, yeah that can be scary (I’m thinking in terms of pain), but that too passes. Why do you think that you have a soul?

    HJ

  95. Free Says:

    Horny cam girls, free live video chat

  96. Free Says:

    Come chat with sexy cam girls

  97. Angela Wittman Says:

    Dear HJ,

    Do you see the disgusting spam remarks by Free below your last post? This is what your rantings and ravings on your blog about Larry Kilgore look like. I suggest you get on your knees to ask God’s forgiveness and then write Mr. Kilgore a PUBLIC apology.

    Your anonymous internet antics are those of a juvenile delinquent. I see no more need to communicate with you, and if either of my sons were to ever act like you, I would disown them in a heartbeat…

  98. Bing McGhandi Says:

    Wow, you are messed up. You would disown them for what they said? Nice mom. You should get on your knees and beg your sons’ forgiveness for that.

    I suggest that Kilgore can lick me. Most Frenchmen are better Americans than Kilgore is.

    HJ

  99. fraser Says:

    “I would disown them in a heartbeat…”

    how… positively christian of you.

  100. Josh in California Says:

    Hatchet job? No shit! Accurate representations of extremist ideologies tend to be unflattering. “Imagine a political party that wants to turn the social and intellectual clock back thousands of years!” I wish these guys would make nice with the radical muslims, move to the middle east, and leave the rest of us alone. That’s not as unlikely as it sounds. They love oppressing the same kinds of people: women, homosexuals, infidels, intellectuals, etc.

  101. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Josh from California says:
    I wish these guys would make nice with the radical muslims, move to the middle east, and leave the rest of us alone.

    Now that’s a nice, tolerant approach!

    For the record, not one member of the American Heritage Party advocates that any fellow American citizen leave the nation simply for a disagreement.

    Therefore, it is very ironic when folks label certain Christians as intolerant bigots, while at the same time advocating that they leave the country.

    Nice example of tolerance demonstrated from Josh from California.

Leave a Reply