An Open Letter To America's Christians

An Open Letter To America's Christians

There are 132 comments on the www.chuckbaldwinlive.com story from Dec 4, 2009, titled An Open Letter To America's Christians. In it, www.chuckbaldwinlive.com reports that:

I was led to Christ at the tender age of 5 while sitting on my mother's lap. I was raised in a devout, churchgoing Christian home.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.chuckbaldwinlive.com.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
SATAN

United States

#1 Dec 4, 2009
Christians can goto hell
Ooglor 7

Elyria, OH

#2 Dec 5, 2009
Dear Christians,

Why did you ruin our country? Just wondering.

Love Ooglor 7
Light Sensitive

Mount Vernon, NY

#3 Dec 5, 2009
yeah thats great, he made a life decision at age 5...? and somehow thats to be taken seriously?

I thought I could run faster than my dad at 5,(cause he let me win...)

how come we dont allow 5 yo's to join the military, vote, run large corporations, MARRY his mommy, or his siter (oops someplaces that seems to be an okay trend) but this guy makes a life decision at 5 and xtians all applaud.

unbelievable, just like their god.
Light Sensitive

Mount Vernon, NY

#4 Dec 5, 2009
meant - sister and/or sitter...
Light Sensitive

Mount Vernon, NY

#5 Dec 5, 2009
from this letter - "admit it: today's Christians, for the most part, are operating in a vacuum of truth and understanding. Without a firm grasp of necessary truth, how can we know what to do, who to believe, or how to act?"

vacuum...? religion is all this guy knows...talk about operating and viewing life in a vacuum. its worse - his vacuum doesnt even a window to look out from.

has this guy ever viewed anything from a non-religious perspective...? without some religious spin on it that was handed to him from some alleged better learned (re;propagandist) person...?

not for notiing but Id rather take life lessons form a born again convicted felon who has lived a life and not some guy who has been cocooned in pedantic religious xtian thought...I wouldnt let this guy teach my dogs how to bark...

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#6 Dec 5, 2009
Wow, this letter is a riot.

"Um, gee peeps, I realize we don't know WTF is really going in the world nor do we realize if we've hijacked the United State's Constitution but it's OK if we continue to ruin this country, continue to make the world hate America and continue to damn and discriminate against anyone we want. Oh yeah, yadda yadda yadda..."
uh oh

Brevard, NC

#7 Dec 5, 2009
Chuck Baldwin is just about right. Many Christians don't know history, and many are unable to detect phony politicians when they talk religion(Clinton, Bush, obama).

However, that does not mean that the worldview of McMike, or Light Sensitive, or B. Hussein Obama is a viable alternative. Those unbelievers have a religion that is opposed to Biblical Christianity. They are God's enemies, even if they try to pass themselves off as "Christians".

Since: Dec 07

Atlanta

#8 Dec 5, 2009
Well that was amusing, if not a little deceptive. It seems that Chuck Baldwin is while chiding christians for being loyal to the GOP (for good reason) he's really pimping a dominionist agenda. Just a quick google search of his recommended pastors turns up some of the most anti-american beliefs. Hell Daniel New on his site promotes a property qualification to vote (poll taxes, and baring of certain undesirables to vote). It seems that for Chuck Baldwin who uses the word "freedom" 10 time in his article, "freedom" means an oligarchical government that can use the law to force others people to practice his religion. What a douche!
uh oh

Brevard, NC

#9 Dec 5, 2009
The_Captain wrote:
Well that was amusing, if not a little deceptive. It seems that Chuck Baldwin is while chiding christians for being loyal to the GOP (for good reason) he's really pimping a dominionist agenda. Just a quick google search of his recommended pastors turns up some of the most anti-american beliefs. Hell Daniel New on his site promotes a property qualification to vote (poll taxes, and baring of certain undesirables to vote). It seems that for Chuck Baldwin who uses the word "freedom" 10 time in his article, "freedom" means an oligarchical government that can use the law to force others people to practice his religion. What a douche!
I'm wondering how it would be possible to "use the law to force others people to practice his religion", while pulling the government back to its constitutional limits. Unless you think that in the first 150 years or so of American history, the USA was a theocracy, and can prove that, I think a strong case can be made that you are either nuts, or, YOU ARE LYING!

Since: Dec 07

Atlanta

#10 Dec 5, 2009
uh oh wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm wondering how it would be possible to "use the law to force others people to practice his religion", while pulling the government back to its constitutional limits. Unless you think that in the first 150 years or so of American history, the USA was a theocracy, and can prove that, I think a strong case can be made that you are either nuts, or, YOU ARE LYING!
Well for starters on Baldwins own web page he has an article (written May 19, 2009 “The U.S. Government Has Become Patently Anti-Christian”) he makes the claim that “the federal government has no right to interfere with the free expression of religion (by individuals or States) in any shape, manner, or form.” Thus it is Baldwins belief that a “sate” can express religion, or make laws regarding a religion, just that the federal government can not stop it from doing so. He then goes on to decrey federal court ruling that prohibit state schools from “prohibit prayers or Bible reading”. Now since ther is no law… and I mean NO law banning a chritian kid from either praying, or reading his bible, then Baldwin must be disscusion school lead prayer, and bible studies. And after reading some of his oter articles, he definalty is talking about school lead prayer (the 62-63 court rualings are a target of his) Well if a state school is mandating prayers, or bible studies for all it’s students, that IS using the law to force other peoples kids to practice his religion, he just doesn’t care if it happens at a state level.

He also states in a different article “If I where president” he would pressure congress to pass a law decalring “unborn babies are persons under the law” thus overturning Roe V Wade. Now iunless he has a secular reason, and argument for why a fetus should be declared a “person” under the law, he is just using the law to force other people pracitice his one specific religion. A specific religion that states that a fetus is a person, but not a religion held by most people and one he would use the law to enforce.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#11 Dec 5, 2009
uh oh wrote:
Chuck Baldwin is just about right. Many Christians don't know history, and many are unable to detect phony politicians when they talk religion(Clinton, Bush, obama).
However, that does not mean that the worldview of McMike, or Light Sensitive, or B. Hussein Obama is a viable alternative. Those unbelievers have a religion that is opposed to Biblical Christianity. They are God's enemies, even if they try to pass themselves off as "Christians".
Our worldview is based on verifiable facts. We no longer have to take whatever translation you feel like pushing on us when the original text is only .002 seconds or less away.

Since: Dec 07

Atlanta

#12 Dec 5, 2009
uh oh wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm wondering how it would be possible to "use the law to force others people to practice his religion", while pulling the government back to its constitutional limits. Unless you think that in the first 150 years or so of American history, the USA was a theocracy, and can prove that, I think a strong case can be made that you are either nuts, or, YOU ARE LYING!
He also declared in his acceptance speech for the constitutional party’s VP nomination that he believes that homosexuals should not be allowed to hold “high positions of trust”, and the law should reflect that. Now since his beliefs on homosexuals come only from his religious views, we have another example of him using the law to force others to follow his one specific religion.
uh oh

Brevard, NC

#13 Dec 5, 2009
The_Captain wrote:
<quoted text>
Well for starters on Baldwins own web page he has an article (written May 19, 2009 “The U.S. Government Has Become Patently Anti-Christian”) he makes the claim that “the federal government has no right to interfere with the free expression of religion (by individuals or States) in any shape, manner, or form.” Thus it is Baldwins belief that a “sate” can express religion, or make laws regarding a religion, just that the federal government can not stop it from doing so. He then goes on to decrey federal court ruling that prohibit state schools from “prohibit prayers or Bible reading”. Now since ther is no law… and I mean NO law banning a chritian kid from either praying, or reading his bible, then Baldwin must be disscusion school lead prayer, and bible studies. And after reading some of his oter articles, he definalty is talking about school lead prayer (the 62-63 court rualings are a target of his) Well if a state school is mandating prayers, or bible studies for all it’s students, that IS using the law to force other peoples kids to practice his religion, he just doesn’t care if it happens at a state level.
He also states in a different article “If I where president” he would pressure congress to pass a law decalring “unborn babies are persons under the law” thus overturning Roe V Wade. Now iunless he has a secular reason, and argument for why a fetus should be declared a “person” under the law, he is just using the law to force other people pracitice his one specific religion. A specific religion that states that a fetus is a person, but not a religion held by most people and one he would use the law to enforce.
Unlike you, and also unlike some judges, Baldwin knows what the U.S. Constitution actually says. The decisions of wicked, God-hating, America-hating judges over the last 50 years have perverted the USA and turned the country into something entirely foreign to those of us who have some morality and who understand the Constitution does NOT say what those evil judges claim it says.

The America of 2009 is a pathetic shadow of what it once was. A much worse nation than what we had in 1960. Some of us view that as a tragedy. Sadly, it is a situation that probably cannot be reversed, and the nation is reaping what we have sown.

Since: Dec 07

Atlanta

#14 Dec 5, 2009
uh oh wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike you, and also unlike some judges, Baldwin knows what the U.S. Constitution actually says. The decisions of wicked, God-hating, America-hating judges over the last 50 years have perverted the USA and turned the country into something entirely foreign to those of us who have some morality and who understand the Constitution does NOT say what those evil judges claim it says.
The America of 2009 is a pathetic shadow of what it once was. A much worse nation than what we had in 1960. Some of us view that as a tragedy. Sadly, it is a situation that probably cannot be reversed, and the nation is reaping what we have sown.
Oh so when it comes down to it, your also in favor of using the law to force others to follow (or in the case of school prayer, practice) your religion.

Oh and in 1960 many blacks in the south where still being forced to sit in the back of the bus, use separate bathrooms, and where intimidated against voting. So unless you a complete bigot, then no the country was not better then.
uh oh

Brevard, NC

#15 Dec 5, 2009
The_Captain wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so when it comes down to it, your also in favor of using the law to force others to follow (or in the case of school prayer, practice) your religion.
Oh and in 1960 many blacks in the south where still being forced to sit in the back of the bus, use separate bathrooms, and where intimidated against voting. So unless you a complete bigot, then no the country was not better then.
I don't favor forcing people to participate in any religious activity. But neither do I believe in denying those who want to participate so that that someone won't be offended by their voluntary participation.

Even with forced segregation, America was a far, far more moral nation in 1960 than it is now. It was a much more moral nation in 1860, with slavery, than it is now. I oppose both slavery and forced segregation, but if I could go back to 1960, I would gladly do so.

Since: Dec 07

Atlanta

#16 Dec 5, 2009
uh oh wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't favor forcing people to participate in any religious activity. But neither do I believe in denying those who want to participate so that that someone won't be offended by their voluntary participation.
Even with forced segregation, America was a far, far more moral nation in 1960 than it is now. It was a much more moral nation in 1860, with slavery, than it is now. I oppose both slavery and forced segregation, but if I could go back to 1960, I would gladly do so.
First, you said "I don't favor forcing people to participate in any religious activity", but what is school lead prayer but forcing others children to participate in your religion?!

Second, If you think that a country can allow some people to own another human being, sell off parts of that human beings family, force them to live in slavery, and just because there where more people practicing your religion then that country would be more "moral" than today, then you are a despicable, person, who is more concerned with having your religion being practiced, than how others are treated. Human rights be damned, just as long as people practice your religion right? You talk of "morals" yet you seem to have some of the most appalling morals that I can tell. You seem to place practicing your religion as the only moral issue, and all other secondary. Disgusting.

Since: Dec 07

Atlanta

#17 Dec 5, 2009
uh oh wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't favor forcing people to participate in any religious activity. But neither do I believe in denying those who want to participate so that that someone won't be offended by their voluntary participation.
Even with forced segregation, America was a far, far more moral nation in 1960 than it is now. It was a much more moral nation in 1860, with slavery, than it is now. I oppose both slavery and forced segregation, but if I could go back to 1960, I would gladly do so.
Let me guess, owning another human being, and whipping them is more acceptable to you than letting two gay people marry right?
uh oh

Brevard, NC

#18 Dec 5, 2009
The_Captain wrote:
<quoted text>
First, you said "I don't favor forcing people to participate in any religious activity", but what is school lead prayer but forcing others children to participate in your religion?!
Second, If you think that a country can allow some people to own another human being, sell off parts of that human beings family, force them to live in slavery, and just because there where more people practicing your religion then that country would be more "moral" than today, then you are a despicable, person, who is more concerned with having your religion being practiced, than how others are treated. Human rights be damned, just as long as people practice your religion right? You talk of "morals" yet you seem to have some of the most appalling morals that I can tell. You seem to place practicing your religion as the only moral issue, and all other secondary. Disgusting.
It doesn't have to be "school lead prayer". But the "courts" won't even allow a moment of silence. It is clear that some "judges", so-called, don't want children praying AT ALL.

Yeah, we solved the problem slavery and replaced it with abortion, pornography, homosexuality, drug abuse, increased divorce, teen pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases, amoung other things. I've been around since the 1950's, and I can tell you from personal observation that the USA is much more immoral than it was earlier. And is becoming more immoral every day.
uh oh

Brevard, NC

#19 Dec 5, 2009
The_Captain wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me guess, owning another human being, and whipping them is more acceptable to you than letting two gay people marry right?
Are those my only choices? I oppose both slavery and sodomite "marriage".

Since: Dec 07

Atlanta

#20 Dec 5, 2009
uh oh wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't have to be "school lead prayer". But the "courts" won't even allow a moment of silence. It is clear that some "judges", so-called, don't want children praying AT ALL.
Yeah, we solved the problem slavery and replaced it with abortion, pornography, homosexuality, drug abuse, increased divorce, teen pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases, amoung other things. I've been around since the 1950's, and I can tell you from personal observation that the USA is much more immoral than it was earlier. And is becoming more immoral every day.
None of the things you mentioned is worse than the ownership of another human being!(and sorry but VD was way more rampant back in ye old slave owning days)

And most of them are none of your concern, and are only considered "immoral" by your one specific religion and not others. Yet most all people except you consider the owning of a person to be appalling, even if it's by someone of their religion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lou Dobbs Tonight Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Criticism of Dobbs, Limbaugh was justified (May '08) Oct '16 Fit2Serve 9
rule changes (Apr '16) Apr '16 marti 1
News At Least Two 'Border Kids' Have Swine Flu (Jul '14) Jul '14 Forgot 1
News Lou Dobbs says TV is first love, not politics (Mar '11) Mar '11 Lieutenant Provenza 9
News Lou Dobbs hired by Fox Business Network (Nov '10) Nov '10 Ice 7
News Olbermann Makes Victory Lap in Honor of Dobbs R... (Nov '09) Oct '10 joey 12
News CNN Names Replacement For Lou Dobbs (Nov '09) Oct '10 alan 8
More from around the web