Just Blindsided By A T.V. Ad Featuring Ron Reagan Who's, "Not Afraid Of Burning In Hell."

  • Thread starter Thread starter elsker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

elsker

Guest
Whoh!

I was surprised when I heard the narrator talking about how he wanted to protect the United States from the threat of religious influence. Wanting to keep a “Separation of Church and State”, “The way the Founding Fathers intended.”

A banner for Freedom From Religion draped the bottom of the screen. What was shocking was that a son of one of our Presidents was promoting this cause and using the time worn argument that the Constitution and the country in general was developed with an agenda of essentially separating America as a nation from the practices of religion by not allowing for the publicly recognized practice of it in general. What I got from this very hostile presentation which ended with the quote about hell is that:

‘Time to go to war with Theist because the Constitution of the United States says you guys need to go take a long walk off a short pier-AND TAKE YOUR BELOVED DEITY WITH YOU, because this is a nation with no room for you and what we insist is just a delusional, irrational and unsophisticated way of thinking!’

Seeing how so much today is being debated in the higher courts I got a chill watching this and despite assurances to the contrary; a future where religion of any kind is forbidden in America is becoming more plausible. I am confused as to how we should interpret the Constitution as it can at times seem as confusing and dense as the Holy Bible. What does it really say about atheism and christianity and was this nation founded to be “free for the practice of religion” or “free from the practice of religion” ?

Blessings and thank you.
 
What the Constitution says about religion is called the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Here is the whole text:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Not too complicated.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
What the Constitution says about religion is called the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Here is the whole text:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Not too complicated.
Click to expand...
Apparently it IS complicated because there is so much strife and debate concerning religion in America. I earnestly want to know what the Constitution really means in regards to religion and since it is apparently not so cut and dried in the minds of people today how should we as a society honour what is written in the Constitution without infringing on the rights of others and making certain whatever rights we have aren’t also infringed upon.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Whoa. I wonder if other forum members will mis-read your post as I did, even after reading it three times.
I thought you were saying that the bolded sentence were Ron Reagan’s words, which they are not…those are your words, correct?

I just watched the ad four times, and I don’t think he’s coming across as “hostile” at all. If I was to compare him to, say, a preacher or priest who is promoting the opposite position at a pulpit or in an interview…I’d say Reagan is quite calm.

Here is the link.
Do others call this a “very hostile presentation”?

youtube.com/watch?v=7INIhD9P0Pw.
Click to expand...
I just watched the YouTube video, and his closing words were “This is Ron Reagan, not afraid of burning in hell”

This may be drifting off topic a bit, but there is an old saying, “There are no atheists in a foxhole”, a fact that I can attest to. It’s surprising how often you hear a “confirmed atheist” who has just had the wits scared out of him/her blurt “Oh God” :frighten:, and how often the foul mouthed variety cannot find enough curse words to satisfy them, and resort to using the Lords name in vain. :mad:
 
DaddyGirl said:
Whoa. I wonder if other forum members will mis-read your post as I did, even after reading it three times.
I thought you were saying that the bolded sentence were Ron Reagan’s words, which they are not…those are your words, correct?

I just watched the ad four times, and I don’t think he’s coming across as “hostile” at all. If I was to compare him to, say, a preacher or priest who is promoting the opposite position at a pulpit or in an interview…I’d say Reagan is quite calm.

Here is the link.
Do others call this a “very hostile presentation”?

youtube.com/watch?v=7INIhD9P0Pw
Click to expand...
I apologize no the “bolded” words are how I rightly/ wrongly interpreted the overall message and tone of the ad. I have read enough anti-theist forums to have read similar remarks/ideas to have come to the conclusion that this is the ultimate aim of these groups.

I have read about fantastic “plans” that imagine turning catholic churches into museums so that the “beautiful art” is preserved without the active religious aspect to spoil people’s enjoyment of it.

These ads, forums and blogs etc., are hostile and/or hateful and I can’t think that a group(s) that blame religion for every issue on planet earth are too keen on seeing it/us continuing in our beliefs for very much longer.

As far as Ron Reagan’s delivery it was measured but that thick as molasses sarcastic remark about hell is was not poised at all! This remark pretty much changed the tone of what was said before it.

Again., I apologize for confusing anyone
 
I must admit ,my life must be more boring than I had supposed for even reading about this let alone commenting on it, but I have to say it, who cares what this guy has to say about anything, it doesn’t matter.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Actually, “The Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers” would clearly disagree with you on that. There have been many Atheists in foxholes (and elsewhere, before they die) and they have remained Atheists.

Ron Reagan saying he’s not afraid of burning in hell…he doesn’t say it in a hostile way IMO. I don’t see why a Theist might take those specific words as hostile.
Much more hostile would be when a Theist tells an Atheist they will go to hell.

I imagine some people say “Oh, God!” even if they don’t believe in a deity because it’s been ingrained in our culture to say those words as a habit, we hear them all the time as a part of our language and phrases.

.
Click to expand...
I saw the original ad as broadcast. I didn’t read hostility in his delivery, but there was a significant dose of snarkasm in his words.
 
I’ve never understood the term “free thinker” They seemed shackled to whatever modern science tells them, they seem to condense the universe down to what they can fathom, at the time. They seem unable to comprehend eternity and the amount of time “God” would have to design and create “all things”. There’s more but my fingers are sore so, I don’t see that as free thinking, seems rather restrained. Sorry, no offense intended.
 
georget said:
I must admit ,my life must be more boring than I had supposed for even reading about this let alone commenting on it, but I have to say it, who cares what this guy has to say about anything, it doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to burden, bore or otherwise inconvenience anyone with this post. As weird or unimportant or uncomfortable as this subject is ; it is still worth talking about-especially now that the push for converts is going mainstream with a very recognizable name as spokesman.

The problem that I feel that a lot of Catholics suffer from is, “I’ll care when I think a) it is effecting me personally or b) after something major occurs that forces me to take a stand in a meaningful way.”

It never fails ,however, when something shocking happens the questions, finger pointing and blame start and the one accusation that is levied is:

“Why didn’t anyone do/say anything before [whatever it was got serious]? Doesn’t anyone feel brave enough to have a frank discussion? Why didn’t anyone care enough to stand up?”

We can be hurt and offended when a nativity scene is considered illegal and is taken down or a statue of “satan” is erected in a park but for all the personal outrage most people don’t think they should start a discussion about it nor do they try to investigate whether their right to express their religion has been infringed upon. I know all I have is my opinion and that its not worth much but I feel that if I don’t speak or if instead shrug it off and hope that I never have to get involved then how have I tried to do anything to stand up for my beliefs and the belief of others?

Why do people of faith feel that they can’t or shouldn’t care about threats to religious freedom? Has secular culture actually succeeded in finally training us to believe that religion is nothing more than benign personal “fandom” of a church or “non-existent deity” and doesn’t need to exist in any form or publicly or privately? I’m concerned about how these debates concerning religion or freedom from religion are playing out. I’m concerned about the future and I wonder if I’m just an insignificant member of a small minority that shares these concerns? If that is the case then how did this happen and have we reached a tipping point from which we cannot recover?

BTW: I admit to not reading a lot of topics that I consider boring and that’s OK but ridiculing posters or commenters for finding a topic interesting when you don’t is hurtful. What if YOU post a topic you feel means something to you and others ridicule you by stating they probably have too much free time because they find themselves reading YOUR boring topic? How is that being respectful of you and your opinions?
 
elsker said:
I am not trying to burden, bore or otherwise inconvenience anyone with this post. As weird or unimportant or uncomfortable as this subject is ; it is still worth talking about-especially now that the push for converts is going mainstream with a very recognizable name as spokesman.

The problem that I feel that a lot of Catholics suffer from is, “I’ll care when I think a) it is effecting me personally or b) after something major occurs that forces me to take a stand in a meaningful way.”

It never fails ,however, when something shocking happens the questions, finger pointing and blame start and the one accusation that is levied is:

“Why didn’t anyone do/say anything before [whatever it was got serious]? Doesn’t anyone feel brave enough to have a frank discussion? Why didn’t anyone care enough to stand up?”

We can be hurt and offended when a nativity scene is considered illegal and is taken down or a statue of “satan” is erected in a park but for all the personal outrage most people don’t think they should start a discussion about it nor do they try to investigate whether their right to express their religion has been infringed upon. I know all I have is my opinion and that its not worth much but I feel that if I don’t speak or if instead shrug it off and hope that I never have to get involved then how have I tried to do anything to stand up for my beliefs and the belief of others?

Why do people of faith feel that they can’t or shouldn’t care about threats to religious freedom? Has secular culture actually succeeded in finally training us to believe that religion is nothing more than benign personal “fandom” of a church or “non-existent deity” and doesn’t need to exist in any form or publicly or privately? I’m concerned about how these debates concerning religion or freedom from religion are playing out. I’m concerned about the future and I wonder if I’m just an insignificant member of a small minority that shares these concerns? If that is the case then how did this happen and have we reached a tipping point from which we cannot recover?

BTW: I admit to not reading a lot of topics that I consider boring and that’s OK but ridiculing posters or commenters for finding a topic interesting when you don’t is hurtful. What if YOU post a topic you feel means something to you and others ridicule you by stating they probably have too much free time because they find themselves reading YOUR boring topic? How is that being respectful of you and your opinions?
Click to expand...
I can’t find where I ridiculed you anywhere or anyone else, except maybe Ron, now I’m afraid to say what I think, I did ask a couple questions that really don’t need answering, I don’t want to burden anyone’s sensitivities, so if anyone here thinks what Ron says is worth all this have at it. If I’ve offended anyone I really do apologize.
Have a great day
 
Book Review: A lower-case god and a revolutionary vision | National Catholic Reporter
ncronline.org/books/2015/03/lower-case-god-and-revolutionary-vision

"Maguire maintains thatgodis better left lower case, because “God” is “a slippery mutant,” more subjective than objective. God or gods are the medium for tribal needs. “Scratch a god and find a need,” he writes.
Seems that putting together a book that seems to not argue against the concept of belief in a god while at the same time reducing the reality of that belief down to a basic, inherent need to believe in “something” seems to be an alternate, “softer” way of expressing the same anti-theist message. Iron hand in a velvet glove I suppose. JMO. The article goes on to describe the material as more accessible to today’s audiences which makes it more potent.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Whoa. I wonder if other forum members will mis-read your post as I did, even after reading it three times.
I thought you were saying that the bolded sentence were Ron Reagan’s words, which they are not…those are your words, correct?

I just watched the ad four times, and I don’t think he’s coming across as “hostile” at all. If I was to compare him to, say, a preacher or priest who is promoting the opposite position at a pulpit or in an interview…I’d say Reagan is quite calm.

Here is the link.
Do others call this a “very hostile presentation”?
Click to expand...
youtube.com/watch?v=7INIhD9P0Pw < Thanks for this link DaddyGirl

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...3ljJ4oWIDRXJSyvz4THYIUo5REZmL3hG_kbIHb3mZlVYw

*“Come back son, you’re headed for the wrong goal!” *
(A fictional caption submitted for your approval – or otherwise) 😉

Real Ronald Reagan (Sr.!) quotes on this subject (penance for my fanciful caption):

youtu.be/OvN1jTkzXbY < 4:47 of other non-hostile (RR Sr.) messages 🙂

RR Jr.: Maybe take a visit with your Dad and … all things considered … don’t go burning in hell.:nope: Or wasting your time championing the emptiness of atheism. Your beloved Dad has some great news here (and a better destination for all “lifelong atheists” to consider, IMO).

RR Sr. accurately recounts how so many of our ancestors came to this land in search of religious freedom. Official atheism was another nation’s story. Look for that one on the ash heap of history … or better yet, don’t.

DaddyGirl’s video clip does not contain the rather hostile sentence the OP complained about. So is there another link (or version of RR Jr’s take) that includes that on the net. I’ll look myself soon if none of you other posters puts that one up.
(excerpt from elsker, the OP in post #1):
Click to expand...
What I got from this very hostile presentation which ended with the quote about hell is that:

‘Time to go to war with Theist because the Constitution of the United States says you guys need to go take a long walk off a short pier-AND TAKE YOUR BELOVED DEITY WITH YOU, because this is a nation with no room for you and what we insist is just a delusional, irrational and unsophisticated way of thinking!’

OK now after four editings, I get it, I think. This quote is elskers’ *impression *of what RR is really saying … not how the video ended. I see DaddyGirl’s confusion now. And elsker is certainly entitled to his take (which would be more hostile than the RR Jr. quotes) per what he perceived was the subtext. I got confused a bit as DaddyGirl did. But I thank elsker for posting and causing me to find that excellent video of RR Sr.!
 
Sometimes the apple can fall very far from the tree. I always thought Reagan’s 2 children he had with Nancy were a little odd but I thought it was just because they were young. I now see they were just odd. LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top